# Population Genetics > Paleogenetics >  Population structure in Italy using ancient and modern samples

## Angela

See:

A. Raveane et al: (Capelli, Simone, all the old stalwarts, and Hellenthal, never a good sign imo)

"Population structure of modern-day Italians reveals patterns of ancient2 and archaic ancestries in Southern Europe"

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/bior...94898.full.pdf

They're only using the already published ancient samples, nothing new, so this is not the paper we've been awaiting. Lots of conjecture as well. 


"In doing101 so, we assembled and analyzed a comprehensive genome-wide SNP dataset composed by 1,616102 individuals from all the 20 Italian administrative regions and more than 140 worldwide reference103 populations, for a total of 5,192 modern-day samples (fig. S1, table S1), to which we added104 genomic data available for ancient individuals (data file S1)."

The following we knew:

"Clusters within Italy were significantly more different from each other132 than within any other country here included (median Italy: 0.004, data file S3; range medians for133 listed countries 0.0001-0.002) and showed differences comparable with estimates across European134 clusters (median European clusters: 0.004, Fig. 1D, see Materials and Methods, Supplementary135 materials). The analysis of the migration surfaces (EEMS) (17) highlighted several barriers to gene136 flow within and around Italy but also suggested the existence of migration corridors in the southern137 part of the Adriatic and Ionian Sea, and between Sardinia, Corsica and continental Italy."

The methodology is different. This is what they came up with...

"In the Ultimate analysis, all the Italian clusters were characterised by relatively high amounts of Anatolian Neolithic (AN), ranging between 56% (SItaly1) and 72% (NItaly4),152 distributed along a North-South cline (Spearman ρ = 0.52, p-value < 0.05; Fig. 2A-C, fig. S8A),153 with Sardinians showing values above 80%. A closer affinity of Northern Italian than Southern Italian clusters to AN was also supported by D-statistics (fig. S10). The remaining ancestry was155 mainly assigned to WHG (Western Hunter-Gatherer), CHG and EHG. In particular, the first two156 components were more present in populations from the South (higher estimates in* SItaly1 ~13%157 and SItaly3 ~ 24% for WHG and CHG respectively)*, while the *latter was more common in Northern158 clusters (NItaly6 = 15%)....*Iran Neolithic *(IN) ancestry was161 detected in Europe only in Southern Italy."

*Some of the above seems pretty counter-intuitive.* 

"*When Proximate163 sources were evaluated, SBA contribution ranged between 33% in the North and 6% in the South164 of Italy, while ABA (Anatolia Bronze Age) showed an opposite distribution (Fig. 2D-F, fig. S9), in165 line with the results based on the D statistics (fig. S10, fig. S11), and mirroring the EHG and CHG166 patterns, respectively...When Proximate163 sources were evaluated, SBA contribution ranged between 33% in the North and 6% in the South164 of Italy, while ABA (Anatolia Bronze Age) showed an opposite distribution (Fig. 2D-F, fig. S9), in165 line with the results based on the D statistics (fig. S10, fig. S11), and mirroring the EHG and CHG166 patterns, respectively."

"When Proximate163 sources were evaluated, SBA contribution ranged between 33% in the North and 6% in the South164 of Italy, while ABA (Anatolia Bronze Age) showed an opposite distribution (Fig. 2D-F, fig. S9), in165 line with the results based on the D statistics (fig. S10, fig. S11), and mirroring the EHG and CHG166 patterns, respectively."

"Nevertheless, all the197 analysed clusters, could be modelled as a combination of ABA, SBA and European Middle198 Neolithic/Chalcolithic, their contributions mirroring the pattern observed in the CP/NNLS analysis199 (fig. S15, table S3, table S4). North African contributions, ranging between 3.8% (SCItaly1) to200 14.5% (SItaly1) became evident when combinations of five sources were tested."

I expected a maximum of 10%. We'll see what Svaabo and Reich have to say when their paper comes out. 

"Iceman and Remedello, the oldest Italian samples here included (3,400-2,800 BCE, Before Current207 Era), were composed by high proportions of AN (74 and 85%, respectively). The Bell Beaker208 samples of Northern Italy (2,200-1,930 BCE) were modelled as ABA and AN + SBA and WHG,209 although ABA was characterised by large standard errors but the detection of Steppe ancestry, at210 14%, was more robust. On the other hand Bell Beaker samples from Sicily (2,500-1,900 BCE) were211 modelled almost exclusively as ABA, with less than 5% SBA."

I'm not quite sure what the following means:
"Clusters from Caucasus and North-West Europe were identified all across Italy as best231 proxies for the admixing sources, while Middle Eastern and African clusters were identified as best232 proxies only in Southern Italian clusters and Sardinia (Fig. 3B, C). We noted that when we extended233 the search for the best-proxies to include also Italian clusters, these were as good as or better proxies234 than clusters from the Caucasus and the Middle East."

As to CHG..."This signature is still uncharacterised in terms of precise dates and origin; however305 such ancestry was possibly already present during the Bronze Age in Southern Italy (table S5) and306 was further supplemented by historical events (Fig. 3)"

"The very low presence of CHG signatures in Sardinia and in older Italian samples (Remedello and308 Iceman) but the occurrence in modern-day Southern Italians might be explained by different309 scenarios, not mutually exclusive: 1) population structure among early foraging groups across Italy,310 reflecting different affinities to CHG; 2) the presence in Italy of different Neolithic contributions,311 characterised by different proportion of CHG-related ancestry; 3) the combination of a post312 Neolithic, prehistoric CHG-enriched contribution with a previous AN-related Neolithic layer; 4) A313 substantial historical contribution from Southern East Europe across the whole of Southern Italy."

"An arrival315 of the CHG-related component in Southern Italy from the Southern part of the Balkan Peninsula is316 compatible with the identification of genetic corridors linking the two regions (Figure 1E, (11)) and317 the presence of Southern European ancient signatures in Italy (Figure 2). The temporal appearance318 of CHG signatures in Anatolia and Southern East Europe in the Late Neolithic/Bronze Age suggests319 its relevance for post-Neolithic contributions (37). Additional analyses of aDNA samples from320 around this time in Italy are expected to clarify what scenario might be best supported."

----------


## markod

I think this is a very good paper at least as far as data is concerned. The regional structure is very detailed. It also shows that the Bronze Age migration from Anatolia was a very important factor in the formative process of present Europeans.

The models on page 30 of the paper seem to confirm my suspicion that Bronze Age Anatolian ancestry in Italy is higher than in Greece and the Western Balkans  :Wink:

----------


## Pax Augusta

Tuscany is considered as part of the Northern macroarea with Emilia and the rest of northern Italy, but how do they write in 2018 that Emilia is a central region? Emilia is a northern region to all effects.



"Macro-areas are separated in Northern and Southern, where the central regions of Tuscany and Emilia are considered as part of the Northern macroarea and Latium, Abruzzo, Marche and Sardinia were considered as part of the Southern macro-area."

----------


## Pax Augusta

> They're only using the already published ancient samples, nothing new, so this is not the paper we've been awaiting. Lots of conjecture as well.


Indeed. Nothing new.

----------


## Angela

> Tuscany is considered as part of the Northern macroarea with Emilia and the rest of northern Italy, but how do they write in 2018 that Emilia is a central region? Emilia is a northern region to all effects.
> 
> 
> 
> "Macro-areas are separated in Northern and Southern, where the central regions of Tuscany and Emilia are considered as part of the Northern macroarea and Latium, Abruzzo, Marche and Sardinia were considered as part of the Southern macro-area."


Yeah, it's belied by their own analysis. Emilia Romagna is clearly distinct from Toscana and both are distinct from Umbria etc. With this group if they said it once they're going to keep saying it just not to admit they were wrong. :)

[IMG]



I'm finding it difficult to understand the graphics completely without a key as to the name of the specific clusters. I'd like to know for sure which areas they're assigning to Central Italy, for example, and which one is Toscana. Also, look at this, for example. I'm assuming the "Western European" areas with the North African and the Anatolian Bronze Age are on the Iberian peninsula, but it would be nice to know. It must be in the Supplementary Material, but I don't find a link to it. Did I miss it?

----------


## davef

How did Caucasus populations get that much Mycenaean? Why is Mycenaean so minuscule in the Balkans and SE Europe (Mycenaean is the light blue)? And wasn't Iran Neolithic found in the Greeks/Balkans as well (they said only in south Italy whereas other papers found it in the greeks and Balkans)? 

A bit confused here...

----------


## Angela

> How did Caucasus populations get that much Mycenaean? Why is Mycenaean so minuscule in the Balkans and SE Europe (Mycenaean is the light blue)? And wasn't Iran Neolithic found in the Greeks/Balkans as well (they said only in south Italy whereas other papers found it in the greeks and Balkans)? 
> 
> A bit confused here...


Peloponnese Neolithic (Green) ate it all up. If you wanted to see the amount of Mycenaean in Southern Italy for example you would have to remove Minoan and PN. Too much overlap. 

As for the IN, somebody should do a Venn diagram for these people (and not just these people) of CHG and IN.

----------


## davef

> Peloponnese Neolithic (Green) ate it all up. If you wanted to see the amount of Mycenaean in Southern Italy for example you would have to remove Minoan and PN. Too much overlap. 
> 
> As for the IN, somebody should do a Venn diagram for these people (and not just these people) of CHG and IN.


Thank you. Btw they could've labeled things a bit better, I mean how useful are labels like sItaly1, sItaky2, etc? Not very.

----------


## Angela

I just absolutely love how the usual suspects now claim that all they ever proposed is that any additional migration from the Near East into Italy was post Neolithic, when there are thousands upon thousands of quotes from them saying it was all historic era or first millennium BC at the earliest. In the digital age when every post can be saved, this kind of lying just doesn't work anymore. 

As for Polako and his snide titles for threads I'm glad he finds a paper which posits such weird admixtures is well done. There's only 30% steppe in NW Europe according to some analyses? No CHG. Oh wait, I see why it meets with his approval. Some Eastern European populations, like the Poles, do get close to 50%.

Can anyone say "predictable"?

To Ruderico: Sorry, you're incorrect. Parts of Spain have as much Anatolia Bronze Age as Central Italy, and more than parts of Northern Italy.

----------


## markod

> I just absolutely love how the usual suspects now claim that all they ever proposed is that any additional migration from the Near East into Italy was post Neolithic, when there are thousands upon thousands of quotes from them saying it was all historic era or first millennium BC at the earliest. In the digital age when every post can be saved, this kind of lying just doesn't work anymore. 
> 
> As for Polako and his snide titles for threads I'm glad he finds a paper which posits such weird admixtures is well done. There's only 30% steppe in NW Europe according to some analyses? No CHG. Oh wait, I see why it meets with his approval. Some Eastern European populations, like the Poles, do get close to 50%.
> 
> Can anyone say "predictable"?
> 
> To Ruderico: Sorry, you're incorrect. Parts of Spain have as much Anatolia Bronze Age as Central Italy, and more than parts of Northern Italy.


Is Bronze Age Anatolian ancestry considered a bad thing?  :Thinking: 

Those populations were the most advanced of their time.

----------


## Sile

the map of Italy, the one noted B is split into the 20 regions of Italy...........are the numbers for this map written on another sheet?

.
so looking at veneto on the map, it is only green and Beige, with Beige representing NW Europe and Green ?

----------


## Pax Augusta

> Yeah, it's belied by their own analysis. Emilia Romagna is clearly distinct from Toscana and both are distinct from Umbria etc. With this group if they said it once they're going to keep saying it just not to admit they were wrong. :)



They are only speaking of Emilia, not of Romagna. I don't think it's an oversight in this case. 

Those colours weren't chosen by them? Those colours in the PCA on the right seem to be chosen to distinguish the various inter-regional samples that form clusters. Dark green for example is used for Ligurians and Emilians at to some extent also for a minority of individuals from Piedmont and Veneto, pink is used for Tuscans (two or even three different degrees of pink), and purple is for individuals from Marche, Umbria and Lazio. Between those in dark green and those in pink there is some overlap, while those in purple (which corresponds to Central Italian dialects called "Mediani") remain separated and compact. 



If the PCA is rotated then you have almost the silhouette of Italy 




This too is nothing new, in Italy there is a genetic cline everywhere, and also follows the languages and the geography of Italy which is narrow and long with few plains. It was shown for the first time by Barbujani and Sokal over 30 years ago, with their studies on the genetic structure of Italians and linguistic boundaries. In fact Tuscan language despite is considered a Central Italial language is not part of the Mediani family group, but constitutes a linguistic family of its own.

Barbujani, G., & Sokal, R. R. (1991). Genetic Population Structure of Italy. II. Physical and Cultural Barriers to Gene Flow. American Journal of Human Genetics, 48, 398-411. 



https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1683007/






> I'm finding it difficult to understand the graphics completely without a key as to the name of the specific clusters. I'd like to know for sure which areas they're assigning to Central Italy, for example, and which one is Toscana. Also, look at this, for example. I'm assuming the "Western European" areas with the North African and the Anatolian Bronze Age are on the Iberian peninsula, but it would be nice to know. It must be in the Supplementary Material, but I don't find a link to it. Did I miss it?


It is not very clear, but Tuscans are separated from the rest of central Italians because they formed a separate cluster according to the paper, and Tuscans are with some of the groups of northern Italy labelled as NCItaly, while people from Marche and Lazio with the groups labelled as SCItaly. This division corresponds in the various PCA. Instead of dividing the peninsula into three as is usually done (north, center and south) this time have divided it into two (north and south).

I would also like to find some more detailed information on the samples used.

----------


## Sile

> They are only speaking of Emilia, not of Romagna. I don't think it's an oversight in this case. 
> 
> Those colours weren't chosen by them? Those colours in the PCA on the right seem to be chosen to distinguish the various inter-regional samples that form clusters. Dark green for example is used for Ligurians and Emilians at to some extent also for a minority of individuals from Piedmont and Veneto, pink is used for Tuscans (two or even three different degrees of pink), and purple is for individuals from Marche, Umbria and Lazio. Between those in dark green and those in pink there is some overlap, while those in purple (which corresponds to Central Italian dialects called "Mediani") remain separated and compact. 
> 
> 
> 
> If the PCA is rotated then you have almost the silhouette of Italy 
> 
> 
> ...


The Emilia on the map represents all of emilia-romagna.....the map indicates the 20 regions of Italy

----------


## Pax Augusta

> The Emilia on the map represents all of emilia-romagna.....the map indicates the 20 regions of Italy


Yes, but most likely the samples are only from Emilia.

----------


## Sile

> Yes, but most likely the samples are only from Emilia.


ok
Dark green to me represnts the gallic from the south , while mid blue the other gallic
Beige is noted as NW europe which seems like British isles and maybe dutch lands.
Dark blue looks like Germanics

----------


## Angela

> Is Bronze Age Anatolian ancestry considered a bad thing? 
> 
> Those populations were the most advanced of their time.


It's a bad thing for Nordicists. Where do you think that snide comment of Polako's comes from? Why do you think he's so obsessed with placing CHG north of the Caucasus? Why do you think he can't bear to acknowledge that CHG and Iran Neo are like 95%? similar? If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, it's a duck. :)

What I particularly object to is the Sikeliot/Portuguese Princesses of the world (plus his socks and minions) who now try to get cover for their racism by claiming other people are racist for just wanting to get the facts straight. I guess all those thousands of posts by him trying desperately to keep that "tainted" blood away from his Iberian ancestors are supposed to be forgotten.

It certainly doesn't apply to me. My favorite ancient civilization is the Minoans, as I've been saying since I first started exploring this discipline. I'd love to be related to them, even if it's at lower levels than that of the Southern Italians. My next favorite is the Etruscans. 

I'm probably too old to be so upset by dishonesty and hypocrisy, but I can't help it. :) I've been like this since I was a child. I abhor dishonestly and even more, hypocrisy. It makes my skin crawl. It's undoubtedly why I chose my profession.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> ok
> Dark green to me represnts the gallic from the south , while mid blue the other gallic
> Beige is noted as NW europe which seems like British isles and maybe dutch lands.
> Dark blue looks like Germanics



Those are just inter-regional clusters and nothing else.

----------


## Olympus Mons

> It's a bad thing for Nordicists. Where do you think that snide comment of Polako's comes from? Why do you think he's so obsessed with placing CHG north of the Caucasus? Why do you think he can't bear to acknowledge that CHG and Iran Neo are like 95%? similar? If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, it's a duck. :)
> 
> What I particularly object to is the Sikeliot/Portuguese Princesses of the world (plus his socks and minions) who now try to get cover for their racism by claiming other people are racist for just wanting to get the facts straight. I guess all those thousands of posts by him trying desperately to keep that "tainted" blood away from his Iberian ancestors are supposed to be forgotten.
> 
> It certainly doesn't apply to me. My favorite ancient civilization is the Minoans, as I've been saying since I first started exploring this discipline. I'd love to be related to them, even if it's at lower levels than that of the Southern Italians. My next favorite is the Etruscans. 
> 
> I'm probably too old to be so upset by dishonesty and hypocrisy, but I can't help it. :) I've been like this since I was a child. I abhor dishonestly and even more, hypocrisy. It makes my skin crawl. It's undoubtedly why I chose my profession.


I do not know any of the people you are bashing, but you are bashing on... people. ... Who gives you that right when you penalize people here for far less than you just did. I truly don't get it.

----------


## Sile

> Those are just inter-regional clusters and nothing else.


yes , I know
but Tuscany stands out on its lonesome
same as Aosta

----------


## Angela

> They are only speaking of Emilia, not of Romagna. I don't think it's an oversight in this case. 
> 
> Those colours weren't chosen by them? Those colours in the PCA on the right seem to be chosen to distinguish the various inter-regional samples that form clusters. Dark green for example is used for Ligurians and Emilians at to some extent also for a minority of individuals from Piedmont and Veneto, pink is used for Tuscans (two or even three different degrees of pink), and purple is for individuals from Marche, Umbria and Lazio. Between those in dark green and those in pink there is some overlap, while those in purple (which corresponds to Central Italian dialects called "Mediani") remain separated and compact. 
> 
> 
> 
> If the PCA is rotated then you have almost the silhouette of Italy 
> 
> 
> ...


If NCItaly 3 is Toscana, it has less "Caucasus" than Greece, and less than Spain. Also, it has a lot less than southern Italy, of course. Someone should e-mail them and ask them to link the Supplementary Info. You can't critique the paper without it, and especially not without a key to the areas. 

@Olympic Mons,
Indeed, and this from the man who did nothing but trash Eurogenes on his own site and everywhere else, and all the people at anthrogenica likewise, and me on this one? You are delusional.

If you indeed don't know that Polako/Davidski on other sites (as well as Generalissimo...now there's a dead give away) is Eurogenes, and that Sikeliot has had many "names", including Portuguese Princess on theapricity (which he ruined, not that I shed tears over it) and that many of the posters on anthrogenica are his "socks", then that might partly explain your inability to put two and two together. You just haven't been in this "hobby" for long enough, which is also why you think you were the first to entertain certain ideas.

----------


## markod

> yes , I know
> but Tuscany stands out on its lonesome
> same as Aosta


I think Tuscany actually gets 3 clusters of its own (NCItaly1-3), which I guess suggests some degree of internal isolation/drift. What could be the reason for this?



Autosomally Tuscans are thoroughly unexciting though. More steppe than other Italians to their south, less Anatolian BA:



Sicilians are interesting because they get significantly more steppe than other South Italians.

The most interesting and one of the biggest clusters however is SCItaly3 (brown) which covers almost the entire south of Italy and extends into Lazio and Abruzzo. It's almost fully Anatolian Bronze Age with a small WHG component and an even smaller Steppe component.

----------


## brick

> I think Tuscany actually gets 3 clusters of its own (NCItaly1-3), which I guess suggests some degree of internal isolation/drift. What could be the reason for this?


The simplest explanation, three different Tuscan samples.

----------


## markod

> The simplest explanation, three different Tuscan samples.


I don't think those are regional samples. They are genetic clusters.




> The phased genome-wide dataset was analysed using the110 CHROMOPAINTER (CP) and fineSTRUCTURE (fS) pipeline (12, 13) (Supplementary materials)111 to generate a tree of groups of individuals with similar “copying vectors” (clusters, Fig. 1A). The112 fraction of pairs of individuals placed in the same cluster across multiple runs was on average 0.95113 for Italian clusters and 0.96 across the whole set of clusters (see Materials and Methods,114 Supplementary materials). Related non-European clusters were merged into larger groups in115 subsequent analyses (see Materials and Methods, Supplementary materials).

----------


## Angela

> *I think Tuscany actually gets 3 clusters of its own (NCItaly1-3)*, which I guess suggests some degree of internal isolation/drift. What could be the reason for this?
> 
> 
> 
> Autosomally Tuscans are thoroughly unexciting though. More steppe than other Italians to their south, less Anatolian BA:
> 
> 
> 
> Sicilians are interesting because they get significantly more steppe than other South Italians.
> ...


I have no idea, Markod, but that would mean that Umbria, Marche and Lazio all get lumped into South Central Italy?

Also, in that particular graphic, NCItaly 1, 2, and 3, are pretty similar. In others, there are differences. If they actually got samples from the Lunigiana and the Garfagnana, which are in Massa Carrara, they would definitely pull away as they're more like Emilians and eastern Ligurians. 

Without the key and the list of samples and their sources, we're a little bit in the dark.

As to Sicilians, as I said recently on another thread, Southern Italy never got the Lombard migrations of the Middle Ages. I'm skeptical of "Norman" influence. The original "Norman" invasion was a couple of dozen knights. More people came from France during the "Lombard" sponsored migrations, but that's a different issue. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lombards_of_Sicily

Still, it's not enough to pull them very far apart from the Calabrians, which makes sense given they were ruled by one entity for hundreds of years, and there's been so much movement back and forth across the Straits of Messina.

With all the talk on the other sites about Levantine migration, I checked again. I don't see any analysis using Levantine Bronze Age. Maybe too much overlap with Anatolia Bronze Age? Look what happened when they used Peloponnese Neolithic. 

The only mention I see of the Levant is in one of the Chromopainter schematics, and as the authors themselves seem to recognize, until we get ancient dna it's hard to figure what came where. It only applies to one part of Sicily, however, so, perhaps with the "Moors"?

----------


## markod

> I have no idea, Markod, but that would mean that Umbria, Marche and Lazio all get lumped into South Central Italy?
> 
> Also, in that particular graphic, NCItaly 1, 2, and 3, are pretty similar. In others, there are differences. If they actually got samples from the Lunigiana and the Garfagnana, which are in Massa Carrara, they would definitely pull away as they're more like Emilians and eastern Ligurians. 
> 
> Without the key and the list of samples and their sources, we're a little bit in the dark.
> 
> As to Sicilians, as I said recently on another thread, Southern Italy never got the Lombard migrations of the Middle Ages. I'm skeptical of "Norman" influence. The original "Norman" invasion was a couple of dozen knights. More people came from France during the "Lombard" sponsored migrations, but that's a different issue. 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lombards_of_Sicily
> 
> ...


Yes, however Lazio also gets a significant SItaly3 component, so it has an intermediate position between Abruzzo and Marche. SCItaly1 and SItaly1-3 are very similar in any case as can be seen in the dendogram. Tuscany has almost as much *internal* diversity as there exists between Puglia and the Marche region.

Tuscans and Corsicans populations are also inferred to share common drift to the exclusion of other Italians. Is this simply a result of geographic proximity or is there more to it? I admit that I know very little about the population history of Corsica.

As for Moorish or Levantine input, in the biggest south Italian cluster (SItaly3) it seems to be non-existent. The second most important South Italian cluster (SItaly1) might have around 5% North African input. The other clusters seem to represented isolated cases. Interestingly it just occurred to me that North African input correlates with increased steppe ancestry, especially in those Sicilian outliers. Did Lombards preferentially intermarry with remnants of the Moorish population or something?

----------


## Salento

What’s SItaly3? :) 

Edited 
never mind, got it. Sorry.

Sitaly3 main brown is in Puglia. I think.
If I’m wrong please correct me. Thanks

----------


## markod

Actually I think a better explanation for the fact that outlier Sicilians with elevated North African ancestry also have what looks to be 3 times as much steppe ancestry as 'baseline southern Italians' might be the well-recorded fact that the Muslim soldiers stationed in these regions were in large parts of Saqaliba (Slavic) derivation.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> If NCItaly 3 is Toscana, it has less "Caucasus" than Greece, and less than Spain. Also, it has a lot less than southern Italy, of course. Someone should e-mail them and ask them to link the Supplementary Info. You can't critique the paper without it, and especially not without a key to the areas.





> I have no idea, Markod, but that would mean that Umbria, Marche and Lazio all get lumped into South Central Italy?


It's not very clear, but it's written in the paper, Tuscany with North Italy (NCItaly*), Umbria, Marche and Lazio with south Italy (SCItaly*).




> Also, in that particular graphic, NCItaly 1, 2, and 3, are pretty similar. In others, there are differences. If they actually got samples from the Lunigiana and the Garfagnana, which are in Massa Carrara, they would definitely pull away as they're more like Emilians and eastern Ligurians.


Garfagnana is in the province of Lucca, not of Massa-Carrara. Scusa se sono pignolo. :)

Certainly those of Lunigiana plot much to the north, especially those in remote areas that end even further north than other northern Italians of same latitude, but others do not have a strong distance from the Tuscans, especially those from Tuscan-language Apennines. 





> Yes, however Lazio also gets a significant SItaly3 component, so it has an intermediate position between Abruzzo and Marche. SCItaly1 and SItaly1-3 are very similar in any case as can be seen in the dendogram. Tuscany has almost as much *internal* diversity as there exists between Puglia and the Marche region.


Between Puglia and the Marche region maybe is an exagerration, Tuscans fill the space that exists between the clusters of northern Italy and central Italy. If they are modeled differently it means that their position is not accurate.

----------


## markod

> Between Puglia and the Marche region maybe is an exagerration, Tuscans fill the space that exists between the clusters of northern Italy and central Italy. If they are modeled differently it means that their position is not accurate.


That's what it looks like on the PCA and in the dendogram. Perhaps it has to do with their sampling strategy?

Southern & Southern Central Italy seem very homogenous at least.

----------


## Angela

Yes, as we've been saying for a long time, there's less diversity in the south than in the north.

@Markod,
Do you have any estimates for the percentages compared to "regular" Muslim forces? Do you remember where you saw the discussions? I don't remember it from Chiarelli's Muslim Sicily, but I read it a long time ago. You've piqued my interest. :)

There's also the fact, however, that most of the Muslim "soldiers" who remained after the expulsions were sent to Bari. I remember speculation that this accounted for some of the North African and Near Eastern ydna there. 

Do you have any idea which part of Sicily is Sicily 1 and which is Sicily 2? The Lombards primarily went to Central and Eastern Sicily. 

@Pax,
As to the Garfagnana, I thought it after I wrote it, but didn't bother to go back. :)

Language clines are very important in Italy and tell us a lot about genetics.

One of many linguistic maps of Italy...we could quibble about some areas, but I think it makes the point.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> That's what it looks like on the PCA and in the dendogram. Perhaps it has to do with their sampling strategy?


No, it's like that. No sampling strategy. Also because many samples used in this study most likely come from previous studies. And if there was an initial strategy, I talk about years ago, it was that of oversampling the south of Tuscany.

However, about this study it is difficult to draw conclusions due to the lack of supp info.

----------


## Angela

> Yes, however Lazio also gets a significant SItaly3 component, so it has an intermediate position between Abruzzo and Marche. SCItaly1 and SItaly1-3 are very similar in any case as can be seen in the dendogram. Tuscany has almost as much *internal* diversity as there exists between Puglia and the Marche region.
> 
> Tuscans and Corsicans populations are also inferred to share common drift to the exclusion of other Italians. Is this simply a result of geographic proximity or is there more to it? I admit that I know very little about the population history of Corsica.
> 
> As for Moorish or Levantine input, in the biggest south Italian cluster (SItaly3) it seems to be non-existent. The second most important South Italian cluster (SItaly1) might have around 5% North African input. The other clusters seem to represented isolated cases. Interestingly it just occurred to me that North African input correlates with increased steppe ancestry, especially in those Sicilian outliers. Did Lombards preferentially intermarry with remnants of the Moorish population or something?


You have to be careful with Lazio, over and above the fact that it's been a sink for migration from other parts of Italy. The southernmost and easternmost districts of Lazio, which are the the Sora, Cassino, Gaeta, CIttaducale, Formia and Amatrice districts, only became part of Lazio under Mussolini. They're really part of the Mezzogiorno ethnically and linguistically, since they were always before that part of "The Kingdom of the Two SIcilies. They're basically people of Campania. 

SCItaly 1 is or at least includes the Abruzzi, which as I've been saying for years are much more a southern Italian rather than a Central Italian population. 

I and Pax and others have also said for a long time that there are lots of genetic connections between Toscana and Corsica, as can be seen in the similarity of the languages. 

The Buonaparte family originated in, or at least was long established in Stadano, a frazione in Massa Carrara right on the River Magra.  Lots of migration to Corsica over the years. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corsican_language

The Lombards were specifically settled in "Moorish" or "ex-Moorish" strongholds. Eventually the soldiers, at least, were relocated in southern Italy, specifically around Bari but they weren't safe even there. and were eventually sold into slavery.

----------


## Angela

> You have to be careful with Lazio, over and above the fact that it's been a sink for migration from other parts of Italy. The southernmost and easternmost districts of Lazio, which are the the Sora, Cassino, Gaeta, CIttaducale, Formia and Amatrice districts, only became part of Lazio under Mussolini. They're really part of the Mezzogiorno ethnically and linguistically, since they were always before that part of "The Kingdom of the Two SIcilies. They're basically people of Campania. 
> 
> SCItaly 1 is or at least includes the Abruzzi, which as I've been saying for years are much more a southern Italian rather than a Central Italian population. 
> 
> I and Pax and others have also said for a long time that there are lots of genetic connections between Toscana and Corsica, as can be seen in the similarity of the languages. 
> 
> The Buonaparte family originated in, or at least was long established in Stadano, a frazione in Massa Carrara right on the River Magra.  Lots of migration to Corsica over the years. 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corsican_language
> 
> The Lombards were specifically settled in "Moorish" or "ex-Moorish" strongholds. Eventually the soldiers, at least, were relocated in southern Italy, specifically around Bari but they weren't safe even there. and were eventually sold into slavery.


The history of "Muslim" Sicily is extremely complicated. That's why Chiarelli had to write such a huge tome to cover just two hundred years. :) As in Spain, there were Arab tribes, lots of often warring Berber tribes, and yes, "Slav" slaves, as well as the Greek speaking local population.

I went back to Chiarelli and he does allocate some pages to them. They were a significant presence at least in Palermo, where a whole quarter of the city was named after them. However, not all of them were actually "Slavs". To some extent the term was used to refer to all European slaves, including Southern Italian and Spanish ones, although the "Slavs", including and perhaps predominantly people from the Balkans, formed the majority of the group. I'm unsure how much impact genetically they would have had, however, as Chiarelli seems to feel that the troops, as least, were eunuchs, much like the Mamluks I suppose. 

https://www.goodreads.com/author/sho...rd_C_Chiarelli

----------


## Angela

Has anyone else noticed that there's something wrong with the "North African" percentage in the Levantine populations? It's way too high. The gene flow went in the other direction.

Maybe it dumped certain alleles in the North African cluster because there was no South West Asian reference? 

Two final things:

They seem to say that the admixture in the historical period in Italy is better fitted as being from Italian proxies rather than from West Asian proxies. That would better agree with Ralph and Coop and other IBS analyses that don't show any genetic intrusion into Italy since about 400 BC, other than from the Balkans. If that proves to be the case, then this might mark the unification of the peninsula under the Romans, with the heavily Greek influenced southern Italians moving north through colonia, or just in the normal course of life and trade. 

I'm not sure I'm buying that Otzi had no "Anatolian Bronze Age" type ancestry, either. At least in old calculators he had 22% "Caucasus" like, as in modern Caucasus like, which is indeed a blend of old Anatolian Neolithic and IN (as well as a bit of EHG perhaps). He also had more than 7% South West Asian. 

I'm just going to wait for Reich. I have more confidence in him and Paabo and in ancient dna.

----------


## Milan.M

> Actually I think a better explanation for the fact that outlier Sicilians with elevated North African ancestry also have what looks to be 3 times as much steppe ancestry as 'baseline southern Italians' might be the well-recorded fact that the Muslim soldiers stationed in these regions were in large parts of Saqaliba (Slavic) derivation.



There was a quarter in Palermo called Harat as Saqaliba,the other four were Al Qasr , Al-Khalisa , Harat al-Masjid , where the so-called SaqālibaSon Mosque ( Masjid Ibn Siqlab ) was located, and Harat-al-Gadidah , the Jewish quarter also known as Harat al-Yahud. ("Jewish Quarter").

The Harat as-Saqaliba was briefly mentioned by the Arab traveler Ibn Hawqal who visited Sicily from 972 to 973. It was at that time the most populous and water-rich district of the city.

https://translate.google.com/transla...at_as-Saqaliba

The origin of these Slavs is disputed; according to conflicting claims they go back all the way to 535 AD when the Byzantine General Belisarius presumably left a Slavic garrison in the city, or to the 10th century when the Fatimids conquered Sicily and likewise left a Slavic garrison there.
*The Italian historian Amari probably came with the most plausible explanation for their origin; he points out that Abu'l Fida'y, an Arabic historian and geographer from the 1300's, states that in 928/9 off the coast of Maghreb and Sicily there appeared a Slavic piratical fleet of 30 ships which, together with the Arabs, pillaged Calabria, Corsica, and Sardinia. After some time these very Slavic pirates decided to permanently settle in a quarter of Palermo which was named after them. These were most certainly South Slavic pirates from the Adriatic littoral who were quite active sea rovers during the period in question.* These Sicilian Slavs are mentioned by Ibn Hauqal, an Arabic geographer and traveler from the second half of the 10th century, as well as by Yaqut, who also mentions a different quarter of Palermo whose name was "The Quarter of the Slavic mosque"

Conclusion however is that The Slavs of Palermo assimilated little by little to the Arab-Muslim population or whatever other population and lost their identity. In Latin documents of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, there is no mention of a Slavic quarter in Palermo and the name Harat as-Saqaliba is replaced by Seralcadi , which comes from the Arabic Shari 'al- Qadi meaning "Street of Judge "

----------


## Milan.M

> The history of "Muslim" Sicily is extremely complicated. That's why Chiarelli had to write such a huge tome to cover just two hundred years. :) As in Spain, there were Arab tribes, lots of often warring Berber tribes, and yes, "Slav" slaves, as well as the Greek speaking local population.
> 
> I went back to Chiarelli and he does allocate some pages to them. They were a significant presence at least in Palermo, where a whole quarter of the city was named after them. However, not all of them were actually "Slavs". To some extent the term was used to refer to all European slaves, including Southern Italian and Spanish ones, although the "Slavs", including and perhaps predominantly people from the Balkans, formed the majority of the group. I'm unsure how much impact genetically they would have had, however, as Chiarelli seems to feel that the troops, as least, were eunuchs, much like the Mamluks I suppose. 
> 
> https://www.goodreads.com/author/sho...rd_C_Chiarelli


Saqaliba were not only eunuchs in reality

The Saqāliba occupied various functions: servants, eunuchs , craftsmen, soldiers and even guards of the caliph. The Byzantine chronicler Theophanes mentions that in the 660s, the Umayyad caliph Muawiya I er established in Syria an army of 5,000 Slav mercenaries . In the Emirate of Cordoba (Spain), the Saqāliba appeared under the reign of Al-Hakam I (796-822) and formed the personal guard of the caliph Abd al-Rahman III 1 .
Many of them occupied important posts and, unlike the millions of unknown slaves, their fate is well informed. In Al-Andalus , Maghreb , Damascus and Sicily , their role can be compared to that of the Mamluks in the Ottoman Empire . Some Saqāliba like Mujāhid al-'Amirī even became kings of taifas in Spain after the fall of the caliphate of Cordoba

----------


## Milan.M

However i do not think that Saqaliba would had big impact on the population in Sicily,we are not talking about waste land here but already settled area.

Or otherwise i don't understand the history of the region,maybe genetics can tell us something but i don't see Slavic Y-dna there for example?

----------


## Angela

As I said, while they were certainly not JUST eunuchs, and hence my reference to the Mamluk rulers of Egypt, the troops and government administrators were indeed probably eunuchs, and therefore left no descendants. 

Some of the "Slavs" in Sicily might not have been but they would have been a trickle into the ocean. After all, 8,000 Slavs were settled in Syria. What trace is there of them?

----------


## Milan.M

> As I said, while they were certainly not JUST eunuchs, and hence my reference to the Mamluk rulers of Egypt, the troops and government administrators were indeed probably eunuchs, and therefore left no descendants. 
> 
> Some of the "Slavs" in Sicily might not have been but they would have been a trickle into the ocean. After all, 8,000 Slavs were settled in Syria. What trace is there of them?


How do you know that they were eunuchs? Being a soldier or administrator doesn't automaticaly mean eunuch,in reality many of the slave kids taken in the Otoman empire from the Balkans for example came to be grand viziers and married the sisters of the sultan himself,they were no eunuchs being administrators.If you can sent any source claiming that i am fine with that.We are discussing possibilities here.

There is the rare I2a din in western Europe for example in Spain how it landed there.Yes we can guess Goths,Vandals,Saqaliba or whatever.
Also i have no data to check medieval settlements of Slavs or genetic data in either Syria or Sicily,and their "descendants" if left any.

----------


## Angela

> How do you know that they were eunuchs? Being a soldier doesn't automaticaly mean eunuch,in reality many of the slave kids taken in the Otoman empire from the Balkans for example came to be grand viziers and merried the sisters of the sultan himself,they were no eunuchs being administrators.If you can sent any source claiming that i am fine with that.We are discussing possibilities here.
> 
> There is the rare I2a din in western Europe for example in Spain how it landed there.Yes we can guess Goths,Vandals,Saqaliba or whatever.
> Also i have no data to check medieval settlements of Slavs or genetic data in either Syria or Sicily,and their "descendants" if left any.


Did I say they were all eunuchs? 

To deny that was a common occurrence is silly, however. 

"White Eunuchs were Europeans from the Balkans or the Caucasus, either purchased in the slave markets or were boys taken from Christian families in the Balkans who were unable to pay the _Jizya tax. They served the recruits at the Palace School and were from 1582 prohibited from entering the Harem."

"_The entire _Devşirme system, where the children of Christian families in the Balkans unable to pay the onerous jizya tax were taken away, and, depending upon their sex, became either concubines, in the case of the girls, or, in the case of the boys, were conscripted into Janissary Corps or became eunuchs. The act (emasculation) made Ottoman rule much hated by Christians in the Balkans."
_https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eunuch#Ottoman_Empire

In the case of Sicily, this is what Chiarelli has to say:

"Thus, this quarter seems to have been named after the white European eunuch slaves who were an important part of the Fatimid army and held high positions in bureaucratic offices of the government. Arabic sources generically referred to these white slave sas "saqalibah" regardless of their actual origins,which vary. They were mostly of Slavic origin, since the name originally meant Slav, that is, those people who inhabited central Europe and the Balkans. It was also used to designate any European originating outside the Frankish and Byzantine empires, although at times it was also used for southern Italians (especially Lombards) and some Sicilians."
P. 255-258 

Many rose to great heights as leaders of armies and as civilian administrators. 

Whether they were made eunuchs or not seems very much to depend on the place, the dynasty, the rulers etc. 

Did you miss these tidbits when you were doing your research?

"In al-Andalus, Slavic eunuchs were so popular and widely distributed that they became synonymous with Saqāliba.[4]"

"Theophanes mentions that the Umayyad caliph Muawiyah I settled a whole army of 5,000 Slavic mercenaries in Syria in the 660s."

You should know by now that I don't make things up.

----------


## Milan.M

> Did I say they were all eunuchs? 
> 
> To deny that was a common occurrence is silly, however. 
> 
> "White Eunuchs were Europeans from the Balkans or the Caucasus, either purchased in the slave markets or were boys taken from Christian families in the Balkans who were unable to pay the _Jizya tax. They served the recruits at the Palace School and were from 1582 prohibited from entering the Harem."
> 
> "_The entire _Devşirme system, where the children of Christian families in the Balkans unable to pay the onerous jizya tax were taken away, and, depending upon their sex, became either concubines, in the case of the girls, or, in the case of the boys, were conscripted into Janissary Corps or became eunuchs. The act (emasculation) made Ottoman rule much hated by Christians in the Balkans."
> _https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eunuch#Ottoman_Empire
> 
> ...


Eunuchs were common thing if that is your point,yes.And i do not deny that.
However *Eunuch job was very much different from that of the either soldier or administrator.
*You quoted for the Janissaries,they weren't castrated but "forbidden" to marry.Janissaries were initially forbidden from marriage or from having families. However, they were eventually able to lobby the Sultan to have this restriction lifted. Later on, they also successfully lobbied the Sultans to allow their sons to follow them into service.Do you think that Janissaries with such a influence that could even change Sultans and have even killed some of them,were not having any woman?
Eunuchs and Janissaries were not same,much less the administrators.
There were also black eunuchs for example that guarded the Ottoman harem.

----------


## Cpluskx

Nordicist claims never fails to make you laugh. Nordic, elite, civilisation bringer Sumerians, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Indians etc.
If they were this great why didn't they create an advanced civilisation in Eastern Europe or Scandinavia in their homeland and always had to immigrate to other places to become elites? Lol.
Anyways, we certainly need more data from Southern Europe and Near East.

----------


## markod

> Nordicist claims never fails to make you laugh. Nordic, elite, civilisation bringer Sumerians, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Indians etc.
> If they were this great why didn't they create an advanced civilisation in Eastern Europe or Scandinavia in their homeland and always had to immigrate to other places to become elites? Lol.


Explain this:

----------


## Olympus Mons

> If
> @Olympic Mons,
> Indeed, and this from the man who did nothing but trash Eurogenes on his own site and everywhere else, and all the people at anthrogenica likewise, and me on this one? You are delusional.
> If you indeed don't know that Polako/Davidski on other sites (as well as Generalissimo...now there's a dead give away) is Eurogenes, and that Sikeliot has had many "names", including Portuguese Princess on theapricity (which he ruined, not that I shed tears over it) and that many of the posters on anthrogenica are his "socks", then that might partly explain your inability to put two and two together. You just haven't been in this "hobby" for long enough, which is also why you think you were the first to entertain certain ideas.


Yes. You can't even get my name correct which is just the name of the biggest vulcano in the solar system. Yes really impressed by you. 
Fact of the matter is I have 5 infractions from YOU for saying far less than you did to others and just did in fact now...and you don't even get that. Yes puting 2 and 2.
Far more interesting than you is this video that is making Davidski fuming from Jena MPI-SHH
https://youtu.be/a34TgLS9Tj8 
I Wonder who was wandering those lands reported in the video between 8k and 7k years ago but the shulaveri. In fact some "entertain ideias" but others like me state precise hypothesis. That is the diference between "les uns et les autres".
https://shulaveri2bellbeaker.blogs.sapo.pt

----------


## Cpluskx

Lol Markod those illustrations are great actually. Reminds me of the Silmarillion.
Btw i don't mean to talk down to any group. (at the end of the day Northerners managed to walk on the Moon!)

----------


## Ailchu

why do these discussions about southern european genetics always have to go in this direction even if there aren't any nordicists around who could have provoked it? it's not like there aren't any racist southern europeans who you could adress.

----------


## Salento

> why do these discussions about southern european genetics always have to go in this direction even if there aren't any nordicists around who could have provoked it? it's not like there aren't any racist southern europeans who you could adress.


This is NOT a competition.of the Racists. (North, South, East, or West)
The original comment was made to point out the Irony.
We can all be proud of our Heritage without the need to badmouth someone else’s Heritage.
If we go back in time, at some point we are ALL Related.
Anybody who took a DNA test, and is still a racist is an idiot.
This thread is about Italian genetics, if anybody resents, doesn’t like, or is jealous of Italians, probably shouldn’t engage in the discussion.

----------


## Angela

> Yes. You can't even get my name correct which is just the name of the biggest vulcano in the solar system. Yes really impressed by you. 
> Fact of the matter is I have 5 infractions from YOU for saying far less than you did to others and just did in fact now...and you don't even get that. Yes puting 2 and 2.
> Far more interesting than you is this video that is making Davidski fuming from Jena MPI-SHH
> https://youtu.be/a34TgLS9Tj8 
> I Wonder who was wandering those lands reported in the video between 8k and 7k years ago but the shulaveri. In fact some "entertain ideias" but others like me state precise hypothesis. That is the diference between "les uns et les autres".
> https://shulaveri2bellbeaker.blogs.sapo.pt


Obsessive repetition of pet theories is not forbidden here, and nor are uninformed comments about genetics. However, you always take it further. That's why you've been banned everywhere, including at "Davidski's" site. 

If you continue to cause disruption you'll continue to get infractions. Is that so difficult to understand? 

Another one on ignore.

----------


## Angela

> Eunuchs were common thing if that is your point,yes.And i do not deny that.
> However *Eunuch job was very much different from that of the either soldier or administrator.
> *You quoted for the Janissaries,they weren't castrated but "forbidden" to marry.Janissaries were initially forbidden from marriage or from having families. However, they were eventually able to lobby the Sultan to have this restriction lifted. Later on, they also successfully lobbied the Sultans to allow their sons to follow them into service.Do you think that Janissaries with such a influence that could even change Sultans and have even killed some of them,were not having any woman?
> Eunuchs and Janissaries were not same,much less the administrators.
> There were also black eunuchs for example that guarded the Ottoman harem.


Milan, go back and read the quote from Chiarelli again.

----------


## Ailchu

> This is NOT a competition.of the Racists. (North, South, East, or West)
> The original comment was made to point out the Irony.
> We can all be proud of our Heritage without the need to badmouth someone else’s Heritage.
> If we go back in time, at some point we are ALL Related.
> Anybody who took a DNA test, and is still a racist is an idiot.
> This thread is about Italian genetics, if anybody resents, doesn’t like, or is jealous of Italians, probably shouldn’t engage in the discussion.


of course but there was simply no reason to make this a nordicist thing. those people that were mentioned could as well be italians who claim the opposite it would make no difference. btw isn't beeing proud of your heritage nearly as senseless as badmouthing the one of others?

----------


## Pax Augusta

Can we all stay on topic and not derail this thread?

----------


## Salento

> of course but there was simply no reason to make this a nordicist thing. those people that were mentioned could as well be italians it would make no difference. btw isn't beeing proud of your heritage nearly as senseless as badmouthing the one of others?


My Heritage defines who I am, and makes me appreciate the differences of customs and food of others, especially when I’m no longer living in the place of my origin. I also expose others to my culture and customs without realizing it.
I absolutely disagree with the notion of Pride of Heritage being classified as a form of racial superiority, or a racist emotional attribute.

----------


## Olympus Mons

> Obsessive repetition of pet theories is not forbidden here, and nor are uninformed comments about genetics. However, you always take it further. That's why you've been banned everywhere, including at "Davidski's" site. 
> If you continue to cause disruption you'll continue to get infractions. Is that so difficult to understand? 
> Another one on ignore.


Unbelievable... You little, little woman. 
At Least Davidski had the courage to ban me out right. But I think you are slightly diferent genre. It's worthwhile just to see your colors. Its worthwhile.


The truth is I Am on the verge of being proved right, and the only one to have been on the target with my shulaverian hypothesis. So keep trying to silence me here. I. Know, the princess type.

----------


## Olympus Mons

Truth being told... From 2015 when I was a demenered in every. Forum to 2018 when virtual all lads and investigative center around the planet are postulating the South Caucasus as the origin of Pie was a journey. PIE and L23... But we will get there.

From the beginning I have said that there would be a day when everybody "knew all along", or "had a felling" that it was the South Caucasus. That day is Coming too.

----------


## Sile

> of course but there was simply no reason to make this a nordicist thing. those people that were mentioned could as well be italians who claim the opposite it would make no difference. btw isn't beeing proud of your heritage nearly as senseless as badmouthing the one of others?


Every nation has its differences in its people, even germans......bavarians are different from saxons, hessians etc
french have there differences as well, bretons from savoyards to gascons etc
even small nations like switzerland
its not nordicist ..........unless you feed the beast

----------


## Angela

BACK ON TOPIC, as Pax so wisely advised. I'm tempted to remove all these stupid posts, including my own.

----------


## Angela

This group isn't making their Italian samples available, although I'm sure academics can get them. However, they do thank the following:

"the National Alpini Association (Associazione Nazionale Alpini)for their help in collecting Italian DNA samples at the 86th 685 national assembly in Piacenza in 2013,686 in particular Bruno Plucani, Giangaspare Basile, Claudio Ferrari and the municipality of Piacenza687 (A.O., A.A.)."

Also, anyone have any idea about the following and how to interpret it? They say red is low for migration edges.

----------


## halfalp

> This group isn't making their Italian samples available, although I'm sure academics can get them. However, they do thank the following:
> 
> "the National Alpini Association (Associazione Nazionale Alpini)for their help in collecting Italian DNA samples at the 86th 685 national assembly in Piacenza in 2013,686 in particular Bruno Plucani, Giangaspare Basile, Claudio Ferrari and the municipality of Piacenza687 (A.O., A.A.)."
> 
> Also, anyone have any idea about the following and how to interpret it? They say red is low for migration edges.


Funny thing, Red is where we would expect Steppe and Iran related migrations path.

----------


## davef

I kinda doubt they used Southern Greeks or Peloponnesians in this study bc there's not a lot of Bronze Age Anatolian in the Balkan or SEEurope samples. Some of those have zilch of that.

----------


## Salento

> I kinda doubt they used Southern Greeks or Peloponnesians in this study bc there's not a lot of Bronze Age Anatolian in the Balkan or SEEurope samples. Some of those have zilch of that.


Maybe it’s because _Anatolia Broze Age “was excluded and included in the set of Proximate sources”.
_ I’m having an hard time making sense of this paper.  :Sad:  


...ratio of the residuals in the NNLS analysis (Materials and Methods, Supplementary materials) for all the Italian and European clusters when ABA was excluded and included in the set of Proximate sources; H) as in G), but excluding/ncluding SBA instead of ABA; J) Ancient Italian and other selected ancient samples projected on the components inferred from modern European individuals. Labels are placed at the centroid of the individuals belonging to the indicated clusters...

----------


## berun

sense from this paper? using CHG, EHG, WHG along already admixed steppe and anatolian BA samples (EHG + CHG / WHG + CHG) is the best way to dump anything, in such a way they would be capable to test my brother and suggest that I'm his son... even if he is younger :)

----------


## Angela

> Funny thing, Red is where we would expect Steppe and Iran related migrations path.


That's what I see as well. The "red" is going from Anatolia right across Greece and then west and also from a more northern part of Anatolia across approximately Albania and then into eastern Italy. The steppe "red" enters Italy from the northeast corner, which is correct. It also shows where North African would go into Iberia, and it's the Neolithic path as well. Further, it correlates with their comments in the text about the direction of gene flow.

Either we don't know what low migration edge means or it's a typo.

A word about the Greek samples. This is the Estonian Biocenter set of samples except for those from Italy. So far as I know their Greek samples are all from Thessaly. That's why the figures for Anatolian Bronze Age and perhaps also for "IN" are lower than they should be.

----------


## Angela

> That's what I see as well. The "red" is going from Anatolia right across Greece and then west and also from a more northern part of Anatolia across approximately Albania and then into eastern Italy. The steppe "red" enters Italy from the northeast corner, which is correct. It also shows where North African would go into Iberia, and it's the Neolithic path as well. Further, it correlates with their comments in the text about the direction of gene flow.
> 
> Either we don't know what low migration edge means or it's a typo.
> 
> A word about the Greek samples. This is the Estonian Biocenter set of samples except for those from Italy. So far as I know their Greek samples are all from Thessaly. That's why the figures for Anatolian Bronze Age and perhaps also for "IN" are lower than they should be.


I wonder if the more northern edge of the flow from Anatolia is Bronze Age flow of J2b, and the more southern one across Crete and southern Greece is J2a? Too fanciful? :) The more southern one is also Neolithic perhaps, as well.

It looks like steppe going down into northeast Spain as well.

----------


## CrazyDonkey

According to Gregorovius, the Latin chroniclers stated that Narses, the Exarch, after having been recalled to Constantinople, had "summoned the Lombards into Italy," who had previously fought for him as mercenaries against the Goths. With the Lombards, "greedy swarms of Gepidae, Saxons, Sueves, and Bulgarians" descended on northern Italy. (_Rome and Medieval Culture: Selections from History of the City of Rome in the Middle Ages_, pp. 30-34.)

----------


## Angela

MUST the usual suspects exaggerate everything to support their agenda and their past ludicrous claims? 

I would direct people to results from 23andme. "Middle Eastern" is defined by 23andme as what other companies call "Caucasus" or Northern West Asia, i.e. Turkey, Iran, Armenia, the Caucasus countries. "North African" is not just North Africa proper, but also Arabia, Jordan and Palestine. I have been pointing that out for 7 years, but some people think if you repeat misinformation long enough, people will believe it. 

I share with a load of Calabrians and Sicilians. 

The Sicilians sometimes get 4-5% or so of "North African", which is the total of North Africa AND the Levant. That makes sense to me because the perhaps "North African" and "Levantine" ydna might come to about 10% in Sicily, but it was again a heavily male mediated migration, so I think it makes sense it would get whittled down. 

That's more proof to me that by not having a SWAsian reference for a component that's been in Italy for thousands of years, they wind up exaggerating the amount of North African in Sicilians. I highly doubt it's above 10%, and it's probably somewhere around 6-7% maximum if I had to guess. 

As for Calabria and other parts of Southern Italy, there's no way a few thousand Muslim soldiers sent to Bari or Napoli and then killed or expelled from there are going to import all this North African into Southern Italy. This is supported by the fact that Calabrians tend to get much lower North African than Sicilians at 23andme, under 1% in some cases, and other Southern Italians even less. Both groups can get double digits of additional "Northern West Asian". For Calabrians it can go from 10-20%, but that's a separate issue. 

(Every time I share some actual fact about Italian history I see it repeated and distorted on other sites. Hell, a lot of the time they use my exact words to describe the occurrence, but then distort the significance.)

If some people knew anything about Italian history they'd also know that there was just as much and probably a lot more gene flow going from Southern Italy (especially Calabria) into Sicily than the other way around, starting in the Middle Ages, but continuing into pretty recent times, as for example after the devastating earthquakes in Messina, when a lot of Calabrians moved in to help resettle the area. It's for that reason that I said until I was blue in the face that you couldn't make much of the genetics of the Messina area. 

As for the Etruscans, I think they will show CHG/Iran Neo, and I think there will be some J2 in the population. Whether there was a specific elite migration to Tuscany from the east I don't know. Hopefully, the ancient dna should clarify matters. However, I think we should be able to put to bed the notion that all the CHG/Iran Neo that came into Italy (and into Greece and the Balkans and parts of Spain as well) came with the Etruscans and all came in the last millennium BC. or even later. I've been saying for five years and more that given that it was already in Otzi, who was Copper Age, it must have started long before the first millennium BC, perhaps in the late Neolithic-Chalcolithic- early Bronze, and given it was all over the Balkans, could not have been unique to Italy. 

That's it. I don't see anything yet that says I was wrong, although if I was, that's fine too. You can't be right all the time.

----------


## halfalp

> I wonder if the more northern edge of the flow from Anatolia is Bronze Age flow of J2b, and the more southern one across Crete and southern Greece is J2a? Too fanciful? :) The more southern one is also Neolithic perhaps, as well.
> 
> It looks like steppe going down into northeast Spain as well.


There was different Bronze Age Culture pockets in the Balkans. We know that Vucedol had Yamnaya Z2103 but also J2b. Maybe Steppe migrations and an Anatolian migration happened in the same time frame. There was a J2b into the Caucasus paper from MBA North Caucasus and a J2b with Z2103 in Hajji Firuz in the Central and South Asian paper. We know that Maikop and Kura-Araxes were almost indistinguishable. The link of J2b and Z2103 seems pretty strong, i wonder... I'm pretty certain that R1b-Z2103 doesn't have an origin south of the caucasus, but maybe the relationship between steppe and transcaucasia was stronger already before, we just didn't found the transcaucasian outliers with lots of steppe.

----------


## Jovialis

Here's a comment on the paper by Razib Khan:




> Population structure of modern-day Italians reveals patterns of ancient and archaic ancestries in Southern Europe. The paper points to the fact that it seems that a Caucasus-related ancestry that has been seen in early Bronze Age Greece also seems to have impacted southern Italy and Sicily. There’s a paper that will come out soon with ancient samples from Sicily and Sardinia that confirms this. The same Caucasus-related ancestry is found in the steppe expansion, but that too came into Italy through the north.
> 
> https://www.gnxp.com/WordPress/2018/...ad-12-16-2018/

----------


## Cato

Anatolia Bronze Age is 3000-2000 BC right? So Copper Age in Europe..

Utilizzando Tapatalk

----------


## Angela

> Here's a comment on the paper by Razib Khan:


So, there we go. Real confirmation at last, if Razib Khan's sources are correct, and I assume they are. 

@Cato,
Indeed. Copper Age in Europe, like Otzi. :)

Of course, there might have been later flows as well. We'll have to wait and see. 

I knew Hellenthal was wrong in proposing this admixture in the late Roman and early post Roman era, and said so. They should have known the limitations of the software they were using, and that it only picked up the latest signals, as indeed the Egyptian ancient dna paper proved. Perhaps this paper was in part a way to address that.

----------


## bicicleur

> Here's a comment on the paper by Razib Khan:


when is early bronze age Greece, does he mean the cycladic culture in the Aegean?
is there a culture in Italy that could be related to it?

----------


## markod

> when is early bronze age Greece, does he mean the cycladic culture in the Aegean?
> is there a culture in Italy that could be related to it?


I believe the Early Bronze Age begins in Cycladic, Helladic and Minoan regions at around 3,000 B.C., roughly around the same time and a bit before those material cultures become really distinctive.

The Bronze Age in southern Italy is to my knowledge quite late. I think it post-dates the south Iberian Bronze Age by quite some time. Central and Southern Italy appears to be quite 'underdeveloped' in general throughout the metal ages. I believe that the Apennine culture could have been influenced by the Balkans or the Aegean, and the impact seen in the DNA could well be explained by the delayed development of the local population.

----------


## halfalp

I would have seen this Anatolian-Greek Bronze Age way earlier than Mycenneans. Malik and Bubanj in Albania wich is an hotspot of J2b nowadays, could have been some cultural expressions of this Iran related ancestry. From there they would mingle with Steppe in Vucedol and go in Italy and the Islands from Sea.

----------


## bicicleur

> I believe the Early Bronze Age begins in Cycladic, Helladic and Minoan regions at around 3,000 B.C., roughly around the same time and a bit before those material cultures become really distinctive.
> 
> The Bronze Age in southern Italy is to my knowledge quite late. I think it post-dates the south Iberian Bronze Age by quite some time. Central and Southern Italy appears to be quite 'underdeveloped' in general throughout the metal ages. I believe that the Apennine culture could have been influenced by the Balkans or the Aegean, and the impact seen in the DNA could well be explained by the delayed development of the local population.


Early Cycladic started ca 3400 BC, but I'm not sure whether that was already bronze age or still late neolithic.
It is supposed to have been influenced by or originated from Anatolia.

----------


## markod

> Early Cycladic started ca 3400 BC, but I'm not sure whether that was already bronze age or still late neolithic.
> It is supposed to have been influenced by or originated from Anatolia.


These are the latest dates (2018):



The absolute beginning of the EBA in Europe is marked by Cernavoda III in the very east of Bulgaria.

----------


## Angela

EARLY BRONZE AGE IN SICILY:
"In Sicily the oldest phases of prehistory were overcome at the end of the 3rd millennium BCE, when it received a new cultural wave, probably from the Middle East, today labelled with the name of the Castelluccio culture, from the homonymous prehistoric site near the city of Noto. This cultural facies (segmentation), rather unusual compared to those of the Copper Age, is verified in the south-east and south of the island, up to the provinces of Agrigento and Caltanissetta (in the west and in the middle of the island), and constitutes the “starting line” of the Sicilian bronze age. It is certainly dated to 2169±120 BCE (calibrated value) thanks to radiometric dating performed on 18 coal samples which proved to be the oldest of this culture and which were found at the archaeological site of "Muculufa", a few kilometres north-east of Licata town."

"At this early stage of the Bronze Age, Sicily was divided into four macro-regions, each one of them with their own culture: northern Sicily with the Rodì-Tindari-Vallelunga culture, the western one, with the Naro/Partanna culture, the south-east with the Castelluccio culture and the Capo Graziano culture of the Aeolian Islands. Of these, that of Castelluccio seems to be the most homogeneous culture in this period, perhaps because it spread over a larger area and, consequently, it is much better known today.The prehistoric settlement of Castelluccio was built on a rather isolated but defensible rocky spur. The archaeologist Paolo Orsi, who identified it between the late-19th and early-20th century CE, found large quantities of ceramic fragments among the refuse and explored the artificial cave tombs. These tombs are oven-shaped and dug into the rocks. There are small oval-shaped rooms with a diameter of between 1.5-2.0 metres, sometimes preceded by an ante-cella and still containing grave goods. The Castelluccian villages, sometimes fortified, showed a rather interesting agricultural and pastoral reality. Their ceramics have been classified as "matt-painted ware" and have close ties with an Anatolian culture of the end of the 3rd millennium BCE, so-called "Cappadocia". The wares show a variety of pottery shapes and geometric designs, the latter consisting of brown or black bands crossed on a yellow or red background. Forms include single or two-handled conical glasses, tall footed-vases known as "fruit bowls", large amphorae, bowls on a tall conical foot, and globular pyxides (boxes) on a small conical foot."



"The graves dug in the rock were closed with dry-stone walls, but also with tombstone doors, some decorated in relief with spiral-shaped motifs. In two of the graves there are carved images that could allude to sex, therefore, to the continuation of life. In some of these graves carved globule bones have been found that are reminiscent of examples elsewhere (southeastern Italy, Malta, southern Greece and Troy II and III). The carved bones are animal bone segments and are between 13-15 centimetres in length. They are sometimes decorated with incisions on which, successively, globules in relief have been made. Their use is not yet known, although some scholars have supposed that these artefacts could be small idols, while others think they could be dagger handles."

MIDDLE BRONZE AGE IN SICILY:
"From the end of 1500 to c. 1200 BCE in Sicily, important coastal settlements developed and the island began to acquire strategic-commercial importance thanks to the intense exchanges with Mycenaean Greece. The find of a large number of Aegean vases in the Sicilian tombs of this period proves a phenomenon that caused the birth of real emporia in which the transmarine trades were practised, as had happened in the Aeolian islands. This was just the age that the Milazzese culture flourished in the Aeolian Islands. In Sicily, for its part, a culture closely related to the Aeolian arose, called Thapsos, from the ancient name the Greeks gave to a peninsula (nowadays Magnisi) situated between Augusta and Syracuse, which gives its name to the most famous Sicilian culture of the middle Bronze Age."
https://www.ancient.eu/article/1190/bronze-age-sicily/

I've always wanted to get a look at some samples from the Cetina culture:
]



https://www.academia.edu/17424037/Th...aly_and_Sicily

----------


## halfalp

Hm this Cetina Culture is interesting, i never heard of it. Do Bubanj and Malik were part of it? And do we know in what the J2b individual from Vucedol cluster with? Steppe or Iran related?

----------


## Jovialis

Here's a poster I found on Cetina culture from a google search.



https://www.researchgate.net/profile...jectUpdatesLog.

----------


## halfalp

I found this interesting blog on the contexte: https://archeorient.hypotheses.org/8247

----------


## Angela

> Here's a poster I found on Cetina culture from a google search.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.researchgate.net/profile...jectUpdatesLog.


Yes, I think that shows that while they may have been seafarers, their influence went pretty far inland. 

I remembered some old stuff from dienekes about the change in physical anthropology in Greece. Fwiw...

"I have located the text of George Panagiaris important 1993 doctoral thesis on Greek skeletal material. This may be one of the most comprehensive efforts to study the Ancient Greek population from a physical anthropological perspective (413 male and 354 female crania, using 65 biometric characters as well odontological traits).

Panagiaris' conclusions in English can be found in p.10 of the document. He confirms that *the greater period of discontinuity in the material is observed during the Helladic period (=Bronze Age in Greek archaeology), where broad-headed incoming groups appear, side by side with the older Mediterranean population. He attributes this to the arrival of such people from the highlands Pindos range, although he sees the possibility of Anatolian influences as well, but has no comparative data. He cites the tendency for broader skulls in higher latitudes, although this general trend in H. sapiens probably does not explain the local trend within Caucasoids where the key difference is between mountaineers (where the Alpine, Dinaric, Armenoid, and Pamir-Ferghana types are well-represented) and lowland folk. Perhaps, if various ancient DNA projects manage to study some Greek material we may be able to ascertain the events that were taking place in Greece at that time.


Of course, the issue cannot be seen in isolation, because at this time we see an increase in brachycephalic types inCrete and Anatolia, the appearance of the intrusive brachycephalic Bell Beaker folk in Western Europe, and perhaps even the presence of the interfluvial type (Pamir-Ferghana type) in the eastern Saka. 


Personally, I see something important in these developments:why would broad-headed mountaineers make their appearance in the lowlands at this time in history? I am strongly leaning towards the idea that this has to do with 
metallurgical innovation during this time. According to Roberts et al. (2009), from which the figure on the left is taken:

*I think it's interesting that the spread is into the part of Spain where we have speculated there might have been some "eastern" influence in the transmission of metallurgy and settlement design as well as burials.

My only point upthread in raising the issue of Cetina, which may or may not have had genetic influences more recently from Anatolia is that there's a lot we don't know about the late Copper Age, Early Bronze Age in Italy, and that there may be some connections to Helladic Greece, which I would describe as an Aegean culture.

----------


## Salento

> when is early bronze age Greece, does he mean the cycladic culture in the Aegean?
> is there a culture in Italy that could be related to it?


EDITED 
- - - - -
Check your PM.

----------


## Sile

> Hm this Cetina Culture is interesting, i never heard of it. Do Bubanj and Malik were part of it? And do we know in what the J2b individual from Vucedol cluster with? Steppe or Iran related?


I mentioned this a year ago for the J2b
You need to also look at Busa cattle as part of cetina culture
only recent discussion is its main influence , vucedol or vinca
.
IIRC , maciano said this individual had steppe markers

----------


## halfalp

> I mentioned this a year ago for the J2b
> You need to also look at Busa cattle as part of cetina culture
> only recent discussion is its main influence , vucedol or vinca
> .
> IIRC , maciano said this individual had steppe markers


Hm, i just looked again at the spreadsheets of the Mathieson paper, and the J2b2a sample is considered " Croatia_EMBA " and is dated from 1700-1500 BCE. While the " Croatia_Vucedol " were R1b-Z2103 and G2a2a1a2a and are dated from 2800-2600 BCE. Are Croatia EMBA and Croatia Vucedol the same thing? How much the J2b2a individual was " Steppe " and what other marker did he have?

----------


## Johane Derite

> Hm, i just looked again at the spreadsheets of the Mathieson paper, and the J2b2a sample is considered " Croatia_EMBA " and is dated from 1700-1500 BCE. While the " Croatia_Vucedol " were R1b-Z2103 and G2a2a1a2a and are dated from 2800-2600 BCE. Are Croatia EMBA and Croatia Vucedol the same thing? How much the J2b2a individual was " Steppe " and what other marker did he have?


According to Maciamo:

----------


## halfalp

> According to Maciamo:


So this is interesting, 45% of broadly-Yamnaya. What are the 55% rest? This guy could ultimately came from South Caucasus by Maikop and Maikop related. Like the J2b sample from MBA North Caucasus of the Caucasus paper. But if he would show some large Anatolian_Chl it could also imply a reflux from North Caucasus to Anatolia and ultimately Balkans.

----------


## halfalp

With Hajji Firuz, North Caucasus and Croatia Middle Bronze Age, this make the 3rd time we see J2b alongside R1b-Z2103 either related with Steppe or with Iran-related. This cannot be some coincidence right? We can also argue that the same rule can be applied from J2a and G2a2, but for those two latter, we have multiple samples from a lot of different relationships.

----------


## Johane Derite

> With Hajji Firuz, North Caucasus and Croatia Middle Bronze Age, this make the 3rd time we see J2b alongside R1b-Z2103 either related with Steppe or with Iran-related. This cannot be some coincidence right? We can also argue that the same rule can be applied from J2a and G2a2, but for those two latter, we have multiple samples from a lot of different relationships.


I don't know where @Maciamo got the percentages from, if he chimes in, I would love to know if he has them for that 55% and also the Mathieson Z2103 also if he has it.

With modern distributions, there is this spot concentrated around slightly west of the Volga River in Russia where both J2b2-L283 and R1b-Z2103 spike. If we can rely on modern distributions to say something possible for ancient ones, then maybe these two became entangled early on? Also EV13 has a similar spike, could it possibly also be entangled? Either that or there is some measurement issue happening in this West Volga region:

----------


## bicicleur

Angela,

The prehistoric settlement of Castelluccio was built on a rather isolated but defensible rocky spur.
The Castelluccian villages, sometimes fortified, showed a rather interesting agricultural and pastoral reality.

It makes me think of the construction of La Bastida on a hilltop near Murcia, eastern Iberia some 170 later (2000 BC) and the subsequent El Argar culture.
Was the settlement of Castelluccio one of the earliest in Castelluccio culture?

----------


## halfalp

> I don't know where @Maciamo got the percentages from, if he chimes in, I would love to know if he has them for that 55% and also the Mathieson Z2103 also if he has it.
> 
> With modern distributions, there is this spot concentrated around slightly west of the Volga River in Russia where both J2b2-L283 and R1b-Z2103 spike. If we can rely on modern distributions to say something possible for ancient ones, then maybe these two became entangled early on? Also EV13 has a similar spike, could it possibly also be entangled? Either that or there is some measurement issue happening in this West Volga region:


Seems like J2b, R1b-Z2103 and E-V13 have two spots in common. The Samara Bend and Albania.

----------


## halfalp

> I don't know where @Maciamo got the percentages from, if he chimes in, I would love to know if he has them for that 55% and also the Mathieson Z2103 also if he has it.
> 
> With modern distributions, there is this spot concentrated around slightly west of the Volga River in Russia where both J2b2-L283 and R1b-Z2103 spike. If we can rely on modern distributions to say something possible for ancient ones, then maybe these two became entangled early on? Also EV13 has a similar spike, could it possibly also be entangled? Either that or there is some measurement issue happening in this West Volga region:


Actually, the E-V13 on the Volga is very likely linked to the Turkish people that converted themselves into Islam. The Tatars, the Bulgars and what not. Of all ancient sample that we have from Neolithic Balkans and the Caucasus, it's hard to believe it has the same history or relationship as R1b and J2b.

----------


## Angela

> Angela,The prehistoric settlement of Castelluccio was built on a rather isolated but defensible rocky spur.The Castelluccian villages, sometimes fortified, showed a rather interesting agricultural and pastoral reality.It makes me think of the construction of La Bastida on a hilltop near Murcia, eastern Iberia some 170 later (2000 BC) and the subsequent El Argar culture.Was the settlement of Castelluccio one of the earliest in Castelluccio culture?


That's precisely what I meant, Bicicleur.

The question is, did they perhaps carry Z2103 and steppe, or J2b and some additional IN, or maybe both? Certainly, the Yamnaya were not seafarers, but the Aegean people were...

I don't know if it was the first. This period has never received much attention, and the dating is haphazard. From what they can tell, however, there were a large number of sites of this culture spread all across Southern Sicily, and it seems that this area experienced a period of population growth in the Early Bronze Age. 

"At the Castelluccio site, some tombs were sealed with elaborately carved stone door slabs. The carvings on the slabs, two of which are now on display in the Siracusa Museum, have varied interpretations as fertility symbols, symbols meant to ward off evil or even as Aegean-type spirals (Figure 9). Other tombs include columns carved into the façade that creates a more decorative and elaborate appearance. The infrequency of large tombs identified in EBA cemeteries along with the appearance of variation in tomb decoration has been interpreted as evidence for the development of more stratified societies." 

"There is evidence of craft and pottery production, flint working, agriculture, fishing and pastoralism for Castelluccian societies. Faunal remains found at many EBA sites indicate a diet which consisted of domesticated pig, sheep/goat, cattle, and seafood (Holloway et al. 1988:46;Leighton 1999:116). Based on faunal remains uncovered at important Early Bronze Agesettlement sites such as La Muculufa and Monte Grande, Massimo Cultraro (2004) suggests aninter-community cooperative socio-economic structure existed in Sicily at the time. He statesthat the consumption of cattle and larger animals would have required the maintenance of breeding herds."

So far, they've found copper but bronze, but the bronze finds are rare. https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/v...30&context=etd

Perhaps any metals of value would mostly have been looted long since? They mention that they have remains but they have never been tested for DNA!

Interestingly, residue of olive oil was found in ceramics at a Castelluccio site. "“The first chemical signature of olive oil were identified on samples from Minoan Crete: Aphrodite’s Kephali (3200–2700 BC), Chrysokamino (2300-1900 BC), and Tourloti (1200/1190-1070 BC).”“With regards to the prehistory of Italy, the only cases known of identification of chemical signatures of olive oil are those of Broglio di Trebisacce (Cosenza) and Roca Vecchia (Lecce) where large storage jars dated to the local Late Bronze Age (12th-11th century BC) tested positive.” 

“In this perspective, the results obtained with the three samples from Castelluccio become the first chemical evidence of the oldest olive oil in Italian prehistory, pushing back the hands of the clock for the systematic olive oil production by at least 700 years.”
"http://www.sci-news.com/archaeology/...oil-06054.html

In the following google book there's an article which contains maps of the many Castelluccio settlements, many inland, but some on the coast. Many are encircled by stone walls, one with semi-circular stone towers. The bronze spear heads are said to bear similarities with those of the Aegean.

https://books.google.com/books?id=tN...Sicily&f=false

----------


## Ygorcs

> Eunuchs were common thing if that is your point,yes.And i do not deny that.
> However *Eunuch job was very much different from that of the either soldier or administrator.
> *You quoted for the Janissaries,they weren't castrated but "forbidden" to marry.Janissaries were initially forbidden from marriage or from having families. However, they were eventually able to lobby the Sultan to have this restriction lifted. Later on, they also successfully lobbied the Sultans to allow their sons to follow them into service.Do you think that Janissaries with such a influence that could even change Sultans and have even killed some of them,were not having any woman?
> Eunuchs and Janissaries were not same,much less the administrators.
> There were also black eunuchs for example that guarded the Ottoman harem.


I do not know how castration was done in medieval eunuchs of the Islamic caliphates, but the (successful, of course) castration done in _castrati_ singers in the modern era in Europe did not prevent men from having sex with women (or men, mind you), it just prevented them from having the hormones and the sperm that the testicles provide, thus not being able to have descendants of their own, too. Some _castrati_ were even way too coveted by female admirers...

----------


## bicicleur

> That's precisely what I meant, Bicicleur.


there are a few hints, and little proof, but we have the same gut feeling
probably soon new studies will prove us right or wrong and provide more details on the matter

----------


## bicicleur

> I do not know how castration was done in medieval eunuchs of the Islamic caliphates, but the (successful, of course) castration done in _castrati_ singers in the modern era in Europe did not prevent men from having sex with women (or men, mind you), it just prevented them from having the hormones and the sperm that the testicles provide, thus not being able to have descendants of their own, too. Some _castrati_ were even way too coveted by female admirers...


I don't think that the eunuchs that were supposed to serve or guard the harems were supposed to be capable of sex.

----------


## Johane Derite

> Actually, the E-V13 on the Volga is very likely linked to the Turkish people that converted themselves into Islam. The Tatars, the Bulgars and what not. Of all ancient sample that we have from Neolithic Balkans and the Caucasus, it's hard to believe it has the same history or relationship as R1b and J2b.


Ok, so I think its becoming even more clear now. This spike in the Volga is also even happening with more rare clades related to Albanians like PF7562. This reduces the chance even more of this entanglement being a coincidence of only Z2103. I will post maps with the populations that are sourced in them below. 

The population that seems to be responsible for this spike are the *Bashkirs*! They are listed as having these high readings for Z2103, PF7562, and M269(xL51) unlike other surrounding Turkic groups in the region (this is especially clear for PF7562).

This is very interesting since linguists and Bashkir scholars, before any DNA evidence seem to have believed that the Bashkir people were originally an 
Indo European speaking people (Indo-Iranian branch). This explains why other surrounding turkic groups dont spike:


Bashkir links to extinct branches of *Indo-Iranian peoples of the Eurasian Steppe* have been proposed by scholars since the early 20th century, while Russian linguist Eugene Helimski pronounces that this "*extinct Indo-Iranian branch*" must be regarded as the "*Andronovo** population*".[7] 

A Bashkir scholar Salavat Gallyamov – citing a philologist Nikolai Dmitriev – *indicates that* *Iranian** influence on the Bashkir phonology* can be assumed, supporting hypotheses that the *Bashkir originally spoke an* *Indo-Iranian language.

*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bashkirs

*
*
Here are the maps:





*R1b-PF7562:*

Kosovo - 9/114 (7,89 %);
Macedonia - 4/79 (5,06 %);
Albania - 11/223 (4,93 %);
Serbia - 7/235 (2,98 %);
Armenia - 5/176 (2,84 %);
Cyprus - 16/574 (2,79 %);
Laz - 1/36 (2,78 %);
Lezgins - 1/41 (2,44 %);
*Italy* - 26/1094 (2,38 %);
Tabasarans - 1/43 (2,33 %);
Greece - 8/347 (2,31 %);
Crete - 4/193 (2,07 %);
Turkey - 15/737 (2,04 %);
Algeria - 2/102 (1,96 %);
Romania - 10/527 (1,9 %);
*Bashkirs* - 10/586 (1,71 %);
Herzegovina - 2/141 (1,42 %);
Bosnia - 1/78 (1,28 %);




*R1b-Z2103:*

Armenia - 45/176 (25,57 %);
*Bashkirs* - 126/586 (21,5 %);
Dagestan - 87/724 (12,02 %);
Turkey - 88/737 (11,94 %);
Komis (Perm Oblast) - 7/61 (11,48 %);
Kosovo - 13/114 (11,4 %);
Albania - 22/223 (9,87 %);
Iran - 106/1303 (8,14 %);
Iraq - 2/28 (7,14 %);
Greece - 21/347 (6,05 %);




*R1b-M269:*

Armenia - 50/176 (28,41 %);
*Bashkirs* - 136/586 (23,21 %);
Kosovo - 22/114 (19,3 %);
Albania - 33/223 (14,8 %);
Turkey - 103/737 (13,98 %);
Dagestan - 89/724 (12,29 %);
Komis (Perm Oblast) - 7/61 (11,48 %);
Iran - 116/1303 (8,9 %);
Cyprus - 50/574 (8,71 %);
Greece - 29/347 (8,36 %);


So if these haplogroups are now in high probability of being related at the least to the Indo-Iranian branches of IE, or Andronovo, and possibly related to even older general IE, can we say when these groups reached to Italy?


Are these groups possibly related to these changes we are seeing in Italy in this paper? I am way less knowledgable on the Italian context so I need a bit more help here to grasp it.

*LINK:* http://r1b-pf7562.blogspot.com/

----------


## markod

Interestingly, the latest data gathered from local dialects and such indicates that Bashkir has both an Indo-Iranian and a Finno-Ugric substrate.

----------


## Angela

This E-V13 business is all discussed here.
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...light=Bashkirs

Maciamo was of the opinion that it was carried east to the Volga.

I still think it might have been in Cucuteni or somewhere else in one of the more eastern Neolithic communities, and perhaps it was picked up there by "Indo-Europeans" and then spread in various directions. After all, we have precursors for it in the Balkans. That's Maciamo's position, I think.

Perhaps if we get more samples from Mycenaean Greece we'll find it came down into Greece in that way? 

Or, it might have been in the northern Near East and came across Anatolia and into Europe with the Bronze Age migrations into the Aegean and further west. 

I don't know how easy it will be to figure out the direction of flow even if we find it in Mycenaean Greece. 

As for Italy, however it got to Greece, I always thought it would have spread to Italy from there. I don't know if the phylogeny supports that. I suppose there's an off chance, if it came with the Bronze Age migrations from the east that it came directly to Italy, but I think the bulk of that ancestry came via Greece.

----------


## Jovialis

I think it is interesting to consider Razib Khan's article on the re-population of Italy after the fall of the Roman Empire, by people living in the countryside, discussed here: https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...etics-revisted




> There is relatively little common ancestry shared between the Italian peninsula and other locations, and what there is seems to derive mostly from longer ago than 2,500 ya. An exception is that Italy and the neighboring Balkan populations share small but significant numbers of common ancestors in the last 1,500 years, as seen in Figures S16 and S17. The rate of genetic common ancestry between pairs of Italian individuals seems to have been fairly constant for the past 2,500 years, which combined with significant structure within Italy suggests a constant exchange of migrants between coherent subpopulations.
> 
> The implication here is that there’s population structure deeper than the Roman period. When I first saw these results I was surprised. Looking at genome-wide data I was pretty sure that most of the modern Italian population dated to the Roman Republican period, but I was not expecting provincial level substructure. It was like telling me that the Samnites and Umbrians were still with us!
> 
> 
> Original Article: https://www.gnxp.com/WordPress/2018/...medium=twitter






Perhaps the components from Lazio, and the surrounding areas may have primarily come from the Umbrians. While the ones in Campania and Puglia come from descendants of people like the Samnites. Of course I get around 20% "Balkan", as do my family members. The chart from the model seems to subsume that. But I could attribute that to Greek-like influences, as well as remnants of the Illyrians that lived there.

I think a re-population of people from the outskirts of other respective regions in the North and other parts of Italy can also be seen in their areas.

----------


## bicicleur

> Ok, so I think its becoming even more clear now. This spike in the Volga is also even happening with more rare clades related to Albanians like PF7562. This reduces the chance even more of this entanglement being a coincidence of only Z2103. I will post maps with the populations that are sourced in them below. 
> 
> The population that seems to be responsible for this spike are the *Bashkirs*! They are listed as having these high readings for Z2103, PF7562, and M269(xL51) unlike other surrounding Turkic groups in the region (this is especially clear for PF7562).
> 
> This is very interesting since linguists and Bashkir scholars, before any DNA evidence seem to have believed that the Bashkir people were originally an 
> Indo European speaking people (Indo-Iranian branch). This explains why other surrounding turkic groups dont spike:


It is very interesting to see that also R1b-PF7562 is involved, and it is conceivable that they and R1b-Z2103 were fugitives from the steppe - either because of 4.2 ka climate change or because of Sintashta-Andronovo-Srubnaya expansion.
But for E-V13 it's a different story. It's ancestor E-L618 was in Croatian Cardial Ware and it's present distribution suggest expansion from the Balkans. Also it's TMRCA is much later than that of R1b-L23.

----------


## Sile

> I think it is interesting to consider Razib Khan's article on the re-population of Italy after the fall of the Roman Empire, by people living in the countryside, discussed here: https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...etics-revisted
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps the components from Lazio, and the surrounding areas may have primarily come from the Umbrians. While the ones in Campania and Puglia come from dependents of people like the Samnites. Of course I get around 20% "Balkan", as do my family members. The chart from the model seems to subsume that. But I could attribute that to Greek-like influences, as well as remnants of the Illyrians that lived there.
> ...


Samnites, come from sabellics who origins are umbrians .............IIRC sabines are also in this group.
.

Messapians, Peucians and Daunian are the same people all originate from the Iapygian tribes

----------


## Angela

> I think it is interesting to consider Razib Khan's article on the re-population of Italy after the fall of the Roman Empire, by people living in the countryside, discussed here: https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...etics-revisted
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps the components from Lazio, and the surrounding areas may have primarily come from the Umbrians. While the ones in Campania and Puglia come from dependents of people like the Samnites. Of course I get around 20% "Balkan", as do my family members. The chart from the model seems to subsume that. But I could attribute that to Greek-like influences, as well as remnants of the Illyrians that lived there.
> ...


In that post he relied heavily on the Ralph and Coop paper, as have I, in the sense that it has made me skeptical of the claims of people like Hellenthal, and disreputable figures like the Stormfront and apricity t-rolls that all the additional "Near Eastern" in Southern Italy is a product of the Roman and post-Roman Era. I guess we'll see pretty soon.

It is rather remarkable how well that old "ethnic" map sort of correlates with the autosomal map posted by these researchers.

----------


## bicicleur

I even haven't read the paper yet, but considering what has been said here, I'd expect Italian population to be on a cline between Iranian mixed with EEF in the south and R1b-L51 mixed with EEF in the north, and I think R1b-L51 is steppe mixed with EEF in the Carpathian Basin ca 4.8 ka.
And it is true, after the fall of Rome, much of Italy has been depopulated and repopulated by immigrants, but these immigrants would in large parts be similar to the R1b-L51 mixed with EEF that were in Italy when Rome was founded.
My guess is that the Latins and Samnites that founded Rome entered Italy during the Urnfield expansion and were akin to the R1b-L51, steppe mixed with EEF in the Carpathian Basin.

----------


## Angela

> I even haven't read the paper yet, but considering what has been said here, I'd expect Italian population to be on a cline between Iranian mixed with EEF in the south and R1b-L51 mixed with EEF in the north, and I think R1b-L51 is steppe mixed with EEF in the Carpathian Basin ca 4.8 ka.
> And it is true, after the fall of Rome, much of Italy has been depopulated and repopulated by immigrants, but these immigrants would in large parts be similar to the R1b-L51 mixed with EEF that were in Italy when Rome was founded.
> My guess is that the Latins and Samnites that founded Rome entered Italy during the Urnfield expansion and were akin to the R1b-L51, steppe mixed with EEF in the Carpathian Basin.


I agree with some of what you're saying. 

However, if I had to guess, the substructure in Italy is probably too precisely aligned with the groups in Italy before the Roman Empire for any massive effect from supposed "re-population" after the fall which just happens by chance to fall along the same cline that always existed. Northern slaves were sent to the south too, you know, and there were also Byzantines there. 

That was supposed to be what happened to the North in the case of the Langobards, i.e. "massive" de-population during the Gothic Wars, and then the entrance of the Langobards changing everything. I always doubted that, given that population figures for those periods cannot be verified, but also because even if there was de-population, the Langobards, even according to their own records, numbered only 60,000 people. There would have had to have been no one left for them to make a "massive" impact. I think I may have been right, given that they seem to have carried U-106, and there's precious little of it in Italy, other than in the Northeast, and even there it's a very minority component. Even if you add in I1, this was not a major change in Northern Italy. 

The Gallic tribes are perhaps a different story, especially if they carried some forms of U-152. For one thing, how different would they have been from the Italics in the first place? In the second, they arrived before 400 BC, which is when Ralph and Coop see foreign intrusion ending based on IBS analysis. 

As for the south, I think it may have been like the north. Is it possible there was some intrusion by Byzantines who came as refugees? Yes, indeed it is. Enough to significantly change things? It's possible but not highly probable, I think.

Take another look at the two maps Jovialis posted. 

Anyway, we'll know soon. I hope they consulted with people who know something of Italian history and pre-history.

----------


## Sile

> Samnites, come from sabellics who origins are umbrians .............IIRC sabines are also in this group.
> .
> Messapians, Peucians and Daunian are the same people all originate from the Iapygian tribes


recent Iapygian paper
https://indo-european.eu/tag/iapygian/

----------


## Jovialis

> In that post he relied heavily on the Ralph and Coop paper, as have I, in the sense that it has made me skeptical of the claims of people like Hellenthal, and disreputable figures like the Stormfront and apricity t-rolls that all the additional "Near Eastern" in Southern Italy is a product of the Roman and post-Roman Era. I guess we'll see pretty soon.
> 
> It is rather remarkable how well that old "ethnic" map sort of correlates with the autosomal map posted by these researchers.


Indeed, the DNA chart from the study, and the map of the ancient tribes are really illuminating. To me it strongly suggests that a massive re-population from those sources on the outskirts had gone underway. The urban areas had experienced massive de-population after the fall of the Roman state. Those t-rolls tend to use the musing of 19th century commentators to justify their reasoning. But the 19th century figures make a critical error, by comparing their time to the past. Immigration, and slavery were much different in the 19th century, than they were in the Roman era. The trans-Atlantic slave trade, and industrial revolution were unprecedented phenomenons that altered the demographics of North and South America. As Khan points out, immigrant populations only had long lasting effects when large public works were possible in the 19th century. The Roman cities were demographic sinks, that were radically altered after the fall of the empire. Roman slaves had a very short lifespan, and immigrants did not have continuous streams to sustain their communities. That's a far cry from the massive importation of slaves by international world powers to exploit the resources of far away lands, that was the Trans-Atlantic slave trade. Or the industrial centers that attracted immigrants using steamboats, and planes. The 19th, and 20th century was extremely different from the Roman period.

----------


## markod

> I even haven't read the paper yet, but considering what has been said here, I'd expect Italian population to be on a cline between Iranian mixed with EEF in the south and R1b-L51 mixed with EEF in the north, and I think R1b-L51 is steppe mixed with EEF in the Carpathian Basin ca 4.8 ka.
> And it is true, after the fall of Rome, much of Italy has been depopulated and repopulated by immigrants, but these immigrants would in large parts be similar to the R1b-L51 mixed with EEF that were in Italy when Rome was founded.
> My guess is that the Latins and Samnites that founded Rome entered Italy during the Urnfield expansion and were akin to the R1b-L51, steppe mixed with EEF in the Carpathian Basin.


The Carpathian basin is where I think a unified Germanic-Celtic-Italic ancestors would have existed at some point. The interesting part is whether Italic entered Italy from the north like Celtic did, or whether it came by sea perhaps from the Yugoslav region or surroundings. It sounds trivial, but think the route they'd have taken could have made a big difference in the autosomal make-up of the Italic invaders.

----------


## Angela

An arrival over the Adriatic would be in line with Pallotino, out of favor for a long time. 

"Pallottino's presentation of the contemporaneous view of how the Indo-European languages on the left bank of the Tiber and southward and eastward arrived is as follows. Three waves of Indo-European language speakers, speaking closely related languages, arrived in small groups over time across the Adriatic sea and moved inland.[5] The first occurred in the Middle Neolithic starting with the Square-necked Pottery Culture and prevailed for the remaining Neolithic and the Proto- and earlier Apennine. The Latin language evolved ultimately from their speech, in Italy. The second wave is associated with Mycenaean civilization of the Late Bronze Age and brought the ancestors of the Italic language speakers into central and south Italy. They prevailed during the remainder of the Apennine. The third wave came with the Proto-Villanovan Culture and is ultimately responsible for the Venetic language speakers. Pallottino admits that this is a tentative and unproven interpretation of the linguistic and archaeological evidence, but he profers it as being better than the previous view of an invasion of Italic people from the north in the Terramare culture, which was distinct from and parallel to the early Apennine.The Apennine culture was in this theory always practiced mainly by speakers of unknown languages in the Italic branch of Indo-European, from which the historical languages later came. The term "Proto-Italic", in Pallottino's view, is less useful because there was no single proto-language in Italy. Such a language would have existed on the other side of the Adriatic (Illyria) in the Neolithic. The way of life of the population in the Apennine range also is consistent with an etymology of Italia as "land of young cattle" (see under Italy)."

"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apennine_culture



It would track with the Roman Empire before the conquest of the north, and the linguistic line, more or less.

This is where the Rubicon was approximately located. When Caesar crossed it, he had invaded "Rome", or "Italia". Now, granted, everything south of it was richer, more civilized, and thus more worthy of being conquered, but there might have been other considerations.


The linguistic divide in Italy:

----------


## Pax Augusta

> An arrival over the Adriatic would be in line with Pallotino, out of favor for a long time.



Indo-European languages in Italy unlikely all arrived from the same area. And certainly not the proto-villanovans arrived from the Adriatic.





> The linguistic divide in Italy:




There is also a linguistic boundary in North Italy, Venetian and other NE languages don't belong to the Gallo Italic family.

----------


## Sile

> Indo-European languages in Italy unlikely all arrived from the same area. And certainly not the proto-villanovans arrived from the Adriatic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is also a linguistic boundary in North Italy, Venetian and other NE languages don't belong to the Gallo Italic family.


Are the 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camunni

part of the Camunic language
we know Rhaetic is closest to venetic
Venetic and camunic seem the same age

.
Venetian is not part of Cisalpine Gual group
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisalpine_Gaul

----------


## markod

> An arrival over the Adriatic would be in line with Pallotino, out of favor for a long time. 
> 
> "Pallottino's presentation of the contemporaneous view of how the Indo-European languages on the left bank of the Tiber and southward and eastward arrived is as follows. Three waves of Indo-European language speakers, speaking closely related languages, arrived in small groups over time across the Adriatic sea and moved inland.[5] The first occurred in the Middle Neolithic starting with the Square-necked Pottery Culture and prevailed for the remaining Neolithic and the Proto- and earlier Apennine. The Latin language evolved ultimately from their speech, in Italy. The second wave is associated with Mycenaean civilization of the Late Bronze Age and brought the ancestors of the Italic language speakers into central and south Italy. They prevailed during the remainder of the Apennine. The third wave came with the Proto-Villanovan Culture and is ultimately responsible for the Venetic language speakers. Pallottino admits that this is a tentative and unproven interpretation of the linguistic and archaeological evidence, but he profers it as being better than the previous view of an invasion of Italic people from the north in the Terramare culture, which was distinct from and parallel to the early Apennine.The Apennine culture was in this theory always practiced mainly by speakers of unknown languages in the Italic branch of Indo-European, from which the historical languages later came. The term "Proto-Italic", in Pallottino's view, is less useful because there was no single proto-language in Italy. Such a language would have existed on the other side of the Adriatic (Illyria) in the Neolithic. The way of life of the population in the Apennine range also is consistent with an etymology of Italia as "land of young cattle" (see under Italy)."
> 
> "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apennine_culture
> 
> 
> 
> It would track with the Roman Empire before the conquest of the north, and the linguistic line, more or less.
> ...



I'd read his outline of the Italian LBA/IA a while ago, and it seems to me that it's by far the most convincing description of what happened in the pre-historic period. In Lazio we see Latial culture coming from the north (formerly know as 'Southern Villanovan') and imposing itself on the local Apennine stratum which led to the development of the earliest layers of urban civilisation there. Later with the introduction of iron, the Italic Fossa culture comes from the hills further south and overtakes the proto-urban sites in the flatlands. This way we may avoid the mental gymnastics often performed with the Villanovan culture construed to have been bilingual and introducing both Italic and Etruscan or something  :Embarassed: 

Interestingly that could mean that the earliest conglomeration of settlements that were to become Rome could intially have been Etruscan.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> I'd read his outline of the Italian LBA/IA a while ago, and it seems to me that it's by far the most convincing description of what happened in the pre-historic period. In Lazio we see Latial culture coming from the north (formerly know as 'Southern Villanovan') and imposing itself on the local Apennine stratum which led to the development of the earliest layers of urban civilisation there. Later with the introduction of iron, the Italic Fossa culture comes from the hills further south and overtakes the proto-urban sites in the flatlands. This way we may avoid the mental gymnastics often performed with the Villanovan culture construed to have been bilingual and introducing both Italic and Etruscan or something 
> 
> Interestingly that could mean that the earliest conglomeration of settlements that were to become Rome could intially have been Etruscan.


You confuse, as many do, the Villanovan culture with the proto-Villanovan. Villanovan is already a phase of the Etruscan civilization. Latial culture descends, as the Villanovan and Atestine culture, from the proto-Villanovan.

----------


## markod

> You confuse, as many do, the Villanovan culture with the proto-Villanovan. Villanovan is already a phase of the Etruscan civilization. Latial culture descends, as the Villanovan and Atestine culture, from the proto-Villanovan.


I'm aware of the difference, but the main distinction between Villanovan and Latial seems to be location. It's really a single horizion, which is why Pallotino's outline makes sense to me.

There's always the option that Villanovan was overtaken by Etruscan immigrants which left no trace in the archaeological record of course.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> I'm aware of the difference, but the main distinction between Villanovan and Latial seems to be location. It's really a single horizion, which is why Pallotino's outline makes sense to me.


It's not just the location. The Villanovan is much more extensive than the Latial culture that has a much smaller territory.





> There's always the option that Villanovan was overtaken by Etruscan immigrants which left no trace in the archaeological record of course.


How can external immigrants impose themselves without leaving any archaeological trace? They were basically ghosts.

----------


## markod

> How can external immigrants impose themselves without leaving any archaeological trace? They were basically ghosts.


Yeah, thats the question.

----------


## CrazyDonkey

> How can external immigrants impose themselves without leaving any archaeological trace? They were basically ghosts.


The Bulgar Turks, who left little else than their name (Bulgaria): not their language, burial rites, or architecture. The same with the Varangians (Rus) in Russia.

The Etruscans, if invaders, did manage to impose their language and religion, for a time, at least. Rome might have originally been a colony, with Etruscan males (Patricians?) taking wives from among the surrounding Latins (Plebeians?). The early Latins likely developed from the broader Villanovan (Urnfield) culture.

----------


## Angela

I don't think the analogy fits. The arrival of these groups is well attested in the archaeology; we know where they originated; their languages fit into well known language families.

The only comparison is that these two groups were elite invaders who left no large, lasting influence on the host countries, and this may "perhaps" be the case with the Etruscans as well.

The Etruscans just sort of seem to be there in the first millennium BC: there are no signs of destruction, of intrusive settlements or architecture in Tuscany. The later developments might be the result of intensive contact with the east, i.e. the "Orientalizing period", through trade. Other peoples scramble to come up with an "identity" for them, with the two most famous myths about them being that 1) they came from somewhere in Anatolia, 2) they were indigenous to Italy. Had they left more copious writings that we could interpret perhaps they could have provided some insight, but they didn't.

It's possible it was an elite migration specifically to what is now Tuscany, but if so it's a very strange one. Perhaps it is instead a case of the filtering northward from Southern Italy of more heavily CHG/Iran Neo people from the Aegean bringing metallurgy with them? 

I don't know. We'll have to see what the ancient dna tells us.

----------


## bicicleur

I think the Etruscans were an elite who became very wealthy trough trade and mining.
They lived in fortified places in order to defend their wealth.
Maybe they adopted some local language to differentiate themselves from the common people, who probably were IE in northern Italy by that time.

----------


## markod

I mean the Etruscan weren't alone - their likely cousins the Rhaetians inhabited the largest part of the eastern Alps. Their territorries were almost contiguous. But really, I have no idea how that came to be.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> The Bulgar Turks, who left little else than their name (Bulgaria): not their language, burial rites, or architecture. The same with the Varangians (Rus) in Russia.


The movements of the Turks that imposed their language everywhere are archaeologically attested, and we know even when they arrived. There is no analogy. 




> The Etruscans, if invaders, did manage to impose their language and religion, for a time, at least. Rome might have originally been a colony, with Etruscan males (Patricians?) taking wives from among the surrounding Latins (Plebeians?). The early Latins likely developed from the broader Villanovan (Urnfield) culture.



There are no traces of invasion. Again. The Latins descend from the Latial Culture which in turn descends from the Proto-Villanovan culture. Villanovan is instead the early period of the Etruscan civilization. Even artistically, the first Etruscan period is characterized by biconical urns more connected to the Proto-Villanovan phenomenon. Proto-Villanovan is a culture that left traces in many places in Italy, even in southern Italy and in Sicily and which spread the incinerating ritual.

----------


## markod

> The movements of the Turks that imposed their language everywhere are archaeologically attested, and we know even when they arrived. There is no analogy. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are no traces of invasion. Again. The Latins descend from the Latial Culture which in turn descends from the Proto-Villanovan culture. Villanovan is instead the early period of the Etruscan civilization. Even artistically, the first Etruscan period is characterized by biconical urns more connected to the Proto-Villanovan phenomenon. Proto-Villanovan is a culture that left traces in many places in Italy, even in southern Italy and in Sicily and which spread the incinerating ritual.


Then why did Villanovan culture speak Etruscan? What language did Proto-Villanovan speak?

----------


## Pax Augusta

> Then why did Villanovan culture speak Etruscan? What language did Proto-Villanovan speak?


The alphabet in Italy was brought by the Euboean Greeks when they settled in Campania, southern Italy. So in Italy we only have inscriptions starting from 700 BC. Many centuries later the proto-Villanovan.

We can't know what were all the languages spoken in Italy before the spread of the alphabet, and above all it can not be excluded that many languages ​​(both IE and non IE) spoken in Italy are not documented by the inscriptions.

The oldest Etruscan inscription is considered one found in Tarquinia, in the north of Lazio (c. 700 BC). There are other inscriptions, not only Etruscans, that are still to be studied.

Anatolian languages ​​such as the Luvian are already attested before the spread of the Euboean alphabet, and were written in two different writing systems, the _Cuneiform Luwian_ and the _Hieroglyphic Luwian_, never found in Italy.

----------


## Cpluskx

I think it's more likely that Etruscans moved to Italy from Aegean. Found this on Anthrogenica:

(The Origin of the Etruscans; 2003):

"For the explanation Briquel sees (79 n. 273) three possibilities: (i) a movement from the West to the East; (2) a movement from the East to the West; (3) both peoples are remains of a general non-Indo-European substratum. 
The first theory was recently defended by De Simone (1996), but this was generally rejected (Steinbauer 1999 shows that it is linguistically impossible; cf. also Beekes 2001). This is also clear from the following consideration. A glance at the map(in this article) shows that the eastern Tyrsênoi are the remnant of a population that tried to survive at the fringes of the mainland and on the islands. This is further confirmed by the fact that these people disappear without trace. Mostly they are mentioned just once, and often it is only stated that they once lived (past tense) there. Why would the Etruscans from Italy have come to these places? One might suggest for trade, but there is not the slightest evidence for trading activities of these eastern settlements; they are never mentioned as (active) trading posts; in any case we would have to assume that this trade became a failure. (Let alone the question whether the Greeks would have tolerated them in their country.) Also, the archaeologist Beschi objected that there is no sign that there were Etruscans (from Italy) on Lemnos. Would Etruscans have settled in all these places? And all these places are found in one contiguous area, which seems unlikely if it concerns trading posts. [See also App. iii.]"

----------


## Pax Augusta

> I think it's more likely that Etruscans moved to Italy from Aegean. Found this on Anthrogenica:
> 
> (The Origin of the Etruscans; 2003):
> 
> "For the explanation Briquel sees (79 n. 273) three possibilities: (i) a movement from the West to the East; (2) a movement from the East to the West; (3) both peoples are remains of a general non-Indo-European substratum. 
> The first theory was recently defended by De Simone (1996), but this was generally rejected (Steinbauer 1999 shows that it is linguistically impossible; cf. also Beekes 2001). This is also clear from the following consideration. A glance at the map(in this article) shows that the eastern Tyrsênoi are the remnant of a population that tried to survive at the fringes of the mainland and on the islands. This is further confirmed by the fact that these people disappear without trace. Mostly they are mentioned just once, and often it is only stated that they once lived (past tense) there. Why would the Etruscans from Italy have come to these places? One might suggest for trade, but there is not the slightest evidence for trading activities of these eastern settlements; they are never mentioned as (active) trading posts; in any case we would have to assume that this trade became a failure. (Let alone the question whether the Greeks would have tolerated them in their country.) Also, the archaeologist Beschi objected that there is no sign that there were Etruscans (from Italy) on Lemnos. Would Etruscans have settled in all these places? And all these places are found in one contiguous area, which seems unlikely if it concerns trading posts. [See also App. iii.]"


That's a copy and paste of a Beekes' text who tried to prove that Herodotus was right. Beekes was an Indo-Europeanist with the typical bias of Indo-Europeanists who think that pre-Indo-European languages are intrusive in the Iron Age Italy. In time this too will be completely discredited. In fact Etruscologists, even foreigners, did not accept the Beekes' attempt. It is a long speculation on the Lydians, given that the Lydians spoke an Indo-European language and the Etruscans did not, Beekes is forced to speculate on a hypothetical proto-Lydian non-IE population of which we know nothing and not attested archeologically and linguistically.

More recently, his co-author L. Bouke van der Meer, has accepted that Lemnos' inscriptions may have come with Etruscan colonists.

L. Bouke van der Meer (2015)

"As for Etruscan immigration(s) into Italy based on Herodotus and the non-Greek, Etruscoid Lemnian inscriptions, there is now evidence to the contrary: Etruscan pirates from Southern Etruria may have settled on Lemnos, around 700 BC or earlier and had been responsible for the inscriptions. Moreover, Carlo de Simone has definitely shown that Etruscan is not an Anatolian language. The Etruscan numerals, very characteristic elements of any language, do not have any parallels in Anatolian or other languages. In addition, there are no lexical _comparanda_ in Caucasian languages. The idea that the language families mentioned above have a common root (around 40,000 BC) is highly speculative. "

----------


## markod

> The alphabet in Italy was brought by the Euboean Greeks when they settled in Campania, southern Italy. So in Italy we only have inscriptions starting from 700 BC. Many centuries later the proto-Villanovan.
> 
> We can't know what were all the languages spoken in Italy before the spread of the alphabet, and above all it can not be excluded that many languages ​​(both IE and non IE) spoken in Italy are not documented by the inscriptions.
> 
> The oldest Etruscan inscription is considered one found in Tarquinia, in the north of Lazio (c. 700 BC). There are other inscriptions, not only Etruscans, that are still to be studied.
> 
> Anatolian languages ​​such as the Luvian are already attested before the spread of the Euboean alphabet, and were written in two different writing systems, the _Cuneiform Luwian_ and the _Hieroglyphic Luwian_, never found in Italy.


Well, yeah. But then we're back to the awkward bilingualism in Proto-Villanovan descended cultures. This is a possibility of course, but I much favor Pallottino's outline.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> Well, yeah. But then we're back to the awkward bilingualism in Proto-Villanovan descended cultures. This is a possibility of course, but I much favor Pallottino's outline.


 Bilingualism in Proto-Villanovan descended cultures is indeed possible. I would say that it is almost certain, and not only with regard to the Etruscans, pre-Indo-European languages ​​have been spoken everywhere in Italy before the arrival of groups that spoke IE languages, which in many cases also had different origins. 

It is clearly a complex matter, but if we assume that the Etruscan language arrives in Italy from the east recently, then the same thing will be true for the Rhaetian language, or even the Camunic language. But it is really unlikely that there were no pre-Indo-European languages ​​in Italy.

Look at the Spanish and even Southern French situation, none of these languages is thought to be Indo-European.

- Vasconic languages
- Proto-Basque
- Aquitanian language
- Iberian language
- Tartessian language

----------


## markod

> Bilingualism in Proto-Villanovan descended cultures is indeed possible. I would say that it is almost certain, and not only with regard to the Etruscans, pre-Indo-European languages ​​have been spoken everywhere in Italy before the arrival of groups that spoke IE languages, which in many cases also had different origins. 
> 
> It is clearly a complex matter, but if we assume that the Etruscan language arrives in Italy from the east recently, then the same thing will be true for the Rhaetian language, or even the Camunic language. But it is really unlikely that there were no pre-Indo-European languages ​​in Italy.
> 
> Look at the Spanish and even Southern French situation, none of these languages is thought to be Indo-European.
> 
> - Vasconic languages
> - Proto-Basque
> - Aquitanian language
> ...


My main gripe with this would be that Proto-Villanova and its descendants bear all the hallmarks of a northern immigrant culture - it's quite clearly an Urnfield culture. Even in the Iron Age at the opposing ends of the horizon you'll see stunning similarities between, say, Polish Pomeranian culture and Etruscan material culture. Taken together, the evidence makes me doubt that Etruscan is deeply indigenous in Italy. Keep in mind also that Rhaetic was likely spoken as far north as Bavaria.

But as you said it is very complex, and with language shifts you can never be quite sure which way it went.

----------


## Tutkun Arnaut

> I think it's more likely that Etruscans moved to Italy from Aegean. Found this on Anthrogenica:
> 
> (The Origin of the Etruscans; 2003):
> 
> "For the explanation Briquel sees (79 n. 273) three possibilities: (i) a movement from the West to the East; (2) a movement from the East to the West; (3) both peoples are remains of a general non-Indo-European substratum. 
> The first theory was recently defended by De Simone (1996), but this was generally rejected (Steinbauer 1999 shows that it is linguistically impossible; cf. also Beekes 2001). This is also clear from the following consideration. A glance at the map(in this article) shows that the eastern Tyrsênoi are the remnant of a population that tried to survive at the fringes of the mainland and on the islands. This is further confirmed by the fact that these people disappear without trace. Mostly they are mentioned just once, and often it is only stated that they once lived (past tense) there. Why would the Etruscans from Italy have come to these places? One might suggest for trade, but there is not the slightest evidence for trading activities of these eastern settlements; they are never mentioned as (active) trading posts; in any case we would have to assume that this trade became a failure. (Let alone the question whether the Greeks would have tolerated them in their country.) Also, the archaeologist Beschi objected that there is no sign that there were Etruscans (from Italy) on Lemnos. Would Etruscans have settled in all these places? And all these places are found in one contiguous area, which seems unlikely if it concerns trading posts. [See also App. iii.]"


All this fuss comes from a lie a Greek historian told long ago. Greek historians were caught lying many times during antiquity, and one of many lies they told were the origin of Etruscans. There was no way for Etruscans to travel that far with so many people at that time. They are local people who got in touch with Greek culture somewhere in Sicily

----------


## bicicleur

> The movements of the Turks that imposed their language everywhere are archaeologically attested, and we know even when they arrived. There is no analogy. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are no traces of invasion. Again. The Latins descend from the Latial Culture which in turn descends from the Proto-Villanovan culture. Villanovan is instead the early period of the Etruscan civilization. Even artistically, the first Etruscan period is characterized by biconical urns more connected to the Proto-Villanovan phenomenon. Proto-Villanovan is a culture that left traces in many places in Italy, even in southern Italy and in Sicily and which spread the incinerating ritual.


furthermore, if I'm not mistaken, proto-villanovan were urnfield people who were clearly IE

----------


## brick

Herodotus: Father of History, Father of Lies.

----------


## Angela

> I think the Etruscans were an elite who became very wealthy trough trade and mining.
> They lived in fortified places in order to defend their wealth.
> Maybe they adopted some local language to differentiate themselves from the common people, who probably were IE in northern Italy by that time.


Why is their "arrival" invisible in the archaeology, though, Bicicleur? As Markod points out, what about the Rhaetians, who were up in the eastern Alps? Maybe we're looking in the wrong place and too late?

We know the mtDna of the Etruscans in general terms, and it's basically unremarkable Neolithic farmer and WHG, and the closest similar mix is, what? Southern Germany? So, maybe the mtDna is "Villanovan". 

We'd have a much clearer understanding if we knew the yDna of the elite burial samples. Let's assume, for the moment, that it turns out to be some form of R1b. Then, game over? Some "Indo-Europeans" from central Europe adopted a "local" language. The intrusion was from the northeast, thus explaining the Rhaetians. 

What if the elites turn out to have J2a? How will we know whether it is from a specific migration to Tuscany in the first millennium BC a la Herodotus, or if it's a gradual filtering northward of J2a which had been in the south since the late Neolithic and Bronze Age? (Yes, according to the abstract of the Paabo/Reich upcoming paper, it could be late Neolithic. This shouldn't be a surprise as some clades of J2a were in the Balkans in the late Neolithic.) I've always leaned a little more in that direction because the logistics of the former seemed very difficult, and because if it was that recent, there would be a clearer oral memory of it.




> Markod: I'd read his outline of the Italian LBA/IA a while ago, and it seems to me that it's by far the most convincing description of what happened in the pre-historic period. In Lazio we see Latial culture coming from the north (formerly know as 'Southern Villanovan') and imposing itself on the local Apennine stratum which led to the development of the earliest layers of urban civilisation there. Later with the introduction of iron, the Italic Fossa culture comes from the hills further south and overtakes the proto-urban sites in the flatlands. This way we may avoid the mental gymnastics often performed with the Villanovan culture construed to have been bilingual and introducing both Italic and Etruscan or something 
> 
> Interestingly that could mean that the earliest conglomeration of settlements that were to become Rome could intially have been Etruscan.


I'm not sure I understand all of this, Markod. So, which group would be the "Etruscans"?

To the Board: enough with this Herodotus was a liar stuff. "Historians" of the era didn't have our resources. They recounted "myths" or rumors, or oral tradition. Period.

----------


## brick

> To the Board: enough with this Herodotus was a liar stuff. "Historians" of the era didn't have our resources. They recounted "myths" or rumors, or oral tradition. Period.


This "Herodotus was a liar stuff" is taken seriously by scholars. The notorious '_father of lies_' label comes from Plutarch.

Plutarch’s “On the Malice of Herodotus”

"To be sure Plutarch was not the first to question the veracity of Herodotus. The accuracy of the works of Herodotus had been controversial since his own era. Duris of Samos, Aristotle, Cicero, Josephus, and Harpocration, among others, had commented upon this."

https://kosmossociety.chs.harvard.edu/?p=21288


Evans, J. (1968). Father of History or Father of Lies; The Reputation of Herodotus. _The Classical Journal,_ _64_(1), 11-17. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3296527

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/329...n_tab_contents


Herodotus:Father of History, Father of Lies_, By David Pipes_

http://people.loyno.edu/~history/jou...98-9/Pipes.htm


Was Herodotus the 'Father of History' or the 'Father of Lies'?

https://www.academia.edu/19872880/Was_Herodotus_the_Father_of_History_or_the_Father_ of_Lies



 *Herodotus: From Father of History to Father of Lies*
*The Truth About The Great Pyramid*
*By: Jarett Fields and Dr. William Rogers*

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc...=rep1&type=pdf.

----------


## Angela

> This "Herodotus was a liar stuff" is taken seriously by scholars. The notorious '_father of lies_' label comes from Plutarch.
> 
> Plutarch’s “On the Malice of Herodotus”
> 
> "To be sure Plutarch was not the first to question the veracity of Herodotus. The accuracy of the works of Herodotus had been controversial since his own era. Duris of Samos, Aristotle, Cicero, Josephus, and Harpocration, among others, had commented upon this."
> 
> https://kosmossociety.chs.harvard.edu/?p=21288
> 
> 
> ...


I know. It's still stupid.

----------


## brick

> I know. It's still stupid.


So Plutarch was stupid.

----------


## Angela

> Why is their "arrival" invisible in the archaeology, though, Bicicleur? As Markod points out, what about the Rhaetians, who were up in the eastern Alps? Maybe we're looking in the wrong place and too late?
> 
> We know the mtDna of the Etruscans in general terms, and it's basically unremarkable Neolithic farmer and WHG, and the closest similar mix is, what? Southern Germany? So, maybe the mtDna is "Villanovan". 
> 
> We'd have a much clearer understanding if we knew the yDna of the elite burial samples. Let's assume, for the moment, that it turns out to be some form of R1b. Then, game over? Some "Indo-Europeans" from central Europe adopted a "local" language. The intrusion was from the northeast, thus explaining the Rhaetians. 
> 
> What if the elites turn out to have J2a? How will we know whether it is from a specific migration to Tuscany in the first millennium BC a la Herodotus, or if it's a gradual filtering northward of J2a which had been in the south since the late Neolithic and Bronze Age? (Yes, according to the abstract of the Paabo/Reich upcoming paper, it could be late Neolithic. This shouldn't be a surprise as some clades of J2a were in the Balkans in the late Neolithic.) I've always leaned a little more in that direction because the logistics of the former seemed very difficult, and because if it was that recent, there would be a clearer oral memory of it.
> 
> 
> ...


Another thought: What if they carried J2a or J2b, but it came with IE speaking people from the Balkans who adopted the local language?

Why do I think even ancient dna might not solve this?

Fwiw and not to de-rail this thread, I don't think it's a done deal that even the Balkan specific J2b is an originally "steppe" lineage. It's just as likely, imo, that it was picked up in the more eastern Neolithic settlements and spread from there, or even just got absorbed further south as well. Anything showing up in the Armenia would be just about the time for an arrival of the Phrygians and the Armenian language from the Balkans. Until we find J2b on the steppe it's by no means certain, as I said, that it's an "original" steppe lineage.

----------


## Sile

> The movements of the Turks that imposed their language everywhere are archaeologically attested, and we know even when they arrived. There is no analogy. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are no traces of invasion. Again. The Latins descend from the Latial Culture which in turn descends from the Proto-Villanovan culture. Villanovan is instead the early period of the Etruscan civilization. Even artistically, the first Etruscan period is characterized by biconical urns more connected to the Proto-Villanovan phenomenon. Proto-Villanovan is a culture that left traces in many places in Italy, even in southern Italy and in Sicily and which spread the incinerating ritual.


Why do you have Atestine culture ( este culture) as part of proto-villanova ?, .....when Villanova culture was never north of the Po river....and ...Polada culture seems to have been the main culture north of the Po river

----------


## Sile

> My main gripe with this would be that Proto-Villanova and its descendants bear all the hallmarks of a northern immigrant culture - it's quite clearly an Urnfield culture. Even in the Iron Age at the opposing ends of the horizon you'll see stunning similarities between, say, Polish Pomeranian culture and Etruscan material culture. Taken together, the evidence makes me doubt that Etruscan is deeply indigenous in Italy. Keep in mind also that Rhaetic was likely spoken as far north as Bavaria.
> But as you said it is very complex, and with language shifts you can never be quite sure which way it went.


one theory is that the etruscans came into Italy from north of the alps with the umbrians and could be a sub-branch of the umbrians...plus...mixing with a people whose lands where once connected, that is , Sardinia, Corsica and tuscany.
of the ancient texts, of etruscan, rhaetian and venetic.....rhaetian is the youngest

----------


## Sile

> This "Herodotus was a liar stuff" is taken seriously by scholars. The notorious '_father of lies_' label comes from Plutarch.
> Plutarch’s “On the Malice of Herodotus”
> "To be sure Plutarch was not the first to question the veracity of Herodotus. The accuracy of the works of Herodotus had been controversial since his own era. Duris of Samos, Aristotle, Cicero, Josephus, and Harpocration, among others, had commented upon this."
> https://kosmossociety.chs.harvard.edu/?p=21288
> Evans, J. (1968). Father of History or Father of Lies; The Reputation of Herodotus. _The Classical Journal,_ _64_(1), 11-17. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3296527
> https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/329...n_tab_contents
> Herodotus:Father of History, Father of Lies_, By David Pipes_
> http://people.loyno.edu/~history/jou...98-9/Pipes.htm
> Was Herodotus the 'Father of History' or the 'Father of Lies'?
> ...


Its like tacitus about Germanic people .............he never went there and relied on others bardic stories from travellers ..............same with Jordanes ( the goth ) and his fabricated, plagiarism of others or
even the historians who labeled the 14 epirote tribes as illyrian just to make them not Greek

----------


## markod

> I'm not sure I understand all of this, Markod. So, which group would be the "Etruscans"?
> 
> To the Board: enough with this Herodotus was a liar stuff. "Historians" of the era didn't have our resources. They recounted "myths" or rumors, or oral tradition. Period.


In Pallottino's view the Etruscans are descendants of the Villanovans from the Po Valley, altough he left open the possibility that the ancestors of both the Rhaetians and the Etruscans might have come from the east at an earlier point. 

I do not want to come out too strongly against any particular hypothesis before we have solid evidence, but it is exceedingly unlikely that Villannovan and its southern off-shoot the Latial culture were responsible for the introduction of Italic languages. The Latial culture consisted of fortified settlements which were mostly erected on easily defensible plateaus - it wasn't an expansive culture, and we know from numerous examples that defensive agricultural & mercantile cultures like it usually didn't have the clout to impose their language on others. I would say that it is close to impossible that the Latials could have effected this:




My only point of contention with Pallottino's work would be the fact that since he was of the pots not people school he concluded that the Latials might have simply been local populations who assimilated into Villannovan material culture. Later he describes the cessation of Villannovan burial rite in Lazio as a result of the influence from the pastoral Fossa culture of the anti-Apennines in northern Campania. Throughout all of these processes, he simply calls the inhabitants of southern Lazio 'Latins'.

If we apply our present knowledge to the picture that emerges from archaeology I'd think it's more likely that the early Latial settlements were in fact founded Villanovan immigrants who supplanted the relatively primitive herders of the flatlands. Their settlements were fortified because the pastoralists of the surrounding hills likely weren't averse to raiding considering how much more sophisticated the Villanovans were than anything that preceded them in mainland Italy. When at the beginning of the Iron Age Villanovan burial rites are abandoned in favor of the inhumation rites typical of Apenninic pastoralist communities, it wasn't because the Villanovans sought to imitate the culture of the herdsmen but because they were conquered.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> In Pallottino's view the Etruscans are descendants of the Villanovans from the Po Valley, altough he left open the possibility that the ancestors of both the Rhaetians and the Etruscans might have come from the east at an earlier point. 
> 
> I do not want to come out too strongly against any particular hypothesis before we have solid evidence, but it is exceedingly unlikely that Villannovan and its southern off-shoot the Latial culture were responsible for the introduction of Italic languages. The Latial culture consisted of fortified settlements which were mostly erected on easily defensible plateaus - it wasn't an expansive culture, and we know from numerous examples that defensive agricultural & mercantile cultures like it usually didn't have the clout to impose their language on others. I would say that it is close to impossible that the Latials could have effected this:.



Italic languages are divided into two branches: Western and Eastern Italic branches. Latin and Faliscan belong to the Western branch (also Venetic and Sicel are sometimes included in this branch), while all the other Italic languages belong to the Eastern branch (Oscan-Umbrian), and Italian scholars are suggesting Eastern Italic branches are derived from a different migration, with Umbrians who could have an initial component called paleo-Umbrian in common with the Western Branch but which was completely assimilated by the newcomers ("Safin") who brought to Italy the Eastern Italian languages. 





> My only point of contention with Pallottino's work would be the fact that since he was of the pots not people school he concluded that the Latials might have simply been local populations who assimilated into Villannovan material culture. Later he describes the cessation of Villannovan burial rite in Lazio as a result of the influence from the pastoral Fossa culture of the anti-Apennines in northern Campania. Throughout all of these processes, he simply calls the inhabitants of southern Lazio 'Latins'.
> 
> If we apply our present knowledge to the picture that emerges from archaeology I'd think it's more likely that the early Latial settlements were in fact founded Villanovan immigrants who supplanted the relatively primitive herders of the flatlands. Their settlements were fortified because the pastoralists of the surrounding hills likely weren't averse to raiding considering how much more sophisticated the Villanovans were than anything that preceded them in mainland Italy. When at the beginning of the Iron Age Villanovan burial rites are abandoned in favor of the inhumation rites typical of Apenninic pastoralist communities, it wasn't because the Villanovans sought to imitate the culture of the herdsmen but because they were conquered.



Conquered by whom? Ghosts? All your picture is discredited by archaeologists. Latial settlements were not founded by Villanovan immigrants. Inhumation rite isn't only typical of Apenninic pastoralist communities, inhumation is the most typical funerary rite of the Eastern Italic peoples.

The spread of inhumation among the Etruscans started in the very south of Etruria, where there were borders with the Eastern Italic populations. For a long time in Etruria, particularly in northern Etruria, Etruscans continued to practice both incineration and inhumation.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> The Etruscans just sort of seem to be there in the first millennium BC: there are no signs of destruction, of intrusive settlements or architecture in Tuscany. The later developments might be the result of intensive contact with the east, i.e. the "Orientalizing period", through trade. Other peoples scramble to come up with an "identity" for them, with the two most famous myths about them being that 1) they came from somewhere in Anatolia, 2) they were indigenous to Italy. Had they left more copious writings that we could interpret perhaps they could have provided some insight, but they didn't.
> 
> It's possible it was an elite migration specifically to what is now Tuscany, but if so it's a very strange one. Perhaps it is instead a case of the filtering northward from Southern Italy of more heavily CHG/Iran Neo people from the Aegean bringing metallurgy with them? 
> 
> I don't know. We'll have to see what the ancient dna tells us.


Indeed, there are no signs of destruction, of intrusive settlements or architecture in Tuscany. It is also necessary to clarify Etruria does not coincide with modern Tuscany, but included all of western Umbria as far as Perugia the regional modern capital, and more than half of Lazio up to the northern bank of the Tiber, which is now in the historic center of Rome. Rome was built a few meters from the border with Etruria. The Falisci and Capenates also lived within the Etruscan borders, they participated in the meetings of the "Etruscan peoples" at the Fanum Voltumnae although they spoke two Indo-European languages. The Fanum Voltumnae, which was located either in Umbria or in northern Lazio (archaeologists think it was at the foot of Orvieto in Umbria that is located about 350 meters above sea level) was the most important place in the Etruscan nation and the Etruscan peoples. Moreover, today archaeologists such as Sassatelli who teaches in Bologna are saying that there is no evidence of an Etruscan colonization of the Emilian area, but that Bologna was always Etruscan since the times of Villanova and that what is considered the foundation of Bologna is nothing more than the beginning of the phase of urbanization that comes later than southern Etruria. Here too, the matter is by no means closed.

I don't think DNA testing can be the definitive answer, because burials belong to the elite anyway (and inhumation). Obviously no one today in 2018 believes that "Orientalizing period" can indicate some ethnic origin, being a cultural phenomenon that also spread among non-Etruscans, also among Greeks, Veneti, Italics, Piceni and many others. During this period there were undoubtedly also movements of small artisans and artists, as well as merchants. But these were foreigners who perhaps in some cases were also assimilated.











> My main gripe with this would be that Proto-Villanova and its descendants bear all the hallmarks of a northern immigrant culture - it's quite clearly an Urnfield culture. Even in the Iron Age at the opposing ends of the horizon you'll see stunning similarities between, say, Polish Pomeranian culture and Etruscan material culture. Taken together, the evidence makes me doubt that Etruscan is deeply indigenous in Italy. Keep in mind also that Rhaetic was likely spoken as far north as Bavaria.
> 
> But as you said it is very complex, and with language shifts you can never be quite sure which way it went.


In fact it cannot be ruled out that the language comes from the Alps, where they could still exist between the end of the Bronze Age and the beginning of the Iron Age survivors of pre-Indo-European languages. Obviously the equation language = ethnos = DNA is much more complex than it appears in these discussions in the forums. Even the Rhaetian peoples (who are identified with the culture of Fritzens-Sanzeno in the middle Iron Age) first had contacts with Urnfield cultures. 

The arrival of these pre-Indo-European populations from the Alps is possible to have happened during the culture of Terramare.

Frattesina in Veneto could be the key. Certainly the formation of ethnos, in a cultural sense, could be due to the contacts with the eastern Mediterranean sea documented in Frattesina, which could have been one of the causes of the regionalization of the proto-Villanovan.

If it is true what various archaeologists claim, including Jung, that from the late the Bronze Age there were movements from Italy to the east (Greece, Aegean Sea and Levant), the picture could be really complex, much more complex than we think.





> furthermore, if I'm not mistaken, proto-villanovan were urnfield people who were clearly IE


Yes, almost certainly, as they almost certainly mixed with the previous inhabitants.





> What if the elites turn out to have J2a? How will we know whether it is from a specific migration to Tuscany in the first millennium BC a la Herodotus, or if it's a gradual filtering northward of J2a which had been in the south since the late Neolithic and Bronze Age? (Yes, according to the abstract of the Paabo/Reich upcoming paper, it could be late Neolithic. This shouldn't be a surprise as some clades of J2a were in the Balkans in the late Neolithic.) I've always leaned a little more in that direction because the logistics of the former seemed very difficult, and because if it was that recent, there would be a clearer oral memory of it.


Of course, it is possible that some Etruscans were J2a, but what should J2a prove? J2a is much more common in Italy where the Etruscans never settled down to begin with, and there were also foreigners in the elite, Lucius Tarquinius Priscus was of Greek origin, for example.
 

"J2 sample was found, in the Sopot and Proto-Lengyel cultures in Hungary, dating from 7,000 years ago."

"one J2a1b sample in Hungary dating from the end of the Bronze Age (c. 1150 BCE, see Gamba et al. 2014), in the minor Kyjatice culture, an offshoot of the Urnfield culture, which differs from typical Indo-European cultures by its use of cremation instead of single-grave burials."

----------


## markod

> Italic languages are divided into two branches: Western and Eastern Italic branches. Latin and Faliscan belong to the Western branch (also Venetic and Sicel are sometimes included in this branch), while all the other Italic languages belong to the Eastern branch (Oscan-Umbrian), and Italian scholars are suggesting Eastern Italic branches are derived from a different migration, with Umbrians who could have an initial component called paleo-Umbrian in common with the Western Branch but which was completely assimilated by the newcomers ("Safin") who brought to Italy the Eastern Italian languages.


Impossible, the split within Italic isn't deep and scholars do not consider Venetic to be within the Italic branch. There were usually no other migrations into Italy at the time.




> Conquered by whom? Ghosts? All your picture is discredited by archaeologists. Latial settlements were not founded by Villanovan immigrants. Inhumation rite isn't only typical of Apenninic pastoralist communities, inhumation is the most typical funerary rite of the Eastern Italic peoples.
> 
> The spread of inhumation among the Etruscans started in the very south of Etruria, where there were borders with the Eastern Italic populations. For a long time in Etruria, particularly in northern Etruria, Etruscans continued to practice both incineration and inhumation.


Pastoralists from the Apennines. Villannova and Latial (hence formerly Southern Villanova) are clearly Urnfield cultures. They are intrusive. Latial culture is much more similar to Pomeranian culture of Poland than it is to the inhuming Apeninne culture it neighbours on. Migrations are responsible for this stark difference.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> Impossible, the split within Italic isn't deep and scholars do not consider Venetic to be within the Italic branch. There were usually no other migrations into Italy at the time.


Impossible? I suppose you're Italian, and I can suggest you some further reading then.

Augusto Ancillotti - Romolo Cerri, Le Tavole di Gubbio e la civiltà degli antichi Umbri, 1996





> Pastoralists from the Apennines. Villannova and Latial (hence formerly Southern Villanova) are clearly Urnfield cultures. They are intrusive. Latial culture is much more similar to Pomeranian culture of Poland than it is to the inhuming Apeninne culture it neighbours on. Migrations are responsible for this stark difference.


So what?

----------


## markod

> Impossible? I suppose you're Italian, and I can suggest you some further reading then.
> 
> Augusto Ancillotti - Romolo Cerri, Le Tavole di Gubbio e la civiltà degli antichi Umbri, 1996


Under the temporal constraints of a Chalcolithic spread of IE it would be impossible. Where and when do you see a unified Proto-Italic?





> So what?


I mean it strikes me as absurd that the Latino-Faliscans would have come from Central Europe some time after Italy was already completely Italicized by Osco-Umbrians. They constitute a single genetic group for a reason.

Look at the Celtic languages which show evidence of deeper divisions. Yet they were unified still in the Iron Age Hallstatt culture.

----------


## A. Papadimitriou

> This "Herodotus was a liar stuff" is taken seriously by scholars. The notorious '_father of lies_' label comes from Plutarch.


There in no lie in his Histories, that is no stories made up by him. Of course there are scholars who have supported that but that doesn't mean it is correct.

There may be many false stories that he had heard, of course.

Read that for example. The author is Korean and imo that is important because in the 'West' the so called 'French school', 'deconstructionism' etc. has caused much harm.
https://www.academia.edu/10885180/HE...D_SIGNIFICANCE

Of course, his isn't objective. He even makes fun of Ionian Greeks in one case. The real lie is that he was just a 'story-teller' though.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> Under the temporal constraints of a Chalcolithic spread of IE it would be impossible. Where and when do you see a unified Proto-Italic?
> I mean it strikes me as absurd that the Latino-Faliscans would have come from Central Europe some time after Italy was already completely Italicized by Osco-Umbrians. They constitute a single genetic group for a reason.


There is no evidence that they constituted a single genetic group, as there is no evidence that the Osco-Umbrians arrived before the Latino-Faliscans. Of course, they will not have been very dissimilar in origin, as there is no doubt that by mixing with each other at some point they will all become very similar. 

However there are many books on the subject, the division of the Italic languages ​​into two distinct branches was certainly not invented by myself. To be more precise, there are also scholars who claim that Osco-Umbrian languages ​​are only those that can be defined as Italic.





> ‘Western Italic’, within which Latin, Faliscan and Venetic must be included;‘Eastern Italic’, commonly referred to as ‘Osco-Umbrian’, within which Umbrian, Oscan, Sabine, South Picene and other minor dialects are included.



Source: http://mnamon.sns.it/index.php?page=...&id=58&lang=en

----------


## markod

> There is no evidence that they constituted a single genetic group, as there is no evidence that the Osco-Umbrians arrived before the Latino-Faliscans. Of course, they will not have been very dissimilar in origin, as there is no doubt that by mixing with each other at some point they will all become very similar. 
> 
> However there are many books on the subject, the division of the Italic languages ​​into two distinct branches was certainly not invented by myself. To be more precise, there are also scholars who claim that Osco-Umbrian languages ​​are only those that can be defined as italic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Source: http://mnamon.sns.it/index.php?page=...&id=58&lang=en


Afaik that's Poultney's tree from around 1950 - it's not commonly accepted, and almost certainly wrong. The attestations of Venetic show that it shares features with Celtic not shared by either Italic branch.

A divison of Italic in Latino-Faliscan and Osco-Umbrian is of course commonly accepted. But that they do constiute a genetic group and were unified at some point is the general view. The unity may have been short-lived and we don't really know what happened in Bronze Age Italy. There's not really much going on when it comes to archaeology south of the Po valley other than those relatively poor herding communities. I think geology might be the reason.

----------


## Cato

Cremation spread in Italy after the Terramare diaspora, so an Urnfield invasion is not necessary..except at Canegrate and Sud Tirolo

Metallurgy is similar to Urnfield because after the collapse of the Mycenenan civilizarion Central Europe become the most important metallurgical center

Utilizzando Tapatalk

----------


## markod

> Cremation spread in Italy after the Terramare diaspora, so an Urnfield invasion is not necessary..except at Canegrate and Sud Tirolo
> 
> Metallurgy is similar to Urnfield because after the collapse of the Mycenenan civilizarion Central Europe become the most important metallurgical center
> 
> Utilizzando Tapatalk


Terramare is interesting. In Emilia-Romagna it existed for some time side by side with the northernmost Apennine culture off-shoots. Identical pile dwellings exist in Germany, Austria and Switzerland.

----------


## Cato

> Terramare is interesting. In Emilia-Romagna it existed for some time side by side with the northernmost Apennine culture off-shoots. Identical pile dwellings exist in Germany, Austria and Switzerland.


Terramare was a mix of Polada (pile dwellers) and a new Pannonian element who apparently brought cremation
..they were clearly Indoeuropeans 
Utilizzando Tapatalk

----------


## markod

> Terramare was a mix of Polada (pile dwellers) and a new Pannonian element who apparently brought cremation
> ..they were clearly Indoeuropeans 
> Utilizzando Tapatalk


I'm not so sure about this association. Cremation was practiced by Neolithic farmers in Germany millennia before the metal age migrations.

It's the Apennine culture that most clearly shows the Carpathian influence, namely from Wietenberg and Ottomani.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> I'm not so sure about this association. Cremation was practiced by Neolithic farmers in Germany millennia before the metal age migrations.
> 
> It's the Apennine culture that most clearly shows the Carpathian influence, namely from Wietenberg and Ottomani.


I do not agree with both of you because you draw too many conclusions, but if you are implying that the Apennine culture is also exclusively Indo-European we will be faced with the paradox that according to you Italy receives almost only Indo-European migrations and then almost no modern Italian ends up in the Central European cluster.

----------


## markod

> I do not agree with both of you because you draw too many conclusions, but if you are implying that the Apennine culture is also exclusively Indo-European we will be faced with the paradox that according to you Italy receives almost only Indo-European migrations and then almost no modern Italian ends up in the Central European cluster.


I generally try to draw as few conclusions as possible, hence my agreement with Pallottino's outline and my refusal to see in the Villanovans early Italics. For similar reasons I would not consider the completely unwarlike and conservative Terramare culture that never expands much beyond the Po valley in the question of Italic origins, although many have done so because the general direction 'fits'. In most writings about Indo-European origins those things are never looked at on a case to case basis because it would lead to difficulties concerning the greater narrative. It's almost pseudoscientific. There are exceptions to this like Drews but he never wrote about Italy so there's that.

You're right to point out that it doesn't seem to make sense when it comes to autosomal genetics. The Y-DNA haplogroup situation is even more confusing. And there's not only Italic to account for but also Messapian and the more enigmatic and definitely Indo-European Elymian in Sicily. I don't really have an explanation for it.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> I generally try to draw as few conclusions as possible, hence my agreement with Pallottino's outline and my refusal to see in the Villanovans early Italics.


Villanovans are the early Etruscans, how can they be the early Italics? There are also internationally renowned scholars who have confused the Villanovans with the proto-Villanovans but this does not change the heart of the matter, it remains a mistake. 




> For similar reasons I would not consider the completely unwarlike and conservative Terramare culture that never expands much beyond the Po valley in the question of Italic origins, although many have done so because the general direction 'fits'. In most writings about Indo-European origins those things are never looked at on a case to case basis because it would lead to difficulties concerning the greater narrative. It's almost pseudoscientific. There are exceptions to this like Drews but he never wrote about Italy so there's that.


There are outgoing studies on the Terramare, as there have been recent archaeological essays even if highly speculative. A type of speculation you do not expect from archeology.

----------


## markod

> Villanovans are the early Etruscans, how can they be the early Italics? There are also internationally renowned scholars who have confused the Villanovans with the proto-Villanovans but this does not change the heart of the matter, it remains a mistake.


Villanova and Latial (southern Villanovan) are the same material culture - the southern extent of the former was renamed to Latial culture because that's where Rome would be founded. We have no extant inscriptions until hundreds of years after their inception so we don't really know the identity of either, we can only speculate/weigh the evidence.

If you want to be precise they are just Urnfielders who happened to be in Italy.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> Villanova and Latial (southern Villanovan) are the same material culture - the southern extent of the former was renamed to Latial culture because that's where Rome would be founded. We have no extant inscriptions until hundreds of years after their inception so we don't really know the identity of either, we can only speculate/weigh the evidence.
> 
> If you want to be precise they are just Urnfielders who happened to be in Italy.


Villanovan and Latial culture share many aspects of material culture because they both descend from the Proto-Villanovan. You're stating the obvious. Rome isn't even considered the centre of the Latial culture, because it's quite obvious that Rome wasn't founded by Latins only.

Villanovan and Protovillanovan have the same name simply because the Villanovan was the first to be discovered by archaeologists (near Bologna to be precise). For the same reason in the past even the Urnfielders of Lombardy were labelled as Villanovan.

----------


## bicicleur

> Why is their "arrival" invisible in the archaeology, though, Bicicleur? As Markod points out, what about the Rhaetians, who were up in the eastern Alps? Maybe we're looking in the wrong place and too late?


the arrival is not visible in archeology neither visible in the DNA despite several attempts to find a remnant of their specific DNA in Tuscany or vicinity

therefore I don't think there was an arrival

----------


## Saetrus

> the arrival is not visible in archeology neither visible in the DNA despite several attempts to find a remnant of their specific DNA in Tuscany or vicinity
> 
> therefore I don't think there was an arrival


How are they invisible? Etruscans are clearly a Bell Beaker derived R1b people who adapted to local languages like Vasconics and Iberians. 





Should be easy enough to confirm when the Etruscan samples all turn out R1b. Too bad Italy is a post-apocalyptic war zone and it's impossible to get aDNA from it.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> How are they invisible? Etruscans are clearly a Bell Beaker derived R1b people who adapted to local languages like Vasconics and Iberians.


bicicleur is referring to a recent arrival from east, that is not visible.





> Should be easy enough to confirm when the Etruscan samples all turn out R1b. Too bad Italy is a post-apocalyptic war zone and it's impossible to get aDNA from it.



The Etruscans may have R1b indeed but that all Etruscans were R1b is improbable.

However, the discussion is not about the Etruscans who have little to do with the conclusions of this study.

----------


## bicicleur

> bicicleur is referring to a recent arrival from east, that is not visible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Etruscans may have R1b indeed but that all Etruscans were R1b is improbable.
> 
> However, the discussion is not about the Etruscans who have little to do with the conclusions of this study.


I don't refer to an arrival for Etruscans, but I believe Proto-Villanovan were Urnfield entering Italy through the Veneto.
I also believe those Urnfield were the Italic spreaking tribes.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> I don't refer to an arrival for Etruscans, but I believe Proto-Villanovan were Urnfield entering Italy through the Veneto.
> I also believe those Urnfield were the Italic spreaking tribes.


That Proto-Villanovans were Urnfield entering Italy through NE Italy is also believed by archeologists (which is also the area where the Rhaetians were). That those Urnfield were the Italic speaking tribes is more complicated, due to a whole series of considerations that have not yet come to a definitive conclusion on the Italics, on the difference between Western and Eastern Italics, and to the fact that those properly Italic are considered by some scholars only the Osco-Umbrians who practiced mostly inhumation while the proto-Villanovans are incinerators.

Green and red is where incineration is dominant, yellow area is where inhumation is dominant.

----------


## Sile

> That Proto-Villanovans were Urnfield entering Italy through NE Italy is also believed by archeologists (which is also the area where the Rhaetians were). That those Urnfield were the Italic speaking tribes is more complicated, due to a whole series of considerations that have not yet come to a definitive conclusion on the Italics, on the difference between Western and Eastern Italics, and to the fact that those properly Italic are considered by some scholars only the Osco-Umbrians who practiced mostly inhumation while the proto-Villanovans are incinerators.
> Green and red is where incineration is dominant, yellow area is where inhumation is dominant.


read below for cremation in bronze and iron age veneto
https://journals.openedition.org/mefra/2503

----------


## Cato

Cremation in Veneto appeared in the Middle Bronze Age is not a new thing

Utilizzando Tapatalk

----------


## markod

> That Proto-Villanovans were Urnfield entering Italy through NE Italy is also believed by archeologists (which is also the area where the Rhaetians were). That those Urnfield were the Italic speaking tribes is more complicated, due to a whole series of considerations that have not yet come to a definitive conclusion on the Italics, on the difference between Western and Eastern Italics, and to the fact that those properly Italic are considered by some scholars only the Osco-Umbrians who practiced mostly inhumation while the proto-Villanovans are incinerators.
> 
> Green and red is where incineration is dominant, yellow area is where inhumation is dominant.


IIRC the Italian linguists who propound that the Latino-Faliscans arrived separately claim they did so from Anatolia via Apulia. Highly contentious to say the least. But I've never heard that they could have arrived as Urnfielders from Central Europe. Makes zero sense.

The Italian Urnfielders were either Proto-Italics who were partly conquered by a local or foreign Etruscan stratum, or they were Tyrsenians to begin with. Archaeological cultures don't just trifurcate into three different language families (Italic, Tyrsenian, Venetic) without conquest or major assimilation.

----------


## CrazyDonkey

Two possibilities:

1. The Etruscans were simply urbanized Villanovans.

2. The Etruscans colonized the Villanovans.

The problem is that there is nothing to distinguish the Latium tribes from the broader Villanovan culture.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> 2. The Etruscans colonized the Villanovans.


So the Etruscans colonized themselves, being that the Villanovans are the Etruscans. Villanovan is not the name of a people, it is the name of an Etruscan cultural facies.




> The problem is that there is nothing to distinguish the Latium tribes from the broader Villanovan culture.


Not true, archaeologically there are differentiations.

----------


## markod

> So the Etruscans colonized themselves, being that the Villanovans are the Etruscans. Villanovan is not the name of a people, it is the name of an Etruscan cultural facies.
> 
> 
> 
> Not true, archaeologically there are differentiations.


There is a window of about 200 years between the establishment of the archaeological culture and the first Etruscan inscriptions in which conquest, elite domination or the like might have occurred. I don't think it's likely but something like that seems to be the 'mainstream' view in English language scholarship at the time, see Mallory, Anthony before that Gimbutas etc. .

----------


## Pax Augusta

> There is a window of about 200 years between the establishment of the archaeological culture and the first Etruscan inscriptions in which conquest, elite domination or the like might have occurred. I don't think it's likely but something like that seems to be the 'mainstream' view in English language scholarship at the time, see Mallory, Anthony before that Gimbutas etc. .


The window may be due to the introduction of the alphabet. None of these scholars is a specialist and there are many English speaking scholars who do not support what you say.

----------


## markod

> The window may be due to the introduction of the alphabet. None of these scholars is a specialist and there are many English speaking scholars who do not support what you say.


I mean those scholars I mentioned have considerable influence in the field so it might not be a good idea to outright dismiss their opinions. Better to engage their arguments.

----------


## Angela

> There is a window of about 200 years between the establishment of the archaeological culture and the first Etruscan inscriptions in which conquest, elite domination or the like might have occurred. I don't think it's likely but something like that seems to be the 'mainstream' view in English language scholarship at the time, see Mallory, Anthony before that Gimbutas etc. .


That's the view of people studying the Indo-Europeans, not of archaeologists, certainly not of Etruscologists from any country, not, at least, since the mid-twentieth century. They may be wrong, of course. That's a separate matter.

As we've discussed, there's no sign of a conquest in the archaeological layers. A slow infiltration by an elite is possible, but when, from what direction?

People have been debating this since the classical era. The resolution may come from ancient dna, but even then it's going to have to be put in the context of ancient dna both north and south of the Etruscan area.

----------


## bicicleur

> That's the view of people studying the Indo-Europeans, not of archaeologists, certainly not of Etruscologists from any country, not, at least, since the mid-twentieth century. They may be wrong, of course. That's a separate matter.
> As we've discussed, there's no sign of a conquest in the archaeological layers. A slow infiltration by an elite is possible, but when, from what direction?
> People have been debating this since the classical era. The resolution may come from ancient dna, but even then it's going to have to be put in the context of ancient dna both north and south of the Etruscan area.


yes, but a slow infiltration would have left some genetic markers
which, despite efforts have not been detected yet

my guess is Estruscans are 'urbanised Villanovans', as CrazyDonkey puts it
in which case Villanovans would have been multilingual

Hittite empire and Urartu were multilingual too
in Urartu, Armenian language came into the written record, only after a dynastic switch

----------


## Angela

> yes, but a slow infiltration would have left some genetic markers
> which, despite efforts have not been detected yet
> 
> my guess is Estruscans are 'urbanised Villanovans', as CrazyDonkey puts it
> in which case Villanovans would have been multilingual
> 
> Hittite empire and Urartu were multilingual too
> in Urartu, Armenian language came into the written record, only after a dynastic switch


Well, we don't know their yDna, not even at low resolution. 

Let's say, for example, some J2 shows up. We would need the ydna of the "proto-Vilanovans" or "Villanovans" etc. Let's say they don't have any. Would that be it? I don't think so. We'd have to see if the same or related J2 shows up at the same time or earlier in southern Italy, which might mean it just filtered up over centuries or even a millennia.

We would also have to check across the Adriatic. Perhaps there was a movement into Italy in the mid-to-late Bronze, but it was by people from parts of Greece or the Balkans. 

It's much more complicated than amateurs have been proposing because they refused to accept that "additional" CHG/IN had been moving into southern Europe, and not just Italy, for a very long time. 

I wonder about E-V13 too. When did it arrive? Was it really only with Magna Graecia, or was it also in the Bronze Age?

I do agree there's nothing to say that some people intruding from the north or northeast might have adopted the language of the locals. The Basques did it, after all.

To get back to this paper, one of the conclusions which some people are losing sight of is that most of the "admixture", even the most recent ones, took place from within Italy, i.e. people from the south moving north. That basically stopped with the fall of the Roman Empire, which led to some drift. It has resumed, which will change Italian genetics once again. Even I have contributed to it. :)

----------


## bicicleur

> Well, we don't know their yDna, not even at low resolution. 
> 
> Let's say, for example, some J2 shows up. We would need the ydna of the "proto-Vilanovans" or "Villanovans" etc. Let's say they don't have any. Would that be it? I don't think so. We'd have to see if the same or related J2 shows up at the same time or earlier in southern Italy, which might mean it just filtered up over centuries or even a millennia.
> 
> We would also have to check across the Adriatic. Perhaps there was a movement into Italy in the mid-to-late Bronze, but it was by people from parts of Greece or the Balkans. 
> 
> It's much more complicated than amateurs have been proposing because they refused to accept that "additional" CHG/IN had been moving into southern Europe, and not just Italy, for a very long time. 
> 
> I wonder about E-V13 too. When did it arrive? Was it really only with Magna Graecia, or was it also in the Bronze Age?
> ...


what language would the people from the south, coming to northern Italy have spoken?
Semitic, Greek, something else?
Etruscan is not completely isolate, like Basque, but still it has very few relatives

----------


## markod

> yes, but a slow infiltration would have left some genetic markers
> which, despite efforts have not been detected yet
> 
> my guess is Estruscans are 'urbanised Villanovans', as CrazyDonkey puts it
> in which case Villanovans would have been multilingual
> 
> Hittite empire and Urartu were multilingual too
> in Urartu, Armenian language came into the written record, only after a dynastic switch


That doesn't leave much room for the Proto-Italics, however. Villanova culture wasn't very expansive - quite the opposite.

----------


## berun

Hum, you get the same paradox to find up Urnfield (Celts) in a region that afterwards is not Celtic? a similar casa happens in Catalonia with Iberian, the Urnfield deliver cremation in pots and new pots but... language was not Celtic either.

----------


## bicicleur

> Hum, you get the same paradox to find up Urnfield (Celts) in a region that afterwards is not Celtic? a similar casa happens in Catalonia with Iberian, the Urnfield deliver cremation in pots and new pots but... language was not Celtic either.


yes, many urnfields were Celts, but who says all urnfield people were Celts?
and after all, Celtic and Italic are related language groups

----------


## Angela

> what language would the people from the south, coming to northern Italy have spoken?
> Semitic, Greek, something else?
> Etruscan is not completely isolate, like Basque, but still it has very few relatives


Why would they be speaking a Semitic language? That smacks of the kind of thinking that used to think Minoans were descended from Egyptians. So far as I know, there is no archaeologically attested evidence of a movement from the Levant to Italy since the Neolithic. 

Etruscan is either a "native" language adopted by newer arrivals in one specific area, or it's a non-IE language from Anatolia, the Aegean, or somewhere on the Balkan peninsula. 

There's some fringe theories like the wacko one that ties it to Altaic, of all things, but basically there doesn't seem to be any close relative other than Rhaetic or Lemnian. 

Even if they find a link to some other language group it doesn't change the fact that the later comers arriving in Toscana and northern Lazio might have adopted the local language, as Indo-European males probably did in the Basque country, another area that is not particularly isolated in a geographic sense. I've always been intrigued by the fact that Etruscan culture gave women slightly more power and independence than either the Indo-European Latins or the Indo-European Greeks, or certainly than any of the pastoral Semitic groups in the Near East. Could the same be said of the Basques? Perhaps that has something to do with it? Perhaps these men, Indo-European and/or non-Indo-European, adopted the language of the women?

As for what people filtering into Italy from the east (Balkans) or southeast (Aegean and Anatolia) were speaking, it depends on the time period, yes? In the first millennium BC the Greek migrants to Magna Graecia and even to areas like the Veneto and Liguria where the Greeks had colonies, they would have been speaking Greek.

Likewise, if we go back into the late Bronze Age, Mycenaeans would have been speaking Greek. Their predecessors, Minoan like people, would have been speaking a Minoan tongue, yes?* People coming from the Balkans might have been speaking some less differentiated Indo-European variant, or, if they were being pushed out, some "farmer" language.

ED. That's also an unclassified and indecipherable language. It might be the "original" farmer language, or it might be the language of the migrants from Anatolia. It's impossible to say.

----------


## Sile

> what language would the people from the south, coming to northern Italy have spoken?
> Semitic, Greek, something else?
> Etruscan is not completely isolate, like Basque, but still it has very few relatives


If people believe italians entered Italy from the north-east then they are part of the Danubian culture
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danubian_culture

----------


## bicicleur

I associate Semitic with the expansion of bronze from Anatolia/Mesopotamia. Which IMO would be the first candidate if Etruscan wasn't native to Italy.
But my guess is, Etruscan was an old neolithic/chalcolithis local laguage, which was adopted by some incoming IE people, which as you suggested may also have happened in Basque.

----------


## Sile

> I associate Semitic with the expansion of bronze from Anatolia/Mesopotamia. Which IMO would be the first candidate if Etruscan wasn't native to Italy.
> But my guess is, Etruscan was an old neolithic/chalcolithis local laguage, which was adopted by some incoming IE people, which as you suggested may also have happened in Basque.


so would you believe this article/study then ?
http://www.federatio.org/mi_bibl/Tot...ner_Raetic.pdf

----------


## CrazyDonkey

> So the Etruscans colonized themselves, being that the Villanovans are the Etruscans. Villanovan is not the name of a people, it is the name of an Etruscan cultural facies.
> 
> 
> 
> Not true, archaeologically there are differentiations.


Which ones? They both practiced cremation, burying their dead in funerary "hut" urns, linking them to the Urnfield culture.

My point is that if the Etruscans did not colonize the Villanovans, then it was the Latial (Italite?) culture that was intrusive.

----------


## brick

I want to be in this trash-talking contest, too. The Etruscans were Slovenian!

"There is a genetic continuity between the ancient Etruscans and Veneti and the present day Slovenians."


http://www.theslovenian.com/articles/skulj.htm

----------


## Lenab

> so would you believe this article/study then ?
> http://www.federatio.org/mi_bibl/Tot...ner_Raetic.pdf


Mesopotamia yes after Babylon Anatolia no that's unlikely

----------


## davef

> I want to be in this trash-talking contest, too. The Etruscans were Slovenian!
> 
> "There is a genetic continuity between the ancient Etruscans and Veneti and the present day Slovenians."
> 
> 
> http://www.theslovenian.com/articles/skulj.htm


Is this a joke?

----------


## brick

> Is this a joke?


Does the theory that the Etruscan or the Rhaetic is Semitic seem more serious to you instead?

The Slovenian theory is a joke just like many other theories about Etruscans.

----------


## bicicleur

> so would you believe this article/study then ?
> http://www.federatio.org/mi_bibl/Tot...ner_Raetic.pdf


I don't know, it's a very long story to digest.

----------


## bicicleur

> Does the theory that the Etruscan or the Rhaetic is Semitic seem more serious to you instead?
> 
> The Slovenian theory is a joke just like many other theories about Etruscans.


I think you've misread something.

----------


## Angela

> I associate Semitic with the expansion of bronze from Anatolia/Mesopotamia. Which IMO would be the first candidate if Etruscan wasn't native to Italy.
> But my guess is, Etruscan was an old neolithic/chalcolithis local laguage, which was adopted by some incoming IE people, which as you suggested may also have happened in Basque.


So, you're proposing that the Anatolians, or the Aegean peoples, spoke Semitic? 

The genetic signal into Italy is additional "Caucasus". The cultural signal is Greek or Anatolian. The Semites have nothing to do with it. Etruscan, certainly, has nothing to do with Semitic.

All discussions about the Etruscans go round and round because we have no genetic data. When we get it we'll be able to discuss them more intelligently.

Perhaps it's best if we get back to what is in this actual paper.

----------


## Cato

Interesting...Beaker Sicily cluster with Sardinians (page 43), this is in line with archaeology...Beaker arrived in Sicily from there

Utilizzando Tapatalk

----------


## Saetrus

> How are they invisible? Etruscans are clearly a Bell Beaker derived R1b people who adapted to local languages like Vasconics and Iberians. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Should be easy enough to confirm when the Etruscan samples all turn out R1b.


And it's been confirmed by leaks of the upcoming ancient Italy paper:


Etruscans were R1b and Bell Beaker derived, Romans were like ancient Greeks and the other Balkan IEs.

----------


## davef

Now this is one study I'm looking forward to! The more samples from Greece and Rome the better! I see most of the Roman samples clustering with South Italians, islanders and Mycenaeans

Oh and I see some mainland Greeks in that cluster as well, hard to see at first though. When is this paper coming out?

----------


## markod

So it's exactly what one would expect considering the archaeological evidence. The position of the Romans relative to the Mycenaeans is interesting, as it indicates that the Proto-Italics either had higher Anatolian ancestry than the Proto-Greeks, or that they absorbed fewer natives than did the Greeks. I'm guessing it's #2.

----------


## Jovialis

> And it's been confirmed by leaks of the upcoming ancient Italy paper:
> 
> 
> Etruscans were R1b and Bell Beaker derived, Romans were like ancient Greeks and the other Balkan IEs.


Wow, this is incredible! I overlap with them. I would love to see these samples in an ancient calculator.

----------


## Jovialis

Interesting, I would be between those two. Mytrueancestry got it right with Hellenic Roman + Roman

----------


## markod

> Interesting, I would be between those two. Mytrueancestry got it right with Hellenic Roman + Roman


I think the guy just made that up. It would imply that the Roman majority was of Greek origin, which is completely untenable of course. Not to mention that the Romans have more Anatolian ancestry than the Myceneaens.

It's much more likely that those Romans who plotted between the Etruscans and the main Roman cluster had Etruscan ancestry.

----------


## Jovialis

> I think the guy just made that up. It would mean that the Roman majority was of Greek origin, which is completely untenable of course.


I agree, I think that could be the case.

At any rate, I'm really looking forward to seeing the source of the PCA when it comes out.

----------


## Jovialis

From what I see it looks like central and south Italians are Roman-like, and North Italians are more Etruscan-like.

----------


## davef

And like always, there will be people in other forums/blogs who will complain and say "this pca is wrong"

----------


## Salento

Delete ....

----------


## Cato

according to the other leak Latium was still EEF in 1700 bc so the Latins arrived in the MBA or more likely in the LBA

Remedello 3 (2000 bc circa) was still EEF too so the indoeuropeans came in italy likely in the MBA (from Hungary?), i dont think that Parma Bell Beaker had a great impact genetically because the Po Plain was completely repopulated in the early MBA by Poladans and people from Danubian plain

Utilizzando Tapatalk

----------


## MOESAN

Are the IA Romans genuine proto-Romans? I doubt it. Rather a mix with Greeks.
And Villanovia was not the culture of an unique ethny speaking an unique language; things deserves refinings I think. I wonder if some of the first Villanovians were not Umbrian-like tribes; that said, concerning Y-haplo's, the Toscans of today have I think an heavy (ancient) Ligurians input. Only speculations, of course, but a bunch of anDNA of IA is not sufficient to make my mind.

----------


## Angela

Wow, this is exciting. 

Is this the same paper as the one that RYU reported on? In that one there were two "types" of Romans, yes? One was more "North Italian" like, and one was more "South Italian" like, but by the Imperial period it was definitely more "Southern Italian" like, with a further small change in the post Imperial period.

These look definitely more "South Italian" like. So, this is perhaps a different paper?

Any info on the dating of these samples or the context? 

Just assuming for the moment, which I probably shouldn't do, that these samples are all Imperial Era Romans and from a different paper, then I think it just reinforces some of the conclusions we tentatively reached from that prior information. 

The "original Romans", from the Republic, were definitely Italic speakers, and were probably more like Northern Italians. As time went on, more and more influence from "Greeks" infiltrated north from Southern Italy. That influence on Italy didn't begin in the first millennium B.C. with Magna Graecia. As I've been saying for ten years, and as recent papers are beginning to conclude, it started back in Mycenaean days. 

So, those "more North Italian" Romans of the Republic probably had some of it too, as do modern North Italians. I would guess they were the predictable mixture of Italian MN (also known as Sardinian like) with some steppe admixed migrants, although if Parma Beakers are an indication of the type of admixture we're talking about, they would have varied in the amount of steppe they carried. To that would perhaps have been added a bit of "Mycenaean", carrying a bit of Caucasus/Iran like admixture.

After the incorporation of Magna Graecia in the last centuries of the first millennium BC that would only have increased. 

As for the Etruscans, we knew for a long time that their mtDna was like that of most of southern Germany/Northern Italy, i.e. predominantly MN like, so predominantly "farmer" like but with some absorbed U5, either from the WHG, or from the steppe people. I wouldn't presume to judge. Some ancient MtDna experts will have to figure that out.

So, the question has always been, not only what were they like in terms of yDna, but what were they like autosomally. From these leaks, it seems they may have been like Parma Beakers, although which Parma Beaker I don't know. If it's a pretty steppe admixed one, I think we can probably finally put to bed any idea that there was a folk migration from Anatolia to central Italy in the first millennium B.C., an idea which so many have vociferously championed for so long, and which I have resisted for just as long. In the case of the Etruscans we have tons of archaeological evidence, and it just never supported that. 

One of the arguments for that very late migration directly from Anatolia has been the "elevated" Caucasus like/Iranian like ancestry in modern Tuscans. What an irony if that came by way of the "Imperial/Classical" Romans, who got it by way of the Greek like people of Southern Italy. :)

One of the counter arguments has always been that there's a lot of R1b in Tuscans. I've always doubted much of it was "Galiic/Celtic", because other than the northwestern fringe, they really only raided into Tuscany proper, not settled. So, where did the R1b come from? One could say the Romans, but the R1b is unbroken all the way north. 

Could it be that the Etruscans, like the Basque, are a case of an R1b but still farmer heavy group mixed with Sardinian like peoples, where, perhaps because it was mostly males by that point, and perhaps the culture was more matrilineal, the children adopted the "farmer" language? 

Could there have been a small, elite movement from the Aegean into "Etruria" in the Iron Age? It's possible, I suppose. Y Dna will tell us what happened, although I'm starting to doubt it. Even if one or two samples carry J2, it could have filtered north or been adopted through the long contact between the Etruscans and the Greeks, both directly and through Magna Graecia. We would need a large number of samples.

I know it's unbecoming to say "I told you so", but I have to do it. I took such nonsense over the years from people on dna-forums, where I was virtually excluded, to 23andme forums and even here, where I was constantly harassed, and also saw my ideas ridiculed on theapricity, anthrogenica and by "he who most not be named", :). 

That's what happens, people, when you follow an agenda, an ideology, instead of looking at all the evidence. Assemble the facts and only the facts, drop all preconceptions and "ologies", and go from there.

@Cato,
I don't know if the more "northern" influence on the Etruscans was Parma Beaker like, or ancient "Ligurian" like, or something else; that's why I said "Parma Beaker like". It definitely seems to be a steppe admixed group to some extent.

You're right; this happened relatively late.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> As for the Etruscans, we knew for a long time that their mtDna was like that of most of southern Germany/Northern Italy, i.e. predominantly MN like, so predominantly "farmer" like but with some absorbed U5, either from the WHG, or from the steppe people. I wouldn't presume to judge. Some ancient MtDna experts will have to figure that out.


The data of the Etruscans' mtdna are clear. Only those who are biased do not accept them.





> One of the arguments for that very late migration directly from Anatolia has been the "elevated" Caucasus like/Iranian like ancestry in modern Tuscans. What an irony if that came by way of the "Imperial/Classical" Romans, who got it by way of the Greek like people of Southern Italy. :)


Compared to Parma Beaker like, most modern Northern Italians have more CHG.

Compared to Tuscans, all the central Italians (Marche, Umbria, Lazio) and southern Italians have more CHG than Tuscans, including the Italic and Greek areas. The difference in CHG between Tuscans and many Ligurians and Emilians are small. Romagnolis seem more similar to Adriatic people from Marche.

So it is quite clear that the extra input of CHG in Italians is not due to the Etruscans, and anyone who is impartial has already understood this a long time ago.

The Romanization of Italy increased CHG here and there in Italy. It was likely not (always) a Nordicisation of the Italians as had always been believed. Latins, after all, were very few and they couldn't have completely changed the genetics of the Italians. But it's quite clear that Romans were Latins mixed with something else, and what shifted the Romans further south could not be due to the Etruscans.

----------


## Angela

> The data of the Etruscans' mtdna are clear. Only those who are biased do not accept them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compared to Parma Beaker like, most modern Northern Italians have more CHG.
> 
> Compared to Tuscans, all the central Italians (Marche, Umbria, Lazio) and southern Italians have more CHG than Tuscans, including the Italic and Greek areas. The difference in CHG between Tuscans and many Ligurians and Emilians are small. Romagnolis seem more similar to Adriatic people from Marche.
> 
> ...


You're very close to complete vindication here, if these "leaks" are authentic, Pax. :)

You never wavered and you may be proven completely right.

----------


## Salento

@Angela
(if these "leaks" are authentic)

I deleted my previous post coz of that.

If real, Jovialis and I are a match for the perfect Roman (o quasi, coz of vicinity and overlap) :)

----------


## Cpluskx

- Etruscans from Anatolia theory was likely incorrect.
- If Etruscans are R1b i will start to think that R1b were not the original indo-european speakers at all.

----------


## Cato

according to Eurogenes comments Picenes, Umbrians and Samnites clustered with Etruscans

Utilizzando Tapatalk

----------


## etrusco

> according to Eurogenes comments Picenes, Umbrians and Samnites clustered with Etruscans
> 
> Utilizzando Tapatalk


not according to Eurogenes but according to updated leaks from the authors of the paper on Anthrogenica. But that is quite pretty much obvious that the "etruscans" many are talking about are native umbrians. The proverbial discovery of "hot water".

----------


## markod

> - Etruscans from Anatolia theory was likely incorrect.
> - If Etruscans are R1b i will start to think that R1b were not the original indo-european speakers at all.


Etruscan is unlikely to be related to Basque-Iberian though, so any simplistic equation like R1b = pre-Indo-European doesn't work. If pressed I'd also say R1b groups didn't speak Indo-European, but it's far from conclusive.

----------


## Angela

> @Angela
> (if these "leaks" are authentic)
> 
> I deleted my previous post coz of that.
> 
> If real, Jovialis and I are a match for the perfect Roman (o quasi, coz of vicinity and overlap) :)


Yes, perfect Imperial Romans of Rome itself. My husband would fit in that cluster too. He'll definitely "crow" about that when I tell him. :) Or maybe I should wait to see if these leaks are legit, although it seems too detailed to be fake, given the PCA etc. 

We'll have to see what the pre-Imperial Era Romans were like. If that Moots paper is correct, perhaps the Republican Era Romans may be closer to Northern Italians. They sure aren't "pure" steppe Aryans, that's for sure. It's like the Mycenaeans redux. :)

I wonder about the mytrueancestry stuff. On there I'm at 3.416 with "Central Romans", but who knows if that person actually was a native of "Central Rome". They just may be closest to modern northern and north/Central Italians. 

I keep remembering that Moots said some of the ancient samples were Northern Italian like and some were Southern Italian like, but none of the samples landed on Rome itself, which may mean modern central Italians, except perhaps the Tuscans, are just a mixture of those two?

@Cato,

The only way they'd know the Etruscans are similar to Umbrians, etc. is if they also have ancient samples from those people. Do they?

----------


## Cato

> @Cato,
> 
> The only way they'd know the Etruscans are similar to Umbrians, etc. is if they also have ancient samples from those people. Do they?


judging from what i've read yes they have them


Utilizzando Tapatalk

----------


## Pax Augusta

> You're very close to complete vindication here, if these "leaks" are authentic, Pax. :)
> 
> You never wavered and you may be proven completely right.



I have nothing to "vindicate". 

It's not the forums that decide what's true or not. 


On the Etruscans there are many agendas, especially of people who have no relationship with the Etruscans. Those who really have a relationship with the Etruscans are generally not passionate about the subject of their origins, based on my personal experience.

I am serene, whether these leaks are true or false. No one can assure us that these leaks are true. It is enough to have read with sincere interest everything about the Etruscans, to figure out who they were.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> according to Eurogenes comments Picenes, Umbrians and Samnites clustered with Etruscans
> 
> Utilizzando Tapatalk


It seems unlikely to me. 

But let's take one of the arguments the migrationists are using to demonstrate that the Etruscans were an Anatolian elite who imposed themselves on an Italic population: modern Tuscans are more southern eastern shifted than Etruscans (the other argument that the Etruscan samples analysed are in fact Italic or Umbrians is so simple-minded that it does not deserve further comment). First of all not only the Tuscans but also many North Italians are more southeast than those Etruscan samples.

And in any case it proves once again to be fallacious, because modern people from Marche (Picenes), Umbria (Umbrians), and Abruzzo, Molise, Campania (Samnites) are more south eastern than Tuscans. So according to their own theory, these regions should have received more migrations from Anatolia, as showed by A. Raveane et al.

So, once again, whatever moved the Tuscans further southeast, there is no evidence that it could be due to an IA or late BA Anatolian origin of the elite of the Etruscans. I repeat, also considering that the same north Italians are usually more southeast than Parma Bell Beaker and the mtdna analyzed so far of the Etruscan samples is not compatible with this kind of allochthonous origin of the Etruscans.

----------


## Messier 67

> according to the other leak Latium was still EEF in 1700 bc so the Latins arrived in the MBA or more likely in the LBA
> 
> Remedello 3 (2000 bc circa) was still EEF too so the indoeuropeans came in italy likely in the MBA (from Hungary?), i dont think that Parma Bell Beaker had a great impact genetically because the Po Plain was completely repopulated in the early MBA by Poladans and people from Danubian plain
> 
> Utilizzando Tapatalk


Because there is a chance the Latins and the other Italic peoples were G,I,J2b, and some others (some L and E, maybe T).

The Romans were a mix of the Etrucans and Italic people, so more R1b.

----------


## markod

Can anyone discern with whom those Etruscans plot? A bit closer to Iberians than to North Italians? One of them looks rather French.

----------


## binx

Personally, I have never believed in an eastern origin of the Etruscans. I'm glad that we're finally getting to the bottom of this.

----------


## Angela

> Can anyone discern with whom those Etruscans plot? A bit closer to Iberians than to North Italians? One of them looks French.


On the PCA someone put up, the poster said the Etruscan plotted near the more steppe admixed Parma Beaker sample, which is closer to Extremadura, which is one of the more "southern" Iberian provinces, being close to Portugal, i.e. "western" Iberia.

I'm never sure about these PCAs with ancient samples just plopped on a PCA of modern samples, however. I'd like to see real statistical analysis as well, not just two dimensions. 

If we only have "one" autosomal result from an ancient Etruscan I think we should be cautious, however. Look at the differences between the Parma Beaker samples. Even more caution will be warranted if we have only one Y dna as well. 

For what it's worth, I always get them as close matches on "good" calculators, and on today's revised archaeosamples from mytrueancestry I now have tons of ancient samples from Iberia. The whole list has changed. I should post to see the fit compared to actual Iberians. 

As for the actual PCA from the paper, I can't make heads or tails of it. Yellow squares are all over the area and I can't see the difference between the "yellow" Italians, and the "yellow" Iberians. 

Do you by any chance have a link to the modern PCA which forms the background?

----------


## davef

There are some seriously awful (AWFUL!!!) posts surrounding this topic on a***ro***ica by hateful members with their heavy assumptions. I have no agenda and if a professionally conducted study proves the ancient Romans were anything (South/north Italian, German, Spanish, whatever) I'll live with it.

----------


## markod

> On the PCA someone put up, the poster said the Etruscan plotted near the more steppe admixed Parma Beaker sample, which is closer to Extremadura, which is one of the more "southern" Iberian provinces, being close to Portugal, i.e. "western" Iberia.
> 
> I'm never sure about these PCAs with ancient samples just plopped on a PCA of modern samples, however. I'd like to see real statistical analysis as well, not just two dimensions. 
> 
> If we only have "one" autosomal result from an ancient Etruscan I think we should be cautious, however. Look at the differences between the Parma Beaker samples. Even more caution will be warranted if we have only one Y dna as well. 
> 
> For what it's worth, I always get them as close matches on "good" calculators, and on today's revised archaeosamples from mytrueancestry I now have tons of ancient samples from Iberia. The whole list has changed. I should post to see the fit compared to actual Iberians. 
> 
> As for the actual PCA from the paper, I can't make heads or tails of it. Yellow squares are all over the area and I can't see the difference between the "yellow" Italians, and the "yellow" Iberians. 
> ...


No, it doesn't seem to be based on the dataset used by Lazaridis and others, so we can only guess. Though the cluster just above the Etruscans I'm pretty sure are Iberians, while one Etruscan is more Italian and another one more within the Central European range.

----------


## markod

> There are some seriously awful (AWFUL!!!) posts surrounding this topic on a***ro***ica by hateful members with their heavy assumptions. I have no agenda and if a professionally conducted study proves the ancient Romans were anything (South/north Italian, German, Spanish, whatever) I'll live with it.


What is their explanation for the Roman position in the PCA? Jews, or Syrians this time?

It's definitely interesting though, why are some of the Romans between South Italians and Cypriotes? It looks like a stabilised cluster so any imperial immigration hypothesis is untenable. Greek settlement doesn't work either. This is Mediterranean Bronze Age ancestry 99% sure.

----------


## davef

> What is their explanation for the Roman position in the PCA? Jews, or Syrians this time?
> 
> It's definitely interesting though, why are some of the Romans between South Italians and Cretans? It looks like a stabilised cluster so any imperial immigration hypothesis is untenable. Greek settlement doesn't work either. This is Mediterranean Bronze Age ancestry 99% sure.


Indeed! You get an upvote

----------


## berun

As far as I know Etruscans incinerated, so no DNA available other than lucky finds or with outliers... I prefer to wait, Reich and co just did that with Ullastret skulls, they were exposed on the streets with their swords, they were like war trophies and are not the usual Iberian incineration, these skulls had some extra CE autosomal, and it could fit Gauls trying to do what they were doing in Italy, the Balkans, or Anatolia, or in France itself the Volci.

----------


## halfalp

> There are some seriously awful (AWFUL!!!) posts surrounding this topic on a***ro***ica by hateful members with their heavy assumptions. I have no agenda and if a professionally conducted study proves the ancient Romans *were anything (South/north Italian, German, Spanish, whatever)* I'll live with it.


What does it means?

----------


## halfalp

I read the paper and a litte bit of the posts but i'm out of touch with this paper. Can someone make me a little summary of the community conclusions? Especially about Etruscans?

----------


## Johane Derite

> What is their explanation for the Roman position in the PCA? Jews, or Syrians this time?
> 
> It's definitely interesting though, why are some of the Romans between South Italians and Cypriotes? It looks like a stabilised cluster so any imperial immigration hypothesis is untenable. Greek settlement doesn't work either. This is Mediterranean Bronze Age ancestry 99% sure.


Markod do you think its possible that romans were transylvanian migrants?

----------


## Johane Derite

This is very exciting, yet at the same time frustrating that we have to wait for results. Is there indiciation that Y dna has been tested in this paper?

----------


## Cpluskx

To me it looks like both Greeks & Romans were ancient Mycenaean-like people. (Quite early Eastern immigration to Italy) Etruscans are different, probably usual steppe male (R1b? / eef female mix. I do not understand the journey of the Etruscan & Latin languages in this case.

----------


## Dreptul Valah

I've told you from the start,way less Etruscan and Celtic admixture in S Italy.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roma...nsion_in_Italy

----------


## markod

> To me it looks like both Greeks & Romans were ancient Mycenaean-like people. (Quite early Eastern immigration to Italy) Etruscans are different, probably usual steppe male (R1b? / eef female mix. I do not understand the journey of the Etruscan & Latin languages in this case.


It's going to be very difficult to make sense of. Most linguists contend that the split within the Italic language family is rather deep, so to find a potential Proto-Italic population we would probably need LBA samples.

The north-south cline in Italy is expectedly very old in any case, and it likely predates Urnfield/Villanova. The Po valley and the Apennine range very different biogeological regions after all, so it's not surprising that they were settled by different peoples. Who of them spoke Italic?

----------


## Cpluskx

> It's going to be very difficult to make sense of. Most linguists contend that the split within the Italic language family is rather deep, so to find a potential Proto-Italic population we would probably need LBA samples.
> 
> The north-south cline in Italy is expectedly very old in any case, and it likely predates Urnfield/Villanova. The Po valley and the Apennine range very different biogeological regions after all, so it's not surprising that they were settled by different peoples. Who of them spoke Italic?


Even more complicated if Umbrians etc. cluster with Etruscans. Also afaik Etruscan language came to Italy later than IE? Doesn't make a lot of sense.

----------


## Johane Derite

I think these results should push the consideration that etruscan was possibly IE also. Im very excited by it

----------


## markod

> Even more complicated if Umbrians etc. cluster with Etruscans. Also afaik Etruscan language came to Italy later than IE? Doesn't make a lot of sense.


Yeah, that's surprising if true. I would have thought that Italic was spoken by the southerners, because as it stands the southern cluster 'won' and therefore expanded in the imperial area. If all other Italics are 'northern' that would be strong evidence to the contrary.

----------


## Angela

Not if the Moots leaks are correct. 

According to those Moots leaks, 40% of the population in Rome in the Republican Era were "Northern Italian like". Not Parma Beaker like, but specifically Northern Italian like. Those people were from Roman burials, not Etruscan ones, at a time when it still made a difference. 

So, no, all "Romans", at least not in the pre-Imperial Age, were all homogeneously Southern Italian/Sicilian like. That has to be accounted for...

I hate to agree with Eurogenes about anything, but facts are facts.


The fact that someone is claiming the Umbrians, Samnites, northern Picene are similar to the Etruscans is the confusing part. 

Does that mean the "Republican Era" Romans and the Etruscans were not that dissimilar to one another? Were they two streams of minority admixed steppe people. Did they arrive at different times? Did the Etruscans, like the Basques, just carry a different non IE language, or did the Etruscans adopt another one in situ. Has anyone checked for traces of a substrate language in ancient Ligurian? It's always been difficult to analyze. Could that substrate be in any way similar to Etruscan? Is the substrate at all similar to certain things underlying, say, Iberian. Could certain R1b lines, but not others, have carried more "ancient" or "different" languages? 

I know the "elite" from Aegean/Anatolia dominance scenario for the language shift in Etruscans is still alive and well, but it seems slightly odd that the addition of an "elite" group could still result in a people so "northern". I mean, all we have for Etruscans are "elite" burials, so far as I know, and so they would carry this "elite" admixture. Yet still so northern? It would have had to have been a handful. Or perhaps it was adopted from people with whom the Etruscans traded and whom they greatly respected? Is there any other example for something like that?

As Pax has pointed out so often, admixture from Greek admixed people from the south could easily result in Tuscans.

----------


## Messier 67

> Because there is a chance the Latins and the other Italic peoples were G,I,J2b, and some others (some L and E, maybe T).
> 
> The Romans were a mix of the Etrucans and Italic people, so more R1b.


Additionally...

Umbrians, Samnites, northern Picene, Brutti plot near which groups?

Look at the present population, approx. 8%+ of Central and Southern Italians are R1s from Slav Markets (Rome was a slave state and had many of the slaves from the Northern celtic regions), 2% of them are from German barbarians (lombards, goths, normans). That is 1/3+ of R1s in Central and Southern Italy. So during early times Central and Southern Italy would have been barely anything R1. You are looking at 20% or less, except for the Etruscan areas (Rome). The Celts to the North did not disappear but became Roman subjects, so is likely true of the Italic tribes, making the Italics likely to be G,I, J2bs, Es. What were the original Germanics? If they were I1, you are looking at a possibility of Italics being not R1 either.

The Romans were Italic and Etruscan. How so with these two groups did Roman end up being from the start lower in R1 (less than 50%). 

*Seems that some Italic speaking populations had admixture from Anatolia MLBA / Minoan like populations, others did not.*

Either from conquest (Italics = R1b) or these were natives still (meaning Italic tribes were not R1b).

Having copper bronze weapons/tools stopped the advance of the celts in Italy. Did the celts act not as warriors, but newcomers/migrants in central and southern Italy? Explaining why there is so low amount of celts in central/southern Italy today. The celts did not rampage Greece or central southern Italy because they were confronted with advanced civilizations with fierce weapons. When the celts confronted the neolithic Europeans, the celts had the weapons to destroy the natives. Not so in Greece and central/southern Italy, their weapons were matched with copper and bronze.

----------


## markod

> Not if the Moots leaks are correct. 
> 
> According to those Moots leaks, 40% of the population in Rome in the Republican Era were "Northern Italian like". Not Parma Beaker like, but specifically Northern Italian like. Those people were from Roman burials, not Etruscan ones, at a time when it still made a difference. 
> 
> So, no, all "Romans", at least not in the pre-Imperial Age, were all homogeneously Southern Italian/Sicilian like. That has to be accounted for...
> 
> I hate to agree with Eurogenes about anything, but facts are facts.
> 
> 
> ...


That's possible I guess, but it would imply that the majority of Imperial Romans derive their ancestry from an unknown Eastern Mediterranean or Aegean population, no?

----------


## brick

> There are some seriously awful (AWFUL!!!) posts surrounding this topic on a***ro***ica by hateful members with their heavy assumptions. I have no agenda and if a professionally conducted study proves the ancient Romans were anything (South/north Italian, German, Spanish, whatever) I'll live with it.


Anthrogenica is perhaps the most ridiculous forum because users take themselves very seriously, pretend to be expert even when they're clearly not, and support each other against those who think otherwise.

----------


## torzio

https://www.academia.edu/36806069/Th...d_South-Picene

Maybe a clue is in the link above

----------


## Angela

> That's possible I guess, but it would imply that the majority of Imperial Romans derive their ancestry from an unknown Eastern Mediterranean or Aegean population, no?


I'm just thinking out loud. :)

Obviously, this is all conjecture on my part until we see the Etruscan sample(s) and can compare them to early Republican Era samples, as early as possible. Once we have that comparison, things will be much clearer. 

The next question, even before the one as to why the Imperial Era Romans are more “homogeneously southern”, is why there’s a more “southern” group within the early days of Rome at all.

I would think the first order of business would be to compare those samples and the Imperial ones first to each other and then to samples from southern, more Greek areas of Italy at the same or slightly earlier times.

I've been repeating ad nauseam for years that I thought that migration from Greece to Italy began all the way back in the Helladic Era. 

I also have said and still believe that it’s quite possible that there was population movement south to north in Italy very early, as there has been in modern times starting in the late 19th century but particularly from the 1950s to today. More rural areas are not affected, but in cities like Milano and Torino half the school children are of southern extraction. 

If that doesn’t work, then one can consider other possibilities.

----------


## Ygorcs

> To me it looks like both Greeks & Romans were ancient Mycenaean-like people. (Quite early Eastern immigration to Italy) Etruscans are different, probably usual steppe male (R1b? / eef female mix. I do not understand the journey of the Etruscan & Latin languages in this case.


I think that's a bit unlikely from a genetic and linguistic pont of view. I think that the explanation is simply that the EEF+Steppe+Extra CHG/INF in the Romans eventually became very similar to that of the Mycenaean Greeks. But the process until then was different in each of those populations. When I model Italians and Greeks using Global 25 Datasheet on nMonte, using many steppe-derived European reference populations, ancient and modern Greeks seem to clearly "prefer" Yamnaya and CWC samples, whereas Italians from Tuscany and Bergamo clearly "prefer" Bell Beaker samples. The much closer relationship of Italic to Celtic (and we might add Lusitanian too) and the pretty divergent and even archaic nature of the two in relation to "later" splits from the LPIE dialect continuum cannot be overlooked, either. If I had to guess, I'd put the ultimate origin of Italo-Celtic between France/Belgium and West Germany/Netherlands, and that of Italic somewhere in the vicinity of Northeastern Italy, in the vicinity of the Alps, maybe Austria, Slovenia or Hungary.

----------


## Jovialis

Here's a comparison, with the PCA from the study of the thread:

----------


## markod

Many Romans are south of southern Italians. Would Germanic admixture be sufficient to explain the subsequent northern shift? How much Germanic Y-DNA is there in southern Italy, 5-10%?

Apulia:

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

*Basilicata:

J2a: 24%
G: 21%
E: 16%
R1b: 16%
J1: 7%
I2: 7%
T: 5%
*I1: 2%
R1a: 2%
*
Calabria:

G: 24% 
J2a: 18%
E: 18%
R1b: 16%
*R1a: 8%*
J1: 8%
*I1: 5%*
T: 2%
I2: 1%

(from Ftdna)

R1b might be both local and foreign, E-V13 too as we have seen.

----------


## Angela

> Many Romans are south of southern Italians. Would Germanic admixture be sufficient to explain the subsequent northern shift? How much Germanic Y-DNA is there in southern Italy, 5-10%?
> 
> Apulia:
> 
> E: 22%
> J2a: 20%
> G: 15%
> R1b: 13%
> J1: 8%
> ...


I'm getting confused. This is the map which was supposedly leaked and published upthread, right?



The ancient Roman samples are the purple triangles and the Etruscans the purple squares, yes? I'm assuming this is a different paper from the Moots one. I don't know where those more "northern" like Republican Era Romans would plot, but these ancient Romans seem to plot right on top of Southern Italians and some Greeks. We have one Tuscan like Etruscan, some Spanish like ones, a few Northern Italian like and one veering toward Bulgarians? I'm bad with these things so don't quote me. :)


I found this map, which I think might help in understanding that jumble in the leak.



As for "Germanic" ancestry, I don't know, but I don't think much more than that, at least not in those three provinces, because they didn't experience the migration of northern Italians, i.e. the "Lombards" who were sent to Sicily to Latinize it in both language and religion.

----------


## Jovialis

> I'm getting confused. This is the map which was supposedly leaked and published upthread, right?
> 
> 
> 
> The ancient Roman samples are the purple triangles and the Etruscans the purple squares, yes? I'm assuming this is a different paper from the Moots one. I don't know where those more "northern" like Republican Era Romans would plot, but these ancient Romans seem to plot right on top of Southern Italians and some Greeks. We have one Tuscan like Etruscan, some Spanish like ones, a few Northern Italian like and one veering toward Bulgarians? I'm bad with these things so don't quote me. :)
> 
> 
> I found this map, which I think might help in understanding that jumble in the leak.
> 
> ...


Yeah, it is the leaked PCA. I had just rotated it to mirror the PCA from the thread's paper.

----------


## markod

> I'm getting confused. This is the map which was supposedly leaked and published upthread, right?
> 
> 
> 
> The ancient Roman samples are the purple triangles and the Etruscans the purple squares, yes? I'm assuming this is a different paper from the Moots one. I don't know where those more "northern" like Republican Era Romans would plot, but these ancient Romans seem to plot right on top of Southern Italians and some Greeks. We have one Tuscan like Etruscan, some Spanish like ones, a few Northern Italian like and one veering toward Bulgarians? I'm bad with these things so don't quote me. :)
> 
> 
> I found this map, which I think might help in understanding that jumble in the leak.
> 
> ...


I would say the center of the Roman Empire cluster lies right with the southernmost Italians. However, the samples are from north of Rome I believe, and many of them diverge towards Cyprus causing them to plot outside modern variance (in the blank space between modern Italians and modern Cypriots).

If the PCA is accurate, why do they plot there, and what changed? Alternatively, could slavery have introduced more northern autosomal admixture?

----------


## davef

> I would say the center of the Roman Empire cluster lies right with the southernmost Italians. However, the samples are from north of Rome I believe, and many of them diverge towards Cyprus causing them to plot outside modern variance (in the blank space between modern Italians and modern Cypriots).
> 
> If the PCA is accurate, why do they plot there, and what changed? Alternatively, could slavery have introduced more northern autosomal admixture?


I'm wondering that myself, actually. That is interesting

----------


## Ownstyler

Is there a version of the PCA where modern samples are not grouped into regions? Even without the ancient data, it is already interesting to see the various Italian, Greek and Albanian clusters.

----------


## Angela

> I would say the center of the Roman Empire cluster lies right with the southernmost Italians. However, the samples are from north of Rome I believe, and many of them diverge towards Cyprus causing them to plot outside modern variance (in the blank space between modern Italians and modern Cypriots).
> 
> If the PCA is accurate, why do they plot there, and what changed? Alternatively, could slavery have introduced more northern autosomal admixture?


There's about what, 23 or 24 samples? Four or five seem to drift off toward Cyprus, and the rest plot right with Southern Italians/Sicilians.

Why do we have some that drift that way? I don't know. 

Where would Dodecanese people plot, for example? Or Minoan like people? Where precisely would the Mycenaeans plot? Also, parts of Italy were settled by Greek colonists who had first settled coastal Anatolia. 

Are you thinking most of them might have actually been like that and were pulled north subsequently? In Sicily I would say definitely, given the Lombard migrations. Perhaps Campania too, which got some "more northern" influence. It was long believed the Celt-Ligurians were re-settled in Samnite areas. I don't think that's true for Calabria, however, and northern parts of Apulia got more "southern" input from "Moorish" troops re-settled there after the end of that era. Supposedly they were all eventually killed or sold into slavery, however. 

The issue of slavery is a tricky one. I've hunted for years for some sort of contemporary evidence as to whether slaves from certain campaigns went to one part of the empire versus another, or one part of Italy versus another, and have never found a single thing. In the south, in particular, there were many vast latifundia or agricultural estates, but why would Germanic or Gallic slaves be sent there in preference to slaves from Greece or Anatolia or the Levant? Slaves went where they were needed. Plus, you didn't last long on latifundia, or mines, or on the galleys. The slaves who would be more likely to attract the notice of owners and perhaps freed after long service would be house slaves or slaves who had more skills. The Greek slaves were always the most prized, and if anything would have made them more "southern", and would have produced little change at all. 

Plus, we have to be careful of the time periods here, don't you think? 

Were those more "southern" "Romans" during the Republican Era very much like the "southern like" Romans of the Imperial Era? What are the exact dates for all of the samples? From that we would know what groups were or were not enslaved by that time and could have had an impact. In much of the Republican Era it would be from other people of the Italian peninsula. 

However, let's be clear. Slave graves are quite different from the graves of reasonably well off Roman citizens. As are the graves around brothels where women didn't last too long, and graveyards full of aborted fetuses and newborns have been found, or in the merchant quarters right next to the docks. There's little likelihood such people would have had a great impact on genetics. Goodness, we have a big bunch North Africans in medieval London too. If they've done some isotope analysis that would help us wade through some of this. 

Is that information that they came from north of Rome another leak? How far north of Rome? It doesn't matter if it's not in the city of Rome itself. Anything in "Latin" territory would do. There was a small area north of Rome which was still in the lands of the "Latini", but if you really go north you're in the lands of the Etruscans, Sabines, and Umbrians and Picene, which the leaks also said were similar to one another and more "northern", so that wouldn't be consistent. 


If the Sabines, like the Etruscans, are more "northern" like, then things like the "Rape", really "Kidnapping" of the Sabine women would just make them more northern.

The locations as well as the dates and the burial contexts are all really important here, and I hope they did isotope analysis. If the Republic Era samples are not here because this isn't the Moots paper then that leaves a lot of holes.

----------


## Angela

> There's about what, 23 or 24 samples? Four or five seem to drift off toward Cyprus, and the rest plot right with Southern Italians/Sicilians.
> 
> Why do we have some that drift that way? I don't know. 
> 
> Where would Dodecanese people plot, for example? Or Minoan like people? Where precisely would the Mycenaeans plot? Also, parts of Italy were settled by Greek colonists who had first settled coastal Anatolia. 
> 
> Are you thinking most of them might have actually been like that and were pulled north subsequently? In Sicily I would say definitely, given the Lombard migrations. Perhaps Campania too, which got some "more northern" influence. It was long believed the Celt-Ligurians were re-settled in Samnite areas. I don't think that's true for Calabria, however, and northern parts of Apulia got more "southern" input from "Moorish" troops re-settled there after the end of that era. Supposedly they were all eventually killed or sold into slavery, however. 
> 
> The issue of slavery is a tricky one. I've hunted for years for some sort of contemporary evidence as to whether slaves from certain campaigns went to one part of the empire versus another, or one part of Italy versus another, and have never found a single thing. In the south, in particular, there were many vast latifundia or agricultural estates, but why would Germanic or Gallic slaves be sent there in preference to slaves from Greece or Anatolia or the Levant? Slaves went where they were needed. Plus, you didn't last long on latifundia, or mines, or on the galleys. The slaves who would be more likely to attract the notice of owners and perhaps freed after long service would be house slaves or slaves who had more skills. The Greek slaves were always the most prized, and if anything would have made them more "southern", and would have produced little change at all. 
> ...


Forgot to include the following:

Phocaea founded the colony of Massalia[1] (modern day Marseille, in France) in 600 BC, Emporion(modern day Empúries, in Catalonia, Spain) in 575 BC and Elea (modern day Velia, in Campania, Italy) in 540 BC.

Rhodes and Crete founded Gela in Sicily which founded many other city states.

Ed. Phocaea was on the western coast of Anatolia.

----------


## Jovialis

> There's about what, 23 or 24 samples? Four or five seem to drift off toward Cyprus, and the rest plot right with Southern Italians/Sicilians.
> 
> Why do we have some that drift that way? I don't know. 
> 
> Where would Dodecanese people plot, for example? Or Minoan like people? Where precisely would the Mycenaeans plot? Also, parts of Italy were settled by Greek colonists who had first settled coastal Anatolia. 
> 
> Are you thinking most of them might have actually been like that and were pulled north subsequently? In Sicily I would say definitely, given the Lombard migrations. Perhaps Campania too, which got some "more northern" influence. It was long believed the Celt-Ligurians were re-settled in Samnite areas. I don't think that's true for Calabria, however, and northern parts of Apulia got more "southern" input from "Moorish" troops re-settled there after the end of that era. Supposedly they were all eventually killed or sold into slavery, however. 
> 
> The issue of slavery is a tricky one. I've hunted for years for some sort of contemporary evidence as to whether slaves from certain campaigns went to one part of the empire versus another, or one part of Italy versus another, and have never found a single thing. In the south, in particular, there were many vast latifundia or agricultural estates, but why would Germanic or Gallic slaves be sent there in preference to slaves from Greece or Anatolia or the Levant? Slaves went where they were needed. Plus, you didn't last long on latifundia, or mines, or on the galleys. The slaves who would be more likely to attract the notice of owners and perhaps freed after long service would be house slaves or slaves who had more skills. The Greek slaves were always the most prized, and if anything would have made them more "southern", and would have produced little change at all. 
> ...


Indeed, the city of Lucera became the re-settlement area for the Sicilian Muslims:

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

The city thrived for 75 years, and had a population of about 20,000. However, it was sacked by Charles II, with half the population being killed. The other half was sold into slavery, or fled across the Adriatic into the Balkans. However, I don't think a population like that would have had much of an impact on the surrounding area. However, I'm sure the legacy of those specific people could exist in trace amounts, in some individuals. But It could also be similar DNA from an earlier period, perhaps. The rest of Puglia doesn't seem to get visible amounts of NA, or very little in the admixture charts for the paper. I myself get 0.6% _Broadly Western Asian & North African_ on 23andme:



That's an interesting theory regarding the Sabines, and the Romans. Perhaps, that could have made them shift _North_ genetically, if the Sabines were like the Etruscans:

----------


## markod

> There's about what, 23 or 24 samples? Four or five seem to drift off toward Cyprus, and the rest plot right with Southern Italians/Sicilians.
> 
> Why do we have some that drift that way? I don't know. 
> 
> Where would Dodecanese people plot, for example? Or Minoan like people? Where precisely would the Mycenaeans plot? Also, parts of Italy were settled by Greek colonists who had first settled coastal Anatolia. 
> 
> Are you thinking most of them might have actually been like that and were pulled north subsequently? In Sicily I would say definitely, given the Lombard migrations. Perhaps Campania too, which got some "more northern" influence. It was long believed the Celt-Ligurians were re-settled in Samnite areas. I don't think that's true for Calabria, however, and northern parts of Apulia got more "southern" input from "Moorish" troops re-settled there after the end of that era. Supposedly they were all eventually killed or sold into slavery, however. 
> 
> The issue of slavery is a tricky one. I've hunted for years for some sort of contemporary evidence as to whether slaves from certain campaigns went to one part of the empire versus another, or one part of Italy versus another, and have never found a single thing. In the south, in particular, there were many vast latifundia or agricultural estates, but why would Germanic or Gallic slaves be sent there in preference to slaves from Greece or Anatolia or the Levant? Slaves went where they were needed. Plus, you didn't last long on latifundia, or mines, or on the galleys. The slaves who would be more likely to attract the notice of owners and perhaps freed after long service would be house slaves or slaves who had more skills. The Greek slaves were always the most prized, and if anything would have made them more "southern", and would have produced little change at all. 
> ...



I think there aren't many options. Either the Italics were northerners and imperial Romans as well as present day South Italians derive much of their ancestry from Aegean and Near Eastern populations, or the northern admixture is intrusive and came with Etruscans, Celts etc .

How would one make Iberians/Ligurians etc. plot near Cyprus? Either through replacement or very significant admixture. Even the Myceneans don't seem to be sufficiently eastern, and if we're talking about Anatolian Greeks the influx must have been massive still. Both the northern population and the southern population seem to have existed in the Replubican era already in any case.

Those Italian papers might stir some controversy I feel  :Thinking:

----------


## Angela

> I think there aren't many options. Either the Italics were northerners and imperial Romans as well as present day South Italians derive much of their ancestry from Aegean and Near Eastern populations, or the northern admixture is intrusive and came with Etruscans, Celts etc .
> 
> How would one make Iberians/Ligurians etc. plot near Cyprus? Either through replacement or very significant admixture. Even the Myceneans don't seem to be sufficiently eastern, and if we're talking about Anatolian Greeks the influx must have been massive still. Both the northern population and the southern population seem to have existed in the Replubican era already in any case.
> 
> Those Italian papers might stir some controversy I feel


I wasn't aware we had ancient Ligurian samples. If we don't, how do we know they plot anywhere near modern Cypriots? Modern Ligurians certainly don't. Are you saying these imperial Roman samples were found in Liguria? 

Well, if that's the case, that's easy. Genua was a Greek city and then a Roman city, and Luni was founded by Romans and was used by them to try to pacify the area. 

I think it's likely the Italics were more "Northern Italian" like and had more "steppe" than the "Imperial Romans". More than modern Southern Italians, for example. That's not "Northern" by any means. Northern Italians don't plot anywhere near Germans, much less Scandinavians. I'm also not convinced that this more "northern" like ancestry only arrived in Central Italy with "Etruscans" and "Celts", the latter of whom only raided in these more southern areas by the way, not settled. I think it might be earlier.

Are people on other forums fixating on those four samples that drift toward the Cypriots? For goodness' sakes. Talk about focusing on the minority. 

Also, Mycenaean people were pretty darn "Aegean" like, and I think people like that were feeding into Italy at least from the Helladic Era. The Greek sample found in North Eastern Iberia in the Imperial Era still plots near Mycenaeans, who plot near Ashkenazi Jews, btw. 

I don't personally find any of this very controversial. 

We also still don't know what Neolithic Southern Italians were like, so maybe some people might be getting a little ahead of themselves.

Are the usual posters foaming at the mouth again about a flood of "Levant" like people coming into southern Italy? Fine with me if true, but where is the evidence? Is there any contemporary evidence of large migrations in writings, inscriptions, etc.? Did they just materialize out of thin air? I mean, the Carthaginians were only in the northwest corner of Sicily. That's giving them a little too much credit, don't you think? Or, are the Jewish members of some forums or the ones who think they're secret Jews or something proposing that floods of Jews moved to Italy but converted eventually? How many specifically Jewish yDna clades are there in Southern Italy or among imperial Romans? 

The Moots leaks, btw, said that there was a "tail" leading toward the Near East at a certain time in the Imperial Era. They also mentioned some "sporadic" "Levantine" samples. I assumed the latter caused the former. That "tail", according to the leaks, then disappeared. I think it disappeared because a lot of the Jews moved on into the Rhineland.

Were the authors of this paper careful to distinguish local Roman from "foreign" burials? Did they do isotope analysis? I sure hope so. 

This reminds me of all those "GOT" fan youtube sites where the creators would weave all these elaborate theories of what happened, garnering hundreds of thousands of views in the process, while the reality was much more simple. :)

----------


## markod

> I wasn't aware we had ancient Ligurian samples. If we don't, how do we know they plot anywhere near modern Cypriots? Modern Ligurians certainly don't. Are you saying these imperial Roman samples were found in Liguria? 
> 
> Well, if that's the case, that's easy. Genua was a Greek city and then a Roman city, and Luni was founded by Romans and was used by them to try to pacify the area. 
> 
> I think it's likely the Italics were more "Northern Italian" like and had more "steppe" than the "Imperial Romans". More than modern Southern Italians, for example. That's not "Northern" by any means. Northern Italians don't plot anywhere near Germans, much less Scandinavians. I'm also not convinced that this more "northern" like ancestry only arrived in Central Italy with "Etruscans" and "Celts", the latter of whom only raided in these more southern areas by the way, not settled. I think it might be earlier.
> 
> Are people on other forums fixating on those four samples that drift toward the Cypriots? For goodness' sakes. Talk about focusing on the minority. 
> 
> Also, Mycenaean people were pretty darn "Aegean" like, and I think people like that were feeding into Italy at least from the Helladic Era. The Greek sample found in North Eastern Iberia in the Imperial Era still plots near Mycenaeans, who plot near Ashkenazi Jews, btw. 
> ...


Sorry, I meant modern Italians from Liguria, who seem to be very close to those northern Etruscan samples.

I think the upcoming papers might not have any samples from the LBA/EIA, so that's a big blind spot. I tend to believe that the CHG that distinguishes present day southern Italians and those Romans derives from this period rather than from foreigners, but I may be completely off the mark.

I guess one problem will be that everyone was kind of mixed by the LBA/EIA. Y-DNA haplogroups might paint a clearer picture.

----------


## Angela

> Sorry, I meant modern Italians from Liguria, who seem to be very close to those northern Etruscan samples.
> 
> I think the upcoming papers might not have any samples from the LBA/EIA, so that's a big blind spot. I tend to believe that the CHG that distinguishes present day southern Italians and those Romans derives from this period rather than from foreigners, but I may be completely off the mark.
> 
> *I guess one problem will be that everyone was kind of mixed by the LBA/EIA. Y-DNA haplogroups might paint a clearer picture.*


That's what I think too.

If some of the Etruscans are indeed like modern Ligurians that would tend to support what I'd been proposing as a possibility for a long time: that the Etruscans had ancient "Ligure" ancestry. That's why I was interested to find out if any linguists have looked for a substrate in the language of the ancient Ligures which might bare some similarity to something in Etruscan. Of course, we know so little about Etruscan. What we'd give for another Rosetta Stone type find.

There might be another clue in the fact that some of the Etruscans also seem to plot near Spaniards. The Ligures (before the Gallic invasions) spread all the way around the Med into Southern France and approaching Iberia, and I've seen speculation that they were related to the ancient Iberians.

If this information about the Etruscans turns out to be true, how things change, yes? I don't remember if you were here during that period, but I remember so well our then resident skadi types insisting all of Anatolia and the Levant had moved to Tuscany in the first millennium BC and the proof was all those really *dark* Etruscans on the wall paintings. :) I wonder if "he who must not be named" will acknowledge he was wrong. I suppose not; none of them ever do.

----------


## davef

> Sorry, I meant modern Italians from Liguria, who seem to be very close to those northern Etruscan samples.
> 
> I think the upcoming papers might not have any samples from the LBA/EIA, so that's a big blind spot. I tend to believe that the CHG that distinguishes present day southern Italians and those Romans derives from this period rather than from foreigners, but I may be completely off the mark.
> 
> I guess one problem will be that everyone was kind of mixed by the LBA/EIA. Y-DNA haplogroups might paint a clearer picture.


I agree, and I'm pretty sure there were migrations of people with lots of CHG into southern Italy and Greece during those periods as well, even before classic Greece. Just a guess, guys!

----------


## Ygorcs

> So it's exactly what one would expect considering the archaeological evidence. The position of the Romans relative to the Mycenaeans is interesting, as it indicates that the Proto-Italics either had higher Anatolian ancestry than the Proto-Greeks, or that they absorbed fewer natives than did the Greeks. I'm guessing it's #2.


Can you elaborate on that? As far as I can see in the PCA, unless I'm interpreting it incorrectly, the Mycenaeans plot closer to Anatolia_N than the Romans, who are mostly slightly to their north (some to the northeast toward modern Caucasians/Levantines), some to the northwest toward Central/Eastern Europeans). Why should Proto-Italics have higher Anatolian ancestry than the Proto-Greeks then?

----------


## Ygorcs

> If some of the Etruscans are indeed like modern Ligurians that would tend to support what I'd been proposing as a possibility for a long time: that the Etruscans had ancient "Ligure" ancestry. That's why I was interested to find out if any linguists have looked for a substrate in the language of the ancient Ligures which might bare some similarity to something in Etruscan. Of course, we know so little about Etruscan. What we'd give for another Rosetta Stone type find.
> 
> There might be another clue in the fact that some of the Etruscans also seem to plot near Spaniards. The Ligures (before the Gallic invasions) spread all the way around the Med into Southern France and approaching Iberia, and I've seen speculation that they were related to the ancient Iberians.


So that would mean that, as many of us speculated after the Iberia paper, there was lot of genetic _and_ cultural mixing causing a high degree of inter-ethnic convergence, but some groups ultimately shifted their language and others did not? I mean, your hypothesis looks like Ligurians, Etruscans and Iberians would be genetically (and culturally too?) similar to each other, but speaking 3 completely different languages (IE Ligurian probably being the newcomer).

----------


## Pax Augusta

> Sorry, I meant modern Italians from Liguria, who seem to be very close to those northern Etruscan samples.


The difference between Ligurians (green) and Tuscans (pinkish) is very small and the sample used in this PCA for Tuscans is TSI, and there are so many Tuscans who are further north genetically than TSI. Then there are even internal differences between Ligurians, both from an autosomal and uniparental markers point of view. Lunigiana is a world apart because of its long isolation, eastern Liguria is on pair with Western Emilia, Western Liguria has receveid strong recent influence from nearby Piedmont.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> That's what I think too.
> 
> If some of the Etruscans are indeed like modern Ligurians that would tend to support what I'd been proposing as a possibility for a long time: that the Etruscans had ancient "Ligure" ancestry. That's why I was interested to find out if any linguists have looked for a substrate in the language of the ancient Ligures which might bare some similarity to something in Etruscan. Of course, we know so little about Etruscan. What we'd give for another Rosetta Stone type find.
> 
> There might be another clue in the fact that some of the Etruscans also seem to plot near Spaniards. The Ligures (before the Gallic invasions) spread all the way around the Med into Southern France and approaching Iberia, and I've seen speculation that they were related to the ancient Iberians..



It is quite incredible that when it comes to the Etruscans we move from one exaggeration to another. :)

What we call ancient "Ligure" ancestry is nothing more than a western Neolithic plus Bell Beaker, both archeologically attested also in Tuscany. The only difference is that from the south and center of Tuscany there are contacts (from Rinaldone onwards) with central Italy (which in turn has contacts with southern Italy) that are missing in Liguria given the geographical location of Liguria.

Obviously the Etruscans were not Ligurians, modern Ligurians are just part of Italian cline, northwest of Tuscans and southeast of Iberians and other northwest Italians (Lombards and people from Piedmont). If we then add that the Ligurians on a theoretical level were also "Celtized" modern Ligurians were expected to plot even further north than where they actually plot. Etruscans seem to plot near Spaniards due likely to a larger Neolithic DNA and a Bell Beaker-like DNA. Which is quite normal for a population of 3000 years ago, even the Mycenaeans had much more Neolithic DNA than the Greeks and South Italians and plot west of them. Not to mention that Mycenaeans form a pretty large cluster in a PCA despite being only four. 

What Etruscans and Ligurians have in common are pieces of Neolithic and the Bell Beaker and maybe even something related to proto-Villanovan. Nothing strange. Ancient ethnos (in the sense of self-awareness of belonging to an ethnos) are formed between the end of the Bronze Age and the beginning of the Iron Age. Not before, and are due to contacts first with the Mycenaeans and then with the Greeks, who in turn had learned in the east.

It is true that the Ligurians and the Etruscans had much more contacts than is usually thought (see for example the Etruscan remains found in the ancient port of Genoa) but they were clearly two distinct ethnos, and the Etruscans had the most fruitful relationships in north Italy with Golasecca, the Rhaetians and the Veneti. The Ligurians left no inscriptions and very few archaeological remains, a civilization that has not shone by the IA great developments, while the Etruscans on the contrary spread the euboic alphabet in northern Italy and became very rich and prosperous thanks to trade with populations further north, further west, further south and further east.

As today we know that the Etruscan language is related to another language spoken in Italy, the Rhaetian language spoken in the Alps. We now know enough about the Etruscan language to be able to exclude some of the most flimsy assumptions made in recent and less recent years. The problem of a substrate in the language of the ancient Ligures is the lack of inscriptions in ancient Ligurian but certainly before celtization the Ligurians spoke a pre-Indo-European language.

Just as it cannot be excluded the existence in Etruria itself of other languages, in particular of an IE language due to the influences arrived with the proto-Villanovan or maybe even earlier (Terramare, Bell Beaker...). The Etruscan language, which is a pre-Indo-European language, has two types of IE "strates". One very ancient, the other one more recent due to contacts with the Italic languages.











> If this information about the Etruscans turns out to be true, how things change, yes? I don't remember if you were here during that period, but I remember so well our then resident skadi types insisting all of Anatolia and the Levant had moved to Tuscany in the first millennium BC and the proof was all those really dark Etruscans on the wall paintings. :) I wonder if "he who must not be named" will acknowledge he was wrong. I suppose not; none of them ever do.



The issue was already solved many years ago by archaeologists, only that in the forums few have read the most important texts of etruscology. Not to mention the obvious manipulations.

Apart from the fact that most of those wall paintings come from northern Lazio (Tarquinia, Cerveteri), the wall paintings have clearly nothing to do with the origins of Etruscans and belong to the orientalizing period which was an artistic-cultural movement clearly of eastern mediterranean origin and which did not influence only the Etruscans, but first of all the Greeks, many Italic populations and even the Venetis. There were also movements of artists from the East, the orientalizing had indeed a huge impact on the Etruscans (who had become so rich that they could afford to exhibit these orientalized objects as a status symbol), but once again it reveals nothing significant about the origin of the Etruscans. The Etruscan civilization begins in fact around the tenth century BC with the Villanovan culture considered the most ancient phase of the Etruscan civilization. Once again nothing anomalous, because this is the period of formation of all the ethnos in pre-Roman Italy.

----------


## MOESAN

@Ygorcs: you wrote:
_"If I had to guess, I'd put the ultimate origin of Italo-Celtic between France/Belgium and West Germany/Netherlands, and that of Italic somewhere in the vicinity of Northeastern Italy, in the vicinity of the Alps, maybe Austria, Slovenia or Hungary."
_
Hungary-Austria as Italics cradle was the bet of a lot of old scientists, if I don't mistake. And I think so. Veneti of Italy could have stay some time more northern -
Less prudently I could say one possible hypothesis for Etruscans would have been Hungary too; after all, their auDNA or at least their mtDNA has been found to be closer to 3000 BC pops of Central Europe than to specifically more recent Anatolian pops - The Rhaetia position is maybe not due to a South-North move and could be ancient. Maybe too Italics and Etruscans links could be ancient too. Intrications of languages in shared material cultures and religions could be commoner and older that I thought before, and linguistic homogeneization could have taken generations of bilinguism before a language took the strong side. Maybe the basque question is here too?

----------


## MOESAN

@Pax Augusta: good post.
I regreat I've not red your last post before to write my one to Ygorcs; I was not aware of this old IE substrata in Etruscan. (spite I'm surprised of so a precise statement for a supposed badly known language).

----------


## Ygorcs

Some interesting food for thought here as I "refined" these models for the genetic ancestry of the Italians. I first used dozens of different steppe-related samples, which is a somewhat "dangerous" thing given that many of them are just so close to each other that unrealistic and misleading artifacts of the algorithms may happen. But I did that just to try and identify the closest steppe-related peoples involved in the peopling of Italy (apparently Catacomb/Western Yamnaya-like, BB and Western CWC), so later I used fewer samples, and these are quite intriguing (but in my opinion not implausible) results:

https://imgur.com/vhkNoIZ

How do I personally interpret the data above? In my opinion, some conclusions and important questions that it inspires are these:

1) Sardinia is known to have spoken a non-IE language (according to some linguists, possibly distantly related to Etruscan, but it's just little more than a tentative conjecture) as late as after the Roman conquest in the 3rd century B.C. These samples (probably from the Barbagia?) clearly lack non-negligible steppe ancestry and are by far the most EEF-related among all the Italian populations. It seems to me then that EEF can be safely concluded as the "default" non-IE language family/families of ancient Italians, so Indo-European could only have been brought by the other elements that are present in all the regions of Italy: Steppe-related (CWC, BB, Catacomb) or CA/BA Transcaucasus-related (Armenia_Chl, Kura Araxes). For many reasons I don't think the latter makes much sense.

2) CWC_Germany seems to be correlated, in other aDNA and modern DNA samples I have analyzed, with Germanic populations, but also perhaps with some neighboring Celtic (or Italo-Celtic) populations in North-Central Europe _(it's also present when I model BA Britain samples)_. CWC_Germany is curiously present in very similar frequencies in North Italy (Bergamo) and in South Italy, Sicily and Eastern-Central Italy _(Abruzzo - wasn't it where the Duchy of Spoleto was located? Do you know how large was the Lombard migration to it?)_. But Tuscany and Sardinia lack it. Could it be the signal of the Migration Period Germanic tribes, or maybe earlier IE peoples that spread from the Adriatic coast southward to South Italy and then Sicily were also reasonably close to the Western CWC (CWC_Germany)? Who could they be? I think it's unlikely the Italic languages were spread by such a people. I wish the North Picene language had already been fully deciphered and classified. People even still discuss over whether it was just a highly divergent IE language with a strong non-IE substrate, or a non-IE language.

3) Catacomb-like ancestry only appear in South Italy, Sicily and Abruzzo _(did it have Greek or more broadly BA/IA Balkanic settlement?)_, but not in North Italy (Bergamo), Tuscany and Sardinia. In all the models I have done, at least a very small proportion of Mycenaean DNA comes off as Catacomb-like, and the proportion increases if I don't use any BB and Yamnaya samples, too. Could Catacomb or Catacomb-like be the "Proto-Greek signal" correlating with the parts of Italy where Greek settlement had a large genetic impact? _(perhaps Late Western Yamnaya? In other models the best proxies for the steppe ancestry in Mycenaeans is a mix of Yamnaya_Bulgaria + Yamnaya_Ukraine)
_
4) North Italy and Tuscany clearly have a very significant Bell Beaker, mainly a mix of France+Netherlands+North Italy (circum-Alpine?) BB ancestry, and Tuscany lacks CWC or Catacomb ancestry. North Italy also stands out from South Italy/Sicily and even from Tuscany in having much less CA/BA West Asian ancestry. Could it be that Etruscans/Rhaetians (Tyrsenians) and Italic peoples were initially very similar, and it just happened that some tribes shifted to the incoming BB language while others instead retained their traditional (North?) Italian language? Might BB France+Netherlands+Germany be related to the later Italic arrivals in the LBA/EIA (IIRC Proto-Italic split is estimated to have happened pretty late, ~1200 B.C., like that of Proto-Celtic), whereas the BB North Italy is more connected to the "ancient IE strata" that Pax Augusta mentioned in his last past?

5) Levant_N ancestry is found in all of Italy but Sardinia (it has a small North African ancestry though) and North Italy, and it's found in reasonably high proportions in South Italy (the highest proportion, so I don't think this Levant_N signal has much to do with "recent" events like the Muslim/Arab conquests), Abruzzo and Sicily. What could explain that?

----------


## markod

> Can you elaborate on that? As far as I can see in the PCA, unless I'm interpreting it incorrectly, the Mycenaeans plot closer to Anatolia_N than the Romans, who are mostly slightly to their north (some to the northeast toward modern Caucasians/Levantines), some to the northwest toward Central/Eastern Europeans). Why should Proto-Italics have higher Anatolian ancestry than the Proto-Greeks then?


I meant Anatolia Bronze Age ancestry, my bad. So lots of CHG and some Levant_BA + ANF.

----------


## Messier 67

..........

----------


## brick

I put the labels in the PCA on the basis of other PCAs.





SHjZcj8.jpg

----------


## berun

the Etruscan is quite suspect, it is like an outlier, someone can provide cases of Etruscan bones? the trend in Italy is like if all Sea Peoples from the Aegean came there.

----------


## brick

> the Etruscan is quite suspect, it is like an outlier, someone can provide cases of Etruscan bones?


One is outlying but the other 4 are where they are supposed to be.







> the trend in Italy is like if all Sea Peoples from the Aegean came there.


A fairy tale.

----------


## Angela

I posted this in the mytrueancestry thread but I think it really belongs here.

"This is all conjecture until we have the samples from Moots, this paper if it's different, and hopefully, future ones from lots of other cultures in Italy, including some Terramare, samples from the ancient Veneto, from the Ligures and Celt Ligurians, some samples from the Neolithic and Bronze Age in Calabria, eastern Sicily, Puglia, colonization sites in Magna Graecia, Classical Greece including the islands and on and on, even Greek settlements in Rhodes, for example, or Phocaea. 

So, my ideas are just "guesses" as are those of other people here and on other sites. I'm certainly not married to mine, and neither should they be married to theirs. 

As for the "accomplishments" of the Romans, they span a huge period from the beginning of the Republic to the Imperial period to the fall. Different types of people may have contributed relatively more to one period than to another. Were the founders and early leaders of the Republic, particularly the "patricians", more "Northern Italian" like? I don't know. Were people like Cicero, a plebeian, more "Northern Italian" like or as a Plebeian more "Southern Italian" like? , Niebur, a 19th century historian, thought the Plebeians were foreigners who settled in early Roman who got citizenship. I don't know and maybe we'll never know. Even if they were foreigners, foreigners from where? Or were they the "original" inhabitants when the Latini arrived? I don't know yet. 

"From 494 to 287 BC, the so-called "Conflict of the Orders" resulted in the establishment of plebeian offices (the tribunes and plebeian aediles), the publication of the laws (the Law of the Twelve Tables), the establishment of the right of plebeian–patrician intermarriage (by the passage of the Lex Canuleia), the opening of the highest offices of government and some state priesthoods to the plebeians and passage of legislation (the Lex Hortensia) that made resolutions passed by the assembly of plebeians, the _concilium plebis, binding on all citizens."

_This inclusion of other groups, often hostile groups, was part of the genius of the Romans, and the thing I like best about them.

"During the Second Samnite War (326–304 BC), plebeians who had risen to power through these social reforms began to acquire the aura of _nobilitas_, "nobility" (more literally "notability"), marking the creation of a ruling elite of _nobiles_ that allied the interests of patricians and noble plebeians.[2] From the mid-4th century to the early 3rd century BC, several plebeian–patrician "tickets" for the consulship repeated joint terms, suggesting a deliberate political strategy of cooperation.[3] Although _nobilitas_ was not a formal social rank during the Republican era, in general, a plebeian who had attained the consulship was regarded as having brought nobility to his family. Such a man was a _novus homo_ ("new man"), a self-made noble, and his sons and descendants were _nobiles_.[4]"Mariusand Cicero are notable examples of _novi homines_ in the late Republic, when many of Rome's richest and most powerful men—such as Lucullus, Crassus, and Pompeius—were plebeian nobles. Some or perhaps many noble plebeians, including Cicero and Lucullus, aligned their political interests with the faction of Optimates, conservatives who sought to preserve senatorialprerogatives. By contrast, the _Populares_, which sought to champion the _plebs_ in the sense of "common people", were sometimes led by patricians such as Julius Caesar and Clodius Pulcher."


Marius famously married into the family of Julius Caesar. By the time of the Empire, we have people like Agrippa, a plebeian of low birth who married into the family of Augustus and whose descendants were Emperors . Was he part "Southern Italian" like? Then we have Livy, who seems to have been from Northern Italy. Many of the engineers who built all those roads and aqueducts all over Europe, and formed the first legions, and managed provinces, and worked in the law courts, helping to create the basis of the law of much of Europe, would have included many Southern Italian like "Romans".

Going all the way back to the earlier Romans, there would have been no Rome without the Etruscans, from whom they borrowed a great deal. However, from whom did the Etruscans learn those things? They learned from the Greeks and the Phoenicians. Cultures build one upon another. Modern populations are similarly one layer of ancient groups on top of another, then subject to drift. 

I think there's plenty of "glory" to go around. I find the kind of hyper-identification of certain people on other sites with one group they want to claim as ancestors to the exclusion of all others, and the actual attempt, certainly in the past, to actually want to change the "ethnicity" of certain groups because they don't like their modern descendants really upsetting as well as clearly just wrong both factually and ethically. 

Now I sound like a preachy Sunday school teacher, and in a response to someone who has nothing at all to do with the issues that bother me, but I guess I just took the opportunity to "unload" a little bit. Sorry. :)"

----------


## Messier 67

If I am wrong and the Italics were like those individuals in the North, and Rome was founded by Italic Latin and influenced by immigrants from Etruscan region, you are talking about massive amounts of Greeks moving to Rome to start a new life, in the Republican period too. Rome became a 1 million from those from Greek descent moving to Central Italy (also many Eastern Med people too). Central Italy today still mirrors Southern Italy, which mirrors Greece and Sicily. Campania and Latium have nearly identical haplogroup %s.

If Italic samples are close to Sardinia and Etruscans (closer to Sardinia), then I very well could be right in the Italics were the natives from the neolithic era. Which clearly opens up the Germanic language not as the combination of celt and slav, but a different language of I1s. This theory is independently supported for now in the existence of the Saxons who were 2/3s I1/I2 (pre-Pipins), according to one study. 

Very interesting developments.

Northern Italy during the celtic invasions looks like a repeat of Spain, with neolithic women shacked up with new comers from Yamnaya.

The continuing saga of this:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...e-leaders.html

The disappearance of the men, with some women remaining.

----------


## brick

> If I am wrong and the Italics were like those individuals in the North, and Rome was founded by Italic Latin and influenced by immigrants from Etruscan region, you are talking about massive amounts of Greeks moving to Rome to start a new life, in the Republican period too. Rome became a 1 million from those from Greek descent moving to Central Italy. Central Italy today still mirrors Southern Italy, which mirrors Greece and Sicily. Campania and Latium have nearly identical haplogroup %s.
> 
> If Italic samples are close to Sardinia and Etruscans (closer to Sardinia), then I very well could be right in the Italics were the natives from the neolithic era. Which clearly opens up the Germanic language not as the combination of celt and slav, but a different language of I1s. This theory is independently supported for now in the existence of the Saxons who were 2/3s I1/I2 (pre-Pipins), according to one study. 
> 
> Very interesting developments.
> 
> Northern Italy during the celtic invasions looks like a repeat of Spain, with neolithic women shacked up with new comers from Yamnaya.
> 
> The continuing saga of this:
> ...



I don't think you can read a PCA.

----------


## Angela

> I don't think you can read a PCA.


Please don't post comments like that, especially to civil members like Messier. This isn't Eurogenes. If you think the PCA disputes the conclusions of Messier, please explain why in a civil manner. 

The "leaked" PCA is a mess since all the Iberians and Italians just get yellow squares, which is why I originally thought some t-roll had done this. 

Also,please post the original PCA and the paper from which it came with the populations clearly labeled so we can make our own judgements.

----------


## Messier 67

In haplogroups, I am referring to paternal line, not maternal admixture. Central Italy and Southern Italy have nearly identical paternal lines.

I feel compelled to err on the side of caution in assuming the Italics could be the natives because I don't want to falsely judge them as the conan the barbarian (R1s).

And Tuscany has over 300% increase of Southern Caucasus than Lombardy, and many more fold increase in Aegean population. The theory that the Etruscans came from Northern Iran/Southern Caucasus to Aegean to Tuscany and formed a ruling elite in celtic areas is supported by the data. 

No data on the Italics (xRome) has been released. And Roman being apart of the Italic tribes still support the Italics could be the native neolithic people.

In both cases of Lombardy and Tuscany, the neolithic remains at near identical levels to the incoming celtic non-female population (BA invaders in red), indicating the women survived like elsewhere in Spain, and ended up shacked with the celtic invader (unlike in Britain where most of the women died). In Lombardy, you have over 80% neolithic women and celtic non-female population combined. In Tuscany, the Aegean and surrounding areas make up 40% of population. That is substantial, some Eastern Med to Caucasus people did arrive in Tuscany in massive amount at some time compared to the surrounding areas, especially compared to the North.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24132230-200-story-of-most-murderous-people-of-all-time-revealed-in-ancient-dna/

----------


## Messier 67

> Please don't post comments like that, especially to civil members like Messier. This isn't Eurogenes. If you think the PCA disputes the conclusions of Messier, please explain why in a civil manner. 
> 
> The "leaked" PCA is a mess since all the Iberians and Italians just get yellow squares, which is why I originally thought some t-roll had done this. 
> 
> Also,please post the original PCA and the paper from which it came with the populations clearly labeled so we can make our own judgements.


Thank you Someone should provide circles on that chart because they are all one color and one shape (for Italy).

----------


## brick

> Please don't post comments like that, especially to civil members like Messier. This isn't Eurogenes. If you think the PCA disputes the conclusions of Messier, please explain why in a civil manner. 
> 
> The "leaked" PCA is a mess since all the Iberians and Italians just get yellow squares, which is why I originally thought some t-roll had done this. 
> 
> Also,please post the original PCA and the paper from which it came with the populations clearly labeled so we can make our own judgements.


My comment was very civil. He thinks that Italics were the natives from the neolithic era. That's simply not possible and certainly that's not what the PCA shows.

Greeks in the PCA have a different symbol from the rest of southern Europe (Greek Macedonia, Greek Thessaly...). Starting from the Greeks, almost everything else is reconstructed. 


The original PCA

----------


## brick

> In haplogroups, I am referring to paternal line, not maternal admixture. Central Italy and Southern Italy have nearly identical paternal lines.
> 
> And Tuscany has over 300% increase of Southern Caucasus than Lombardy, and many more fold increase in Aegean population. The theory that the Etruscans came from Northern Iran/Southern Caucasus to Aegean to Tuscany and formed a ruling elite in celtic areas is supported by the data. 
> 
> No data on the Italics (xRome) has been released. And Roman being apart of the Italic tribes still support the Italics could be the native neolithic people.
> 
> In both cases of Lombardy and Tuscany, the neolithic remains at near identical levels to the incoming celtic non-female population (BA invaders in red), indicating the women survived like elsewhere in Spain, and ended up shacked with the celtic invader (unlike in Britain where most of the women died). In Lombardy, you have over 80% neolithic women and celtic non-female population combined. In Tuscany, the Aegean and surrounding areas make up 40% of population. That is substantial, some Eastern Med to Caucasus people did arrive in Tuscany in massive amount at some time compared to the surrounding areas, especially compared to the North.
> 
> https://www.newscientist.com/article...n-ancient-dna/



Angela, so I suppose you agree with this. 

Good thing this isn't Eurogenes. Such wrong comments are rarely read on Eurogenes.

----------


## Messier 67

There is no data on the ancient Italic tribes who morphed into the cities with the Greeks and Romans. 

Central and Southern Italy is where the Italics lived, and both regions today are Greek in terms of paternal haplogroup. Not admixture or other charts.

If they are right:

_Initially, historical linguists had generally assumed that the various Indo-European languages specific to ancient Italy belonged to a single branch of the family, parallel for example to that of Celtic or Germanic. The founder of this hypothesis is considered Antoine Meillet (1866-1936).

Gray and Atkinson come up by using their Bayesian phylogenetic model that the Italic branch separated from the Germanic branch 5500 years ago, roughly the start of the Bronze Age._

Then I am right. The Celts split the Germanic language speaking people to the north and the Italic speaking speaking to the south, into two different groups. Each developed their own new dialect, and thus language.

29% R1b in Latium; 29% R1b in Campania: 
both 18% of J2 and both 11% of G:

https://www.eupedia.com/genetics/italian_dna.shtml

----------


## alais

> I put the labels in the PCA on the basis of other PCAs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SHjZcj8.jpg




Thanks for sharing. So Etruscans range from Iberians to North Italians and Tuscans.






> The theory that the Etruscans came from Northern Iran/Southern Caucasus to Aegean to Tuscany and formed a ruling elite in celtic areas is supported by the data.



Nobody believes in this theory anymore. Even Davidski doesn't believe in it.


Davidski:

"It should be interesting to see how the authors of the paper(s) explain the obvious genetic similarity between the Italic speakers and Etruscans, but to me it looks like the Etruscan language was adopted by some Italic speakers *without any significant accompanying gene flow from outside of Iron Age Italy*."

----------


## alais

What I find fascinating about Italy is that it has a clear break between north and south. It is also seen in the Y-DNA.

R1b is mostly U152 in the north center, E1b1b is mostly E-V13.

----------


## Ygorcs

> If I am wrong and the Italics were like those individuals in the North, and Rome was founded by Italic Latin and influenced by immigrants from Etruscan region, you are talking about massive amounts of Greeks moving to Rome to start a new life, in the Republican period too. Rome became a 1 million from those from Greek descent moving to Central Italy (also many Eastern Med people too). Central Italy today still mirrors Southern Italy, which mirrors Greece and Sicily. Campania and Latium have nearly identical haplogroup %s.
> 
> If Italic samples are close to Sardinia and Etruscans (closer to Sardinia), then I very well could be right in the Italics were the natives from the neolithic era. Which clearly opens up the Germanic language not as the combination of celt and slav, but a different language of I1s. This theory is independently supported for now in the existence of the Saxons who were 2/3s I1/I2 (pre-Pipins), according to one study. 
> 
> Very interesting developments.
> 
> Northern Italy during the celtic invasions looks like a repeat of Spain, with neolithic women shacked up with new comers from Yamnaya.
> 
> The continuing saga of this:
> ...


I think you're treating haplogroups like "peoples" too much, and also disregarding the extremely old age of some of these haploroups (like I1 and I2, though all extant I1 derives from a much later branch).

If my nMonte models using Global25 datasheets are not completely wrong, then it's clear that _autosomally_ (Y-DNA haplogroups, especially of modern populations, can be very deceiving and hide much of the true story that took place, given many random things that cause genetic drift) the steppe-related input in North Italy and Central-Western Italy is _not the same_ found in South Italy and, partly, in Central-Eastern Italy. The former (North and Central-Western) is much more formed by Bell Beaker influx, the latter much more influenced by Catacomb/Late Yamnaya-related and CWC influx. I don't think that's just a coincidence, because many of the BA/IA Balkans and Greek samples also tend to prefer Catacomb, West Yamnaya and, in more northern parts, CWC. Besides, we just can't ignore that Venetic looks close to Italic, but with some distinctive features linking it to Celtic and Germanic. So it might've been derived from a sister language of Proto-Italic that stayed in the north. By the early Roman era, much of South Italy, especially in the lower lands, was mostly non-Italic, unless you take for granted that Sicel and other little known languages were definitely Italic when we have no such proofs. Greek and Messapic were spoken there.

----------


## Messier 67

> I think you're treating haplogroups like "peoples" too much, and also disregarding the extremely old age of some of these haploroups (like I1 and I2, though all extant I1 derives from a much later branch).
> 
> If my nMonte models using Global25 datasheets are not completely wrong, then it's clear that _autosomally_ (Y-DNA haplogroups, especially of modern populations, can be very deceiving and hide much of the true story that took place) the steppe-related input in North Italy and Central-Western Italy is _not the same_ found in South Italy and, partly, in Central-Eastern Italy. The former (North and Central-Western) is much more formed by Bell Beaker influx, the latter much more influenced by Catacomb/Late Yamnaya-related and CWC influx. I don't think that's just a coincidence, because many of the BA/IA Balkans and Greek samples also tend to prefer Catacomb, West Yamnaya and, in more northern parts, CWC. Besides, we just can't ignore that Venetic looks close to Italic, but with some distinctive features linking it to Celtic and Germanic. So it might've been derived from a sister language of Proto-Italic that stayed in the north. By the early Roman era, much of South Italy, especially in the lower lands, was mostly non-Italic, unless you take for granted that Sicel and other little known languages were definitely Italic when we have no such proofs. Greek and Messapic were spoken there.


You failed to read my initial post which compared Latium with Campania, which was the Central and Southern I was comparing. Latium/Rome is best represented in Central. Think of Central Italy, and most people think of Rome. Think of Southern Italy and most people think of Naples. And Campania/Naples is best represented in South. Latium is where the Romans and Latins lived. And Naples Bay was founded by the Greeks (and others). The Rome-Naples-Sicily-Greece connection.

----------


## davef

Yes, (ygorcs) it isn't just the Anatolian Neolithic or Caucasus in southern Italians that makes them Greek like, its the shared steppe ancestry as well

----------


## Messier 67

Steppe, which was addressed:




> 29% R1b in Latium; 29% R1b in Campania: 
> both 18% of J2 and both 11% of G:
> 
> https://www.eupedia.com/genetics/italian_dna.shtml


Also identical in Ts and Es and one percent difference in R1a.

Visit any storm site, and these individuals will make anything think Northern Italy begins in Latium, when Southern Italy begins more in Latium than the North.

Back to my original point, you would need heavy Greek Southern Italian and Eastern Med influx to push most Romans into the Southern Italian camp (If Italic were BA invaders/settlers in Central and Southern Italy). Which was my small point to begin with.

----------


## Ygorcs

> There is no data on the ancient Italic tribes who morphed into the cities with the Greeks and Romans. 
> 
> Central and Southern Italy is where the Italics lived, and both regions today are Greek in terms of paternal haplogroup. Not admixture or other charts.
> 
> If they are right:
> 
> _Initially, historical linguists had generally assumed that the various Indo-European languages specific to ancient Italy belonged to a single branch of the family, parallel for example to that of Celtic or Germanic. The founder of this hypothesis is considered Antoine Meillet (1866-1936).
> 
> Gray and Atkinson come up by using their Bayesian phylogenetic model that the Italic branch separated from the Germanic branch 5500 years ago, roughly the start of the Bronze Age._
> ...


You should not presume that modern frequencies of haplogroups in specific regions are representative of how they were 2000 ago, far less that they are representative of the even much earlier population that brought the language that would eventually thrive in that region. That's bound to lead to disappointing conclusions. Consider the genetic drift that is especially fast and dynamic in the Y-DNA haplogroups, the progressive loss of close association between autosomal ancestry and Y-DNA haplogroups, the mixing over the generations, the fact that a language can be and is often established by a socioculturally powerful minority (and that may happen multiple times, for instance: the language of people A is adopted to region of people B with a genetic influx of ~30%; then the people B transmits its language to people C, with a genetic influx of ~20%; then it's passed to people D with a genetic influx of ~20%... in the end the people D will speak the language that was ultimately spoken by the people A, who contributed to just 12% of their genetics - that might well have been the case of Italic peoples between the BA and the modern era)... 

These similarities in frequencies of Y-DNA haplogroups _may_ mean something, but they also _may_ be totally coincidental. You shouldn't assume two populations have exactly the same origins based on a similarity of Y-DNA distribution. Even populations that are basically identical can have very different proportions of Y-DNA haplogroups just due to genetic drift. _Genetic relatedness_ has even much more to do with Autosomal DNA, not paternal markers.

Besides, the Gray & Atkinson Bayesian model of IE languages has been _heavily_ criticized in its premises and methodology by a vast array of linguists, who pointed out that some of its more suspicious conclusions (for starters, the dating of the earlier splits itself) could only have happened as a result of a model that was wrong in several of its very basis, treating the evolution of languages exactly as if they were the evolution of biological living beings. Many linguists presented solid counter-evidences and counter-arguments that clearly demonstrate the mistake of trying to "reinvent the wheel" _(a popular expression here)_ of an entire science with some hi-tech "mathematical method" supposed to solve it all using just a few algorithms based on a method devised for biology originally. If you want to understand some of the caveats that render these results unreliable, see here: 

https://www.languagesoftheworld.info...e-origins.html 

http://literaryashland.org/?p=10433 

The assumption that Italic and Germanic are more related is also extremely doubtful from the point of view of historical linguistics. In terms of isoglosses and shared grammatical innovations, Germanic probably shares less with Italic than with several other IE branches (even Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian), and most current scholars only see a direct relationship of Italic with Celtic.

----------


## Ygorcs

> You failed to read my initial post which compared Latium with Campania, which was the Central and Southern I was comparing. Latium/Rome is best represented in Central. Think of Central Italy, and most people think of Rome. Think of Southern Italy and most people think of Naples. And Campania/Naples is best represented in South. Latium is where the Romans and Latins lived. And Naples Bay was founded by the Greeks (and others). The Rome-Naples-Sicily-Greece connection.


Yes, so? I had already understood that, but that changes nothing in what I'd written. Nobody's denying the relationship between Greek South Italians and Latins especially after the unification of Italy by the Romans.

----------


## brick

There are obvious differences between the people of Lazio and Campania: the first are Central Italians and the second are Southern Italians. It is also showed in the study discussed in this thread.

----------


## markod

I used to be convinced that major Balkanic migrations reached Italy, but IMHO that's untenable considering those leaks. If Greeks and Messapians had a major impact there, modern south Italians and especially the Romans would be more northern and western.

Look at the Adriatic samples we have. They have the same Iberian-Alpine ancestry presumably also found in the Etruscans. The source population for the Italians on the other hand needs to have very significant Levantine and Iranian ancestry components.

----------


## Ygorcs

> I used to be convinced that major Balkanic migrations reached Italy, but IMHO that's untenable considering those leaks. If Greeks and Messapians had a major impact there, modern south Italians and especially the Romans would be more northern and western.


How is that so if the Mycenaean Greek and the IA Empuries Greek samples are virtually as "southern" and "eastern" as the Romans in that PCA? I'm sure there was some extra Iranian and Levantine-enriched input into Italy, but I don't think those leaks discard major Balkanic migrations at all. Present-day Greeks and Balkanites as a whole are _much_ more northern and western than those old DNA samples seem to indicate the ancient populations were (except for very northern Balkanic people, basically around Pannonia).

----------


## Demetrios

> Wow, this is exciting. 
> 
> Is this the same paper as the one that RYU reported on? In that one there were two "types" of Romans, yes? One was more "North Italian" like, and one was more "South Italian" like, but by the Imperial period it was definitely more "Southern Italian" like, with a further small change in the post Imperial period.
> 
> These look definitely more "South Italian" like. So, this is perhaps a different paper?
> 
> Any info on the dating of these samples or the context? 
> 
> Just assuming for the moment, which I probably shouldn't do, that these samples are all Imperial Era Romans and from a different paper, then I think it just reinforces some of the conclusions we tentatively reached from that prior information. 
> ...


There is a clue about all these that ties to your narrative about Bronze Age/Mycenaean/Aegean migrations into Italy, and specifically Rome, which might shed a little more light, although it could be totally wrong. It's actually part of Roman mythology and has to do with the Arcadian hero Evander of Pallene. I know mythology is not absolute in terms of corroboration in a broader scientific context, but still i find it interesting that it relates with this leaked data. Per Roman tradition he supposedly founded the city of Pallantium on the future site of Rome and specifically on the Palatine Hill, sixty years before the Trojan War. He also instituted the festival of the Lupercalia. Evander was deified after his death and an altar was constructed to him on the Aventine Hill. I have also read of another tradition that presents the Capitoline Hill as originally having been founded by Hercules, although even this might be related to Evander bearing in mind the erection of the Great Altar of Hercules in the Forum Boarium, ascribed to Evander and situated on the plain between the Capitoline, Palatine, and Aventine Hills. Evander was also a protagonist in the Aeneid by Virgil, having been an ally of Aeneas. Do we have any information on the dates of the Roman samples, so we can determine whether this southern-like influence represents proto-Roman or subsequent migrations? Do we know when it's coming out in full?

----------


## halfalp

> I used to be convinced that major Balkanic migrations reached Italy, but IMHO that's untenable considering those leaks. If Greeks and Messapians had a major impact there, modern south Italians and especially the Romans would be more northern and western.
> 
> Look at the Adriatic samples we have. They have the same Iberian-Alpine ancestry presumably also found in the Etruscans. The source population for the Italians on the other hand needs to have very significant Levantine and Iranian ancestry components.


I'm not sure about major expansion. But it's already a general rule that where there will be Bell Beaker archeological traces, you will have great chances to found Steppe / Balkans ancestry and R1b-P312, and Bell Beaker Culture is the likely only candidate to be related with such ancestry. Everything Anatolia, Levantine or Iranian in Italy probably came from the Sea.

----------


## Demetrios

> How is that so if the Mycenaean Greek and the IA Empuries Greek samples are virtually as "southern" and "eastern" as the Romans in that PCA? I'm sure there was some extra Iranian and Levantine-enriched input into Italy, but I don't think those leaks discard major Balkanic migrations at all. Present-day Greeks and Balkanites as a whole are _much_ more northern and western than those old DNA samples seem to indicate the ancient populations were (except for very northern Balkanic people, basically around Pannonia).


When it comes to modern samples, especially the Greek ones, keep in mind that the representations tended to be north-related mostly. Other modern autosomal studies do cluster for example Peloponnesians with Sicilians, therefore respectively close to the Mycenaean samples as well.

----------


## markod

> How is that so if the Mycenaean Greek and the IA Empuries Greek samples are virtually as "southern" and "eastern" as the Romans in that PCA? I'm sure there was some extra Iranian and Levantine-enriched input into Italy, but I don't think those leaks discard major Balkanic migrations at all. Present-day Greeks and Balkanites as a whole are _much_ more northern and western than those old DNA samples seem to indicate the ancient populations were (except for very northern Balkanic people, basically around Pannonia).


They are close, but the Romans are more eastern when under the Balkanic hypothesis they should be less eastern. South Italy had well established BA cultures before the Greeks came, so the demic impact of the Greeks would have been diluted at least.

----------


## Angela

> Angela, so I suppose you agree with this. 
> 
> Good thing this isn't Eurogenes. Such wrong comments are rarely read on Eurogenes.



No, I don't agree with it. If you've read any of my posts on the subject at all you would know that. I've been saying for ten years that I didn't think there was a folk migration from Anatolia to "Etruria" in the first millennium BC. The only possibility which remained was "perhaps" some movement of elites. What I have said and believe is that there was immigration to Italy from Greece starting very early, before the major colonization of the first millennium BC and that this kind of ancestry probably tricked slowly up the peninsula. If there's J2 in the Etruscans it could very well have come from that, not any direct migration from Anatolia. 

The places where the argument has always been that the Etruscans were formed through a mass migration from Anatolia have been precisely Eurogenes and Anthrogenica, although lately Anthrogenica has modified it somewhat to opt for an "elite" takeover. 

I think you've rather got things backwards.

As for the Italics I have never even considered that they weren't steppe admixed. 

It's just that here we don't shut down opposing viewpoints. We attempt, where possible, to civilly show people why they are incorrect. If they start insulting other people or posting ultra-nationalist or nordicist propaganda that's another story.

----------


## Angela

> I used to be convinced that major Balkanic migrations reached Italy, but IMHO that's untenable considering those leaks. If Greeks and Messapians had a major impact there, modern south Italians and especially the Romans would be more northern and western.
> 
> Look at the Adriatic samples we have. They have the same Iberian-Alpine ancestry presumably also found in the Etruscans. The source population for the Italians on the other hand needs to have very significant Levantine and Iranian ancestry components.


There's a big difference between the Illyrians and the Mycenaean like Greeks. I have no problem with an Illyrian or Thracian like population forming part of the ethnogenesis of Italians. Heck, they're some of my highest matches in terms of ancient peoples. 

They may even have trickled into Southern Italy. 

Greeks are a completely different story. We're not talking about modern mainland Greeks here. We're talking about the Mycenaeans. The Mycenaeans plot near modern Southern Italians/Sicilians, Ashkenazim, and near Cypriots. Did they have a lot of "Armenian" like, South Caucasus like ancestry? I don't know what "a lot" means. What was it? 20%. OK. On Admixture Southern Italians and even modern mainland Greeks have about the same amount of that "component", as I've pointed out numerous times. Levantine? Was it about 5% in the Mycenaeans? I have to go back and check.

I really don't understand your basis for this claim. We have TONS of archaeological and written evidence for ancient Greek migration into southern Italy. We have that kind of ancestry showing up in the Bronze Age. 

Now there's suddenly some phantom population which explains things better? Which population? Where is the evidence?

Is this still about the four or five "ancient Romans" who drift toward Cyprus on that leaked PCA? The ancient populations of Crete, Rhodes, and most probably Cyprus as well fed into southern Italy and Sicily. They probably plot in that space. In fact, didn't one of the PCAs above show that?

Ed. Sorry, Ygorcs, we cross-posted.

----------


## berun

it's somehow vintage, but the fourth map provides an idea about the Italian case.

Attachment 11101

----------


## Ygorcs

> They are close, but the Romans are more eastern when under the Balkanic hypothesis they should be less eastern. South Italy had well established BA cultures before the Greeks came, so the demic impact of the Greeks would have been diluted at least.


I don't think that's a necessary conclusion. Do we have EBA and MBA samples from Central Italy and South Italy? Do we really know when these IA Roman samples come from and date from? I really don't know. It might be possible that we're dealing with successive waves in Central/South Italy: first a basically Sardinian-like EEF; then heavy Iranian and perhaps Levantine-rich waves; then waves bringing heavily diluted steppe-related input (from BB and later Balkanic IE, i.e. Greek, Messapian, perhaps Liburnian); and finally migrations during the imperial era _(could they have brought more Levantines, North African/Punic and Anatolians than we thought?)_. By the way, I don't think these Romans look significantly more eastern than Cretans, who also have quite a bit of Iranian and Levantine ancestry in my calculations. What if most of the Greek flux came from the Aegean islands or even from West Anatolia? In sum, I have more doubts than answers after all these leaks. ;-P

----------


## markod

@Angela, Ygorcs:

I suppose the Mycenaean samples we have thus far have too much EEF. but if the Greek settlers came from a more exotic place (Asia Minor etc.) that could work, provided the Greeks managed to replace the previous inhabitants. I personally doubt this because to me it looks like the native Fossa culture made up the bulk of the population. We'll see once we get early Iron Age samples.

----------


## Jovialis

> There are obvious differences between the people of Lazio and Campania: the first are Central Italians and the second are Southern Italians. It is also showed in the study discussed in this thread.


Why is it that these amateur PCAs seem to violate one another? Especially compared to PCAs from official papers? Brick, I'm pretty sure we have been over this before, with the broad generalizations of using simply "Lazio" by itself as a sample.

----------


## Angela

> There's a big difference between the Illyrians and the Mycenaean like Greeks. I have no problem with an Illyrian or Thracian like population forming part of the ethnogenesis of Italians. Heck, they're some of my highest matches in terms of ancient peoples. 
> 
> They may even have trickled into Southern Italy. 
> 
> Greeks are a completely different story. We're not talking about modern mainland Greeks here. We're talking about the Mycenaeans. The Mycenaeans plot near modern Southern Italians/Sicilians, Ashkenazim, and near Cypriots. Did they have a lot of "Armenian" like, South Caucasus like ancestry? I don't know what "a lot" means. What was it? 20%.* OK. On Admixture Southern Italians and even modern mainland Greeks have about the same amount of that "component", as I've pointed out numerous times. Levantine? Was it about 5% in the Mycenaeans?* I have to go back and check.
> 
> I really don't understand your basis for this claim. We have TONS of archaeological and written evidence for ancient Greek migration into southern Italy. We have that kind of ancestry showing up in the Bronze Age. 
> 
> Now there's suddenly some phantom population which explains things better? Which population? Where is the evidence?
> ...


I did go back and check. The separate Iran Neo/CHG in Mycenaeans was 18% as a high. They had no Levant Neo. Bronze Age Anatolians did, however, up to 6% in some analyses, and 11 to 14% in others, indicating there was definitely a move north into Anatolia. If Bronze Age Anatolians moved from there to the Greek Island, Greece, and Southern Italy, then they would have taken that ancestry along with them.

When we finally get Classical Era Greek samples, or even better, samples from the earlier parts of the first millennium BC from not only the mainland but the islands, I'd like to see them modeled with Levant Neo as one of the choices. 

Apparently there are rumors that some of these ancient "Roman" samples which seem to drift toward Cyprus are from Pompeii. That's at the latest 79 AD, so I think we can say good-bye to all those elaborate fantasies that hordes of Byzantine Levantines and Anatolians moved to southern Italy without leaving a trace in the archaeology or the historical record. 

I'd also like to point out that these researchers had better be very sure they're not picking up transient merchants and craftsmen and did some isotope analysis to help in that endeavor. The location of the burials would also be very important. 

I've also been reading "Carthage Must Be Destroyed" in light of all the commentary about the Phoenicians/Carthaginians being responsible for "Levantine" ancestry in southern Italy. One of the problems is that in a run upthread, while supposedly Southern Italians like Calabrians have it, Sardinians do not. Yet, Sardinia had a substantial Phoenician/Carthaginian settlement and southern Italy did not. 

When I have a chance I'll post some of the pertinent information from the book. I highly recommend it.

----------


## davef

I saw a map and the phoenicians took a small corner in northwest Sicily but that's about it in terms of settling in what is now Italy. It would be strange for them to have gone to the mainland without recording that they did so in the first place. This plus the fact that (stated above) Sardinians don't score levant-neo yet Sardinia had far more Phoenician colonies. 

Btw Im not against phoenicians in case someone wants to accuse me of being so. I'm against t-rolls who make assumptions about the origins of certain people without evidence due to hatred against them

----------


## markod

Moreover, why would Roman Anatolians/Levantines have relocated to Apulia/Basilicata etc. where their signal is strongest. It makes no sense.

The people who settled those regions must have thought it preferrable to live as poor mountain shepherds rather than stay in their previous homes.

----------


## Jovialis

> Moreover, why would Roman Anatolians/Levantines have relocated to Apulia/Basilicata etc. where their signal is strongest. It makes no sense.
> 
> The people who settled those regions must have thought it preferrable to live as poor mountain shepherds rather than stay in their previous homes.


Where are you getting Levantine from? The study says Anatolians BA has a strong signal there.

----------


## MOESAN

> What I find fascinating about Italy is that it has a clear break between north and south. It is also seen in the Y-DNA.
> 
> R1b is mostly U152 in the north center, E1b1b is mostly E-V13.


Thanks for these pictures - pity the categories are changing 10% by 10% (5% would have been more precise and avoid the impressions of vacuum where it's not the case). for Y-R1b,subclades would have been useful, by instance, when someones argue about Lazio and Campania.

----------


## MOESAN

Same remark about subclades of other Y-haplos, in fact.

----------


## Jovialis

> Moreover, why would Roman Anatolians/Levantines have relocated to Apulia/Basilicata etc. where their signal is strongest. It makes no sense.





> The people who settled those regions must have thought it preferrable to live as poor mountain shepherds rather than stay in their previous homes.




Levant_N is about half Anatolian_N, half Natufian-like (brown), which I would assume is connected to North African. Which Puglia has a very weak to no (non-visible) signal for. Moreover, Basilicata is SItaly2 which is a bit different from Puglia (SItaly3). Furthermore, Puglia is the most Anatolian_BA like:

----------


## Angela

As I said, I've been reviewing notes I had made of the material in "Carthage Must Be Destroyed", in light of years of commentary that a "Levantine" signal in Southern Italians/Sicilians, came from Phoenicians/Carthaginians.

I'm not going to quote whole pages. Anyone is at liberty to pick up the book at amazon or from a library and check my conclusions. I assure you they are accurate.

A major point made by the author is that, as I've always maintained, the Phoenician colonies were entirely different from many of the Greek ones. The "Phoenicians" were "not" conquered by the Assyrians and driven out of their homes. Rather, they were "used" by the Assyrians and whoever else came to power in the region to conduct trade for them. It was because of the increasing pressure by the Assyrians to provide them with metals that the Phoenicians went west to establish colonies. 

Their only "colony" on the Italian mainland was at Pithecusa near Neapolis, which, as was their wont, was located on a small island where they maintained markets and some manufacturies. Of the small population on that island, archaeologists estimate about 20% of that small population was actually Phoenician in origin. That's it for mainland Italy.

Now, there were, of course, in every port city in the Mediterranean, including in Etruria and Rome and Massalia and on and on, merchants of Phoenician, and Punic, and Greek, and Egyptian and every other nationality. Likewise, there were Venetian and Genovese and Lombard merchants and bankers all over Medieval central and Northern Europe. Is anyone going to seriously propose that they substantially changed the genetic signature of those countries? 

As for the idiocy of suggesting that because Carthage signed a trade agreement with Etruscans and even Latins, that means there was a mass influx of Carthaginians into mainland Italy, I'm almost at a loss for words. Three big trading cultures, the "Punics", the Greeks, the Etruscans, and later the Latins were all present in the Mediterranean at the same time. When it was convenient they tried to cooperate, or to carve out territories belonging to one group or another in order to prevent conflict. Think of it in terms of China or Russia and the U.S. for goodness' sakes. You get to have your sphere of influence, your trading partners, and I'll have mine. 

They tried it, it didn't work, and eventually wars broke out. Please do at least skim through this book and you'll understand this period of history in a much more nuanced way.

There were settlements in Sardinia and Spain as well, again established on ports or islands for the shipping of metals they found in the interior. The ports in southern Spain, in particular, can be compared to, let's say, The Cape of Good Hope in southern Africa, as a place to ship and trade goods, farm land so as to be able to replenish supplies on your ships etc. 

Concentrating on Italy, since that is the topic of this thread, we can see that in Sardinia their imprint geographically and culturally is much stronger than in mainland Italy, yet there is no Levant Neolithic signal in Sardinians in the same amateur runs that find it in Sicilians and Southern Italians. 

Let's turn to Sicily. The only Phoenician/Punic settlements in Sicily were in the far northwestern corner, in three small settlements. Their attempts to expand their influence were stymied, according to the author of this exhaustive text, by a "deluge" of Greek migrants (his words, not mine). He also says, by the way, that unlike the "Punics", "the Greek colonial modus operandi often involved the violent expulsion of indigenous communities."

So, I would think any reasonable person would agree that the long proposed and defended "theory" that the Phoenicians/Carthaginians living in northwest Sicily, clearly small in number, considering the number and size of their "colonies" somehow managed to infiltrate their genes not only all over Sicily but across the water into all of Southern Italy is highly unlikely, to put it more kindly than it deserves. 

So, where does that leave us in terms of the Punics as possible candidates for this "extra" Levantine Neo ancestry. The preferred idea is always slavery. OK. Rome did certainly take "Carthaginian" soldiers and sailors as slaves. The problem is that it's highly doubtful even the majority of the Carthaginian troops were actually Carthaginians. They used Libyans, Spaniards, Cisalpine Gauls and on and on. There weren't enough Carthaginians to man these large armies.

In the conflict over Himera in Spain, the Carthaginian troops included "large numbers of mercenaries from across the central and western Mediterranean, including Libya, Spain, Sicily, Sardinia and Corsica." These forces were further supplemented by those of Anaxilas, the Greek tyrant of Rhegium in southern Italy." Pg. 115. The defeat of this force was so total that "only a few bedraggled survivors made it back to Africa to bring news of the disaster." The forces for the next war on Sicilian soil were mostly Libyan levies and Iberian mercenaries. Pg. 122. According to the author, Carthage had "no permanent presence" in Sicily. In a subsequent war with mostly North African and Carthaginian troops, half of them died of plague. The rest managed to get a treaty with the Sicilian city states of western and central Sicily to pay tribute to Carthage. Under Dionysius of Siracusa, the Punics present in the city were expelled from the city. "Across Greek Sicily, towns and cities were now purged of their Punic inhabitants in an ugly orgy of ethnic cleansing that included atrocities and massacres." pg. 117. The last Punic outpost of Motya was totally destroyed and almost all their inhabitants, including women and children, were slaughtered. 

In later periods, when he took on Rome, Hannibal, for example, employed not only lots of Iberian mercenaries, but Gallic ones, Cisalpine Gauls, my own Ligures/Apuani, Campanians, and even lots of Greeks. Indeed, some of his closest advisors were Greeks, and he had himself been schooled in the Greek classics and spoke Greek. There had also been Greek wives in the "royal" geneaology. Amazingly they apparently even had Scythian mercenaries. 

As for the fate of the mercenary soldiers used by the Carthaginians, their fate, other than death, of course, varied. Many were enslaved, but the actual percentage or real "Punics" in their ranks is anybody's guess in my opinion. At the end of the First Punic War with Rome, one of the terms of the treaty was that Carthage had to evacuate all of its forces from Sicily. That was a master stroke. Once in North Africa they were an endless headache to the Carthaginians as they all demanded to be paid at once. These mercenaries almost led to the extinction of Carthage.

This was the situation with all the Carthaginian forces in all their great battles, so I would be very wary of assuming that the importation of some enslaved Carthaginian troops necessarily meant that they carried any actual "Punic" ancestry, or even North African ancestry.

That's over and beyond the fact that I don't know why they would all have been sent only to southern Italy and Sicily. 

In addition, many fit men would have gone to the galleys and mines, young, attractive girls to brothels. Now, some would indeed become house slaves, some might be manumitted and start families. I just have no idea how you quantify the numbers involved or where they served and were manumitted. 

I'll end with the destruction of Carthage itself. It was looted, sacked and burned to the ground. Those inhabitants who didn't die were indeed sent to the slave marts. By the end there were supposedly on 50,000 left alive:

"An estimated 50,000 surviving inhabitants were sold into slavery and the city was then leveled." I can find no information as to where precisely they were sent. As I said above, that most became house slaves who would procreate before or after manumission is highly unlikely. The Romans were not very kind to their enemies, and their mines, manufacturing centers, and galleys just ate up slaves. Some did, though, I'm sure.

I'm on my way out so I can't go into detail about another claim I just recently heard about, i.e. that this Levantine signal is because of the conquest of Syria. Syria was annexed in 64 BC. If it turns out that some of the "Southern Italian" like people of Rome who will be discussed in the Moots paper also have some of this purported signal, then that's a nonstarter. Even if it's only in the people of Pompei, that's 79 AD. In that short a period there were so many Syrian slaves, all deliberately sent only to southern Italy, to leave this kind of imprint?

I don't know the answers folks, but there are serious problems with these proposals.

----------


## davef

^^ I can't upvote this post enough

----------


## torzio

As to prevent confusion in this thread


Phoenicians where *not* in the north levant ...........that area was Luwian/Hittite at the time of Phoenician adventures

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

Luwian was spoken in northern levant until 600 BC

----------


## markod

> [FONT=Verdana]
> 
> 
> 
> Levant_N is about half Anatolian_N, half Natufian-like (brown), which I would assume is connected to North African. Which Puglia has a very weak to no (non-visible) signal for. Moreover, Basilicata is SItaly2 which is a bit different from Puglia (SItaly3). Furthermore, Puglia is the most Anatolian_BA like:


I think the Levant_BA component that Ygorcs and others found is contained in Anatolia_BA. The Luwian and Hittite samples had it, too.

----------


## Angela

> I think the Levant_BA component that Ygorcs and others found is contained in Anatolia_BA. The Luwian and Hittite samples had it, too.


I had made the mistake of going to Eurogenes and anthrogenica and found the same old misstatements and misunderstandings. That's why the rather forceful post. :) It wasn't a response to Ygorcs at all, whom I very much respect. 

I don't have the answers, as I hope I made clear. A lot depends on the dating of the actual samples both from what I think is a new paper and from the Moots paper, and the analysis of those samples. I'd also really like to see samples from Neolithic and Copper Age and Bronze Age Southern Italy.

Whatever the actual theory proposed it also has to explain this "extra" Levant Neolithic in the Greek islands. 

As for the ancient Phoenicians, their closest modern proxy are the Christian Lebanese. Their base was in coastal Canaan, in between Syria and Israel. The most successful of the city states was Tyre.







For the Carthaginians it very much depends on the time period. The elites were originally strictly from Phoenicia. As time passed there was some intermarriage with Greeks and at a certain period Numidians, although there was also great conflict with both groups. I think it's a good bet that there was a substantial Libyan element in the general population.

In looking over this "leaked" PCA it seems a little dodgy. What academic paper wouldn't distinguish between Spaniards and the various Italian groups? Did someone hack a preliminary PCA or is it really "leaked"?

----------


## Ygorcs

> I think the Levant_BA component that Ygorcs and others found is contained in Anatolia_BA. The Luwian and Hittite samples had it, too.


I had also thought that too, but for some reason the Anatolia BA samples available (Isparta, Övaören) do not fit as good proxy populations that would account for that Levant_N ancestry _(the Levant_N admixture is also consistently present and way too large in South Italy and Sicily in my admittedly tentative models to be entirely attributable to Anatolia_BA, unless the genetic replacement on behalf of Anatolia_BA would've been massive)_. In my opinion, it might've come with several layers from the East Mediterranean, including BA Anatolians, but also Greeks from the eastern islands of the Aegean _(Modern Cretans and Cypriots also have much of it, and even the BA Mycenaean sample appears to have some Levant_N ancestry in my model using many different reference populations)_, much later also assimilated Jews and Punic people, and even others. It's also possible, I think, that _some_ of that signal in fact refers to North Africans, Egyptians and especially Maghrebis, since North Africa was a major agricultural province in the Roman Empire. But ultimately I think part of that Levantine influence may have appeared as early as the time when the Iranian Chalcolithic ancestry was also spreading to Southern Europe, in the CA or EBA. We'll see in future studies.

_P.S.: Btw this is what I get for Mycenaean Greeks. As you say, the Levant_N in their case seems to be explained by Anatolian BA input._

 [1] "distance%=1.6713 / distance=0.016713" 





 * GRC_Mycenaean*


 


 Greece_N 42.75


 Kura-Araxes_Kalavan 19.70

 Balkans_N 16.40


 Yamnaya_Ukraine 7.25

 Maykop 5.30

 Levant_N 4.00

 Remedello_BA 3.15

 Catacomb 1.45


 
 [1] "distance%=1.6109 / distance=0.016109"




 Mycenaean

 


 Greece_N 38.70

 Anatolia_EBA_Ovaoren 19.00

 Balkans_N 11.20

 Beaker_Sicily_no_steppe 10.30

 Yamnaya_Ukraine 9.65


 Kura-Araxes_Kalavan 7.65

 Maykop 3.50

----------


## Mavors

Regarding Levant_N in Sardinia, the recent paper on Nuragic Sardinians models moderns as all having various amounts of east Mediterranean input proxied by Lebanese(can't post images yet, it's the supplementary figure 12 of *"Population history from the Neolithic to present on the Mediterranean island of Sardinia: An ancient DNA perspective"*, discussed elsewhere). I realize it isn't much, and I assume the HGDP and similar public academic samples are from the interior which has even less than Campidano/Carbonia according to this, but technically it should be there to some degree; Lebanese, correct me if I'm wrong, should have a sizeable amount of Levant_N, no?

----------


## Angela

> I had also thought that too, but for some reason the Anatolia BA samples available (Isparta, Övaören) do not fit as good proxy populations that would account for that Levant_N ancestry _(the Levant_N admixture is also consistently present and way too large in South Italy and Sicily in my admittedly tentative models to be entirely attributable to Anatolia_BA, unless the genetic replacement on behalf of Anatolia_BA would've been massive)_. In my opinion, it might've come with several layers from the East Mediterranean, including BA Anatolians, but also Greeks from the eastern islands of the Aegean _(Modern Cretans and Cypriots also have much of it, and even the BA Mycenaean sample appears to have some Levant_N ancestry in my model using many different reference populations)_, much later also assimilated Jews and Punic people, and even others. It's also possible, I think, that _some_ of that signal in fact refers to North Africans, Egyptians and especially Maghrebis, since North Africa was a major agricultural province in the Roman Empire. But ultimately I think part of that Levantine influence may have appeared as early as the time when the Iranian Chalcolithic ancestry was also spreading to Southern Europe, in the CA or EBA. We'll see in future studies.
> 
> _P.S.: Btw this is what I get for Mycenaean Greeks. As you say, the Levant_N in their case seems to be explained by Anatolian BA input._
> 
>  [1] "distance%=1.6713 / distance=0.016713" 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ygorcs, I'm not sure about this, but didn't some of the papers say that Greek Neolithic didn't actually impact Greece very much? 

Also, could you explain why you include populations like Remedello or Beaker Sicily no steppe?

----------


## Jovialis

> I had also thought that too, but for some reason the Anatolia BA samples available (Isparta, Övaören) do not fit as good proxy populations that would account for that Levant_N ancestry _(the Levant_N admixture is also consistently present and way too large in South Italy and Sicily in my admittedly tentative models to be entirely attributable to Anatolia_BA, unless the genetic replacement on behalf of Anatolia_BA would've been massive)_. In my opinion, it might've come with several layers from the East Mediterranean, including BA Anatolians, but also Greeks from the eastern islands of the Aegean _(Modern Cretans and Cypriots also have much of it, and even the BA Mycenaean sample appears to have some Levant_N ancestry in my model using many different reference populations)_, much later also assimilated Jews and Punic people, and even others. It's also possible, I think, that _some_ of that signal in fact refers to North Africans, Egyptians and especially Maghrebis, since North Africa was a major agricultural province in the Roman Empire. But ultimately I think part of that Levantine influence may have appeared as early as the time when the Iranian Chalcolithic ancestry was also spreading to Southern Europe, in the CA or EBA. We'll see in future studies.
> 
> _P.S.: Btw this is what I get for Mycenaean Greeks. As you say, the Levant_N in their case seems to be explained by Anatolian BA input._
> 
>  [1] "distance%=1.6713 / distance=0.016713" 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What population is used for "Southern Italy". It isn't necessarily a homogeneous place, as the admixture chart shows.

----------


## markod

> I had also thought that too, but for some reason the Anatolia BA samples available (Isparta, Övaören) do not fit as good proxy populations that would account for that Levant_N ancestry _(the Levant_N admixture is also consistently present and way too large in South Italy and Sicily in my admittedly tentative models to be entirely attributable to Anatolia_BA, unless the genetic replacement on behalf of Anatolia_BA would've been massive)_. In my opinion, it might've come with several layers from the East Mediterranean, including BA Anatolians, but also Greeks from the eastern islands of the Aegean _(Modern Cretans and Cypriots also have much of it, and even the BA Mycenaean sample appears to have some Levant_N ancestry in my model using many different reference populations)_, much later also assimilated Jews and Punic people, and even others. It's also possible, I think, that _some_ of that signal in fact refers to North Africans, Egyptians and especially Maghrebis, since North Africa was a major agricultural province in the Roman Empire. But ultimately I think part of that Levantine influence may have appeared as early as the time when the Iranian Chalcolithic ancestry was also spreading to Southern Europe, in the CA or EBA. We'll see in future studies.
> 
> _P.S.: Btw this is what I get for Mycenaean Greeks. As you say, the Levant_N in their case seems to be explained by Anatolian BA input._
> 
>  [1] "distance%=1.6713 / distance=0.016713" 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, the East Mediterranean component is rather significant, that's why I suggested earlier in the thread that Greek settlers were an implausible source. We still have no samples from the entire coastal region between southern- and eastern Anatolia and the north-western extent of the Mesopotamian plain in Syria. I'd think that some fitting source population will be found there eventually.

I do not understand why you'd would think the Near Eastern admixture would have come later, though. Firstly, there was no good reason to migrate to rural regions of southern Italy, with the exception of wealthy Sicily of course (but there the Near Eastern signal is diminished). As for slavery, during the expansions of the Late Republic for 100 000 purported Jewish slaves there were 1 000 000 Celtic slaves, 500 000 Dacian slaves, 150 000 German slaves and an equal number from Epirus. Had the slaves contributed more than an insignificant amount of autosomal admixture to the ancestors of southern Italians, the latter would most likely plot in Central Europe nowadays.

----------


## Angela

As I said, a lot is going to depend on the dates of the samples, as well as their context, of course.

If the "end" date is the samples from Pompeii, that's 79 AD, so early Empire.

In the Republic up to 79 A.D. there were repeated battles against other peoples on the Italian peninsula, the Gauls, the people of Epirus, Carthaginians, Celt-Iberians, Macedonians, Illyrians, Greeks, Numidians, Gauls again, Germans, the peoples of "Asia Minor" including Pontus, or Anatolia, the Cilicians of Anatolia, the Syrians, Gauls again, Germans again, and the British. 

I have no idea who went where, or how many captured people were in situations where they could reproduce either before or after manumission. What I don't think happened is that all the slaves from Numidia and Anatolia and Syria got sent to southern Italy and Greeks, the people of Epirus, Illyria, Gaul and Germany weren't.

The Italian "cline" existed before all of this.

See:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp...Roman_military

For the "true" Iron Age Republican samples of presumably the Moots paper, we'd have to go back from their dates to see which conquests should be included. That site would provide the data.

----------


## Aaron1981

The uniparentals should be as follows. If MBA North-Central Italy was modern "North Italian" like, we should see large amounts of R1b-L51+ and downstream arriving in Italy from the North/Central Europe. Possibly Italics? Not sure, need to wait for paper. The Balkan/Anatolian influence should add additional "South Italian" like ancestry to central-southern Italy during the Imperial Age with more E-V13, J2, R1b-L23(xL51), G2 and so forth. The catch is that Italy was previously EEF like, so it will be interesting to see which Y lineages previously existed there. It's possible they are mostly rare today, such as R-V88/I2-M223 ie:Sardinia, but I'd expect some branches of G2 and J2 to also be commong before the MBA movements from the north.

----------


## Ygorcs

> @Angela, Ygorcs:
> 
> I suppose the Mycenaean samples we have thus far have too much EEF. but if the Greek settlers came from a more exotic place (Asia Minor etc.) that could work, provided the Greeks managed to replace the previous inhabitants. I personally doubt this because to me it looks like the native Fossa culture made up the bulk of the population. We'll see once we get early Iron Age samples.


Why should this East Mediterranean pull be associated with _only one_ population? It might well (and I think that's the most likely scenario) have accumulated over the milennia as it arrived with several different migrations.

----------


## Ygorcs

> Ygorcs, I'm not sure about this, but didn't some of the papers say that Greek Neolithic didn't actually impact Greece very much? 
> 
> Also, could you explain why you include populations like Remedello or Beaker Sicily no steppe?


I think these results shouldn't be taken literally. Greece_N probably means just "something related to the pre-Greek in the Balkans". Anyway, I also used many other EEF samples as possible reference populations, and even including Minoan_Lasithi in one of the calculations, but some consistently significant proportion of Greece_N also appeared as the preferred choice in the model, I don't know why. It's weird if some of the papers already concluded Greek_N didn't impact Greece much. Another intriguing thing is that using the very same reference populations the Mycenaean Greek was much more shifted to Greek_N, while the Empuries Greek was much more shifted to Minoan_Lasithi:

_[1] "distance%=1.7667 / distance=0.017667" 
_

_ 
_

_ Mycenaean
_

_ 
_

_Greece_N 61.70
_

_Kura-Araxes_Kalavan 20.50_

_Catacomb 11.25_

_Levant_N 4.55_

_Minoan_Lasithi 2.00_



_[1] "distance%=2.0212 / distance=0.020212" 
_

_ 
_

_ Iberia_Northeast_Empuries2_

_ 
_

_Minoan_Lasithi 55.05_

_Greece_N 16.40_

_Catacomb 13.45_

_Barcin_ChL 11.45
_

_Levant_N 3.65
_




As for Remedello and Beaker_Sicily_no_steppe I modeled these Mycenaeans that way just to compare them to South Italians and Abruzzo Italians to see their differences better. They might also simply represent here a more "central" South European EEF. The fits became a bit better when I used these samples, so maybe the EEF ancestry in Greeks also included something more "western" (not necessarily from Italy). They don't _actually_ have to mean what the labels say. These are just general guides to understand fundamental patterns in a people's genetic history. I don't think we have the _exact_ sources of ancestry for all these peoples.

----------


## Ygorcs

> Yes, the East Mediterranean component is rather significant, that's why I suggested earlier in the thread that Greek settlers were an implausible source. We still have no samples from the entire coastal region between southern- and eastern Anatolia and the north-western extent of the Mesopotamian plain in Syria. I'd think that some fitting source population will be found there eventually.
> 
> I do not understand why you'd would think the Near Eastern admixture would have come later, though. Firstly, there was no good reason to migrate to rural regions of southern Italy, with the exception of wealthy Sicily of course (but there the Near Eastern signal is diminished). As for slavery, during the expansions of the Late Republic for 100 000 purported Jewish slaves there were 1 000 000 Celtic slaves, 500 000 Dacian slaves, 150 000 German slaves and an equal number from Epirus. Had the slaves contributed more than an insignificant amount of autosomal admixture to the ancestors of southern Italians, the latter would most likely plot in Central Europe nowadays.


I didn't say the Near Eastern admixture would have come later. It seems to me you're thinking about this is a sort of mutually exclusive choice, i.e. this and that admxture _must have come_ with one specific people, but we are talking about populations that were already very mixed. Admixtures shown in simplified models (they are always simplified, the truth is more complex) can cumulatively increase after wave after wave of migration. I in fact said in my answer: _But ultimately I think part of that Levantine influence may have appeared as early as the time when the Iranian Chalcolithic ancestry was also spreading to Southern Europe, in the CA or EBA. We'll see in future studies._

----------


## Angela

> I think these results shouldn't be taken literally. Greece_N probably means just "something related to the pre-Greek in the Balkans". Anyway, I also used many other EEF samples as possible reference populations, and even including Minoan_Lasithi in one of the calculations, but some consistently significant proportion of Greece_N also appeared as the preferred choice in the model, I don't know why. It's weird if some of the papers already concluded Greek_N didn't impact Greece much. Another intriguing thing is that using the very same reference populations the Mycenaean Greek was much more shifted to Greek_N, while the Empuries Greek was much more shifted to Minoan_Lasithi:
> 
> _[1] "distance%=1.7667 / distance=0.017667" 
> _
> 
> _ 
> _
> 
> _ Mycenaean
> ...


Thanks, yeah, that all makes sense.

One of the other things I learned in this book on Carthage is more detail on Greece following the Bronze Age collapse: worse than the Dark Ages in Central and Western Europe after the fall of Rome: severe depopulation, little to no trade or manufacturing, and they even forgot how to write.

I wonder if there was a little continued migration from the east? Or, the sample from Spain might have been an islander. We really need more Greek samples from later periods both on the mainland and on the islands. Particularly interesting would be samples from the period of Magna Graecia in the large Greek city states which sent settlers to Sicily and Southern Italy.

Have you done any analysis of people from Crete? Are there available samples from Rhodes or the Dodecanese?

----------


## markod

> Why should this East Mediterranean pull be associated with _only one_ population? It might well (and I think that's the most likely scenario) have accumulated over the milennia as it arrived with several different migrations.


Italy is quite unlike other places in Europe in that there isn't that much going on south of the Po. Some coastal settlements sure, but inland there's just the mountain shepherds whose material culture didn't change much throughout the metal ages. No complex cultural layers etc. indicative of migrations. 

I'm not an expert on soils and stuff, but I think the reason for this might be that southern Italy isn't exactly prime agricultural estate (again, Sicily excepted). I believe evidence suggests that the Greeks didn't venture much beyond the coasts. They probably saw no real reason to do so, and mobile highland tribes are of course notoriously difficult to deal with.

----------


## Jovialis

Modern clusters vs ancient populations

Much of the ancient populations (i.e. Mycenaean, Minoan) have components that are found in Southern Italians. I do not think it necessarily has to have come by way of Levant_N.

Puglia looks like ABA with some extra of the orange component, from WHG.

----------


## Ygorcs

> Thanks, yeah, that all makes sense.
> 
> One of the other things I learned in this book on Carthage is more detail on Greece following the Bronze Age collapse: worse than the Dark Ages in Central and Western Europe after the fall of Rome: severe depopulation, little to no trade or manufacturing, and they even forgot how to write.
> 
> I wonder if there was a little continued migration from the east? Or, the sample from Spain might have been an islander. We really need more Greek samples from later periods both on the mainland and on the islands. Particularly interesting would be samples from the period of Magna Graecia in the large Greek city states which sent settlers to Sicily and Southern Italy.
> 
> Have you done any analysis of people from Crete? Are there available samples from Rhodes or the Dodecanese?


Yes, in my opinion the Empuries Greek sample does look like an Aegean islander, it seems to have even less steppe ancestry and to be much more Minoan-shited, but also less Iranian/Caucasian-shifted than the Mycenaean. I wonder how IA Cretans were like autosomally because of that...

Unfortunately I can only work with the samples used in the Global25 datasheets. They're so poor, too broad, as far as the Greek population is concerned. They just subdivide them into "Greek" (I assume mainland Greece, but there's quite a bit of structure even there), "Greek_Trabzon", "Greek_Central_Anatolia" and "Greek_Crete". There are also Cypriots. It's a pity they don't have anything more region-specific. The "Greek" average population sample looks particularly problematic, in each and every model I have made they look like they have a _huge_ chunk of "northern" ancestry not found in Mycenaean or Empuries Greek samples. I presume many if not most of the samples used for that "Greek cluster" are northern Greeks.

Modern Cretans, even more than modern Greeks (I reckon mainlanders, as I said), have some really strange results using the same old reference populations (the former preference to Yamnaya and Catacomb becomes a preference for CWC, mainly CWC_Poland and CWC_Baltic). I assume it doesn't have only to do with subsequent autosomal changes (like "northern" influences, mainly Slavic ones), but also with additional millennia of genetic drift making the ancient fits much less perfect, so the algorithms are much more likely to choose other "unlikely" aDNA samples to explain the modern genetic structure, especially since virtually all BA steppe samples (whether they are CWC, BB, Yamnaya, Catacomb, Sintashta etc.) are _very_ similar to each other. Anyway, they seem to be much more Levant and Caucasus/Iran-shifted than the Mycenaean Greek samples. So Aegean islanders are the source of part of the Iran and Levant affinities of Italians? I think that's likely. As for steppe ancestry, it's clear that both mainland Greeks (mainly north in this datasheet? I believe so) and Cretans received_ a significant_ input from more steppe-rich populations since the BA.

Here are some new calculations I have just done using _only_ the reference steppe-related populations that appeared in the ancient Mycenaean and Empuries samples:

[1] "distance%=1.1921 / distance=0.011921"

Greek_Crete

Kura-Araxes_Kalavan 31.30
Levant_N 17.10
Tisza_LN 14.90
Balaton_Lasinja_CA 12.50
Yamnaya_Ukraine 6.75
Yamnaya_Bulgaria 6.10
Tepe_Hissar_ChL 4.75
Yamnaya_Samara 3.30
Balkans_N 1.70
Minoan_Lasithi 1.60

[1] "distance%=1.8034 / distance=0.018034"

* Greek*

Anatolia_EBA_Isparta 34.15
Tisza_LN 24.95
Yamnaya_Bulgaria 14.70
Yamnaya_Ukraine 10.10
Comb_Ceramic_Estonia 5.20
Catacomb 5.05
Greece_N 3.75
Levant_N 2.10

[1] "distance%=1.0167 / distance=0.010167"

* Cypriot*

Levant_N 25.05
Armenia_ChL 16.90
Kura-Araxes_Kalavan 15.80
Hajji_Firuz_ChL 14.80
Tisza_LN 7.05
Tepe_Hissar_ChL 5.65
Balkans_N 4.95
Starcevo_N 4.45
Catacomb 4.10
Anatolia_EBA_Isparta 1.25



[1] "distance%=1.612 / distance=0.01612"

* Mycenaean
* 
Greece_N 36.60
Balkans_N 22.95
Kura-Araxes_Kalavan 17.85
Yamnaya_Ukraine 8.80
Anatolia_EBA_Ovaoren 6.35
Maykop 3.55
Vucedol_no_steppe 2.55
Morocco_EN 1.35

[1] "distance%=2.018 / distance=0.02018"

* Minoan_Lasithi*

Greece_N 38.15
Anatolia_EBA_Isparta 21.40
Vucedol_no_steppe 12.25
Barcin_ChL 10.70
Balkans_N 9.15
Anatolia_EBA_Ovaoren 5.15
Hajji_Firuz_ChL 3.20

----------


## Ygorcs

> Italy is quite unlike other places in Europe in that there isn't that much going on south of the Po. Some coastal settlements sure, but inland there's just the mountain shepherds whose material culture didn't change much throughout the metal ages. No complex cultural layers etc. indicative of migrations. 
> 
> I'm not an expert on soils and stuff, but I think the reason for this might be that southern Italy isn't exactly prime agricultural estate (again, Sicily excepted). I believe evidence suggests that the Greeks didn't venture much beyond the coasts. They probably saw no real reason to do so, and mobile highland tribes are of course notoriously difficult to deal with.


So basically you think the Neolithic Central Italians and South Italians were already pretty much like the modern inhabitants (significant Levantine, Iranian, steppe ancestry and everything else), since the inland people's material culture didn't change much throighout the Metal Ages? That's basically what I can take from your perspective on the impossibility of successive migrations to Italy contributing to the cumulative non-EEF admixtures in those regions. I find that scenario very unlikely. Also, I believe you might be underestimating the positive effects of a dynamic, increasingly cosmopolitan coastal culture in Italy perhaps leading to their descendants to gradually become dominant also in numbers (and therefore in genetic impact).

----------


## Angela

> Yes, in my opinion the Empuries Greek sample does look like an Aegean islander, it seems to have even less steppe ancestry and to be much more Minoan-shited, but also less Iranian/Caucasian-shifted than the Mycenaean. I wonder how IA Cretans were like autosomally because of that...
> 
> Unfortunately I can only work with the samples used in the Global25 datasheets. They're so poor, too broad, as far as the Greek population is concerned. They just subdivide them into "Greek" (I assume mainland Greece, but there's quite a bit of structure even there), "Greek_Trabzon", "Greek_Central_Anatolia" and "Greek_Crete". There are also Cypriots. It's a pity they don't have anything more region-specific. The "Greek" average population sample looks particularly problematic, in each and every model I have made they look like they have a _huge_ chunk of "northern" ancestry not found in Mycenaean or Empuries Greek samples. I presume many if not most of the samples used for that "Greek cluster" are northern Greeks.
> 
> Modern Cretans, even more than modern Greeks (I reckon mainlanders, as I said), have some really strange results using the same old reference populations (the former preference to Yamnaya and Catacomb becomes a preference for CWC, mainly CWC_Poland and CWC_Baltic). I assume it doesn't have only to do with subsequent autosomal changes (like "northern" influences, mainly Slavic ones), but also with additional millennia of genetic drift making the ancient fits much less perfect, so the algorithms are much more likely to choose other "unlikely" aDNA samples to explain the modern genetic structure, especially since virtually all BA steppe samples (whether they are CWC, BB, Yamnaya, Catacomb, Sintashta etc.) are _very_ similar to each other. Anyway, they seem to be much more Levant and Caucasus/Iran-shifted than the Mycenaean Greek samples. So Aegean islanders are the source of part of the Iran and Levant affinities of Italians? I think that's likely. As for steppe ancestry, it's clear that both mainland Greeks (mainly north in this datasheet? I believe so) and Cretans received_ a significant_ input from more steppe-rich populations since the BA.
> 
> Here are some new calculations I have just done using _only_ the reference steppe-related populations that appeared in the ancient Mycenaean and Empuries samples:
> 
> [1] "distance%=1.1921 / distance=0.011921"
> ...


Very interesting. Can't wait to get more ancient Greek samples.

The old "academic" Greek sample is not terribly helpful for these purposes. It's from Thessaloniki (ancient Salonica) in Greek Macedonia. Samples from the Peloponnese obviously are in the possession of the authors of the paper on the genetics of that area, but either he won't release them or no one cares to include them.



The small stretch on the eastern side of the Italian peninsula, ie the Adriatic side, is the area where Maciamo found the highest levels of J2 in Italy.

----------


## Ygorcs

> The old "academic" Greek sample is not terribly helpful for these purposes. It's from Thessaloniki (ancient Salonica) in Greek Macedonia. Samples from the Peloponnese obviously are in the possession of the authors of the paper on the genetics of that area, but either he won't release them or no one cares to include them.


Ah, now that makes A LOT of sense. I was having trouble reconciling with the idea that mainland Greeks look _so_ different from South Italians and Cretan Greeks in these Global25 average population samples (compare below). They look way too northern, as if having a _really_ substantial post-Mycenaean genetic flow. East Sicilians have a lower distance from the Mycenaeans than those (Thessaloniki) Greeks, though that does not necessarily imply that's entirely because they descend from Mycenaeans more than those Greeks (it could be just a more similar admixture composition). On ther other hand, Cretan look too "eastern". What could explain so much extra Kura-Araxes-like and Levant_BA-like ancestry even already including _Mycenaean + Minoan_Lasithi_ or _Mycenaean + Minoan_Lasithi + Empuries_? I really don't know.

It's a real pity such a historically important area as Greece doesn't have more aDNA samples and a much more regionalized distribution of samples in these datasheets. 

[1] "distance%=1.3689 / distance=0.013689"

[1] "distance%=1.0389 / distance=0.010389"
[1] "distance%=1.3687 / distance=0.013687"





* Cypriot*
* Greek_Crete*
* Greek*

 

 

 


Levant_BA_South 32.3
Mycenaean 30.9
Mycenaean 31.80

Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kalavan 27.6
Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kalavan 24.0
Latvia_BA 29.00

Minoan_Lasithi 19.8
Levant_BA_South 17.4
Minoan_Lasithi 23.25

Mycenaean 15.2
Minoan_Lasithi 13.8
Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kalavan 12.30

Latvia_BA 5.0
Latvia_BA 13.8
Levant_BA_South 3.65



Including the Empuries sample...

[1] "distance%=1.1886 / distance=0.011886"

[1] "distance%=0.9303 / distance=0.009303"
[1] "distance%=1.1675 / distance=0.011675"




 


 Cypriot
 Greek_Crete
 Greek


 

 

 


Levant_BA_South 32.05
Mycenaean 23.95
Iberia_Northeast_Empuries2 31.95


Iberia_Northeast_Empuries2 29.65
Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kalavan 20.70
Latvia_BA 26.95


Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kalavan 25.45
Iberia_Northeast_Empuries2 20.65
Mycenaean 20.50


Mycenaean 6.90
Levant_BA_South 16.65
Anatolia_Isparta_EBA 12.65


Minoan_Lasithi 3.20
Latvia_BA 12.40
Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kalavan 5.85

Latvia_BA 2.75
Anatolia_Isparta_EBA 5.65
Levant_BA_South 2.10

----------


## Ownstyler

> Ah, now that makes A LOT of sense. I was having trouble reconciling with the idea that mainland Greeks look _so_ different from South Italians and Cretan Greeks in these Global25 average population samples (compare below). They look way too northern, as if having a _really_ substantial post-Mycenaean genetic flow. East Sicilians have a lower distance from the Mycenaeans than those (Thessaloniki) Greeks, though that does not necessarily imply that's entirely because they descend from Mycenaeans more than those Greeks (it could be just a more similar admixture composition). 
> 
> It's a real pity such a historically important area as Greece doesn't have more aDNA samples and a much more regionalized distribution of samples in these datasheets.


There are three samples being widely used already. One is all from Thessaloniki, the other from Crete and there is a third sample which is from a data bank and cannot be traced to any particular region afaik, so it could be from different regions. Now, if see the PCA below, you will notice that, among the Greek samples, the Cretans are the closest to Myceneans although they do not plot with them (The grey dots that do, are Sicilian and Maltese). Myceneans and Minoans are between modern Greeks and modern Middle Easterners. Unless the first samples are not representative of the Cretan and Thessaloniki populations, I would not expect modern continental Greeks to end up more Middle Eastern than Cretans. And since Sicilians are closer to Myceneans than Cretans are, the chance that continental Greeks will be between Sicilians and Myceneans is slim.




In fact, if you look at the leaked image posted above, assuming it is correct, it seems they already have continental Greek samples from several regions and most of the Greeks that are visible are quite far from Myceneans. Only some are kind of close to the northwesternmost Mycenean sample (and maybe some more Greek marks are covered under the yellow group), but some other modern samples (Sicilians??) and some Romans are at a similar distance, if not closer. There could be several explanations for this. This is the problem with autosomal DNA, it is impossible to trace ancestry to through time without a complete record of genetic profiles from all times and populations.

It will be interesting to discover how Greeks from different regions differ autosomally from each other.




>

----------


## Demetrios

> Ah, now that makes A LOT of sense. I was having trouble reconciling with the idea that mainland Greeks look _so_ different from South Italians and Cretan Greeks in these Global25 average population samples (compare below). They look way too northern, as if having a _really_ substantial post-Mycenaean genetic flow. East Sicilians have a lower distance from the Mycenaeans than those (Thessaloniki) Greeks, though that does not necessarily imply that's entirely because they descend from Mycenaeans more than those Greeks (it could be just a more similar admixture composition). On ther other hand, Cretan look too "eastern". What could explain so much extra Kura-Araxes-like and Levant_BA-like ancestry even already including _Mycenaean + Minoan_Lasithi_ or _Mycenaean + Minoan_Lasithi + Empuries_? I really don't know.
> 
> It's a real pity such a historically important area as Greece doesn't have more aDNA samples and a much more regionalized distribution of samples in these datasheets.


Here is a study that includes modern Peloponnesian samples from every region of the Peloponnese. Many in fact cluster with Sicilians, and seem to be in between Sicilians and Cretan/Dodecanese Greeks, just like geography suggests, https://www.nature.com/articles/ejhg201718. This is not an ancient sampled study, but it does give you an idea of how close modern southern Italians are to modern southern Greeks, which is obviously suggestive of the ancient respective populations as well.

----------


## Ownstyler

> Here is a study that includes modern Peloponnesian samples from every region of the Peloponnese. Many in fact cluster with Sicilians, and seem to be in between Sicilians and Cretan/Dodecanese Greeks, just like geography suggests, https://www.nature.com/articles/ejhg201718. This is not an ancient sampled study, but it does give you an idea of how close modern southern Italians are to modern southern Greeks, which is obviously suggestive of the ancient respective populations as well.


Nothing unexpected from a comparison that leaves out all the rest of the Balkans. Of course Greeks are similar to Sicilians on a European level.

In any case, we should wait for the Italy paper since they seem to have all the answers, if the leaks are true.

----------


## markod

> So basically you think the Neolithic Central Italians and South Italians were already pretty much like the modern inhabitants (significant Levantine, Iranian, steppe ancestry and everything else), since the inland people's material culture didn't change much throighout the Metal Ages? That's basically what I can take from your perspective on the impossibility of successive migrations to Italy contributing to the cumulative non-EEF admixtures in those regions. I find that scenario very unlikely. Also, I believe you might be underestimating the positive effects of a dynamic, increasingly cosmopolitan coastal culture in Italy perhaps leading to their descendants to gradually become dominant also in numbers (and therefore in genetic impact).


No, I think the southerners either came with the Apennine or the descendent Fossa culture.

I think you're overestimating the importance of cities. Even Ravenna, Rome and Syrakus did not change the natural north-south cline in Italy. Ancient cities were frequently depleted.

----------


## markod

The the early Apennine culture also roughly coincides with the appearance of J2a in Pannonia and J2b in Dalmatia and Sardinia. Not sure what happened there honestly, but archaeologically there are strong similiarities between the Balkans, the Carpathians and Italy in the MBA.

----------


## Angela

> Here is a study that includes modern Peloponnesian samples from every region of the Peloponnese. Many in fact cluster with Sicilians, and seem to be in between Sicilians and Cretan/Dodecanese Greeks, just like geography suggests, https://www.nature.com/articles/ejhg201718. This is not an ancient sampled study, but it does give you an idea of how close modern southern Italians are to modern southern Greeks, which is obviously suggestive of the ancient respective populations as well.


Indeed. Wish he'd included mainland Southern Italy, but the differences aren't big. They probably also overlap with the Peloponnese. 





Also interesting in terms of our discussions:


Does Eurogenes never include these samples in his "calculators"? Why not?

It seems the new paper is from Stanford. I sure hope Spencer Wells is not involved. He's been wrong almost as often as Eurogenes, and knows almost as little about ancient history as does the latter.

----------


## suyindik

Is there any news about when the paper will be published?

----------


## Angela

I love, just absolutely love, how neither Eurogenes nor anybody at anthrogenica has made the slightest reference to the fact that they were absolutely and completely wrong about the autosomal signature of the Etruscans. 

At least "Agamemnon" has had the decency to make himself scarce. The rest have no honor whatsoever. 

Yet, they continue to make dogmatic pronouncements without even having the papers and samples in front of them. They know exactly what happened and why.

I wonder if it has occurred to these geniuses that on top of everything else, it's going to be very difficult to figure out if the group found at Ostia, to speculate wildly, were "locals", or resident merchants from elsewhere. The only recent paper which has addressed this issue is the Langobard one. I certainly hope that they did isotope analysis on these finds.

Don't bother to accuse me of not wanting my husband to be partly descended from Jews/Semites. His best friends, my best friend, people closer to us than family in some ways, are Jews. We'd be proud to be related to them. 

This is about "evidence"; finding it, piecing it together without biases. Think about the people who lead this "charge": a documented anti-semite, nordicist/slavicist who said Southern Italians should be kicked out of Europe, and a pro-Arab agitator and another anti-semite who hates his Sicilian father. Oh, and they know next to nothing about ancient history. Could they have been any more wrong about the Etruscans? Why was I right? Because I know the archaeology and the history and I didn't let my personal preferences influence my thinking. I've spent my life doing that and I wasn't about to become a different person because it has to do with Italian ethnogenesis. Anyone who has read my posts over the years will, in fact, not be surprised to hear that if I'm to be completely honest I'm a bit disappointed that Etruscans have apparently turned out to be this "northern". I'd actually have preferred them to be more "Cretan" like. I didn't let that preference influence my thinking, however. I just wish others were as honest.

----------


## matty74

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the Etruscan more or less the indigenous peoples of the central Italian peninsula? Are they related to the old Neolithic peoples of Anatolia and so on?

----------


## Ygorcs

> No, I think the southerners either came with the Apennine or the descendent Fossa culture.
> 
> I think you're overestimating the importance of cities. Even Ravenna, Rome and Syrakus did not change the natural north-south cline in Italy. Ancient cities were frequently depleted.


Oh I see. I asked that because you said in your previous comment that there had hardly been any major changes in the _Metal Ages_ as a whole. The Apennine culture is a very intriguing one for me, indeed.

As for my reference to "dynamic, increasingly cosmopolitan coastal culture in Italy", I'm not referring necessarily to cities. I'm referring to the increasingly productive (economic progress ultimately derived mainly from primary sector activities: agriculture, animal husbandry, timber extraction, mining etc.) rural zones. Cities only ever appeared as a consequence of significant and _earlier_ rural progress.

----------


## binx

> My comment was very civil. He thinks that Italics were the natives from the neolithic era. That's simply not possible and certainly that's not what the PCA shows.
> 
> Greeks in the PCA have a different symbol from the rest of southern Europe (Greek Macedonia, Greek Thessaly...). Starting from the Greeks, almost everything else is reconstructed. 
> 
> 
> The original PCA



Interesting! So Etruscans were close to modern Iberians, North Italians and Tuscans.

----------


## Ygorcs

> Also interesting in terms of our discussions:


It's interesting how much Cretans are shifted toward modern Anatolians and Levantines in comparison to the other Greek samples. The same pattern is seen using ancient (BA) Anatolian and Levantine samples. That cannot be attributed to Minoan ancestry, because even including the Minoan_Lasithi sample the Cretans still require extra Levantine and especially BA Anatolian admixture. Was there something in the post-Minoan history of Crete that I don't know?

----------


## binx

> Please correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the Etruscan more or less the indigenous peoples of the central Italian peninsula? Are they related to the old Neolithic peoples of Anatolia and so on?



According to their genetic position the Etruscans seem to be a mixture of Neolithic European + Bronze age Bell Beaker and probably also with steppe ancestry. More or less as they are today the North Italians or Tuscans. Maybe Etruscans just a little more to the west than the modern population.

----------


## suyindik

> Anyone who has read my posts over the years will, in fact, not be surprised to hear that if I'm to be completely honest I'm a bit disappointed that Etruscans have apparently turned out to be this "northern". I'd actually have preferred them to be more "Cretan" like. I didn't let that preference influence my thinking, however. I just wish others were as honest.


Based on how many samples can we draw a conclusion on the origin of the Etruscans? Till now two unpublished studies were leaked, pre announced. These have limited amount of Iron Age samples, some leaks write about Neolithic ancestries of Iran and Levant plus Steppe ancestry, and some are talking about the ancestry of Early Farmers plus Bell Beaker ancestry. Without knowing the historical and archaeological background for each sample, and having so few samples, and not knowing the locations and the exact time of the individuals, and not knowing anything about their Y-DNA, how can we draw conclusions so easily? Which of the leaked ancestries are equal to the Proto Etruscans, and which to the Proto Latins?

----------


## suyindik

> According to their genetic position the Etruscans seem to be a mixture of *Neolithic European* + *Bronze age Bell Beaker* and probably also with *steppe ancestry*. More or less as they are today the North Italians or Tuscans. Maybe Etruscans just a little more to the west than the modern population.


Which one of the three belongs to the Proto Etruscans and the Proto Etruscan language?

----------


## binx

> Based on how many samples can we draw a conclusion on the origin of the Etruscans?


There have already been studies on Etruscan samples that had supported what the leak claims.
Genetics is not saying anything new, scholars have been thinking for years that the Etruscans were native.

----------


## Demetrios

> It's interesting how much Cretans are shifted toward modern Anatolians and Levantines in comparison to the other Greek samples. The same pattern is seen using ancient (BA) Anatolian and Levantine samples. That cannot be attributed to Minoan ancestry, because even including the Minoan_Lasithi sample the Cretans still require extra Levantine and especially BA Anatolian admixture. Was there something in the post-Minoan history of Crete that I don't know?


I don't think this is a lot. In any case, Crete was under Arab rule for a period, in what became known as Emirate of Crete, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emirate_of_Crete, which lasted for some 150 years or so. It was also under Ottoman rule for some 200 years, and used to have a large Muslim population. In 1821, during the Greek revolution, as much as 45% of the population on the island may have been Muslim, but most of them were local Cretan converts. In any case, all of these Muslims left with the population exchange between Greece and Turkey in 1923. Here is some additional information about them, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretan_Turks.

*An ethnic map of Crete, around 1861. Turks and Muslim Greeks are in red, Orthodox Greeks in blue.
*

----------


## binx

> Which one of the three belongs to the Proto Etruscans and the Proto Etruscan language?


Proto Etruscan language is likely a remnant of the European Neolithic. Exactly as with the Iberians, Aquitains and Basques in Spain and southwest France.

----------


## suyindik

> There have already been studies on Etruscan samples that had supported what the leak claims.
> Genetics is not saying anything new, scholars have been thinking for years that the Etruscans were native.


I am not talking about native or not... Neolithic => Bronze Age => Iron Age ... A lot of things happen during these time periods, a lot of migrations happen and population replacements happen...

----------


## suyindik

> Proto Etruscan language is likely a remnant of the European Neolithic. Exactly as with the Iberians, Aquitains and Basques in Spain and southwest France.


So you are talking about the Early European Farmers? Are the Early European Farmers the core of the original Proto Etruscans?

----------


## binx

> So you are talking about the Early European Farmers? Are the Early European Farmers the core of the original Proto Etruscans?


The Etruscans were no different from the other populations of the late Bronze and early Iron Age of south west Europe, the only difference is that they kept the pre-Indo-European language, just as the Iberians, Aquitains and Basques in Spain and southwest France, the Rhaeti in the Alps and many other populations who have not left traces.

----------


## LABERIA

> I don't think this is a lot. In any case, Crete was under Arab rule for a period, in what became known as Emirate of Crete, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emirate_of_Crete, which lasted for some 150 years or so. It was also under Ottoman rule for some 200 years, and used to have a large Muslim population. In 1821, during the Greek revolution, as much as 45% of the population on the island may have been Muslim, but most of them were local Cretan converts. In any case, all of these Muslims left with the population exchange between Greece and Turkey in 1923. Here is some additional information about them, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretan_Turks.
> 
> *An ethnic map of Crete, around 1861. Turks and Muslim Greeks are in red, Orthodox Greeks in blue.
> *


Some Armenian families settled in Crete and exactly in Sfakia after that Phokas, an Armenian himself, liberated the island from the Arabs.

----------


## Demetrios

> Some Armenian families settled in Crete and exactly in Sfakia after that Phokas, an Armenian himself, liberated the island from the Arabs.


Phokas's origin isn't certain. There have been authors who claimed he was of either Roman (as in Latin), Arab, Armenian, or Georgian descent. As for Armenian migrants in Crete, there weren't many, and it wasn't just in Crete. Armenians migrated since the Byzantine era to Thessaly, Macedon, Thrace and the islands of Crete and Kerkyra (Corfu), although again not many.

----------


## suyindik

> The Etruscans were no different from the other populations of the late Bronze and early Iron Age of south west Europe, the only difference is that they kept the pre-Indo-European language, just as the Iberians, Aquitains and Basques in Spain and southwest France, the Rhaeti in the Alps and many other populations who have not left traces.


How can we be so sure they are no different(based on how many samples?)? Arent they a mix of Neolithic Farmers and Bronze Age Bell Beakers? And arent the Iberian Bell Beakers equal to the Neolithic Farmers? Genetically the EEF component(Anatolia_N, Iran_N, Levant_N) among the Etruscans should be equal to the proto Etruscan language. The EHG component should be equal to the populations of the proto Italic tribes.

----------


## binx

> How can we be so sure they are no different(based on how many samples?)? Arent they a mix of Neolithic Farmers and Bronze Age Bell Beakers? And arent the Iberian Bell Beakers equal to the Neolithic Farmers? Genetically the EEF component(Anatolia_N, Iran_N, Levant_N) among the Etruscans should be equal to the proto Etruscan language. The EHG component should be equal to the populations of the proto Italic tribes.


I've already read this on Anthrogenica. Are you the same user as Anthrogenica? 

I doubt that EEF component is Anatolia_N, Iran_N, Levant_N.

----------


## Cpluskx

What do you think about this language and its likelihood of being related to Hittite?

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

----------


## Demetrios

> Is there any news about when the paper will be published?


I contacted the organizer of the event that took place in February 2019, in which Hannah Moots presented some of her research, and she wrote the following, "_I don't have an exact date. I believe this work is part of ongoing dissertation research, and will be published when she completes her degree._". By the way, after a little additional research from my part i found out that she is to graduate in 2020.

----------


## Angela

> How can we be so sure they are no different(based on how many samples?)? Arent they a mix of Neolithic Farmers and Bronze Age Bell Beakers? And arent the Iberian Bell Beakers equal to the Neolithic Farmers? Genetically the EEF component(Anatolia_N, Iran_N, Levant_N) among the Etruscans should be equal to the proto Etruscan language. The EHG component should be equal to the populations of the proto Italic tribes.


The EEF component is just Anatolian farmer with a little WHG picked up in Europe. The Late Neolithic peoples of Europe, like the people of "Old Europe" in the Balkans and Ukraine, and Iberia, Italy, etc. had picked up more WHG, up to 25% or so. 

The relationship of the Anatolian farmers to the Iranian farmers to the farmers of the Levant is complicated. Anatolian farmers can be modeled with or as part Levant Neolithic, and Levant Neolithic can be modeled with Anatolian Neolithic, and Anatolian Neolithic can be modeled with even a bit of Iran Neolithic.

The point is that after the Anatolian farmers had left for Europe, there was a pinzer movement into Europe beginning in the Bronze Age from two directions: the steppe (60% EHG/40%CHG/IranNeo like ancestry) and the southern Caucasus by way of what used to be called Asia Minor. The ancestry which arrived by way of this southern route also contained some Anatolian farmer, but was very Iran Neo heavy. I personally think the wave may be Kura Araxes related. 

It seems that both the Etruscans and the Italics are a combination of LN farmers (EEF plus up to 25%WHG) and some steppe input that probably arrived from Central Europe. So, they seem to have been very similar.

Autosomal analysis is quite different from analysis using yDna or mtDna. You don't need thousands of samples, although you have to be certain you got the dating correct, the burial context correct, and hopefully you've done some analysis so you know if the samples were born and raised in that area.

As for theories about the Etruscans, archaeologists always leaned toward them being local, but virtually everyone writing on genetics, from the academics, to Jean Manco, with whom I argued for ten years, to Eurogenes, to all the people on "biodiversity" sites, was convinced they came straight from the Near East. On here Pax and I and some of the other Italian posters who had studied the Etruscans a lot were the only ones who were skeptical of that idea. Not that you'd know that given the deafening silence on the subject on other sites. You'd think they always knew it.

----------


## suyindik

> The EEF component is just Anatolian farmer with a little WHG picked up in Europe. The Late Neolithic peoples of Europe, like the people of "Old Europe" in the Balkans and Ukraine, and Iberia, Italy, etc. had picked up more WHG, up to 25% or so. 
> 
> The relationship of the Anatolian farmers to the Iranian farmers to the farmers of the Levant is complicated. Anatolian farmers can be modeled with or as part Levant Neolithic, and Levant Neolithic can be modeled with Anatolian Neolithic, and Anatolian Neolithic can be modeled with even a bit of Iran Neolithic.


Agree




> As for theories about the Etruscans, archaeologists always leaned toward them being local, but virtually everyone writing on genetics, from the academics, to Eurogenes, to all the people on "biodiversity" sites, was convinced they came straight from the Near East. On here Pax and I and some of the other Italian posters who had studied the Etruscans a lot were the only ones who were skeptical of that idea, not that you'd know that given the deafening silence on the subject. You'd think they always knew it.


I dont think local is the right term to use. So, if the proto Etruscans and their language were the Early European Farmers, then it means their initial migration to Italy was from West Asia(through Turkey and Greece) after all, only it happened in the Neolithic.
Also, considering the fact that the Proto Iberian Bell Beakers were a mix of EEF and WHG, the leaked ancestry component of Bell Beakers could be related to the EEF people participating in the formation of the Bell Beaker culture in Iberia.
But what I think is that when the Steppe people and their Indo European language(coming from Central/North-Western Europe) replaced the populations in a lot of European areas in the Bronze Age, it could have been possible that these Early European Farmers from Italy migrated back towards the Aegean region (remaining unmixed in there, retaining their neolithic EEF autosomal ancestry component) when they met the expansions of the Corded Ware culture. And then during the Early Iron Age, a back migration happened from the Aegean region to Central Italy, mixing with the Italic people who were there since the Late Bronze Age.

----------


## suyindik

> I contacted the organizer of the event that took place in February 2019, in which Hannah Moots presented some of her research, and she wrote the following, "_I don't have an exact date. I believe this work is part of ongoing dissertation research, and will be published when she completes her degree._". By the way, after a little additional research from my part i found out that she is to graduate in 2020.


Maybe a preprint will be published earlier, but when?

----------


## Angela

> Agree
> 
> 
> 
> I dont think local is the right term to use. So, if the proto Etruscans and their language were the Early European Farmers, then it means their initial migration to Italy was from West Asia(through Turkey and Greece) after all, only it happened in the Neolithic.
> Also, considering the fact that the Proto Iberian Bell Beakers were a mix of EEF and WHG, the leaked ancestry component of Bell Beakers could be related to the EEF people participating in the formation of the Bell Beaker culture in Iberia.
> But what I think is that when the Steppe people and their Indo European language(coming from Central/North-Western Europe) replaced the populations in a lot of European areas in the Bronze Age, it could have been possible that these Early European Farmers from Italy migrated back towards the Aegean region (remaining unmixed in there, retaining their neolithic EEF autosomal ancestry component) when they met the expansions of the Corded Ware culture. And then during the Early Iron Age, a back migration happened from the Aegean region to Central Italy, mixing with the Italic people who were there since the Late Bronze Age.


By that criterion, NOBODY is local to Europe. Even the Paleolithic hunter-gatherers were not "local". They came from elsewhere. The LN farmers were a mix of Anatolian farmer and WHG. They were the only indigenous population of all of western Europe and the Balkans at the time.

There is no sign in the archaeological record of a folk migration from the Aegean. Period. That is and was always the case. People preferred to believe otherwise, choosing one ancient author over others in order to so so.

----------


## suyindik

> By that criterion, NOBODY is local to Europe. Even the Paleolithic hunter-gatherers were not "local". They came from elsewhere. The LN farmers were a mix of Anatolian farmer and WHG. They were the only indigenous population of all of western Europe and the Balkans at the time.


As far as I know, the WHG component is considered to be local(before 8.000-10.000 BCE) to Central/Northern/Southern/Western Europe. The First Farmers came from West Asia.




> There is no sign in the archaeological record of a folk migration from the Aegean.


Firstly, we cannot ignore the hypothesis of ancient historians. Without the combination of historical records and archaeology we cant know anything about the identities of ancient populations. 
How can we explain the Iron Age people (and their inscriptions) in Lemnos? Maybe, skeletal remains from Iron Age Lemnos should also be studied, to be compared with a larger sampled set of ancient Etruscan individuals(not only 5-10 samples). 
And also secondly, the Etruscan archaeological findings(cultural and religious materials) have a lot of similarities with contemporary and earlier cultures in West Asia. The Etruscan alphabet itself has its origin in West Asia.

----------


## Angela

> As far as I know, the WHG component is considered to be local(before 8.000-10.000 BCE) to Central/Northern/Southern/Western Europe. The First Farmers came from West Asia.
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly, we cannot ignore the hypothesis of ancient historians. Without the combination of historical records and archaeology we cant know anything about the identities of ancient populations. 
> How can we explain the Iron Age people (and their inscriptions) in Lemnos? Maybe, skeletal remains from Iron Age Lemnos should also be studied, to be compared with a larger sampled set of ancient Etruscan individuals(not only 5-10 samples). 
> And also secondly, the Etruscan archaeological findings(cultural and religious materials) have a lot of similarities with contemporary and earlier cultures in West Asia. The Etruscan alphabet itself has its origin in West Asia.


Yes, well, that's incorrect. Who is local in any given area is time specific. Europe is a genetic sink. Paleolithic people were the first to arrive. There's shockingly little of their dna left in anyone in Europe. Mesolithic WHG is next, then EEF then Bronze Age migrations. Europeans in the modern sense didn't exist until at the earliest 4,000 years ago. 

You can argue all you want. Ancient dna doesn't lie. IF the leaks are accurate, people are just going to have to admit they were WRONG.

----------


## binx

> And also secondly, the Etruscan archaeological findings(cultural and religious materials) have a lot of similarities with contemporary and earlier cultures in West Asia. The Etruscan alphabet itself has its origin in West Asia.


Etruscan archaeological findings have not more similarities with contemporary and earlier cultures in West Asia than Greek archaeological findings and other contemporary civilizations have similarities with contemporary and earlier cultures in West Asia.

The Etruscan alphabet comes from the Greek Alphabet, that has Phoenician origins, was not even born in West Asia, and Lemnos has ties to the Greek world.

Rather it is also true the opposite, West Asia in that historical period is also deeply influenced by what comes from the west. So much so that the Phrygians come from the Balkans and the Greeks themselves settle in Anatolia.

----------


## Ygorcs

> As far as I know, the WHG component is considered to be local(before 8.000-10.000 BCE) to Central/Northern/Southern/Western Europe. The First Farmers came from West Asia.


Well, ultimately the WHG _also_ came from West Asia... This kind of discusson over who's _reeeeeeallly native_ is always circular if a specific timeline is not defined, it can be endless.

----------


## suyindik

> Yes, well, that's incorrect. Who is local in any given area is time specific. Europe is a genetic sink. Paleolithic people were the first to arrive. There's shockingly little of their dna left in anyone in Europe.


This is a quote from David Reich's book:




> Analyzing our data, he found that about ten thousand years ago there were at least four major populations in West Eurasia—the farmers of the Fertile Crescent, the farmers of Iran, the *hunter-gatherers of central and western Europe*, and the hunter-gatherers of eastern Europe.


So, the hunter-gatherers of central and western Europe were the locals of central and western Europe(and parts of Northern / Souther Europe). Majority of them were the Mesolithic population you mentioned.




> You can argue all you want. Ancient dna doesn't lie. IF the leaks are accurate, people are just going to have to admit they were WRONG.


Admit what? What are you trying to prove? I dont get it...

----------


## binx

> Admit what? What are you trying to prove? I dont get it...


She doesn't want to prove anything while you who are probably a West Asian living in Germany is quite blatant what you are desperately trying to prove.

----------


## suyindik

> Etruscan archaeological findings have not more similarities with contemporary and earlier cultures in West Asia than Greek archaeological findings and other contemporary civilizations have similarities with contemporary and earlier cultures in West Asia.


There are a lot of similarities, and the Greek culture is also originated in West Asia.




> The Etruscan alphabet comes from the Greek Alphabet, that has Phoenician origins, was not even born in West Asia, and Lemnos has ties to the Greek world.
> 
> Rather it is also true the opposite, West Asia in that historical period is also deeply influenced by what comes from the west. So much so that the Phrygians come from the Balkans and the Greeks themselves settle in Anatolia.


The Etruscan alphabet, the Greek Alphabet and the Phoenician alphabet are all descended from the Sumerian alphabet.

----------


## suyindik

> Well, ultimately the WHG _also_ came from West Asia... This kind of discusson over who's _reeeeeeallly native_ is always circular if a specific timeline is not defined, it can be endless.


Thats what I am saying, people should not talk about native to Italy, when the EEF are a population moved from West Asia. And what is trying to be proved, that the Etruscans lived 10.000 years ago in Italy, and their ancestors did not even make one migration out of Italy?

----------


## suyindik

> She doesn't want to prove anything while you who are probably a West Asian living in Germany is quite blatant what you are desperately trying to prove.


I am just interested in the origins of ancient Italy, nothing more, and you are being quite ugly, I wont go into further discussion with you...

----------


## Ygorcs

> Thats what I am saying, people should not talk about native to Italy, when the EEF are a population moved from West Asia. And what is trying to be proved, that the Etruscans lived 10.000 years ago in Italy, and their ancestors did not even make one migration out of Italy?


In the Iron Age, Etruscans were native to Italy, because the bulk of their ancestry (and probably language and culture) had been local/European for several millennia. That's more than enough time to call a population "native" or "local" in a given timeline. People are only native or local _as they are compared_ with newer arrivals of people, otherwise the term is meaningless. If you become too demanding about chronology in order to call a population "native" or "local", then everybody is African and there are no natives in Eurasia.

----------


## Wanderer

2 theories about etruscan origins are, they migrated after Croesus conquered the west asian greeks. The other is they come from one of the greek islands. I think it was called lemnos. This was speculated because etruscans wrote from right to left, and the greek inscriptions was found in that fashion on that island.

----------


## Ygorcs

> 2 theories about etruscan origins are, they migrated after Croesus conquered the west asian greeks. The other is they come from one of the greek islands. I think it was called lemnos. This was speculated because etruscans wrote from right to left, and the greek inscriptions was found in that fashion on that island.


Lemnian is far too similar to Etruscan for Etruscan to be a much earlier split from the language spoken in Lemnos. It's more probable that Lemnos simply had an Etruscan settlement. Besides, if those reasons you mention are the main grounds for the speculation that Etruscan came from West Asia, then the evidence is extremely scant.

----------


## bigsnake49

Lemnos is a lovely island and while the two languages maybe similar, it is too small of an island to be the source of the Etruscan population.
Did the Lemnians have trade relationships with the Etruscans? Possibly.

Now the question arises, why did the Etruscans develop such a high achieving civilization and not their neighbors?

----------


## Pax Augusta

> Now the question arises, why did the Etruscans develop such a high achieving civilization and not their neighbors?


Certainly the Etruscans stood out, also thanks to the large network of cultural and commercial exchanges, but it is absolutely not true that only the Etruscans develop such a high achieving civilization. Also this is just another commonplace. The neighbors of the Etruscans were the Latins, the Umbrians, the Veneti and the Golasecchian Celts... All civilizations that had remarkable developments.

----------


## Angela

> Etruscan archaeological findings have not more similarities with contemporary and earlier cultures in West Asia than Greek archaeological findings and other contemporary civilizations have similarities with contemporary and earlier cultures in West Asia.
> 
> The Etruscan alphabet comes from the Greek Alphabet, that has Phoenician origins, was not even born in West Asia, and Lemnos has ties to the Greek world.
> 
> Rather it is also true the opposite, West Asia in that historical period is also deeply influenced by what comes from the west. So much so that the Phrygians come from the Balkans and the Greeks themselves settle in Anatolia.


You're right. It's all about the cross-fertilization of cultures. 

However, I have to disagree slightly with Pax. I do think the Etruscan civilization at its zenith was more advanced than the Latin civilization of the same time period and certainly than the preceding Bronze Age cultures. We're talking about the Iron Age after all. That fact alone means it was more advanced. The Romans learned a lot from the Etruscans. It may be because the Etruscans had exposed themselves to, and absorbed more of the advancements which had made their way from the East through the Greeks, the Phoenicians, etc. before the Latins were exposed to them. The arteries were the trade routes. It was through them that ideas spread and improvements made as they spread. If you are isolated from these cross currents, or if you deliberately isolate yourself, you lose. You have to remain open even to your enemies' ideas.

Just one small example from Rome and Carthage as it's fresh in my mind because I just re-read a text on it. When the rivalry first began and turned to conflict the Romans were not a naval power at all. They stole all the technology they could, made improvements and assembled a formidable naval fleet. 

People who want to claim the advancements of humanity for one culture, one "pure" ethnicity, are sadly mistaken in my opinion. 

It's also quite ironic in this instance. The Nordicists used to claim that the Roman Empire was so mighty because they were Nordics. It's quite funny that the more they insist all the Romans were just Greeks or Anatolians, the more they disprove their original thesis.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> However, I have to disagree slightly with Pax. I do think the Etruscan civilization at its zenith was more advanced than the Latin civilization of the same time period and certainly than the preceding Bronze Age cultures. We're talking about the Iron Age after all. That fact alone means it was more advanced. The Romans learned a lot from the Etruscans. It may be because the Etruscans had exposed themselves to, and absorbed more of the advancements which had made their way from the East through the Greeks, the Phoenicians, etc. before the Latins were exposed to them. The arteries were the trade routes. It was through them that ideas spread and improvements made as they spread. If you are isolated from these cross currents, or if you deliberately isolate yourself, you lose. You have to remain open even to your enemies' ideas.



Disagree on what? Where would I have written that Etruscan civilization was less advanced than the Latin civilization of the same time period? The Etruscans were obviously the most advanced civilization of the early Iron Age of Italy. I don't think anyone can argue otherwise. Without the cultural influence of the Etruscans, the Latins would never have grown so quickly. The influence of the Etruscans reached as far as the Celts of central Europe. The Etruscans expanded from northern Italy (at the border with the populations of the Alps) to southern Italy in Campania. Etruscans were very receptive and were the first Pre-Roman era civilization to have such a wide range of interlocutors.

The commonplace is that only the Etruscans developed in the Italian Iron age. There were also differences in development between the various pre-Roman civilizations. Not all of them remained as isolated as the Ligurians. Other civilizations developed, even in northern Italy not only in southern Italy. 

Certainly the Etruscans developed rapidly thanks also to the influences from the East. The important role of the Greeks in southern Italy, who did not profoundly influence the same Etruscans only, who had some settlement in Campania, but also the Latins and later Romans and other Italic populations. Just as important was the role of the Phoenicians who had settled in Pithekoussai, especially in the orientalizing phase.

The Etruscans influenced the Italic populations but in turn they were influenced by the Italic populations. It is precisely this continuous mutual influence that creates that ferment that will bring Rome from a small settlement to become first the capital of a Republic and then of an empire within a few centuries.

----------


## markod

> Lemnos is a lovely island and while the two languages maybe similar, it is too small of an island to be the source of the Etruscan population.
> Did the Lemnians have trade relationships with the Etruscans? Possibly.
> 
> Now the question arises, why did the Etruscans develop such a high achieving civilization and not their neighbors?


An advantage they had over other Mediterranean cultures was their control of transalpine trade. The Hallstatt chiefs were the richest men in Europe at the time, and they bought Etruscan iron, textiles and other crafted goods.

----------


## berun

Lemnos, a Pelasgian island.

----------


## Demetrios

> Lemnos, a Pelasgian island.


Lemnos was inhabited by the Thracian tribe of Sintians, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sintians, among other Greeks who probably settled in the Archaic Age.

----------


## binx

I do not understand why it sounds strange to some people that the Etruscan language was a pre-Indo-European language, when the Iberian Peninsula had long been dominated by pre-Indo-European languages and many people in Iberia still spoke a pre-Indo-European language around 300 BC! Were the Iberians of Pelasgian origin?

If I remember correctly about the Tartessians there are theories that want them of Middle Eastern origin, but perhaps they too were only pre-Indo-European.

Interesting however the numerous Phoenician and Greek colonies in Iberia. 

Aquitanian, Proto-Basque, Iberian and Tartessian were all pre-Indo-European languages and still spoken around 300 BC.

----------


## markod

> I do not understand why it sounds strange to some people that the Etruscan language was a pre-Indo-European language, when the Iberian Peninsula had long been dominated by pre-Indo-European languages and many people in Iberia still spoke a pre-Indo-European language around 300 BC! Were the Iberians of Pelasgian origin?
> 
> If I remember correctly about the Tartessians there are theories that want them of Middle Eastern origin, but perhaps they too were only pre-Indo-European.
> 
> Interesting however the numerous Phoenician and Greek colonies in Iberia. 
> 
> Aquitanian, Proto-Basque, Iberian and Tartessian were all pre-Indo-European languages and still spoken around 300 BC.


Pre-Indo-European isn't really a valid category. Etruscan and Basque aren't related.

----------


## binx

> Pre-Indo-European isn't really a valid category. Etruscan and Basque aren't related.


First they are not categories but linguistic families and I don't see the connection to what I wrote. 

Etruscan and Basque are not considered related and the Basque is preserved in its contemporary form but not in that of 3000 years ago. We know little or nothing about the pre-Indo-European linguistic family, since the vast majority of pre-Indo-European languages died out before the spread of the alphabets.

----------


## markod

> First they are not categories but linguistic families and I don't see the connection to what I wrote. 
> 
> Etruscan and Basque are not considered related but we know little or nothing about the pre-Indo-European linguistic family, since the vast majority of pre-Indo-European languages died out before the spread of the alphabets.


We know enough about Etruscan. Even Venneman didn't include it in his Vasconic.

----------


## binx

> We know enough about Etruscan. Even Venneman didn't include it in his Vasconic.


It has nothing to do with what I wrote. Since I am absolutely not suggesting that they were strictly connected.

----------


## markod

> It has nothing to do with what I wrote. Since I am absolutely not suggesting that they were strictly connected.


So what's your point  :Thinking:

----------


## binx

> So what's your point



The preservation of pre-Indo-European languages in Europe was something more ordinary than many people think.

----------


## markod

> The preservation of pre-Indo-European languages in Europe was something more ordinary than many people think.


But if their languages are unrelated, we're back to the question of who these pre-IEs were. It makes no sense.

----------


## alais

> What do you think about this language and its likelihood of being related to Hittite?
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elymian_language



Is it possible that the Italic IE languages were linked to the Anatolian IE languages? 

Or was Elymian of Sicily alone a language derived from Hittite? However Wikipedia says it has been speculated, not that there's a certainty about Elymian and its likelihood of being related to Hittite.

----------


## Angela

> Disagree on what? Where would I have written that Etruscan civilization was less advanced than the Latin civilization of the same time period? The Etruscans were obviously the most advanced civilization of the early Iron Age of Italy. I don't think anyone can argue otherwise. Without the cultural influence of the Etruscans, the Latins would never have grown so quickly. The influence of the Etruscans reached as far as the Celts of central Europe. The Etruscans expanded from northern Italy (at the border with the populations of the Alps) to southern Italy in Campania. Etruscans were very receptive and were the first Pre-Roman era civilization to have such a wide range of interlocutors.
> 
> The commonplace is that only the Etruscans developed in the Italian Iron age. There were also differences in development between the various pre-Roman civilizations. Not all of them remained as isolated as the Ligurians. Other civilizations developed, even in northern Italy not only in southern Italy. 
> 
> Certainly the Etruscans developed rapidly thanks also to the influences from the East. The important role of the Greeks in southern Italy, who did not profoundly influence the same Etruscans only, who had some settlement in Campania, but also the Latins and later Romans and other Italic populations. Just as important was the role of the Phoenicians who had settled in Pithekoussai, especially in the orientalizing phase.
> 
> The Etruscans influenced the Italic populations but in turn they were influenced by the Italic populations. It is precisely this continuous mutual influence that creates that ferment that will bring Rome from a small settlement to become first the capital of a Republic and then of an empire within a few centuries.


I must say I don't appreciate your tone, especially as I've never treated you with anything but the utmost respect, and defended you vociferously against claims you were some Nordicist from Italicroots. I also have lauded you for standing your ground in the face of attack here and elsewhere for insisting it was highly unlikely that the Etruscans were just transplanted West Asians. It's almost as if some of my analysis of these leaks has set you off. If you disagree, we can certainly debate it in a civil manner. 

You compared the following civilizations to the Etruscans. This is a direct quote.

"The neighbors of the Etruscans were the Latins, the Umbrians, the Veneti, and the Golasecchian Celts... "

Golasecchian Celts? Really?

There is absolutely no comparison with the Etruscans in terms of the sophistication of their civilizations, not even the Latins before their adoption of Etruscan influences.

What is the difference? That's a rhetorical question since the answer is obvious: earlier exposure to and absorption of advancements from the east, some directly through long trade contacts, some perhaps through Southern Italy. That's just a fact. Those advancements "did not" come from central Europe. Is that a problem?

----------


## Pax Augusta

> I must say I don't appreciate your tone, especially as I've never treated you with anything but the utmost respect, and defended you vociferously against claims you were some Nordicist from Italicroots. I also have lauded you for standing your ground in the face of attack here and elsewhere for insisting it was highly unlikely that the Etruscans were just transplanted West Asians. It's almost as if some of my analysis of these leaks has set you off. If you disagree, we can certainly debate it in a civil manner. 
> 
> You compared the following civilizations to the Etruscans.
> 
> There is absolutely no comparison in terms of the sophistication of their civilizations.
> 
> What is the difference? Earlier exposure to and absorption of advancements from the east. That's just a fact. They "did not" come from central Europe. 
> 
> Your specific quote was the following:



I don't really understand what this answer of yours has to do with what's being discussed, honestly.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> @Pax Augusta: good post.
> I regreat I've not red your last post before to write my one to Ygorcs; I was not aware of this old IE substrata in Etruscan. (spite I'm surprised of so a precise statement for a supposed badly known language).


Merci beaucoup, Moesan.

The statement is clearly not mine, but comes from a series of recent publications on the Etruscan language.


The problem with the Etruscan language is that the type of inscriptions do not allow to progress with the knowledge of the Etruscan language, because they are often repetitive inscriptions that contain roughly the same type of terms.


You, who are French, about the Etruscans I recommend you to read any text or study written by your compatriot who is really a great scholar and connoisseur of the Etruscans: Dominique Briquel.

----------


## Angela

I don't understand why the fact that Etruscan is not related to Vasconian or Basque or Iberian means it can't be a pre-Indo-European language. 

By this time, the "farmers" had been in Europe for 5,000 years. Is that long enough for differences in language to have developed?

Are Iberian and Vasconian or Basque closely related? 

Plus, we have so little actual written Etruscan, I don't know how hard and fast conclusions can be reached. It seems linguists are all over the place in this matter.

Or, we could go back to the hypothesis that some R1b people, as perhaps in Spain, carried non-IE languages. Of course, we don't yet know the yDna of the Etruscans. 

Are some people still writing elsewhere that there was an "elite" migration from Asia Minor and the language came from them? It would have to have been very small as the autosomal signature is not only close to Tuscans, North Italians, Spaniards, but one is close to the French. 

Also, to correct a misstatement above, there was disagreement among the ancient authors as to whether the Etruscans were "local" or from Lydia.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> Golasecchian Celts? Really?



There have been many university studies in the last 30 years on this association. In particular, the subject has been dealt with by Raffaele De Marinis who teaches archeology at the University of Milan. 

https://www.iipp.it/wp-content/Curri...vembre2008.pdf


It is now accepted by many scholars that from Golasecca Celtic type ethnic groups emerge. Also because the language of the inscriptions associated with the Culture of Golasecca is Lepontic language that is considered a Celtic language to all intents and purposes. There is now a great consensus on this. Golasecca is the final result of a fusion of Ligurian-like elements (pre-Indo-European elements) with migrants who arrive from Urnfield culture and are proto-Celtic. It is the same kind of fusion that is also found in the late Bronze Age in non-Celtic cultures in Italy.


These are all texts adopted in university courses. 

- Raffaele C. De Marinis, "I Celti golasecchiani", in "I Celti", Catalogo della Mostra di Palazzo Grassi a Venezia, Milano 1991, pp. 93-102.

- Raffaele C. De Marinis, "La civiltà di Golasecca: i più antichi Celti d'Italia", 2007

- Raffaele C. De Marinis, ''L’abitato protostorico di Como'', in "Como fra Etruschi e Celti. La città preromana e il suo ruolo commerciale", Catalogo della Mostra, Como, pp. 25-38.

- Studi sulla cultura celtica di Golasecca, Roma 2017

https://www.lerma1896.com/preview/zixu-1.pdf


This from the University of Padua: 

La Civiltà di Golasecca gli Insubri, primi Celti d'Italia

https://www.beniculturali.unipd.it/w...celti-ditalia/


From the University of Venice - Ca' Foscari.


- Sull’alfabeto del celtico d’Italia, Patrizia Solinas (Università Ca’ Foscari Venezia, Italia)





> In questa chiave di lettura ci si sofferma su due momenti specifici: in primo luogo quello in cui nell’area della cosiddetta ‘cultura di Golasecca’ (ormai unanimemente riconosciuta come celtica)



English translation:





> In this interpretation, two specific moments are discussed: first, the one in which, in the area of the so-called 'Golasecca culture' (now unanimously recognized as Celtic).



https://edizionicafoscari.unive.it/m...62-4-ch-04.pdf

----------


## xiaodragon

"An arrival315 of the CHG-related component in Southern Italy from the Southern part of the Balkan Peninsula is316 compatible with the identification of genetic corridors linking the two regions (Figure 1E, (11)) and317 the presence of Southern European ancient signatures in Italy (Figure 2). The temporal appearance318 of CHG signatures in Anatolia and Southern East Europe in the Late Neolithic/Bronze Age suggests319 its relevance for post-Neolithic contributions (37). Additional analyses of aDNA samples from320 around this time in Italy are expected to clarify what scenario might be best supported."

It seems the route between Black sea and Caspian sea is a migration corridor . a cross road for northern people to travel down to the south, or from the south up to the north .

----------


## Pax Augusta

> Lemnos was inhabited by the Thracian tribe of Sintians, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sintians, among other Greeks who probably settled in the Archaic Age.



Yes, indeed. In fact, the name of the island north of Lemnos is precisely Samothrace (Samothraki). Can you find any sources in Greek to explain the name of this island?

----------


## Johane Derite



----------


## torzio

> An advantage they had over other Mediterranean cultures was their control of transalpine trade. The Hallstatt chiefs were the richest men in Europe at the time, and they bought Etruscan iron, textiles and other crafted goods.


never heard of etruscan iron

noric steel , made by illyrian celts in noricum was the best iron weapons made ...........

The proverbial hardness of Noric steel is expressed by Ovid: _"...durior [...] ferro quod noricus excoquit ignis..."_ which roughly translates to "...harder than iron tempered by Noric fire [was Anaxarete towards the advances of Iphis]..."[1] and it was widely used for the weapons of the Roman military after Noricum joined the empire in 16 BC.[2]

----------


## Demetrios

> Yes, indeed. In fact, the name of the island north of Lemnos is precisely Samothrace (Samothraki). Can you find any sources in Greek to explain the name of this island?


The literal meaning of Samothrace/Samothraki is "tall Thrace". This is a synthetic word. Samothrace happens to have the tallest mountain in all of the Aegean, excluding Euboea and Crete. The same is true with the island of Samos, which also translates as "tall" which happens to have the second tallest mountain in all of the Aegean, excluding Euboea and Crete. Supposedly the word "samos" is a Phoenician loanword, originating from Phoenician "sama" meaning "high", although it could also be a Greek original.

----------


## torzio

> There are a lot of similarities, and the Greek culture is also originated in West Asia.
> 
> 
> 
> The Etruscan alphabet, the Greek Alphabet and the Phoenician alphabet are all descended from the Sumerian alphabet.


you mean euobean alphabet

*Euboean*The Euboean alphabet was used in the cities of Eretria and Chalkis and in related colonies in southern Italy, notably in Cumae and in Pithekoussai. It was through this variant that the Greek alphabet was transmitted to Italy, where it gave rise to the Old Italic alphabets, including Etruscan and ultimately the Latin alphabet. Some of the distinctive features of the Latin as compared to the standard Greek script are already present in the Euboean model.[34] 
The Euboean alphabet belonged to the "western" ("red") type. It had Χ representing /ks/ and Ψ for /kʰ/. Like most early variants it also lacked Ω, and used Η for the consonant /h/ rather than for the vowel /ɛː/. It also kept the archaic letters digamma (Ϝ) for /w/ and qoppa (Ϙ) for /k/. San (Ϻ) for /s/ was not normally used in writing, but apparently still transmitted as part of the alphabet, because it occurs in abecedaria found in Italy and was later adopted by Etruscan.[34] 
Like Athens, Euboea had a form of Λ that resembled a Latin _L_ and a form of Σ that resembled a Latin S. Other elements foreshadowing the Latin forms include Γ shaped like a pointed _C_ (), Δ shaped like a pointed _D_ (), and Ρ shaped like _R_ ().[34] 
The classicist Barry B. Powell has proposed that Euboea may have been where the Greek alphabet was first employed in the late 9th century BC, and that it may have been invented specifically for the purpose of recording epic poetry.[35]

----------


## Demetrios

> you mean euobean alphabet
> 
> *Euboean*
> 
> 
> The Euboean alphabet was used in the cities of Eretria and Chalkis and in related colonies in southern Italy, notably in Cumae and in Pithekoussai. It was through this variant that the Greek alphabet was transmitted to Italy, where it gave rise to the Old Italic alphabets, including Etruscan and ultimately the Latin alphabet. Some of the distinctive features of the Latin as compared to the standard Greek script are already present in the Euboean model.[34] 
> The Euboean alphabet belonged to the "western" ("red") type. It had Χ representing /ks/ and Ψ for /kʰ/. Like most early variants it also lacked Ω, and used Η for the consonant /h/ rather than for the vowel /ɛː/. It also kept the archaic letters digamma (Ϝ) for /w/ and qoppa (Ϙ) for /k/. San (Ϻ) for /s/ was not normally used in writing, but apparently still transmitted as part of the alphabet, because it occurs in abecedaria found in Italy and was later adopted by Etruscan.[34] 
> Like Athens, Euboea had a form of Λ that resembled a Latin _L_ and a form of Σ that resembled a Latin S. Other elements foreshadowing the Latin forms include Γ shaped like a pointed _C_ (), Δ shaped like a pointed _D_ (), and Ρ shaped like _R_ ().[34] 
> The classicist Barry B. Powell has proposed that Euboea may have been where the Greek alphabet was first employed in the late 9th century BC, and that it may have been invented specifically for the purpose of recording epic poetry.[35]


Also Sumerians didn't have an alphabet, but a logographic and syllabic script. Phoenicians also didn't have what we would today consider a real alphabet, but an abjad/consonant script.

----------


## Angela

> never heard of etruscan iron
> 
> noric steel , made by illyrian celts in noricum was the best iron weapons made ...........
> 
> The proverbial hardness of Noric steel is expressed by Ovid: _"...durior [...] ferro quod noricus excoquit ignis..."_ which roughly translates to "...harder than iron tempered by Noric fire [was Anaxarete towards the advances of Iphis]..."[1] and it was widely used for the weapons of the Roman military after Noricum joined the empire in 16 BC.[2]


How could you possibly not know that one of the hallmarks of Etruscan civilization was their mastery of iron metallurgy??? Any Wiki article, encyclopedia, heck even the Khan Academy for high schoolers would tell you that. 


"The Etruscan civilization flourished in central Italy between the 8th and 3rd century BCE, and *their prosperity was largely based on their exploitation of local mineral resources*, both through manufactured goods and trade. The Etruscans exchanged goods not only with their fellow cities in Etruria but also with contemporary Mediterranean civilizations such as the Greeks, Phoenicians, and Near East cultures.* Especially noted for their production and export of iron*, the Etruscans received in exchange, amongst other things, ivory from Egypt, amber from the Baltic, and pottery from Greece and Ionia. With these trade relations came cultural influences as seen in both Etruscan daily life and art."

Do I have to go on????

----------


## torzio

> Agree
> 
> 
> 
> I dont think local is the right term to use. So, if the proto Etruscans and their language were the Early European Farmers, then it means their initial migration to Italy was from West Asia(through Turkey and Greece) after all, only it happened in the Neolithic.
> Also, considering the fact that the Proto Iberian Bell Beakers were a mix of EEF and WHG, the leaked ancestry component of Bell Beakers could be related to the EEF people participating in the formation of the Bell Beaker culture in Iberia.
> But what I think is that when the Steppe people and their Indo European language(coming from Central/North-Western Europe) replaced the populations in a lot of European areas in the Bronze Age, it could have been possible that these Early European Farmers from Italy migrated back towards the Aegean region (remaining unmixed in there, retaining their neolithic EEF autosomal ancestry component) when they met the expansions of the Corded Ware culture. And then during the Early Iron Age, a back migration happened from the Aegean region to Central Italy, mixing with the Italic people who were there since the Late Bronze Age.


my opinion of the etruscans is that they are an offshoot of the Umbrians

what we factually know by scholars
Sabines are an offshoot of Umbrians
Sabellics are an offshoot of Umbrians
Samnites are an offshoot of Sabines ......................so, this means that the highest percentage of ancient Italian tribes would be proto-umbrian

----------


## Angela

> There have been many university studies in the last 30 years on this association. In particular, the subject has been dealt with by Raffaele De Marinis who teaches archeology at the University of Milan. 
> 
> https://www.iipp.it/wp-content/Curri...vembre2008.pdf
> 
> 
> It is now accepted by many scholars that from Golasecca Celtic type ethnic groups emerge. Also because the language of the inscriptions associated with the Culture of Golasecca is Lepontic language that is considered a Celtic language to all intents and purposes. There is now a great consensus on this. Golasecca is the final result of a fusion of Ligurian-like elements (pre-Indo-European elements) with migrants who arrive from Urnfield culture and are proto-Celtic. It is the same kind of fusion that is also found in the late Bronze Age in non-Celtic cultures in Italy.
> 
> 
> These are all texts adopted in university courses. 
> ...


I'm sorry, I don't see the relevance of any of this. 

Yes, I know all about the Golasecca culture and have read the material. What does it have to do with this statement of yours, to which I have been reacting?

This is what you posted.

"Certainly the Etruscans stood out, also thanks to the large network of cultural and commercial exchanges, but it is absolutely not true that only the Etruscans develop such a high achieving civilization. Also this is just another commonplace. The neighbors of the Etruscans were the Latins, the Umbrians, the Veneti and the Golasecchian Celts... All civilizations that had remarkable developments."

Imo, all civilizations are not "equal" in terms of the "hallmarks" of civilization, or their sophistication: some have more remarkable achievements than others. 

You want to believe that Golasecca was as sophisticated and "remarkable" a civilization as the Etruscans? That's your prerogative, although nothing in that material shows that in any way, imo. So, I completely and utterly, but respectfully disagree. 

The reasons are myriad, but one of the chief ones, as I emphasized above, was intense contact with the east.

This is NOT about genetics. I'm not trying to undermine your claim that *some* of the ancestors of the Etruscans were from earlier migrations from Central Europe. It remains to be seen how close the Etruscans were to that particular earlier Northern Italian culture or if they picked up additional local Neolithic like ancestry. They seem pretty EEF heavy. In fact, it remains to be seen how "northern" Golasecca looks. Remedello was supposed to be really "steppe" heavy too. Fine with me either way.

----------


## berun

Thracians in Lemnos? ok, but just read some interesting info here:

https://chs.harvard.edu/CHS/article/...greek-speakers

well, I know to sum, 1 + 1 = 2, Etruscan and Lemnian are related, and Lemnos was inhabited by Pelasgians. Italian posters can deny the evidences, no matter.

----------


## Angela

> Thracians in Lemnos? ok, but just read some interesting info here:
> 
> https://chs.harvard.edu/CHS/article/...greek-speakers
> 
> well, I know to sum, 1 + 1 = 2, Etruscan and Lemnian are related, and Lemnos was inhabited by Pelasgians. Italian posters can deny the evidences, no matter.


And you can continue to deny ancient dna in preference to your outdated theories. 

Do you even read other people's posts, or look at PCAs? Do you know what a PCA is? Do you know what ancient DNA is?

It seems some of the Etruscans plot pretty damn close to the Iberians. Hello, fellow Pelasgian. :)

----------


## binx

> Thracians in Lemnos? ok, but just read some interesting info here:
> 
> https://chs.harvard.edu/CHS/article/...greek-speakers
> 
> well, I know to sum, 1 + 1 = 2, Etruscan and Lemnian are related, and Lemnos was inhabited by Pelasgians. Italian posters can deny the evidences, no matter.


Spanish posters should stop having these inferiority complexes over Italians, so much so that they participate in these discussions just to provoke. What is your contribution to this discussion? Nothing. Only very puerile provocations.

----------


## Ygorcs

> Is it possible that the Italic IE languages were linked to the Anatolian IE languages? 
> 
> Or was Elymian of Sicily alone a language derived from Hittite? However Wikipedia says it has been speculated, not that there's a certainty about Elymian and its likelihood of being related to Hittite.


Pretty unlikely. Italic shares the many innovations that define LPIE and link all known IE subgroups together _with the exception_ of Anatolian IE. Besides, Italic clearly shares many more similarities (not just vocabulary, but morphology and syntax too) with Celtic. Anyway, the Wikipedia article itself makes it clear that the association of Elymian to Anatolian IEs is just a tentative hypothesis, the evidences are too scant even to analyze and classify the language at all, let alone to link it to Hittite. 

Anyway, Italy does have some Anatolia_BA-related ancestry _(not that much if you include other more proximate sources with more EEF, like Minoan_Lasithi, and others with more CHG/Iran_Chl, like Hajji Firuz_Chl)_, and South Italians and Cretans look closest to BA Anatolians _(which of course must not imply direct descent, but rather an accumulation of similar admixtures over the millennia)_... But we will never be sure those movements involved Anatolian IE speakers unless we find strong evidences of Hittie, Luwian or other Anatolian IE language in Italy.

Based on what I can notice in _modern_ Italians, I'd still link (pre-)Proto-Italic people to an EEF-enriched BB split, maybe with some Western CWC (Germany) input mixed into them, too.

----------


## bigsnake49

I have noticed that some people are treating Herodottus as if he was like a modern historian with all the modern advantages of communication, records and travel. Think a lot of his histories are based on myths or stories he has picked from traders that travelled to those places. I do not for a moment believed that he travelled all over the Balkans and wrote down all the borders between the different tribes of Illyrians, Thracians and Dacians. Think of his writings as a guideline.

----------


## Ygorcs

> I don't understand why the fact that Etruscan is not related to Vasconian or Basque or Iberian means it can't be a pre-Indo-European language. 
> 
> By this time, the "farmers" had been in Europe for 5,000 years. Is that long enough for differences in language to have developed?
> 
> Are Iberian and Vasconian or Basque closely related? 
> 
> Plus, we have so little actual written Etruscan, I don't know how hard and fast conclusions can be reached. It seems linguists are all over the place in this matter.
> 
> Or, we could go back to the hypothesis that some R1b people, as perhaps in Spain, carried non-IE languages. Of course, we don't yet know the yDna of the Etruscans. 
> ...


I don't think we can already rule out the _possibility_(not likelihood) that Etruscan/Tyrsenian languages came from Anatolia or more broadly from the East Mediterranean... but onlyat least 2,000 years before some people had thought. In all of Italy, even North Italy, some of the best models that I can reach, using only Eneolithic & Bronze Age samples, include a good chunk (~20-30%) of Minoan-like ancestry. Of course that does not mean "from Minoans", but "similar to the genetic structure found in those few Minoan samples". There is also a lot of extra CHG/Iran_Chl-related admixtures. So some similarity with the BA East Mediterranean probably did exist, which might have brought the Tyrsenian language family _(and what if the Minoan language belonged to a related group, even if it was not Tyrsenian itself?)_. In any case, that language shift would have happened even before Proto-Italic existed (let alone was spoken in much of Italy, or in Italy at all).

----------


## Angela

> Spanish posters should stop having these inferiority complexes over Italians, so much so that they participate in these discussions just to provoke. What is your contribution to this discussion? Nothing. Only very puerile provocations.


Ignorance knows no national borders, I'm afraid. 

We have great posters from Iberian descended areas, like Duarte and Ygorcs, for example.

Just an example: did you know that Etruscans have nothing to do with iron metallurgy? :) If it weren't so sad it would be funny. 

Sometimes I get very frustrated by the level of ignorance out there, usually married to very noxious agendas. It's even more dangerous when someone does have knowledge of basic dna and the samples or superficial knowledge of, say, Imperial Rome, and just massages it all to fit into their agendas.

----------


## binx

> So some similarity with the BA East Mediterranean probably did exist, which might have brought the Tyrsenian language family _(and what if the Minoan language belonged to a related group, even if it was not Tyrsenian itself?)_. In any case, that language shift would have happened even before Proto-Italic existed (let alone was spoken in much of Italy, or in Italy at all).




Minoans were mostly EEF + minor CHG, their closest population was Anatolian_N. So also Minoan language was likely an EEF/ENF language.

----------


## hrvclv

On Etruscans. Nothing revolutionary, a bit long, but worth watching, imo.

----------


## hrvclv

Etruscan language. What did it sound like?

----------


## Angela

> I don't think we can already rule out the _possibility_(not likelihood) that Etruscan/Tyrsenian languages came from Anatolia or more broadly from the East Mediterranean... but onlyat least 2,000 years before some people had thought. In all of Italy, even North Italy, some of the best models that I can reach, using only Eneolithic & Bronze Age samples, include a good chunk (~20-30%) of Minoan-like ancestry. Of course that does not mean "from Minoans", but "similar to the genetic structure found in those few Minoan samples". There is also a lot of extra CHG/Iran_Chl-related admixtures. So some similarity with the BA East Mediterranean probably did exist, which might have brought the Tyrsenian language family _(and what if the Minoan language belonged to a related group, even if it was not Tyrsenian itself?)_. In any case, that language shift would have happened even before Proto-Italic existed (let alone was spoken in much of Italy, or in Italy at all).


I agree with much of this post. I was merely asking questions. I have no issue with Etruscan being possibly not a language of EEF people on the Italian peninsula but rather a language which made its way up the boot of Italy through Bronze Age Migrations from the east, most likely by way of Greeks, although there are other possibilities. Heck, one linguist thinks its Uralic in origin (Hungarian). 

I fail to see how any of this could be proved either way unless we have in the future a "Rosetta Stone" like moment with some language spoken/written elsewhere. 

However, going by the evidence we have so far, which is the "leaked" PCA, at least 2 of the Etruscans plot with the Iberians. Do they have 20-30% Minoan like ancestry too? How about the French? One of them plots near the French too. Maybe we just really don't have the right samples yet for some of these "runs".

I'm sure when we have the actual samples things will become clearer. It would also help to have Neolithic Era samples from Italy, particularly from the cultures around or immediately to the south of Tuscany, and some samples from that 1000 year blank slate in between some Italian samples and the Iron Age. 

I'm open to whatever the evidence will show.

@Binx,
Indeed.

----------


## binx

> Heck, one linguist thinks its Uralic in origin (Hungarian).


Etruscan as Uralic in origin is unlikely imho.





> @Binx,
> Indeed.


Thanks.

Moreover, in my opinion, closer we get to the end of Bronze age/Iron Age the more a language is no longer in close connection with the genetics of the population.

The Mycenaeans spoke an Indo-European language but how much genetically can be defined as Indo-European? The Mycenaeans are more EEF than genetically Indo-European and are still very close to the Pre-Indo-european language Minoans.

----------


## torzio

> I don't think we can already rule out the _possibility_(not likelihood) that Etruscan/Tyrsenian languages came from Anatolia or more broadly from the East Mediterranean... but onlyat least 2,000 years before some people had thought. In all of Italy, even North Italy, some of the best models that I can reach, using only Eneolithic & Bronze Age samples, include a good chunk (~20-30%) of Minoan-like ancestry. Of course that does not mean "from Minoans", but "similar to the genetic structure found in those few Minoan samples". There is also a lot of extra CHG/Iran_Chl-related admixtures. So some similarity with the BA East Mediterranean probably did exist, which might have brought the Tyrsenian language family _(and what if the Minoan language belonged to a related group, even if it was not Tyrsenian itself?)_. In any case, that language shift would have happened even before Proto-Italic existed (let alone was spoken in much of Italy, or in Italy at all).


I dont see how anyone can claim etruscans are from aegean/anatolian areas when the lemnian stelae is 400 years younger in time to what etruscans where speaking in italy......logically lemnos would be an etruscan colony of traders setup to trade along anatolia or in the black sea.......a stop off port for etruscans

----------


## Ygorcs

> I dont see how anyone can claim etruscans are from aegean/anatolian areas when the lemnian stelae is 400 years younger in time to what etruscans where speaking in italy......logically lemnos would be an etruscan colony of traders setup to trade along anatolia or in the black sea.......a stop off port for etruscans


Well, nobody said Etruscans - the people and its culture - came readily from Aegrean/Anatolian areas, let alone by the time of the Lemnian stelae. I'm talking of _much_ earlier migration events that _could possibly_ have brought the language (or rather its mother or even gradmother language) and some ancestral admixture to Italy. Lemnian is too late to serve as either evidence or counter-evidence for what we've speculated here. Profound East Mediterranean influence in Italy, especially South Italy, is a fact, it's not controversial. What needs to be determined is whether they were the bringers of some language still spoken in the Early Roman era in Italy.

----------


## Ygorcs

> Etruscan as Uralic in origin is unlikely imho.


I don't know why, but Hungarians seem to be like Turks in that their ultranationalists have tried to link it with basically any ancient language connected with a great civilization and not properly classified as of now (language isolates). It's weird.

----------


## xiaodragon

Repost；　

It is now accepted by many scholars that from Golasecca Celtic type ethnic groups emerge. Also because the language of the inscriptions associated with the Culture of Golasecca is Lepontic language that is considered a Celtic language to all intents and purposes. There is now a great consensus on this. Golasecca is the final result of a fusion of Ligurian-like elements (pre-Indo-European elements) with migrants who arrive from Urnfield culture and are proto-Celtic.

Golasecca : 45° 42′ 0″ N, 8° 39′ 0″ E

----------


## Pax Augusta

> Imo, all civilizations are not "equal" in terms of the "hallmarks" of civilization, or their sophistication: some have more remarkable achievements than others. 
> 
> You want to believe that Golasecca was as sophisticated and "remarkable" a civilization as the Etruscans? That's your prerogative, although nothing in that material shows that in any way, imo. So, I completely and utterly, but respectfully disagree.


I've already answered that.


"The Etruscans were obviously the most advanced civilization of the early Iron Age of Italy. I don't think anyone can argue otherwise."





> It is now accepted by many scholars that from Golasecca Celtic type ethnic groups emerge. Also because the language of the inscriptions associated with the Culture of Golasecca is Lepontic language that is considered a Celtic language to all intents and purposes. There is now a great consensus on this. Golasecca is the final result of a fusion of Ligurian-like elements (pre-Indo-European elements) with migrants who arrive from Urnfield culture and are proto-Celtic.



Why are you copying and pasting my posts?

----------


## berun

> And you can continue to deny ancient dna in preference to your outdated theories. 
> 
> Do you even read other people's posts, or look at PCAs? Do you know what a PCA is? Do you know what ancient DNA is?
> 
> It seems some of the Etruscans plot pretty damn close to the Iberians. Hello, fellow Pelasgian. :)


which Etruscans? looking at recent papers on ancient and modern samples I would not accept their lack of social or cultural discrimination

----------


## Angela

> I have noticed that some people are treating Herodottus as if he was like a modern historian with all the modern advantages of communication, records and travel. Think a lot of his histories are based on myths or stories he has picked from traders that travelled to those places. I do not for a moment believed that he travelled all over the Balkans and wrote down all the borders between the different tribes of Illyrians, Thracians and Dacians. Think of his writings as a guideline.


It's not just that, even.

Other ancient historians believed that the Etruscans were descended from local people. Some only remember what they choose to remember, or they quote what someone else says without doing the actual research. 

I wrote this in 2014:

"Well, the conclusion of Briquet, and my conclusion after reading the chapter again, is that none of what these ancient writers say should be taken as a "scientific inquiry about the identity of a people."

As Briquet shows quite compellingly, I think, these ancient writers were not historians in the modern sense of the world. They wove together the stories of their gods and ancient heroes and modern cultural and trade associations into one big mish mash, and, as is the case for some people nowadays as well, they often had an agenda to promote. 

Dionysius, as has been seen, supported the autochthonous origin. However, given the tenor of his entire work, some scholars believe he supported this theory largely to denigrate the Etruscans by showing them _not to be Greek or civilized, but rather the barbarian pirates of common Greek perception.

As to Herodotus' claim, I would suggest reading the whole chapter by Briquet; it's not very long. To recap it, it appears in a much longer exposition of who invented the games. In the course of it he says that the Lydians maintained that they invented the games at the same time that they sent some settlers to "Tyrrhenia". It doesn't seem they were necessarily correct about who invented the games, and, of course, the area around the northern Aegean was also called "Tyrrhenia" at one point. Meanwhile, the Etruscan/Tyrrenians called themselves Rasenna. You see how it goes?

Also, as has been pointed out, Lydians spoke an Indo-European language, and the Lydian historian of the 5th century BC, Xanthos, had, according to Dionysius, never heard of the story.

As for the "Pelasgian" theory of Hellicanus, among others, both the Greeks and the Etruscans promoted it, but from the explanation of Briquet, both the Greeks and the Etruscans, although sometimes rivals in trade, were also allies in trade, and it was in both their interests to support a theory whereby the Greeks and the Etruscans were somewhat related.

From the text:
"Etruscans were barbarians; this connected them with a people whom the Greeks represented as having been established on the soil of Hellas even before themselves and constituting the source of several Hellenic populations of later times (especially the Athenians presented by Herodotus 1.56 as the finest example of a Greek people descended from the Pelasgians.)...He well understood an aspect that would have been a positive in the eyes of the Greeks: being of Pelasgian origin, the Etruscans could be perceived, if not as Greeks in the strict sense (because they did not speak Greek) at least as related to a people with whom the Greeks were linked. In short, considered as ancient Pelasgians, the Etruscans were quasi-Hellenes."

This putative "Pelasgian" origin was also helpful to the Etruscans. "It is no coincidence either that around the time that Hellicanus developed the tradition of the Pelasgian origin of the Etruscans (firth century BC)... these two Etruscan cities (Spina and Caere) were centers of active trade with the Greek world. They presented themelves as founded by Pelasgians, highlighted their syngeneia" with this nearly Hellenic people, and conferred on themselves a prestigious foundation for the bonds of exchange and commercial partnership."

I'm quite aware that there are people who would interpret this claim by the Etruscans as meaning they must indeed descend from the "Pelasgians". The Etruscans are like a Rohrschack test; people see what they want to see.

In that regard it should be noted that the Pelasgian spoken, according to Herodotus, in Placia and Sylace near the Hellespont, and in Chalcidice , not in Cortona, as sometimes averred, is held by Dionysius not to resemble Etruscan at all. Well, at least it seems everyone is in agreement that Pelasgian was still spoken in some areas even at this late date. :)
Chalcidice is in Macedonia, by the way, so we are circling that area again...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalkid...Chalidikis.png

I'm rather persuaded by Briquet's conclusions about these stories: "Whether for the autochthonist thesis, or that identifying the Etruscans with the Pelasgians, or that they derived from Lydian colonists, their primary function was to account for the connections that existed at the time that these traditions were disseminated between the historical Etruscans and the Greeks. The meaning of a doctrine such as this, making the Etruscans natives, carried the corollary that they were mere Italian barbarians and were unrelated to Hellenism and its values: we recognize a development by hostile Greeks, probably the Syracusans at the time of their struggles against the Etruscans. The other two doctrines were rather favorable presentations: whether that of the Lydian origin...or that of the Pelasgian origin...With all of this we are far from scientific discourse."

I was particularly amused by the author's citation for a situation where, to facilitate trade, the Spartans asserted "brotherhood" with the Jews through their common origin from Abraham. Who knew? :)

That isn't to say that some historical memories might not have survived of an ancient population movement from the Aegean or other areas to the east into portions of Italy. We in fact know from archaeology that there was movement during the Bronze Age from Greece proper and Crete into Italy. The point is that we don't know if an additional migration happened specifically around 1000 BC to central Italy from either the northern Aegean or some other part of Anatolia, because the ancient writers contradict one another, and the stories are based on assertions that could be seen as agenda driven. I'm back to the beginning on this...if it happened, we don't know if it happened around 900 to 1000 BC, we don't know from where, and we don't know what they were like autsomally. Hopefully we'll know more soon.

What we do know, as the author points out, is that " we cannot reduce a people to a single origin to account for all they have been in history. Every people has been the result of a melting pot, formed by the superposition and mixing of diverse elements. Any attempt to explain it in terms of origin is historically simplistic and wrong."


_It doesn't matter how often facts are presented. People will believe what they want to believe.

----------


## xiaodragon

I fully agree with this statement: 




> I have noticed that some people are treating Herodottus as if he was like a modern historian with all the modern advantages of communication, records and travel. Think a lot of his histories are based on myths or stories he has picked from traders that travelled to those places. I do not for a moment believed that he travelled all over the Balkans and wrote down all the borders between the different tribes of Illyrians, Thracians and Dacians. Think of his writings as a guideline.

----------


## berun

by the way it's funny to see reactions about Lemnian, Etruscans setting a colony just in an Aegean island, poor Greeks.
Or the Shekelesh and Sardana as Sea Peoples, like those Tuscan Tershen. Well, why expend time with those that don't like maths.

----------


## Angela

> by the way it's funny to see reactions about Lemnian, Etruscans setting a colony just in an Aegean island, poor Greeks.
> Or the Shekelesh and Sardana as Sea Peoples, like those Tuscan Tershen. Well, why expend time with those that don't like maths.


Have you ever done any research before opining?

_As an illustration that Etruscans created trading centers in other parts of the Mediterranean, see the following thread:
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...ight=Etruscans

I also posted this in 2014, and it was discussed at length:
""As for Etruscan immigration(s) into Italy based on Herodotus and the non-Greek, Etruscoid Lemnian inscriptions, there is now evidence to the contrary: Etruscan pirates from Southern Etruria may have settled on Lemnos, around 700 BC or earlier and had been responsible for the inscriptions. Moreover, Carlo de Simone has definitely shown that Etruscan is not an Anatolian language.3 The Etruscan numerals, very characteristic elements of any language, do not have any parallels in Anatolian or other languages. "

http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2015/2015-03-02.html"



_By the way, statistics is math, and it's math which creates Admixture, and all the other statistical tools which come up with conclusions you don't like. Oh, and PCAs too.

Don't have a response yet as to how these "Pelasagian", West Asian, like Etruscans plot so close to some modern Iberians? Cat got your tongue? :)

----------


## Johane Derite

> 


I'm posting the accompanying source to these images here because he lays out the most supported arguments and himself develops an interesting and attractive argument:

"The relationship between Etruscan and Lemnian within the frame of the autochthonous thesis leads up to unsurmountable difficulties. 

The first option, according to which the Etruscans and Lemnians wereboth remnants of population groups surviving the onset of Indo-Europeanimmigrations, runs up against the fact that the two languages were so closelyrelated that such a long period of independent development is highly inconceivable (the Indo-European invasions in the Aegean date back to at least c.2300 BC). 

The second option, according to which the north-Aegean regionwas colonized by Etruscans from Italy in the late 8th or early 7th century BC,is, considering the slight dialectal differences, a priori possible, but lacks aproper archaeological and historical basis.

...

From an archaeological perspective, the colonization of Etruria at the endof the Bronze Age is highly unlikely. It is true that at this time Italy is characterized by the introduction of a new culture, the so-called proto-Villanovan (=an earlier phase of Villanovan)2, but, as demonstrated convincingly by HughHencken, the latter shows close affinities with the European urnfields. Thusthe typical biconical urns relate to counterparts primarily discovered in theregion of Oltenia and the Banat, Hungary (see Fig. 1). Furthermore, the houseurns, which are so well-known a feature of the Latial variant of (proto-)Villanova, find their closests parallels in northern Germany (Behn 1924, 90-1; Tafel 6, d-e) (see Fig. 2)3. In line with these observations, it seems reason able to assume that new population groups have entered Italy, as Henckendoes, only not from the Aegean, but from Europe. These new populationgroups can plausibly be identified as the forefathers of the historical Italicpeoples of the Umbrians, Oscans4, Latins, and Faliscans, whose languagesshow the closest affinity to Celtic and Germanic. At any rate, the Umbrianshave the same name as the German tribe of the Ambrones as recorded forJutland in Denmark (Altheim 1950, 56-7), branches of which can, on the basisof related place and river names, be traced as far afield as France, Spain andeven northern Italy (Schmoll 1959: 83, 119), whereas that of the Oscans orAusones is obviously related to the Celtic ethnonyms Ausci of the people nearAuch in southern France and Ausetani reported for Ausa-Vich in Catalonia(Bosch-Gimpera 1939: 40).  Note in this connection that, as demonstrated byHans Krahe (1964: 90-1, 43-4), both ethnonyms are rooted in his OldEuropean river names, the first being based on *embh-, *ombh- moist,water and the second on *av-, *au- source, stream.


This reconstruction of Italian prehistory at the end of the Bronze Age, whichassumes a relation between urnfield culture and the historical peoples of theUmbrians, Oscans, Latins, and Faliscans, collides with the view of the foremost representant of the autochthonous thesis, Massimo Pallottino. He putmuch effort in an attempt to disconnect the Italic Indo-European languagesfrom the (proto-)Villanovan culture, the bearers of which he considers to bethe forebears of the Etruscans. To this end he presents a map showing the distribution of archaeological cultures of Italy in the 9th and 8th centuries BC,which he compares with the distribution of the various languages as attestedin about the 5th century BC (Pallottino 1988, 68; Abb. 1-2). This is a dangerous procedure. In the first place, it leaves out the proto-Villanovan phase,which cannot be separated from Villanovan and which spread far to the south,reaching Apulia, the Lipari islands and even northern Sicily  regions wherelater evidence of Italic languages is found (see Fig. 3)5. Secondly, the use ofthe distinction between cremation and inhumation burial rites as an ethnicmarker is, as far as the 8th century BC is concerned, an oversimplification.After the introduction of proto-Villanovan at the end of the Bronze Age, thereis a revival of the rite of inhumation spreading from the south of Italy to thenorth, reaching Caere in the 9th and 8th centuries BC. Similarly, the Etruscansare also acquainted with both rites  be it that their cremation burials are clearly distinct from the Villanovan ones (see further below). Hence, the distinction is rather Villanovan style cremations and inhumations versus Etruscan style cremations and inhumations  a line of approach actually applied byIngrid Pohl in her publication of the Iron Age cemetery of Caere (Pohl 1972).Finally, the identification of the bearers of Villanovan culture in Etruria withthe forebears of the Etruscans disregards the historical evidence according towhich the Etruscans colonized the land of the Umbrians and drove them outof their original habitat (Plinius, Natural History III, 14, 112). As a matter offact, there are numerous reminiscences of the Umbrians originally inhabitingthe region later called Etruria, like the river name Umbro, the region calledtractus Umbriae, the association of the Umbrian tribes of the Camartes andSarsinates with the inland towns Clusium and Perugia, and the identificationof Cortona as an Umbrian town (Altheim 1950, 22-3). At any rate, the siteswhich have yielded Umbrian inscriptions mostly lie along the eastern fringeof the Villanovan style cremation area (Poultney 1959, 3) and there even havebeen found Umbrian type inscriptions in Picenum on the other side of theAppenines, whereas literary sources speak of Umbrians in Ancona,Ariminum, Ravenna and Spina to the north (Briquel 1984: 33; 51; 88; Salmon1988, 701)  regions where (proto-)Villanovan is attested (cf. Fig. 3)."

Colonization in the Early Iron Age

The question which remains to be answered is whether the colonization ofItaly by the Etruscans from Asia Minor as recorded by Herodotos does fit intothe period of the Early Iron Age. This is the period of exploration and colonization of the west-Mediterranean basin by Phoenicians and Greeks. Wasthere among these explorers and colonists of the far west a third party, *namely Luwians from western Anatolia?*

First of all, it is important to note that only from c. 700 BC onwards Etruriais characterized by an archaeological culture that with certainty can be identified as Etruscan, because from that date onwards inscriptions conducted inthe Etruscan language are found (Hencken 1968, 631). One of the most outstanding features of this Etruscan culture is formed by the chamber tombunder tumulus for multiple burials. The burial rites may consist of inhumationor a special form of cremation, according to which the remains of the pyre arecollected in a gold or silver container which, wrapped in a purple linen cloth,is placed in a loculus of the grave. The closest parallels for such lite-cremations are found in Anatolian style chamber tombs under tumulus at *Salamison Cyprus* (DAgostino 1977, 57-8)8. The rite in question is meticulouslydescribed by Homeros in connection *with the burial of Patroklos,* for whichreason one often speaks of a Homeric burial.

...

The inference that colonists from various regions of western Asia Minormigrated to Etruria may receive further emphasis if we take a look at thescript. As mentioned in the above the earliest inscriptions in the Etruscan language date from c. 700 BC onwards. In general, it is assumed that theEtruscans have borrowed their alphabet from the Greeks, in particular fromthe Euboians at Pithecussae and Cumae. This view, however, runs up against serious difficulties, since the local Etruscan alphabets are characterized bysigns and sign-forms unparalleled for Greek inscriptions. In the first place wehave to consider in this connection the sign for the expression of the value [f]as attested for an early 7th century BC inscription from Vetulonia (Vn 1.1) innorth-Etruria, which consists of a vertical stroke with a small circle on eithertop. As time goes by, this sign develops into the well-known figure-of-eight[f], which spreads from the north of Etruria to the south ultimately to replacethe digraph of wau and eta (< heta) for the same sound in the south-Etruscanalphabets. The origin of this sign can be traced back to the Lydian alphabet,where during the same time it knows exactly the same development! Next, alate 7th century BC inscription from Caere (Cr 9.1) in south-Etruria bears testimony of a variant of the tsade which is closer in form to the Phoenician original than the Greek san. The closest parallel for this sign can be discovered inthe local script of Side in Pamphylia. On the basis of these observations it liesat hand to infer that various groups of colonists from various regions in western Asia Minor, ranging from Lydia in the north to Side in the south, simplyhave taken their script with them (Woudhuizen 1982-3, 97; for the Sidetictsade, see Woudhuizen 1984-5b, 117, fig. 5).

The colonists not only introduced their own type of grave and their own typeof alphabet, they also settled themselves, just like the Phoenicians and Greeks,in urban centres founded according to neatly circumscribed rituals(Woudhuizen 1998, 178-9). An often heard argument in favor of the continuity between the Villanovan and Etruscan Orientalizing periods is that theEtruscan cities are founded on locations where in the previous periodVillanovan villages are situated (Hencken 1968, 636). It should be realized,however, that the Greek colony in Cumae is also preceded by an indigenousItalic settlement and that there is ample evidence for intermingling betweenthe original inhabitants and the new arrivals (Mller-Karpe 1959, 36-9)10. Thesame model is applicable to the Etruscan colonization, as suggested by thelarge number of Italic names in Etruscan inscriptions dating from the 7th and6th centuries BC. To give some examples, one might point to: Cventi, Eknate,Venelus, Vete, Vipie, Kavie, Kaisie, Mamerce, Numesie, Petrus, Punpu,Pupaia, Puplie, Spurie, Flavie, and tribal names like Latinie, Sapina, andSarsina (cf. Vetter 1953). As a matter of fact, the colonists from western AsiaMinor constitute an lite, who impose their superior culture on the by far morenumerous indigenous Italic population. A vital component of the colonial culture is formed by their language.

A first hint at the nature of the language can be derived from the name ofsome of the newly founded cities. Thus Tarquinia (= Etr. Tarchna-) is, on the analogy of Greek colonial names like Posidonia, Apollonia and Herakleia,which are also based on a divine name, named after the Luwian storm-godTarh≠unt-11. In addition, a number of Etruscan personal names, like Arnth,Mezentie, Muchsie, Thifarie or Thefarie, can be traced back to Luwian counterparts (Arnuwanta-, Mukasa-) or Luwian onomastic elements (masana-god, Tiwata- or Tiwara- sun-god); the same applies to family names likeCamitlna (< Luwian h≠anta- in front of) and Velavesvna (< Luwian walwa-lion), be it that the diagnostic element -na- is an Etruscan innovation unparalleled for Anatolian onomastics. Furthermore, Etruscan vocabulary showsmany correspondences with Luwian, like for instance the very common verbmuluvane- or muluvani- to offer as a vow, the root of which is related toLuwian maluwa- thank-offering.

Of a more profound nature are similaritiesin morphology (adjectival suffixes -s- and -l-), the system of (pro)nominaldeclension (genitive-dative singular in -s or -l, ablative-locative in -th(i)or -r(i), nominative plural in -i, genitive plural in -ai > -e) and verbal conjugation (3rd person singular of the present-future in -th(i)), the use of sentenceintroductory particles (va-, nac, nu-), enclitic conjunctions (-c or -ch, -m),negative adverbs (nes or nis), etc. On the basis of these features, Etruscancan be classified as most closely related to Luwian hieroglyphic of the EarlyIron Age (adjectival suffixes -asi- and -ali-, sentence introdutory particle wa-, negative adverb nas), but in certain aspects already showing developmentscharacteristic of Lycian (genitive plural in -i > -e1) and Lydian (dative singular in -l1, loss of closing vowel in the ablative-locative ending, sentenceintroductory particle nak, enclitic conjunction -k) of the Classical period.Finally, Etruscan shows a number of deviations from Luwian which it shareswith Lemnian, like the 3rd person singular ending of the past tense in -ce, -keor -che, the vocabulary word avi- year and the enclitic conjunction -mand. "


LINK: http://www.talanta.nl/wp-content/upl...TxsRjeLZ4m2hgQ

----------


## Angela

> which Etruscans? looking at recent papers on ancient and modern samples I would not accept their lack of social or cultural discrimination


To my knowledge the only Etruscan remains are those of ELITE Etruscans, the ones who could afford big sarcophagi.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> I'm posting the accompanying source to these images here because he lays out the most supported arguments and himself develops an interesting and attractive argument:
> 
> The relationship between Etruscan and Lemnian within the frame of the autochthonous thesis leads up to unsurmountable difficulties.



In the end, the same things are always repeated with the Etruscans. Sometimes it gets boring.

This is a paper by Fred C. Woudhuizen written over 15 years ago. Everyone who has read a lot about the Etruscans already knows it.

The vision of Fred C. Woudhuizen and his master Beekes is typical of Indo-Europeanists. Indo-Europeanist linguists have done enormous damage to linguistics. Neither of them is an etruscologist. And you can see it clearly from their work that lacks of deep and accurate knowledge of the Etruscan world.

Fred C. Woudhuizen believes that Etruscan is an Indo-European language and derives from colonial Luvian. Nothing could be more wrong. In fact, Woudhuizen's work does not have a good reputation among etruscologists. The consensus is that Etruscan is a pre-Indo-European language and does not belong to the Anatolian language family.

Woudhuizen's conclusions go in the opposite direction even of archaeological discoveries.

Much more interesting than Woudhuizen's paper are the two images that you posted (and that Woudhuizen had taken from other texts and published in his paper).

The first image (fig. 1) comes from a work by Hugh O'Neill Hencken from 1968. It's a bit outdated work but Hencken was a very good archaeologist.

In essence Hencken sees that the biconical urns present in the Etruscan Villanovan are present in the southernmost extension of the Urnfield culture, roughly where today is the Banat, between Hungary, Serbia and Romania. It may be. Others have also found similarities between the Gáva culture (subtype of the Urnfield culture) and the Villanovan, where there are also biconical urns. Hencken's work being over 50 years old, it may be that in the meantime biconical urns have been found in a larger area.

https://books.google.it/books?id=vXljf8JqmkoC&pg=PA598

The second image (fig. 2) comes from a more recent (1997) work by Jan Bouzek.


According to this image house urns are distributed both in Etruria (Tuscany and Lazio) and in the Latial culture (central Lazio). 


So, house urns are absolutely not just typical features of the Latial culture according to Bouzek, but also of the Etruscan villanovan culture. This contradicts what Woudhuizen tries to prove.

----------


## Angela

> I'm posting the accompanying source to these images here because he lays out the most supported arguments and himself develops an interesting and attractive argument:
> 
> "The relationship between Etruscan and Lemnian within the frame of the autochthonous thesis leads up to unsurmountable difficulties. 
> 
> The first option, according to which the Etruscans and Lemnians wereboth remnants of population groups surviving the onset of Indo-Europeanimmigrations, runs up against the fact that the two languages were so closelyrelated that such a long period of independent development is highly inconceivable (the Indo-European invasions in the Aegean date back to at least c.2300 BC). 
> 
> The second option, according to which the north-Aegean regionwas colonized by Etruscans from Italy in the late 8th or early 7th century BC,is, considering the slight dialectal differences, a priori possible, but lacks aproper archaeological and historical basis.
> 
> ...
> ...


Good lord, even you suddenly don't understand that ancient dna trumps any theorizing by individuals? Do I really have to post all the archaeologists who think this is C***?

----------


## Angela

I have no more "juice", Pax, or I would upvote your post. 

Suddenly some sanity from someone who actually knows a lot about the Etruscans. 

To think someone would actually endorse the theorizing of that crackpot, Woudhuizen!

They're all irrelevant at the end of the day, so I should just put all the usual suspects with an ax to grind on ignore and save myself the aggravation.

Ancient DNA, if these reports turn out to be true, trumps all the stupidity written in the past about the Etruscans, whose remains, as I said above, come, to the best of my knowledge, from the cemeteries where prominent Etruscans were buried.

----------


## Angela

> Etruscan as Uralic in origin is unlikely imho.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Moreover, in my opinion, closer we get to the end of Bronze age/Iron Age the more a language is no longer in close connection with the genetics of the population.
> 
> The Mycenaeans spoke an Indo-European language but how much genetically can be defined as Indo-European? The Mycenaeans are more EEF than genetically Indo-European and are still very close to the Pre-Indo-european language Minoans.


Quite right.

----------


## Ygorcs

> Suddenly some sanity from someone who actually knows a lot about the Etruscans. 
> 
> To think someone would actually endorse the theorizing of that crackpot, Woudhuizen!


Not to diminish Pax Augusta's evident deep knowledge about the matter, but, with all honesty, I must say that one doesn't even need to know a lot about the Etruscans to not give credit to an outdated hypothesis (or should we say speculation? Scientific hypotheses are more well substantiated) by yet another linguist who tried to force an unclassified language into one's favorite existing language family (usually because of some badly disguised agenda). I mean, Etruscanis so _obviously_ different from any known IE language (including Anatolian ones) not just in basic vocabulary, but also in grammar, that if it were IE it would certainly have diverged from the rest of the family so, I mean, _soooooo_ long ago that it could never have been an offshoot of Anatolian IE related to LBA/IA Luwian, and that would take us back to discussing Etruscans as a people native to Europe since the Neolithic era. Sigh...

----------


## Angela

> To my knowledge the only Etruscan remains are those of ELITE Etruscans, the ones who could afford big sarcophagi.


Let me amend that to make it clearer: to my knowledge the only Etruscan remains are those from Etruscan cemeteries, which have all the hallmarks of being graves of the elite. 

If that's the case, then the implication is, going by the PCA, that even the elite migration theory of "Etruscans", which posits that in the first millennium BC there was a migration of a small group of people from Anatolia to the area of modern Tuscany who brought with them the advancements which became evident in Etruscan culture, becoming the "local" elites, is *incorrect*, because instead of being very West Asian like, these "elites" are "Iberian" or French, or Northern Italian like. 

Anyone have a problem with that?

Now, if the "Etruscan" samples from this paper were found tossed into a poor class grave, like that of a servant, then it might still be possible that some of the elites looked different autosomally, more West Asian. It would be very bad science, however, not to have included some samples from the definitely "elite" graves for comparison, of which there are MANY. 

Let's assume for a moment this latter scenario is the case. That would mean that the "lower orders" were the ones who were more "steppe" like, more "northern", more Iberian, French, and North Italian like. These more "northern" like people would be the ones who didn't create this magnificent civilization. Yes?

I actually, for the record, documented here in 2014, left open the possibility that there was an elite migration from West Asia.

What I was much more skeptical of was any claim that there was a folk migration from West Asia to the area of modern day Tuscany in the Iron Age. Given these "leaked" results, that is a complete nonstarter. If that were the case why do we have only non West Asian looking samples, samples plotting with Iberians, the French, and Northern Italians? 

Is it possible that within these Etruscans we may find some J2? Yes, it's highly possible, imo. Some may have come from more northern areas, but much may have infiltrated up the peninsula from the south, or from the Balkans or from Crete or elsewhere in the southeast. I have been saying ad nauseam, for close to ten years (I have documented posts here from 2014), that I believe/believed there was movement from "Greek" areas perhaps starting in the early Bronze Age, and that J2 would show up in Italy in the Bronze Age. That's ANCIENT GREECE and its islands and its settlements or perhaps even from the direction of Crete before there were Greek speakers there or maybe from elsewhere in the east. That's before mainland Greeks, especially those from places like Greek Macedonia, were changed by the Slavic migrations. I myself, part Tuscan, share an IBD segment with Crete Armenoi. 

This is why we need samples from places like Rinaldone. 

However, they couldn't have been hugely affected, unless everybody thinks the Iberians are very West Asian too.

Let's also be clear: we're not talking about modern Tuscans here. We're talking about the Etruscans.

If something is wrong with my logic, please don't hesitate to point it out.

----------


## markod

> Not to diminish Pax Augusta's evident deep knowledge about the matter, but, with all honesty, I must say that one doesn't even need to know a lot about the Etruscans to not give credit to an outdated hypothesis (or should we say speculation? Scientific hypotheses are more well substantiated) by yet another linguist who tried to force an unclassified language into one's favorite existing language family (usually because of some badly disguised agenda). I mean, Etruscanis so _obviously_ different from any known IE language (including Anatolian ones) not just in basic vocabulary, but also in grammar, that if it were IE it would certainly have diverged from the rest of the family so, I mean, _soooooo_ long ago that it could never have been an offshoot of Anatolian IE related to LBA/IA Luwian, and that would take us back to discussing Etruscans as a people native to Europe since the Neolithic era. Sigh...


What about the declension system for instance? Typologically Bomhard also sees Tyrsenian as being close (or even the closest relative) to IE, and he's not known for making completely unsubstantiated claims.

http://www.maravot.com/Etruscan_Grammar.html

----------


## Ygorcs

> What about the declension system for instance? Typologically Bomhard also sees Tyrsenian as being close (or even the closest relative) to IE, and he's not known for making completely unsubstantiated claims.
> 
> http://www.maravot.com/Etruscan_Grammar.html


Hmm, I do not know, I have more than once seen Bomhard making extremely bold claims based on scant and very vague evidence on topics that most serious amd sensible scholars avoid as too uncertain and unreliable for scientific research (his Proto-Nostratic speculations are a case in point). Though Bomhard and Starostin were reputable scientists, their "excessive confidence" in using statistical methods to infer _very_ ancient phylogenetic relationships in unrelated languages and language families on the basis of _very_ indirect and vague connections has often been criticized by mainstream linguists. Many would say that at that level distinguishing what's true connection from what's random coincidence is extremely hard, perhaps impossible. 

Anyway, even Bomhard sees it as part of a language family closely related to the IE one, and not as an Indo-European language, let alone one belonging to one of the other known IE subgroups derived from later (post-PIE) proto-languages.

I'm not sure the wordlist and particles in the link you used are all correct, but I know countless linguist have analyzed the Etruscan lexicon and found few secure cognates (true cognates, not recent shared borrowings) between Etruscan and IE languages.

----------


## berun

> Have you ever done any research before opining?
> 
> _As an illustration that Etruscans created trading centers in other parts of the Mediterranean, see the following thread:
> https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...ight=Etruscans
> 
> I also posted this in 2014, and it was discussed at length:
> ""As for Etruscan immigration(s) into Italy based on Herodotus and the non-Greek, Etruscoid Lemnian inscriptions, there is now evidence to the contrary: Etruscan pirates from Southern Etruria may have settled on Lemnos, around 700 BC or earlier and had been responsible for the inscriptions. Moreover, Carlo de Simone has definitely shown that Etruscan is not an Anatolian language.3 The Etruscan numerals, very characteristic elements of any language, do not have any parallels in Anatolian or other languages. "
> 
> http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2015/2015-03-02.html"
> ...


if it would be ab Etruscan pirate refuge why they changed so much their language, it's untenable, comm'on, and reading things like crackpot for those pro or sanity for thosr against... well, I can realize that it is nothing about science but with emotions, why go far? facts are put in the bin and Etruscan samples come from memory, good waste of time that if mine.

----------


## Jovialis

> I think the Levant_BA component that Ygorcs and others found is contained in Anatolia_BA. The Luwian and Hittite samples had it, too.


Hmmm, perhaps that's one way to model them. Is it being subsumed into these other population models in the graph below? But into what? idk. I wish I had access to this paper, by Willerslev et al:



EDIT: I think you meant to say Levant_N, not Levant_BA.

Levant_BA North, has a similarity to the Anatolians, because Copper age migrates from Anatolia went south there.

----------


## Johane Derite

> In the end, the same things are always repeated with the Etruscans. Sometimes it gets boring.
> 
> This is a paper by Fred C. Woudhuizen written over 15 years ago. Everyone who has read a lot about the Etruscans already knows it.
> 
> The vision of Fred C. Woudhuizen and his master Beekes is typical of Indo-Europeanists. Indo-Europeanist linguists have done enormous damage to linguistics. Neither of them is an etruscologist. And you can see it clearly from their work that lacks of deep and accurate knowledge of the Etruscan world.
> 
> Fred C. Woudhuizen believes that Etruscan is an Indo-European language and derives from colonial Luvian. Nothing could be more wrong. In fact, Woudhuizen's work does not have a good reputation among etruscologists. The consensus is that Etruscan is a pre-Indo-European language and does not belong to the Anatolian language family.
> 
> Woudhuizen's conclusions go in the opposite direction even of archaeological discoveries.
> ...


I will explain why its useful in my opinion. I posted it because it was rich with info from others, not just his own theory that he supports, which I am not supporting personally. I only posted some quotes from the paper, the link is there to read in entirety, its only a couple of pages, not much. 

Here is what stood out for me:

The lemnos language does pose a challenge. If the dna results which we only have rumours and a PCA of until now are accurate, then theoretically Lemnos must be tested also and should show up as being Umrbian like autosomally, or at least shifted that way. 

Another challenge is that he claims that Etruscans used ("according to Ingrid Pohl in her publication of the Iron Age cemetery of Caere, Pohl 1972") a different inhumation and cremation method to Villanovans:

"One of the most outstanding features of this Etruscan culture is formed by the chamber tomb under tumulus for multiple burials. The burial rites may consist of inhumation or a special form of cremation, according to which the remains of the pyre are collected in *a gold or silver container which, wrapped in a purple linen cloth, is placed in a loculus of the grave.* The closest parallels for such lite-cremations are found in* Anatolian style chamber tombs* under tumulus at Salamis on Cyprus. 
The rite in question is meticulously described by Homeros in connection with the *burial of Patroklos*, for which reason one often speaks of a Homeric burial. As far as mainland Greece is concerned, similar lite-cremations are attested for the hero of Lefkandi and the burials at the west gate of Eretria. The element which is missing here, however, is the characteristic chamber tomb under tumulus (the hero of Lefkandi is discovered in an apsidal building secondarily used as a grave and covered by a tumulus) Chamber tombs under tumulus for multiple burials are* a typical Mycenaean feature*. 

During the Late Bronze Age this type of burial is disseminated by Mycenaean colonists from mainland Greece to western Asia Minor, where it is subsequently taken over by the indigenous population groups like the Carians, Lycians, Lydians, and ultimately the Phrygians. The earliest indigenous examples are pseudo-cupolas in Caria, dated to the period of c. 1000 to 800 BC.

These graves are characterized by a rectangular groundplan and aconcentrically vaulted roof. The problem of the dome resting on a square issolved by the so-called pendentive. This very same construction is typical ofchamber tombs in Populonia during the 7th century BC. Similarly, in Lydia a chambertomb has been found with a roof vaulting lenghtwise in the same way as forexample the famous Regolini-Galassi tomb at Caere, dating to the 7th century BC. 

Furthermore, Mysia has produced a chamber tomb which is entirelyhewn out of the soft tufa with mock roof beams in place as if it were a wooden construction. The same technique is so common for Etruria that if the photos of the Mysian example would have had no caption one could easily bemistaken to be dealing with an Etruscan grave.Unfortunately, the Anatolian examples in the last mentioned two cases wereso thoroughly robbed that they cannot be properly dated. 

Next, it deserves ourattention that Lycia from the 6th century BC onwards is typified by faadegraves hewn out of the natural rock, which bring to mind the faade graveshewn out of the natural rock of Norchia and its immediate surroundings towhich a similar date is assigned as the Lycian counterparts. Like the Mysian tomb mentioned above, the faade graves imitate wooden constructions. Hence, it is interesting to note that actual woodenconstructions have been dug up in Phrygia. Here large wooden boxes datingto the late 8th and early 7th century BC serve as a replacement of the stonebuilt chamber tomb in a similar manner as in Vetulonia during the 7th century BC. Finally, mention should be made of a Lycian chamber tomb from the5th century BC with paintings which bear a strong resemblance to theEtruscan ones in Tarquinia  be it that the Lycian paintings, in contrast to theirEtruscan counterparts, show Persian motifs.

In summary, on the basis of the preceding survey of relations in funeral architecture one gains the impression that Etruria was in close contact with variousregions of western Anatolia during the Early Orientalizing period andbeyond . Possibly, a crucial role was played by Mysia, the Aeolian coast, andthe offshore islands like Lesbos, because here the typical local pottery, justlike in Etruria from the 7th century BC onwards, consists of bucchero."

This is significant, because if these types of burials are different to Villanovan types, then they need to be explained, were there Mycaneans in umbria? Otherwise, if house urns are etruscan, were there etruscans in north germany? 

The Italo-Celtic-Germanic affinities fit more neatly for the shared toponyms and house urn material culture, whereas its a bit more difficult the other way around.

One thing this author, and most authors are probably not aware of is that the "Patroclus" types of burials are also in Albania according to Hammond:

----------


## Demetrios

> Thracians in Lemnos? ok, but just read some interesting info here:
> 
> https://chs.harvard.edu/CHS/article/...greek-speakers
> 
> well, I know to sum, 1 + 1 = 2, Etruscan and Lemnian are related, and Lemnos was inhabited by Pelasgians. Italian posters can deny the evidences, no matter.


Crete also had Pelasgians, but we also know that Crete used to have many other peoples as well.

For example Homer writes:
"_There is a land called Crete, in the midst of the wine-dark sea, a fair, rich land, begirt with water, and therein are many men, past counting, and ninety cities. They have not all the same speech, but their tongues are mixed. There dwell Achaeans, there great-hearted native Cretans (eteo-Cretans), there Cydonians, and Dorians of waving plumes, and goodly Pelasgians._".

The same can be true with Lemnos. Homer wrote that the Sintians were the first inhabitants of the island, and they were a Thracian tribe. Other authors also wrote of the Greek tribe of Minyans living on the island, before being expelled by Pelasgians coming from Attica. Others also presented Pelasgians as Tyrrhenians. So you see, nothing is certain and probably Lemnos had a number of different people just like with the case of Crete above. After all, don't take as a fact that Greek authors were always accurate with their designations. They could in fact be generalizing when they wrote Pelasgians.

----------


## Johane Derite

So if Villanova is italic as he claims, and if in this study that has been leaked, its villanovans that have been tested, then we should expect them to plot the way they do, we don't know which types of graves have been tested, if there are disagreements about which ones are the "etruscan" proper method, then both variants need to be tested to make sure we aren't reading italic umbrian results as etruscan.

"Finally, the identification of the bearers of Villanovan culture in Etruria withthe forebears of the Etruscans disregards the historical evidence according towhich the Etruscans colonized the land of the Umbrians and drove them outof their original habitat (Plinius, Natural History III, 14, 112). 

As a matter offact, there are numerous reminiscences of the Umbrians originally inhabitingthe region later called Etruria, like the river name Umbro, the region calledtractus Umbriae, the association of the Umbrian tribes of the Camartes andSarsinates with the inland towns Clusium and Perugia, and the identificationof Cortona as an Umbrian town (Altheim 1950, 22-3). 

At any rate, the sites*which have yielded Umbrian inscriptions mostly lie along the eastern fringeof the Villanovan style cremation area* (Poultney 1959, 3) and there even havebeen found Umbrian type inscriptions in Picenum on the other side of theAppenines, whereas literary sources speak of Umbrians in Ancona,Ariminum, Ravenna and Spina to the north (Briquel 1984: 33; 51; 88; Salmon1988, 701)  regions where (proto-)Villanovan is attested (cf. Fig. 3)."

----------


## Johane Derite

And pelasgians are balkan people, so we shouldn't expect any dramatic west-asian shift from people with pelasgian origins.

----------


## Demetrios

> I will explain why its useful in my opinion. I posted it because it was rich with info from others, not just his own theory that he supports, which I am not supporting personally. I only posted some quotes from the paper, the link is there to read in entirety, its only a couple of pages, not much. 
> 
> Here is what stood out for me:
> 
> The lemnos language does pose a challenge. If the dna results which we only have rumours and a PCA of until now are accurate, then theoretically Lemnos must be tested also and should show up as being Umrbian like autosomally, or at least shifted that way. 
> 
> Another challenge is that he claims that Etruscans used ("according to Ingrid Pohl in her publication of the Iron Age cemetery of Caere, Pohl 1972") a different inhumation and cremation method to Villanovans:
> 
> "One of the most outstanding features of this Etruscan culture is formed by the chamber tomb under tumulus for multiple burials. The burial rites may consist of inhumation or a special form of cremation, according to which the remains of the pyre are collected in *a gold or silver container which, wrapped in a purple linen cloth, is placed in a loculus of the grave.* The closest parallels for such �lite-cremations are found in* Anatolian style chamber tombs* under tumulus at Salamis on Cyprus. 
> ...


Yet we see dozens of tumulus burials in the Iron Age of Greece, such as the tumulus of Marathon, used to bury the 192 Athenians, and many other in Macedon, such as the recently unearthed Amphipolis tumulus (Kasta tomb), etc.. And you also forget tumuli burials came in the Balkans with the Indo-European migrations and Mycenaeans also used them. As for Achilles and Patroclus, even though they are legendary/mythical characters we already have genealogies and places of origin, but you very easily disregard them. Even though these are all unrelated with the original subject.

----------


## Johane Derite

> Yet we see dozens of tumulus burials in the Iron Age of Greece, such as the tumulus of Marathon, used to bury the 192 Athenians, and many other in Macedon, such as the recently unearthed Amphipolis tumulus (Kasta tomb), etc.. And you also forget tumuli burials came in the Balkans with the Indo-European migrations and Mycenaeans also used them. As for Achilles and Patroclus, even though they are legendary/mythical characters we already have genealogies and places of origin, but you very easily disregard them. Even though these are all unrelated with the original subject.


He meticulously describes the specific type of tumulus burial, not just a tumulus. And this burial seems to have been used by etruscans according to Woudhuizen. His sources are in the paper.

The etruscans are totally related with the original subject.

----------


## Demetrios

> He meticulously describes the specific type of tumulus burial, not just a tumulus. And this burial seems to have been used by etruscans according to Woudhuizen. His sources are in the paper.
> 
> The etruscans are totally related with the original subject.


What's the type exactly? Because when i read "_The element which is missing here, however, is the characteristic chamber tomb under tumulus (the hero of Lefkandi is discovered in an apsidal building secondarily used as a grave and covered by a tumulus) Chamber tombs under tumulus for multiple burials are a typical Mycenaean feature._", this is very easily explained by the fact that Homer actually describes that the mound of Patroclus is a temporary burial, not the final one. Also, "_the remains of the pyre are collected in a gold or silver container which, wrapped in a purple linen cloth, is placed in a loculus of the grave._", this reminds me of the very widespread larnax, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larnax. As for mounds, they were the most used burial practice described in the Iliad and the Odyssey, you can read more about them here, although you need a free account to read, https://www.jstor.org/stable/500553?...o_tab_contents.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> So if Villanova is italic as he claims, and if in this study that has been leaked, its villanovans that have been tested, then we should expect them to plot the way they do, we don't know which types of graves have been tested, if there are disagreements about which ones are the "etruscan" proper method, then both variants need to be tested to make sure we aren't reading italic umbrian results as etruscan.


I comment on this first and then when I have time I'll comment on the rest. To all these statements you would have been able to find an answer on your own if you had also read at leat the most important texts of etruscology. The whole text of Woudhuizen is his personal interpretation that also goes against the general consensus.

For example there is no consensus at all that Villanova is Italic. Villanovan culture (c. 900 BC – 700 BC) is Etruscan and only Etruscan and is considered the most archaic phase of Etruscan civilization. We have to go back to the Proto-Villanovan (c. 1200 BC — circa 900 BC), which is ancestral not only to the Villanovan culture, but also to the Latial culture (Latins) and Atestine culture (Veneti) and so on. It's an an old thesis that the Proto-Villanovan culture brought the Italics to Italy, but it's still not proven.

The Etruscans of the Villanovan phase practiced incineration for the most part, those that have been tested are likely the result of inhumation burial, which became the most common from a certain point onwards. This is just the biggest difference between Etruscans and Umbrians. The Umbrians descend from the Culture of Terni and are characterized by inhumation burial mostly. 





> "Finally, the identification of the bearers of Villanovan culture in Etruria withthe forebears of the Etruscans disregards the historical evidence according towhich the Etruscans colonized the land of the Umbrians and drove them out of their original habitat (Plinius, Natural History III, 14, 112).



This paragraph is a good example of how Woudhuizen manipulates sources. Worse for him. Because in the end his work will remain neglected as it is happening (except for all those who desperately want to keep alive the Herodotean narrative of an eastern Etruscan origin). The story that the Etruscans occupied the land of the Umbrians starts with Herodotus around V century BC who reports a legend of the the Lydians. Many historians, archaeologists and etruscologists have questioned the historical credibility of Herodotus' story with convincing arguments. 

But Woudhuizen cleverly and craftily puts Plinius there as if he were a source. Plinius born in the Italian Prealps is rather the source of a much more important information: Etruscans and the Rhaetians were related, and this was more recently confirmed by the linguistic data.





> As a matter offact, there are numerous reminiscences of the Umbrians originally inhabitingthe region later called Etruria, like the river name Umbro, the region calledtractus Umbriae, the association of the Umbrian tribes of the Camartes and Sarsinates with the inland towns Clusium and Perugia, and the identificationof Cortona as an Umbrian town (Altheim 1950, 22-3).


Numerous reminiscences? This is really funny. Apart from the fact that there is no river in Etruria called Umbro, there are two streams, one in the Tuscan-Emilian Apennines, in the north of Tuscany, and the other in the south-west of Tuscany, called Ombrone, not Umbro. Other manipulation of Woudhuizen. It is certainly hypothesised that Ombrone derives from the ethnic name of the Umbrians. But there is no absolute evidence that it is so, there are also other hypotheses. It may well have other explanations. And however two streams is too little as proof. For my math teacher the concept of "numerous" means something else. 

Of course, there is a legend about these Umbrian tribes who lived in what are the modern borders between Tuscany and Umbria. But nothing has ever been found so far archeologically to prove it. And then, if I remember well for the same areas, there is also the legend that Ligurian tribes lived there. So a slightly crowded area must have been. 

The fact that the Etruscan Clusium (Etruscan Clevsin, modern Cortona) and Perugia (Etruscan Phersna Latin Perusia) were also inhabited by Umbrian tribes is by no means surprising. They are both in the most eastern part of the Etruscan world. Perugia is even today the capital of the Umbria region. So they were always cities on the border with the Umbrian world. It does not in any way confirm that Umbrians originally inhabiting the whole region called Etruria. At most, there was a border area between the Etruscan world and the Umbrian world where the two peoples had mixed several times. And this is true for all the border areas of the Etruscan world. In the north-west of Tuscany there is evidence that the Etruscans and Ligurians lived together, as well as in southern Etruria (north and central Lazio) there is evidence of the same thing between Etruscans, Faliscans and Latins. The story of the Faliscans, who spoke the language most similar to Latin but were part of the Etruscan world, is also very iconic.





> At any rate, the sites which have yielded Umbrian inscriptions mostly lie along the eastern fringeof the Villanovan style cremation area (Poultney 1959, 3) and there even havebeen found Umbrian type inscriptions in Picenum on the other side of the Appenines, whereas literary sources speak of Umbrians in Ancona, Ariminum, Ravenna and Spina to the north (Briquel 1984: 33; 51; 88; Salmon1988, 701) � regions where (proto-)Villanovan is attested (cf. Fig. 3)."



This is all known, too. Etruscans and Umbrians there in the Adriatic coast have mixed several time. And what does that prove? Certainly does not prove that the Umbrians once inhabited all the lands of the Etruscans, because once again these types of mixes took place in the border areas between the Etruscan and Umbrian worlds and not in the core of the Etruscan world.

----------


## markod

> I comment on this first and then when I have time comment on the rest. To all these statements you would have been able to find an answer on your own if you had also read at leat the most important texts of etruscology. The whole text of Woudhuizen is his personal interpretation that also goes against the general consensus.
> 
> For example there is no consensus at all that Villanova is Italic. Villanovan culture (c. 900 BC – 700 BC) is Etruscan and only Etruscan and is considered the most archaic phase of Etruscan civilization. We have to go back to the Proto-Villanovan (c. 1200 BC — circa 901 BC), which is ancestral not only to the Villanovan culture, but also to the Latial culture (Latins) and Atestine culture (Veneti) and so on. It's an an old thesis that the Proto-Villanovan culture brought the Italics to Italy, but it's still not proven.


The idea that Proto-Villanova trifurcated into Etruscan, Venetic and Italic is largely an idea based in the old 'pots not people' paradigm of archaeology still prevalent in classical studies. Someone will need to come up with something better.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> The idea that Proto-Villanova trifurcated into Etruscan, Venetic and Italic is largely an idea based in the old 'pots not people' paradigm of archaeology still prevalent in classical studies. Someone will need to come up with something better.


I know you don't like it. 


It's an idea that has great consensus. Proto-Villanovan is a national phenomenon, the following ones are phenomena of regionalization (it's not a trifurcation, not only Villanovan, Atestine and Latial cultures but also other cultures of Italy).


To dismiss it, you need more than just a post on a forum.

----------


## markod

> I know you don't like it. 
> 
> 
> It's an idea that has great consensus. Proto-Villanovan is a national phenomenon, the following ones are phenomena of regionalization (not only Villanovan, Atestine and Latial cultures).
> 
> To dismiss it, you need more than just a post on a forum.


I have zero stakes in it, why wouldn't I like it? It's just outdated now that we know migration and conquest are the primary reasons for linguistic/cultural shift. It's not 1960 anymore.

----------


## berun

> And pelasgians are balkan people, so we shouldn't expect any dramatic west-asian shift from people with pelasgian origins.


I think Italians have less problems recognizing the Balkan origin of Daunians or Iapiges, stablished IIRC when Sea People were marauding here and there, also they don't have problems to assign to proto-Villanovians an Italic or Celtic character coming from outside, maybe from the Balkans even if we include in it Hungary. But when there is something about Etruscans coming from elsewere I believe sometimes it is Anthrogenica web when bulling antisteppists.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> I have zero stakes in it, why wouldn't I like it? It's just outdated now that we know migration and conquest are the primary reasons for linguistic/cultural shift. It's not 1960 anymore.




It's an idea that's still being accepted today. There's nothing wrong with not knowing it. Since you speak clearly Italian, the first are the notes of Civiltà dell'Italia Preromana (LE07101474), 2013-2014 university course at the University of Padua. Those notes are the first ones I found. The second from a book published in 2006.

----------


## markod

> It's an idea that's still being accepted today. There's nothing wrong with not knowing it. Since you speak clearly Italian, the first are the notes of Civiltà dell'Italia Preromana (LE07101474), 2013-2014 university course at the University of Padua. Those notes are the first ones I found. The second from a book published in 2006.


Many ideas are wrong and still accepted. Urnfield material cultures are found in the regions where later we see the Etruscans, Rhaetians, Veneti and the Latins. That doesn't mean that all those languages actually spread with Urnfield. There were other peoples around the Alps and in Italy at the time. This is especially obvious in Latium which was barely occupied in the MBA-LBA transition - one of the populations that migrated there in the LB spoke Latino-Faliscan. Languages don't tend to spring from the ground.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> Many ideas are wrong and still accepted. Urnfield material cultures are found in the regions where later we see the Etruscans, Rhaetians, Veneti and the Latins. That doesn't mean that all those languages actually spread with Urnfield. There were other peoples around the Alps and in Italy at the time. This is especially obvious in Latium which was barely occupied in the MBA-LBA transition - one of the populations that migrated there in the LB spoke Latino-Faliscan. Languages don't tend to spring from the ground.


I'm having the hardest time following you. Nowhere is it written that all those languages actually spread with Urnfield.

----------


## markod

> I'm having the hardest time following you. Nowhere is it written that all those languages actually spread with Urnfield.


So which cultures did they spread with.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> The literal meaning of Samothrace/Samothraki is "tall Thrace". This is a synthetic word. Samothrace happens to have the tallest mountain in all of the Aegean, excluding Euboea and Crete. The same is true with the island of Samos, which also translates as "tall" which happens to have the second tallest mountain in all of the Aegean, excluding Euboea and Crete. Supposedly the word "samos" is a Phoenician loanword, originating from Phoenician "sama" meaning "high", although it could also be a Greek original.



Demetrios, thanks for this. Are Phoenician language loans frequent in Greek?

I need to ask you other things about the Greek world, too. I'll do it soon.

----------


## Angela

You're all missing the point here. The Etruscans were people who, if they didn't move directly from West Asia, were descended from the ancestors of the Albanians. Obviously, that's true of the more "northern" Romans too, just like the Albanians are the true descendants of the Mycenaeans.

You cannot argue with such self-evident truths. 

Or, according to Eurogenes, both the Etruscans and the early Romans were clearly heavily steppe people, you know, like the Mycenaeans. 

We've just got to get with the program.

----------


## Johane Derite

> You're all missing the point here. The ancestors of the Albanians were the ancestors of the Etruscans, just like the Albanians are the true descendants of the Mycenaeans.
> 
> You cannot argue with such self-evident truths. 
> 
> Or, if you don't like that, they must all have been Serbs.


A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.

----------


## Salento

It depends on how well you know your opponent by evaluating the Posting History, so it’s “Implied” = suggested but not directly expressed; implicit :)

----------


## Johane Derite

Well then I will state my opinion explicitly so that it isn't suggested for me.

I don't know who the Etruscans were nor do I claim to, what I shared were some rational enough points about the archaeology that made a case for Etruscans coming to Umbria, and not having been there.

There was a tradition among ancients that they did migrate there, and its obviously possible they were wrong and just spreading a myth, but many authors state variations of a migration, be they pelasgians, lydians, tyrrhenians, etc. Some variations consider pelasgians and tyrrhenians the same thing, some consider them different, some consider them lydians proper, but in common is a migration.

"_The Pelasgians left Greece and came and settled in the Italian areas among the Aborigines. The Pelasgians were also called Tyrrheni [Etruscans] and the entire land was called Tyrrhenia, after one of their rulers, who was called Tyrrhenus._"
Eusebius, Chronography, 102 - ca. 325 CE 

"_At an early period the Umbri were expelled from it by the Pelasgi; and these again by the Lydians, who from a king of theirs were named Tyrrheni, but afterwards, from the rites observed in their sacrifices, were called, in the Greek language, Tusci_"
Pliny the Elder, Natural History 1-11, 3.8.1 - ca. 77 CE 

"_The Lydians, who had taken the name of Tyrrheni, having engaged in war against the Agyllaei, one of them, approaching the wall, inquired the name of the city; when one of the Thessalians from the wall, instead of answering the question, saluted him with χαῖρε"
_ Strabo, Geography, 5.2.3 - ca. 24 CE

"_But if one must pronounce judging by those that still remain of the Pelasgians who dwelt in the city of Creston (Ancient Macedonia) above the Tyrsenians, and who were once neighbours of the race now called Dorian, dwelling then in the land which is now called Thessaliotis, and also by those that remain of the Pelasgians who settled at Plakia and Skylake in the region of the Hellespont, who before that had been settlers with the Athenians, and of the natives of the various other towns which are really Pelasgian, though they have lost the name_," 
Herodotus, Histories, 1.57 - ca. 430 BCE 

"_There is also a small Chalcidian element; but the greater number are Tyrrheno-Pelasgians once settled in Lemnos and Athens, and Bisaltians, Crestonians, and Edonians; the towns being all small ones_" 
Thucydides, Peloponnesian War, 4.109 - ca. 395 BCE 

"_After Liguria are Pelasgians who settled here coming from Hellas, occupying the country in common with the Tyrrhenians_"
Pseudo Scymnus or Pausanias of Damascus, Circuit of the Earth, 196 - ca. 100 BCE

"_However, one may well marvel that, although the Crotoniats had a speech similar to that of the Placians, who lived near the Hellespont, since both were originally Pelasgians, it was not at all similar to that of the Tyrrhenians, their nearest neighbours_" 
Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities, 1.29.1 - ca. 7 BCE



As you can see, many ancients either considered them the same or two different ethnos, and I don't know better than them as I am even further removed, but the motif of migration is pretty common.

And with the migration scenario, its still entirely possible they were non-IE speaking people not related to anybody.

----------


## Demetrios

> Demetrios, thanks for this. Are Phoenician language loans frequent in Greek?
> 
> I need to ask you other things about the Greek world, too. I'll do it soon.


Not really. There are a few words recorded but not many. If anything Phoenician is more heavily influenced by Greek (especially in later periods). There was also a book written by a Hebrew scholar, namely Joseph Yahuda, who published very extreme conclusions in relation to this question. His book was called "Hebrew is Greek", you can find it for free here, https://archive.org/details/Hebrew.is.Greek, although it is very long (686 pages) and very technical. He touched upon other Semitic languages as well, not just Hebrew, although again, his conclusions appear very extreme.

----------


## binx

> Well then I will state my opinion explicitly so that it isn't suggested for me.
> 
> I don't know who the Etruscans were nor do I claim to, what I shared were some rational enough points about the archaeology that made a case for Etruscans coming to Umbria, and not having been there.
> 
> There was a tradition among ancients that they did migrate there, and its obviously possible they were wrong and just spreading a myth, but many authors state variations of a migration, be they pelasgians, lydians, tyrrhenians, etc. Some variations consider pelasgians and tyrrhenians the same thing, some consider them different, some consider them lydians proper, but in common is a migration.
> 
> "_The Pelasgians left Greece and came and settled in the Italian areas among the Aborigines. The Pelasgians were also called Tyrrheni [Etruscans] and the entire land was called Tyrrhenia, after one of their rulers, who was called Tyrrhenus._"
> Eusebius, Chronography, 102 - ca. 325 CE 
> 
> ...




None today believes anymore that objective truth is contained in the texts of ancient authors. Many of these ancient texts are contradictory to each other.

The humanistic disciplines have evolved. At that time legends and myths wanted to mean something else, and do not always contain historical facts.

One should not insist on what was written 2500 years ago, when archaeology, linguistics and genetics say something different.

----------


## binx

> You're all missing the point here. The Etruscans were people who, if they didn't move directly from West Asia, were descended from the ancestors of the Albanians. Obviously, that's true of the more "northern" Romans too, just like the Albanians are the true descendants of the Mycenaeans.
> 
> You cannot argue with such self-evident truths. 
> 
> Or, according to Eurogenes, both the Etruscans and the early Romans were clearly heavily steppe people, you know, like the Mycenaeans. 
> 
> We've just got to get with the program.



I think that the question of the origins of the Etruscans or Romans attracts many people or ethnic groups with identity problems.

----------


## binx

Who has the English text of Dionysius of Halicarnassus?

----------


## Demetrios

> Who has the English text of Dionysius of Halicarnassus?


Which work are you looking for? If you mean "Roman Antiquities" you may find it here https://archive.org/details/romanantiquities01dionuoft and here http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/...ssus/home.html, from a quick search that i did.

----------


## binx

> Which work are you looking for? If you mean "Roman Antiquities" you may find it here https://archive.org/details/romanantiquities01dionuoft and here http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/...ssus/home.html, from a quick search that i did.



When he says the Etruscans are neither Pelasgian nor Lydian.

----------


## Demetrios

> When he says the Etruscans are neither Pelasgian nor Lydian.


It is in Chapter/Paragraph 30 of Book 1, http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/...assus/1B*.html.

----------


## binx

> It is in Chapter/Paragraph 30 of Book 1, http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/...assus/1B*.html.


thx

"_For this reason, therefore, I am persuaded that the Pelasgians are a different people from the Tyrrhenians. And I do not believe, either, that the Tyrrhenians were a colony of the Lydians; for they do not use the same language as the latter, nor can it be alleged that, though they no longer speak a similar tongue, they still retain some other indications of their mother country. For they neither worship the same gods as the Lydians nor make use of similar laws or institutions, but in these very respects they differ more from the Lydians than from the Pelasgians. Indeed, those probably come nearest to the truth who declare that the nation migrated from nowhere else, but was native to the country, since it is found to be a very ancient nation and to agree with no other either in its language or in its manner of living. And there is no reason why the Greeks should not have called them by this name, both from their living in towers and from the name of one of their rulers. The Romans, however, give them other names: from the country they once inhabited, named Etruria, they call them Etruscans, and from their knowledge of the ceremonies relating to divine worship, in which they excel others, they now call them, rather inaccurately, Tusci, but formerly, with the same accuracy as the Greeks, they called them Thyoscoï. Their own name for themselves, however, is the same as that of one of their leaders, Rasenna. In another book I shall show what cities the Tyrrhenians founded, what forms of government they established, how great power they acquired, what memorable achievements they performed, and what fortunes attended them_."

Dionysius of Halicarnassus, "Roman Antiquities" , Book I, Section 30

----------


## markod

The problem with autochthony is the lack of an indigenous element that could be responsible for a hypothetical language shift:




> New discoveries suggest that the Terramare’s cycle of settlement and history may haveenjoyed a prelude during the advanced phase of the Early Bronze Age, even though the ﬁrstclear evidence dates back to the MB1. However, the Terramare in the true sense and the socialmodel they represent do not seem to emerge fully until the MB2. The substantial populationincrease, now supported by archaeological evidence from about 200 settlements, is difﬁcultto explain in terms of natural demographic growth alone, and would seem to suggest that itderives from the «colonisation» of the Po Plain. This hypothesis is supported by the intensedeforestation that took place at the time in concomitance with the spread of pasture and arableland. *At the end of the Recent Bronze Age, after over four centuries of life, the world of the Terramare collapsed within an apparently brief space of time, leaving the territory uninhabited for at least three or four centuries*.


https://www.academia.edu/5808394/The...e_Age_in_Italy

So again, in the LBA we are left with little more than the Apennine culture and the encroaching Urnfield-Villanova intruders from the north. Any hypothesis must account for this.

----------


## torzio

> Well then I will state my opinion explicitly so that it isn't suggested for me.
> 
> I don't know who the Etruscans were nor do I claim to, what I shared were some rational enough points about the archaeology that made a case for Etruscans coming to Umbria, and not having been there.
> 
> There was a tradition among ancients that they did migrate there, and its obviously possible they were wrong and just spreading a myth, but many authors state variations of a migration, be they pelasgians, lydians, tyrrhenians, etc. Some variations consider pelasgians and tyrrhenians the same thing, some consider them different, some consider them lydians proper, but in common is a migration.
> 
> "_The Pelasgians left Greece and came and settled in the Italian areas among the Aborigines. The Pelasgians were also called Tyrrheni [Etruscans] and the entire land was called Tyrrhenia, after one of their rulers, who was called Tyrrhenus._"
> Eusebius, Chronography, 102 - ca. 325 CE 
> 
> ...


You do realise that the lydians where still in anatolia fighting the phygians circa 500BC ...................any reference to tribes going from one place to another place does not indicate a full migration and neither a full replacement of the people they replaced wherever they went.
It is not like some type of north american indian tribe packing up their tents and moving to different lands system

----------


## torzio

> Crete also had Pelasgians, but we also know that Crete used to have many other peoples as well.
> 
> For example Homer writes:
> "_There is a land called Crete, in the midst of the wine-dark sea, a fair, rich land, begirt with water, and therein are many men, past counting, and ninety cities. They have not all the same speech, but their tongues are mixed. There dwell Achaeans, there great-hearted native Cretans (eteo-Cretans), there Cydonians, and Dorians of waving plumes, and goodly Pelasgians._".
> 
> The same can be true with Lemnos. Homer wrote that the Sintians were the first inhabitants of the island, and they were a Thracian tribe. Other authors also wrote of the Greek tribe of Minyans living on the island, before being expelled by Pelasgians coming from Attica. Others also presented Pelasgians as Tyrrhenians. So you see, nothing is certain and probably Lemnos had a number of different people just like with the case of Crete above. After all, don't take as a fact that Greek authors were always accurate with their designations. They could in fact be generalizing when they wrote Pelasgians.


If samothrace island had thracian Sintians , it would make sense that Lemnos had the same thracians as the 2 islands are close to each other .............or would lemnos have a "trojan" colony as some speculate due to the iliad

----------


## brick

> The problem with autochthony is the lack of an indigenous element that could be responsible for a hypothetical language shift:



I think it's more the opposite. Pre-Indo-European languages arrived in southern Europe long before middle Bronze Age Indo-European languages.

The indigenous element was all pre-Indo-European before the arrival of the Indo-European languages.

----------


## torzio

> I don't think we can already rule out the _possibility_(not likelihood) that Etruscan/Tyrsenian languages came from Anatolia or more broadly from the East Mediterranean... but onlyat least 2,000 years before some people had thought. In all of Italy, even North Italy, some of the best models that I can reach, using only Eneolithic & Bronze Age samples, include a good chunk (~20-30%) of Minoan-like ancestry. Of course that does not mean "from Minoans", but "similar to the genetic structure found in those few Minoan samples". There is also a lot of extra CHG/Iran_Chl-related admixtures. So some similarity with the BA East Mediterranean probably did exist, which might have brought the Tyrsenian language family _(and what if the Minoan language belonged to a related group, even if it was not Tyrsenian itself?)_. In any case, that language shift would have happened even before Proto-Italic existed (let alone was spoken in much of Italy, or in Italy at all).


There is no fixed rule saying that if one tribe invaded another lands that the loser was wiped out or its customs and language replaced

The viking danes took Normandy, ruled it for a very long time, but did not enforce it's viking customs or language on the people , but they ,the vikings gave way to the norman language and customs

----------


## brick

> If samothrace island had thracian Sintians , it would make sense that Lemnos had the same thracians as the 2 islands are close to each other .............or would lemnos have a "trojan" colony as some speculate due to the iliad



In fact, also the first inhabitants of Lemnos were the same Thracian Sintians of Samothrace.

----------


## markod

> I think it's more the opposite. Pre-Indo-European languages arrived in southern Europe long before middle Bronze Age Indo-European languages.
> 
> The indigenous element was all pre-Indo-European before the arrival of the Indo-European languages.


The region was depopulated. There was no pre-Anything in North Italy when the Villanovans came.

----------


## brick

> The region was depopulated. There was no pre-Anything in North Italy when the Villanovans came.


I don't think it's true.

----------


## Demetrios

> If samothrace island had thracian Sintians , it would make sense that Lamnos had the same thracians as the 2 islands are close to each other .............or would lemnos have a "trojan" colony as some speculate due to the iliad


I didn't write that Samothrace had Sintians Thracians. Although we can assume it did. The traditional account from antiquity is that Samothrace was first inhabited by Pelasgians and Carians, and later by Thracians. At the end of the 8th century BCE the island was colonized by Greeks from Samos, hence the name Samothrace (Samos of Thrace), which again relates to an earlier answer i gave in regards to the etymology. We can assume Sintians Thracians to have settled on Samothrace, from the very simple fact that Samothrace was also a major center for the Cabeirian mysteries, which originated from Lemnos.

----------


## bigsnake49

> The region was depopulated. There was no pre-Anything in North Italy when the Villanovans came.


And how did you arrive at that conclusion?

----------


## markod

> And how did you arrive at that conclusion?


Anyone who talks about Etruscan archaeology should know about the Terramare collapse. I linked a comprehensive paper above, and I even highlighted the relevant parts.

----------


## bigsnake49

> Anyone who talks about Etruscan archaeology should know about the Terramare collapse. I linked a comprehensive paper above, and I even highlighted the relevant parts.


Every area of the Med collapsed at the same time. The Etruscan civilization came afterward. Plus these were very small settlements almost all in Emilia, North of Tuscany. They did not have the population density to develop an advanced civilization.

----------


## brick

> And how did you arrive at that conclusion?



The hypothesis of the dispersion/collapse of Terramare culture, I think.

Terramare culture wasn't the only culture in northern Italy.

Claiming that the whole North Italy after the collapse of Terramare was depopulated is inaccurate.

----------


## markod

> Every area of the Med collapsed at the same time. The Etruscan civilization came afterward. Plus these were very small settlements almost all in Emilia, North of Tuscany. They did not have the population density to develop an advanced civilization.


Seems pretty populated for the time:




> Using the demographic estimates proposed in 1997, it can be argued that between theend of the MB3 and the start of the RB the area occupied by the Terramare reached its peak indemographic pressure, which can be put at around 150,000 individuals, in other words 20 in-habitants per square kilometre.

----------


## Angela

> I think that the question of the origins of the Etruscans or Romans attracts many people or ethnic groups with identity problems.


Identity problems that perhaps come from feelings of inferiority when looking at what they've actually accomplished in the last 5,000 years in comparison. Or perhaps problems with how they're viewed by the rest of the world. If you have true confidence, of course, it bounces off, although it might annoy. 

That doesn't apply to the 19th century British and German Nordicists. Those areas had gotten their act together by about the 15th century or so. The problem for some of these "anthropologists" and "historians" was that they didn't want to be known as the barbarians who destroyed the Roman Empire and plunged Europe into the Dark Ages. So, they decided that in that era they were just peaceful folk wandering around trying to farm and they had no idea how all those buildings came down, and trade dried up, and roads got overgrown and controlled by bandits, and people forgot how to wash and read and all those little things. The only way out was to claim the Mycenaeans and the Romans were ALSO Nordics, so even if some of their ancestors destroyed ancient Rome, their ancestors created it in the first place. 

I mean, there's an element of humor in it all if you can detach yourself emotionally from it, which I have, or I still wouldn't be here for five years, and in the "field" for five years before that. You also have to keep firmly in mind that one shouldn't judge any ethnicity by some nutjobs of that ethnicity posting on population genetics. There's good and bad in every group. It's just that this subject attracts a lot of people who are missing a few screws in their heads, as my Dad used to say. :)

Anyway, all this drivel some people are posting is IRRELEVANT. IF the leaks are right, ALL those "theories" being proposed are and were C***. Anyone who continues to post that nonsense just looks idiotic. They might as well join the "Flat Earth Society", or proclaim the earth was created in seven days.

----------


## markod

> The hypothesis of the dispersion/collapse of Terramare culture, I think.
> 
> Terramare culture wasn't the only culture in northern Italy.
> 
> Claiming that the whole North Italy after the collapse of Terramare was depopulated is inaccurate.


Don't be cryptic. Who was in BA N. Italy other than Terramare and the Urnfielders?

----------


## berun

For example it is known that, in post-Neolithic times 5 kya, North West Anatolia developed a complex society engaged in a widespread Aegean trade referred to as “Maritime Trojan culture”, involving both the Western Anatolian mainland and several large islands in the
Eastern Aegean Sea (Korfmann, 1997). Interestingly, J2a-M67 also harbours a high microsatellite variation age in Volterra, which is located in the core area of ancient Etruria. Multiple hypotheses have been proposed concerning the origin of Etruscans, but our observations tend to support the view that Asia Minor was the ancestral source of the Etruscan gene pool, as already proposed by Achilli et al. (2007) on the basis of mtDNA data.

from "Reconstructing the genetic history of Italians: new insights from a male (Y-chromosome) perspective", paper published the past year, not from memory

----------


## Pax Augusta

> For example it is known that, in post-Neolithic times 5 kya, North West Anatolia developed a complex society engaged in a widespread Aegean trade referred to as “Maritime Trojan culture”, involving both the Western Anatolian mainland and several large islands in the
> Eastern Aegean Sea (Korfmann, 1997). Interestingly, J2a-M67 also harbours a high microsatellite variation age in Volterra, which is located in the core area of ancient Etruria. Multiple hypotheses have been proposed concerning the origin of Etruscans, but our observations tend to support the view that Asia Minor was the ancestral source of the Etruscan gene pool, as already proposed by Achilli et al. (2007) on the basis of mtDNA data.
> 
> from "Reconstructing the genetic history of Italians: new insights from a male (Y-chromosome) perspective", paper published the past year, not from memory


We've already discussed this study.

J2a-M67 in Volterra is only 2.7%, while G2a-L497 is around 7.1%, R1b is circa 50% (24.5% R1b U52).

J2a-M67 exists also in Spain and Portugal and has its in peak in the study in Calabria Jonica. In Italy is considerably more common in the Italic areas of the Adriatic side.

These below are the conclusions of the paper. Grugni is even forced, given the results, to open the possibility that the Etruscans came from the north or were autochthonous. 

In the end, this study shows just the opposite of an Anatolian origin. In any case, pure speculations based on modern samples. Since only ancient DNA can tell us who the Etruscans were.


"«As a matter of fact, while the presence of J2a-M67* suggests contacts by sea with Anatolian people, in agreement with the Herodotus hypothesis of an external Anatolian source of Etruscans, the finding of the Central European lineage G2a-L497 at considerable frequency would rather support a Northern European origin of Etruscans. On the other hand, the high incidence of European R1b lineages cannot rule out the scenario of an autochthonous process of formation of the Etruscan civilisation from the preceding Villanovan society, as first suggested by Dionysius of Halicarnassus; a detailed analysis of haplogroup R1b-U152 could prove very informative in this regard.»."

----------


## torzio

> I didn't write that Samothrace had Sintians Thracians. Although we can assume it did. The traditional account from antiquity is that Samothrace was first inhabited by Pelasgians and Carians, and later by Thracians. At the end of the 8th century BCE the island was colonized by Greeks from Samos, hence the name Samothrace (Samos of Thrace), which again relates to an earlier answer i gave in regards to the etymology. We can assume Sintians Thracians to have settled on Samothrace, from the very simple fact that Samothrace was also a major center for the Cabeirian mysteries, which originated from Lemnos.


Thanks
Very interesting ,

----------


## etrusco

> Don't be cryptic. Who was in BA N. Italy other than Terramare and the Urnfielders?



At more or less the same time of terramare ( which occupied lower eastern lombardy, lower western veneto and emilia ) there was in northwestern Italy ( west lombardy, eastern piemonte and a little bit of northwestern emilia) the Canegrate culture which looks like the precursor on italian soil of the urn fields culture. 
Also actually the terramare did not collapse. They migrated in central and southern Italy. That is obvious if you think that these cremators disappear from the Po valley and at the same time cremation burials pop up like crazy all over central and southern Italy.

----------


## Jovialis

> Identity problems that perhaps come from feelings of inferiority when looking at what they've actually accomplished in the last 5,000 years in comparison. Or perhaps problems with how they're viewed by the rest of the world. If you have true confidence, of course, it bounces off, although it might annoy. 
> 
> That doesn't apply to the 19th century British and German Nordicists. Those areas had gotten their act together by about the 15th century or so. The problem for some of these "anthropologists" and "historians" was that they didn't want to be known as the barbarians who destroyed the Roman Empire and plunged Europe into the Dark Ages. So, they decided that in that era they were just peaceful folk wandering around trying to farm and they had no idea how all those buildings came down, and trade dried up, and roads got overgrown and controlled by bandits, and people forgot how to wash and read and all those little things. The only way out was to claim the Mycenaeans and the Romans were ALSO Nordics, so even if some of their ancestors destroyed ancient Rome, their ancestors created it in the first place. 
> 
> I mean, there's an element of humor in it all if you can detach yourself emotionally from it, which I have, or I still wouldn't be here for five years, and in the "field" for five years before that. You also have to keep firmly in mind that one shouldn't judge any ethnicity by some nutjobs of that ethnicity posting on population genetics. There's good and bad in every group. It's just that this subject attracts a lot of people who are missing a few screws in their heads, as my Dad used to say. :)
> 
> Anyway, all this drivel some people are posting is IRRELEVANT. IF the leaks are right, ALL those "theories" being proposed are and were C***. Anyone who continues to post that nonsense just looks idiotic. They might as well join the "Flat Earth Society", or proclaim the earth was created in seven days.


Very well put, I find that this is exactly the reason for centuries of obfuscation of history. The Mycenaeans were indeed "southern", overlapping with Sicilians, South Italians, and Peloponnese Greeks. If the "leak" is indeed true, the Romans, certainly by the Imperial era at least were just about as "southern". Regardless of what the "original" Romans were like, the men that formed the cohorts that conquered lands for the empire, were probably comparable to central and southern Italians. Julius Caesar himself, could probably be counted among them. Moreover, the Etruscan, who were regarded by some as "West Asian", were actual comparable to Northern Italians. These benighted individuals got it backwards, The Greeks were "southern", and the Etruscans were more "northern"; I love how ancient DNA can turn things on it's head.

----------


## bigsnake49

As Angela is so fond of saying we need more ancientDNA. We also need DNA from population movements/invasions from about 400AD-1500AD.

----------


## halfalp

> Very well put, I find that this is exactly the reason for centuries of obfuscation of history. The Mycenaeans were indeed "southern", overlapping with Sicilians, South Italians, and Peloponnese Greeks. If the "leak" is indeed true, the Romans, certainly by the Imperial era at least were just about as "southern". Regardless of what the "original" Romans were like, the men that formed the cohorts that conquered lands for the empire, were probably comparable to central and southern Italians. Julius Caesar himself, could probably be counted among them. Moreover, the Etruscan, who were regarded by some as "West Asian", were actual comparable to Northern Italians. These benighted individuals got it backwards, The Greeks were "southern", and the Etruscans were more "northern"; I love how ancient DNA can turn things on it's head.


So were only Imperial Romans shifted towards Southern Italian or were other Italic peoples too?

----------


## Ownstyler

> I love how ancient DNA can turn things on it's head.


What is being turned on it's head in this case?

----------


## davef

> What is being turned on it's head in this case?


Its the classic nordicist idea of Northern Europeans being descended from (and exactly the same as) Greeks and Romans (as well as other iconic civilizations im too lazy to list here). DNA studies have concluded the opposite-that the closest living populations to mycenaens are South Italians, Sicilians, Southern mainland Greeks and Aegeans (and based on the PCA, it could possibly be that a lot of imperial Romans were similar to those populations as well. I'm not making a contest out of this...if most turn out to be more Northern, whatever). 

They should leave their agendas behind and take pride in their own culture and heritage. It's unhealthy to do so otherwise.

----------


## Ygorcs

> "_The Pelasgians left Greece and came and settled in the Italian areas among the Aborigines. The Pelasgians were also called Tyrrheni [Etruscans] and the entire land was called Tyrrhenia, after one of their rulers, who was called Tyrrhenus._"
> Eusebius, Chronography, 102 - ca. 325 CE


These "urban legend" explanations for the name of regions and ethnicities is one of the things that takes away even more of the scarce credibility of these ancient authors. This is not the first nor the "one hundredth" time that the name of an ethnicity or region is supposedly invented after a certain ruler/hero/patriarch that curiously was _always_ named _root of the ethnicity/area + us/os_ (depending on whether it's Latin or Greek). After some time it gets really tiresome. ;-p

----------


## Angela

> As Angela is so fond of saying we need more ancientDNA. We also need DNA from population movements/invasions from about 400AD-1500AD.


We have almost no ancient Italian dna, nothing yet published on Italian Neolithic, Terramare, Canegrate, Veneti, Ligures, Rinaldone, and on and on, including, of course, the Etruscans and the Romans.

We have Oetzi, whose genome no one can seem to get, Remedello in the far north in the Copper Age, some Beakers from northwest Sicily, and "Migration Era" people in a Langobard cemetery in northeastern Italy(a great paper, btw). That's it.* As one might expect, the usual suspects were wrong about what those genomes would show as well. 

You can't come to correct conclusions until you can compare the ancient samples in question to what was there before and to ancient samples from other areas which might have contributed genetically, proximate populations.

Greece hasn't been well served either. What happened after the Bronze Age collapse and the attendant depopulation? What were the Dorians like? What were Classical Era Greeks from the mainland, or Crete, or the Dodocanese like? What were the Greeks like just before the arrival of the Slavs? 

Who were the groups who made up the Sea Peoples?

When did the "Western Jews" stop plotting in the Near East and why?

I could go on...

What astounds me is the continued insistence that these "theories" being brought up are correct even when proof they are not is staring us in the face. In light of these leaks who the hell in his or her right mind still wants to rely on Herodotus? If I had this mind set I wouldn't have lasted six months in my career. My head would have been handed to me on a plate. 

This isn't the first time. People were still bringing up FALLMERAYER, that old fabulist, months after the publication of the studies on the Mycenaeans and the genetics of the Peloponnese. Why don't we just waste hours debating whether or not Galen and his theory of the four humours was correct while we're at it? This is supposed to be a quasi-intellectual forum, not a haven for the discussion of nutty ideas which are now obsolete.

Ed. *And some Beaker types from Parma.

----------


## Ownstyler

> Its the classic nordicist idea of Northern Europeans being descended from (and exactly the same as) Greeks and Romans (as well as other iconic civilizations im too lazy to list here). DNA studies have concluded the opposite-that the closest living populations to mycenaens are South Italians, Sicilians, Southern mainland Greeks and Aegeans (and based on the PCA, it could possibly be that a lot of imperial Romans were similar to those populations as well. I'm not making a contest out of this...if most turn out to be more Northern, whatever). 
> 
> They should leave their agendas behind and take pride in their own culture and heritage. It's unhealthy to do so otherwise.


Thank you for clarifying. That much has been clear for a while too.

----------


## davef

> Thank you for clarifying. That much has been clear for a while too.


You are very welcome!

----------


## Jovialis

> So were only Imperial Romans shifted towards Southern Italian or were other Italic peoples too?


We cannot confirm anything, at this point in time. I am just referring to the _leaked PCA_.

----------


## halfalp

> Its the classic nordicist idea of Northern Europeans being descended from (and exactly the same as) Greeks and Romans (as well as other iconic civilizations im too lazy to list here). DNA studies have concluded the opposite-that the closest living populations to mycenaens are South Italians, Sicilians, Southern mainland Greeks and Aegeans (and based on the PCA, it could possibly be that a lot of imperial Romans were similar to those populations as well. I'm not making a contest out of this...if most turn out to be more Northern, whatever). 
> 
> *They should leave their agendas behind and take pride in their own culture and heritage. It's unhealthy to do so otherwise.*


That's actually a pretty good advice. :)

----------


## Angela

> I'm getting confused. This is the map which was supposedly leaked and published upthread, right?
> 
> 
> 
> The ancient Roman samples are the purple triangles and the Etruscans the purple squares, yes? I'm assuming this is a different paper from the Moots one. I don't know where those more "northern" like Republican Era Romans would plot, but these ancient Romans seem to plot right on top of Southern Italians and some Greeks. We have one Tuscan like Etruscan, some Spanish like ones, a few Northern Italian like and one veering toward Bulgarians? I'm bad with these things so don't quote me. :)
> 
> 
> I found this map, which I think might help in understanding that jumble in the leak.
> 
> ...


I just looked up Hannah Moots and she is from Stanford. It's hard to imagine that there are two big papers on Italian genetics coming up and both are from Stanford, although I suppose it's possible. 

"If" this "leaked" PCA is a legitimate and complete one from Hannah Moots' paper, then there is real cognitive dissonance between what she reportedly said to RYU and this PCA. 

When I looked carefully at the placement of the "Ancient Romans" and compared them to the modern samples upon which they are superimposed, one lands in Tuscany and the rest land on modern Greeks, Sicilians and Southern Italians. (Contrary to what has been posted by "Generalissimo" most of them "do not" plot beyond modern mainland Southern Italians on the modern PCA.)

Yet, she is reported to have said about the Iron Age, i.e. "Republican" samples, (which would take you to about 20 B.C.) that 60% of them were Northern Italian like, and 40% were Southern Italian like. Even if you take Northern Italian to be anything north of Rome, which would include Tuscany in northern Italy, 60% of them decidedly do not plot in Tuscany.

Even given the distortion caused by superimposing ancient samples on top of modern samples, this doesn't make sense. 

The only other possibility which comes to mind is that the Iron Age samples didn't come from the vicinity of Rome but it seems to me the quote was specifically talking about "Romans" . 

Either there are two papers, or this "leaked" PCA is incomplete and doesn't include the Republic Era samples where 60% of the samples were supposedly Northern Italian like.


Whoever took it upon him or herself to post this "leaked" PCA has a responsibility to let everyone know whether it is the work of Hannah Moots, and if it is, why none of the Iron Age Roman samples plot in Northern Italy. Now, if these are only the "Imperial Era" samples, fine, just say so. Otherwise, it is misleading everyone. 

I really hope someone is not playing games with a PCA from an academic paper.

Whoever posted it should explain what's going on.



Oh, the original quote From RYU said Umbrians, Picenes, and SABINES, not Samnites, clustered with Etruscans. I made the error once too. All those named groups clustered with modern N Italians. I don't know what academic Northern Italian samples they used. I hope not just Bergamo. As I've been saying ad nauseam for years there's far more diversity in northern Italy than in Southern Italy.

In addition, how can people not realize, when they’re trying to model modern Southern and even Central Italians, that the most reliable way would be to use Italian Neolithic or at least something like Rinaldone, neither of which we have, or at least Sicily Beaker, which is not very Beaker like, and not necessarily Minoan Lashithi. Minoan Lasithi is basically EEF. How do you know you’re measuring actual migration in the BRONZE AGE when you’re using that sample. 
Think through what you’re doing when chucking in samples, people.

----------


## torzio

The leaked document of H. Moots seems to suggest that the Roman republican era times ( 700Bc to 20Bc ) was 60% northern because of the absorption of the samnites into roman society. We know by very many scholars that the Samnites are an offshoot of Sabines and Sabellics ( both peoples lived north of Rome ) and that they are an offshoot of Umbrians who are also north of Rome.
It makes sense then that H.Moots refers to these Romans as in bulk of being northern.

looking further south into italian ancient Italian tribes we come to the Oscans ( naples, campania area ), we only know that the etruscans ruled the coastal oscans for a period, but we know little else about them. On the adriatic side we have the apulian Illyrians who arrived from the area of modern croatia circa 1000BC from the ancient Iapodes tribes.

My guess is that the Moots paper has split of northern and southern italians as being Rome, the city is the border. It would then indicate that the large number of oscan tribes as the only southern Italians ................I have doubts about this scenario (the Moots theory.)

I have no comment on Sicily or Sardinia ancient populace.

----------


## Angela

> The leaked document of H. Moots seems to suggest that the Roman republican era times ( 700Bc to 20Bc ) was 60% northern because of the absorption of the samnites into roman society. We know by very many scholars that the Samnites are an offshoot of Sabines and Sabellics ( both peoples lived north of Rome ) and that they are an offshoot of Umbrians who are also north of Rome.
> It makes sense then that H.Moots refers to these Romans as in bulk of being northern.
> 
> looking further south into italian ancient Italian tribes we come to the Oscans ( naples, campania area ), we only know that the etruscans ruled the coastal oscans for a period, but we know little else about them. On the adriatic side we have the apulian Illyrians who arrived from the area of modern croatia circa 1000BC from the ancient Iapodes tribes.
> 
> My guess is that the Moots paper has split of northern and southern italians as being Rome, the city is the border. It would then indicate that the large number of oscan tribes as the only southern Italians ................I have doubts about this scenario (the Moots theory.)
> 
> I have no comment on Sicily or Sardinia ancient populace.


It suggests absolutely nothing about WHY 60% of the Republican Era Romans were Northern Italian like. That's in addition to the fact that none of the "Roman" samples in that leaked PCA lands in Northern Italy, which is the real problem.

As I said, the person who got the leak has to say if it is from the Hannah Moots paper, and if it is, whether or not only the Imperial Era samples are on it.

Are you thinking about the "rape" of women from other tribes which is part of the mythology of Rome? First of all, "raptio" in Latin means "kidnapping" or abduction, not RAPE as in sexual violation, although I certainly wouldn't go on record as saying no rape was involved. Second of all, it was of the SABINE women, not the SAMNITE women, although again this is mythology, like Romans coming from Troy, so who knows.

The Samnites were not mentioned. The comment about this PCA was that the Picenes, Umbrians and SABINES clustered near Etruscans. That's it. Did the early Republican Era Romans also cluster with them? It seems perhaps so. 

That's all we know. Imo, this wild speculation in the absence of the ancient samples is not helpful.

----------


## Angela

> It suggests absolutely nothing about WHY 60% of the Republican Era Romans were Northern Italian like. That's in addition to the fact that none of the "Roman" samples in that leaked PCA lands in Northern Italy, which is the real problem.
> 
> As I said, the person who got the leak has to say if it is from the Hannah Moots paper, and if it is, whether or not only the Imperial Era samples are on it.
> 
> Are you thinking about the "rape" of women from other tribes which is part of the mythology of Rome? First of all, "raptio" in Latin means "kidnapping" or abduction, not RAPE as in sexual violation, although I certainly wouldn't go on record as saying no rape was involved. Second of all, it was of the SABINE women, not the SAMNITE women, although again this is mythology, like Romans coming from Troy, so who knows.
> 
> The Samnites were not mentioned. The comment about this PCA was that the Picenes, Umbrians and SABINES clustered near Etruscans. That's it. Did the early Republican Era Romans also cluster with them? It seems perhaps so. 
> 
> That's all we know. Imo, this wild speculation in the absence of the ancient samples is not helpful.


I would add that if these or many of these "Roman" samples are from places like Ostia, we have a big problem. That's where merchants, sailors etc. lived. You would absolutely HAVE to do isotope analysis to find out if they grew up locally, or outside the Italian mainland and islands. Even that would only tell you where they came from, not if they were or were not transitory. 

I can't believe I have to point out such an obvious fact.

----------


## MOESAN

@Pax Augusta: Thanks. I'll try to get it, maybe not immediately (question of lack of time).

----------


## markod

> The leaked document of H. Moots seems to suggest that the Roman republican era times ( 700Bc to 20Bc ) was 60% northern because of the absorption of the samnites into roman society. We know by very many scholars that the Samnites are an offshoot of Sabines and Sabellics ( both peoples lived north of Rome ) and that they are an offshoot of Umbrians who are also north of Rome.
> It makes sense then that H.Moots refers to these Romans as in bulk of being northern.
> 
> looking further south into italian ancient Italian tribes we come to the Oscans ( naples, campania area ), we only know that the etruscans ruled the coastal oscans for a period, but we know little else about them. On the adriatic side we have the apulian Illyrians who arrived from the area of modern croatia circa 1000BC from the ancient Iapodes tribes.
> 
> My guess is that the Moots paper has split of northern and southern italians as being Rome, the city is the border. It would then indicate that the large number of oscan tribes as the only southern Italians ................I have doubts about this scenario (the Moots theory.)
> 
> I have no comment on Sicily or Sardinia ancient populace.


There were a number of tribes that have lived in S. Italy before the Osco-Umbrian expansion. The Oenotrians and their mythical ruler Italus are interesting for instance.

----------


## Falco

> I just looked up Hannah Moots and she is from Stanford. It's hard to imagine that there are two big papers on Italian genetics coming up and both are from Stanford, although I suppose it's possible. 
> 
> "If" this "leaked" PCA is a legitimate and complete one from Hannah Moots' paper, then there is real cognitive dissonance between what she reportedly said to RYU and this PCA. 
> 
> When I looked carefully at the placement of the "Ancient Romans" and compared them to the modern samples upon which they are superimposed, one lands in Tuscany and the rest land on modern Greeks, Sicilians and Southern Italians. (Contrary to what has been posted by "Generalissimo" most of them "do not" plot beyond modern mainland Southern Italians on the modern PCA.)
> 
> Yet, she is reported to have said about the Iron Age, i.e. "Republican" samples, (which would take you to about 20 B.C.) that 60% of them were Northern Italian like, and 40% were Southern Italian like. Even if you take Northern Italian to be anything north of Rome, which would include Tuscany in northern Italy, 60% of them decidedly do not plot in Tuscany.
> 
> Even given the distortion caused by superimposing ancient samples on top of modern samples, this doesn't make sense. 
> ...


According to an Anthrogenica poster who was in contact with the leaker, some of the Roman samples come from Pompeii (probably the ones clustering with modern southern Italians). Maybe the more northern ones are from the "Republican" era, and ones veering towards Cypriots were merchants from somewhere in the Hellenic world (the islands, Anatolia, Pontus, etc), which for some reason hasn't crossed the mind of anyone on Anthrogenica yet. Nothing was said whether it's from the Moots paper or not however.

----------


## Ygorcs

> There is no fixed rule saying that if one tribe invaded another lands that the loser was wiped out or its customs and language replaced
> 
> The viking danes took Normandy, ruled it for a very long time, but did not enforce it's viking customs or language on the people , but they ,the vikings gave way to the norman language and customs


Well, you're essentially repeating what I said when you claim there is _"no fixed rule saying that..."._ Precisely because there are historic instances where the migration of a large number of people, but still a minority in their new homeland, imposed their language onto the local population, and others in which the newcomers instead adopted the local language, we cannot rule out the *possibility* that Etruscan might have arrived with a language family spoken by Iran_Chl/CHG-rich people of West Asia that spread especially in Southern Europe during the Chalcolithic and/or the Bronze Age. You know, *possibility* - I specifically wrote that and differentiated it from _likelihood_. You and I definitely don't know if that spread of a non-EEF component in Italy and elsewhere in Europe was always like the Nordic people in Normandy, or whether it sometimes was like the Slavs in Bulgaria or the Turks in Anatolia. So, I maintain: we can't still rule out the possibility that Etruscan was not an EEF language.

----------


## Angela

> According to an Anthrogenica poster who was in contact with the leaker, some of the Roman samples come from Pompeii (probably the ones clustering with modern southern Italians). Maybe the more northern ones are from the "Republican" era, and ones veering towards Cypriots were merchants from somewhere in the Hellenic world (the islands, Anatolia, Pontus, etc), which for some reason hasn't crossed the mind of anyone on Anthrogenica yet. Nothing was said whether it's from the Moots paper or not however.


There are NO Northern Italian like Roman samples in that "leaked" PCA. The most Northern one lands on Tuscans.

So, it doesn't reflect what Hannah Moots said in her presentation about 60% of the early samples resembling Northern Italians.

The discussions over there are chaotic because there is a conflict between the PCA and the Moots presentation and quotes.

----------


## Ygorcs

> The problem with autochthony is the lack of an indigenous element that could be responsible for a hypothetical language shift:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.academia.edu/5808394/The...e_Age_in_Italy
> 
> So again, in the LBA we are left with little more than the Apennine culture and the encroaching Urnfield-Villanova intruders from the north. Any hypothesis must account for this.


AFAIK there are indications that the Terramare remnants spread to Central Italy and even South Italy. A dramatic socioeconomic collapse doesn't need to mean the complete disappearance of the people itself. It certainly involved population losses, but full extinction of a very large population is unlikely as opposed to its wide dispersal in much more sparsely distributed and smaller groups (the Terramare had an absurdly high population density for a BA culture in a small territory anyway, that was probably unsustainable on the long term especially in periods of crisis). This would be a bit like those claims about the "disappearance of the Maya peoples" when in fact they are still there. They just had a demographic and socioeconomic collapse and dispersed adopting a much more extensive way of life, with lower population density and a much lower long-term "archaeological print". 

Though of course I don't bet much on it, it wouldn't surprise me if the Terramare were the natives spread to Central Italy and South Italy _(didn't an ancient author claim that the Etruscans lived "in towers"? The Terramare lived in elevated houses)_, then the Urnfield people brought not just new customs, but also Proto-Italic to parts of Italy, but adopted the local well established language family, too, in some places (just like Germans and Slavs did not impose their language successfully eveywhere they went, or even tried to). So, in the end, the Tyrsenian and the Italic peoples might not have been much different genetically nor even culturally (maybe kind of initially, but not after centuries of close contacts and of exogamy), but speaking different languages and belonging to distinct ethnicities. I don't think we should assume, as you seem to be doing, that because 1960s scientists were wrong to assume _pots, not people_ each and every time, then the new consensus should be _people, not just pots_ all the time now.

----------


## Salento

> According to an Anthrogenica poster who was in contact with the leaker, some of the Roman samples come from Pompeii (probably the ones clustering with modern southern Italians). Maybe the more northern ones are from the "Republican" era, and ones veering towards Cypriots were merchants from somewhere in the Hellenic world (the islands, Anatolia, Pontus, etc), which for some reason hasn't crossed the mind of anyone on Anthrogenica yet. Nothing was said whether it's from the Moots paper or not however.


Do you know if it’s true that it’s part of a student research paper, and it will be published after Graduation in 2020?

----------


## Pax Augusta

> Though of course I don't bet much on it, it wouldn't surprise me if the Terramare were the natives spread to Central Italy and South Italy _(didn't an ancient author claim that the Etruscans lived "in towers"? The Terramare lived in elevated houses)_, then the Urnfield people brought not just new customs, but also Proto-Italic to parts of Italy, but adopted the local well established language family, too, in some places (just like Germans and Slavs did not impose their language successfully eveywhere they went, or even tried to). So, in the end, the Tyrsenian and the Italic peoples might not have been much different genetically nor even culturally (maybe kind of initially, but not after centuries of close contacts and of exogamy), but speaking different languages and belonging to distinct ethnicities. I don't think we should assume, as you seem to be doing, that because 1960s scientists were wrong to assume _pots, not people_ each and every time, then the new consensus should be _people, not just pots_ all the time now.


There is still a lot of uncertainty about where the people of Terramare ended up and whether they really migrated elsewhere.
In any case, Terramare buildings are very similar to the prehistoric settlements of pile-dwellings in and around the Alps, built between about 5000 and 500 BC. There have been archaeologists in the past who thought the proto-Etruscans were originating from these pile-dwelling (or stilt house) settlements in and around the Alps 


Reconstruction of Neolithic and Bronze Age pile dwellings from the Alps. 

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehis...round_the_Alps)






Reconstruction of Terramare dwellings.

----------


## Jovialis

> Do you know if it’s true that it’s part of a student research paper, and it will be published after Graduation in 2020?


I wrote to Hannah as well, earlier this year, and she said this it would be released sometime in 2019. I think it is somewhere back-thread (if anyone remembers where the Moots paper was first announced here? That's were I directly quoted her) . Unless something has changed since then. Though if she's graduating in 2020, perhaps she's completing her course work this year.

----------


## Jovialis

This was back in mid-February:




> _Thanks so much for your email! Yes, we are working on an ongoing project on the genetic history of Italy using ancient DNA and hope to have the first publication out later this year (hopefully in the next 6 months) as well as follow up publications._
> 
> _Looking forward to sharing more details once we've published!_
> 
> _Many thanks and all the best,_
> _Hannah_




https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/37817-Talk-on-Ancient-Italian-Roman-DNA-over-in-Stanford/page13?p=567067&viewfull=1#post567067

----------


## markod

> AFAIK there are indications that the Terramare remnants spread to Central Italy and even South Italy. A dramatic socioeconomic collapse doesn't need to mean the complete disappearance of the people itself. It certainly involved population losses, but full extinction of a very large population is unlikely as opposed to its wide dispersal in much more sparsely distributed and smaller groups (the Terramare had an absurdly high population density for a BA culture in a small territory anyway, that was probably unsustainable on the long term especially in periods of crisis). This would be a bit like those claims about the "disappearance of the Maya peoples" when in fact they are still there. They just had a demographic and socioeconomic collapse and dispersed adopting a much more extensive way of life, with lower population density and a much lower long-term "archaeological print". 
> 
> Though of course I don't bet much on it, it wouldn't surprise me if the Terramare were the natives spread to Central Italy and South Italy _(didn't an ancient author claim that the Etruscans lived "in towers"? The Terramare lived in elevated houses)_, then the Urnfield people brought not just new customs, but also Proto-Italic to parts of Italy, but adopted the local well established language family, too, in some places (just like Germans and Slavs did not impose their language successfully eveywhere they went, or even tried to). So, in the end, the Tyrsenian and the Italic peoples might not have been much different genetically nor even culturally (maybe kind of initially, but not after centuries of close contacts and of exogamy), but speaking different languages and belonging to distinct ethnicities. I don't think we should assume, as you seem to be doing, that because 1960s scientists were wrong to assume _pots, not people_ each and every time, then the new consensus should be _people, not just pots_ all the time now.


But in the LBA it's the Apennine and Urnfield cultures that collide in Italy. Perhaps some Terramare people survived without leaving an archaeological culture, but there's no good reason to derive Etruscan from this ghost culture, especially now that we know one Etruscan plots as far north as south-central Europe.

You'd also need more Terramare ghosts in the alps to aacount for the Rhaetians.

----------


## halfalp

> But in the LBA it's the Apennine and Urnfield cultures that collide in Italy. Perhaps some Terramare people survived without leaving an archaeological culture, but there's no good reason to derive Etruscan from this ghost culture, especially now that we know one Etruscan plots as far north as south-central Europe.
> 
> You'd also need more Terramare ghosts in the alps to aacount for the Rhaetians.



What if Italic peoples were actually in Italy earlier than Etruscans? If Etruscans are more shifted towards North Italy / Central Europe, they maybe came after the original IE expansions. Looking at Etruscan Civilization, it's hard to imagine they were contained in Tuscany by Italic expansions, more like they came after Italics who already were widespread in Central and Southern Italy.

----------


## markod

> What if Italic peoples were actually in Italy earlier than Etruscans? If Etruscans are more shifted towards North Italy / Central Europe, they maybe came after the original IE expansions. Looking at Etruscan Civilization, it's hard to imagine they were contained in Tuscany by Italic expansions, more like they came after Italics who already were widespread in Central and Southern Italy.


That's essentially the Pallottino hypothesis. I think it must be either that or Woudhuizen's hypothesis (Villanova = Italic, Apennine = Etruscan) . All the other hypotheses seem to rely on special pleading 🤷

----------


## Salento

> This was back in mid-February:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/37817-Talk-on-Ancient-Italian-Roman-DNA-over-in-Stanford/page13?p=567067&viewfull=1#post567067





> I wrote to Hannah as well, earlier this year, and she said this it would be released sometime in 2019. I think it is somewhere back-thread (if anyone remembers where the Moots paper was first announced here? That's were I directly quoted her) . Unless something has changed since then. Though if she's graduating in 2020, perhaps she's completing her course work this year.


OK, so if their schedule is up to speed, they should release their finding in a couple of months.

EDIT ...

About the leaked docs:

If they graduated in 2019, chances are they already did. Usually colleges graduations take places in May. :)

----------


## halfalp

I'm starting to think that. 1) Language 2) Lineage 3) Genomic, might be a little bit out of place. What if R1b-U152 came in Italy with Bell Beakers. What if Italic languages are older in Italy compared to Etruscan. What if Genomic and Language are not that specific to some Cultures after the initial Bell Beaker expansion.

----------


## Demetrios

> OK, so if their schedule is up to speed, they should release their finding in a couple of months.
> 
> If they graduated in 2019, chances are they already did. Usually colleges graduations take places in May. :)


She is to graduate in 2020, https://stanfordesp.org/teach/teachers/hmoots/bio.html. But as Jovialis shared above, we might see the paper sometime this summer or early autumn. My contact wasn't with Hannah directly, but with the organizer of her event back in February. But Hannah's word is above hers, so i am expecting her paper to get published sometime this year.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> OK, so if their schedule is up to speed, they should release their finding in a couple of months.
> 
> If they graduated in 2019, chances are they already did. Usually colleges graduations take places in May. :)



Hannah Moots is a PhD student at Stanford. Her study is (part of) her doctoral thesis. She finished the college in 2008 (University of Chicago) if with college you meant the BA.

----------


## markod

> I'm starting to think that. 1) Language 2) Lineage 3) Genomic, might be a little bit out of place. What if R1b-U152 came in Italy with Bell Beakers. What if Italic languages are older in Italy compared to Etruscan. What if Genomic and Language are not that specific to some Cultures after the initial Bell Beaker expansion.


An early presence of Italic in Italy would explain why the two branches (Latino-Faliscan and Osco-Umbrian) are so different from each other. I think that's one of the problems with the Villanovs hypothesis.

Agreed with your general sentiment. I guess the problem are the events we can never truly exclude with just DNA and archaeology: language shifts, elite dominance, tribal alliances etc. .

----------


## Salento

> Hannah Moots is a PhD student at Stanford. Her study is (part of) her doctoral thesis. She finished the college in 2008 (University of Chicago) if with college you meant the BA.


The college graduation part is about the leaked docs.
(Assuming that they’re not from the same research)

sorry about the confusion.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> The college graduation part is about the leaked docs.
> (Assuming that they’re not from the same research)
> 
> sorry about the confusion.


Thanks for the clarification. There are more ongoing studies on ancient samples from Italy, not just that of Moots. So yes, they might be not from the same research. Of course assuming the leaked docs are true.


Stanford definitely has a role to play. The first Etruscan samples were analysed by Stanford at least four years ago. I imagine that in Stanford itself more researchers may have access to these analyses.

----------


## xskramx2

so pretty stupid question here .. what were the Romans? is the modern day italian peninsula in any way related or similar to these awesome people :)

----------


## Salento

> so pretty stupid question here .. what were the Romans? is the modern day italian peninsula in any way related or similar to these awesome people :)


General Answer: Yes!

Stay Tuned,

all details to be revealed soon on this screen :)

----------


## Jovialis

> so pretty stupid question here .. what were the Romans? is the modern day italian peninsula in any way related or similar to these awesome people :)


Yes, Salento is correct. We can verify that from the paper on the Lombard invasion:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-06024-4

The Romans found here in the late-Imperial period are similar to modern Southern, and Central Italians. They are modeled using TSI (Tuscans in Italy) Very soon, we will learn about the genetics of earlier times, like the Republican period.

Our Italian posters show affinity to these samples on MyTrueAncestry, and yourdnaportal.com Eurogenes K36 Ancient calculators.

----------


## Jovialis

> so pretty stupid question here .. what were the Romans? is the modern day italian peninsula in any way related or similar to these awesome people :)


Btw, there are no stupid questions, we're all here to learn :)

----------


## Angela

Someone has finally posted on anthrogenica. As I suspected, the "PCA" has nothing to do with the Hannah Moots paper. Her paper is only dealing with the people of Latium, which is sensible if you want to talk about the actual "original" Romans.
. 
I don't know if the PCA has any Republican Era Romans. I would doubt it, given that in the Moots paper 60% of them land on Northern Italy, and no single sample in the PCA lands on Northern Italians, and only one lands on Tuscans. 

As I said before, if the people doing this study are getting a lot or even most of their samples from places like Ostia, then there's a problem unless they do a lot of isotope analysis.

----------


## Jovialis

Here is an interesting article retweeted by Hannah Moots' on her twitter feed on April 4th:




> *Why We Need to Start Seeing the Classical World in Color*
> 
> The equation of white marble with beauty is not an inherent truth of the universe; it’s a dangerous construct that continues to influence white supremacist ideas today.
> 
> Modern technology has revealed an irrefutable, if unpopular, truth: many of the statues, reliefs, and sarcophagi created in the ancient Western world were in fact painted. Marble was a precious material for Greco-Roman artisans, but it was considered a canvas, not the finished product for sculpture. It was carefully selected and then often painted in gold, red, green, black, white, and brown, among other colors.
> 
> 
> A number of fantastic museum shows throughout Europe and the US in recent years have addressed the issue of ancient polychromy. The Gods in Color exhibit travelled the world between 2003–15, after its initial display at the Glyptothek in Munich. (Many of the photos in this essay come from that exhibit, including the famed Caligula bust and the Alexander Sarcophagus.) Digital humanists and archaeologists have played a large part in making those shows possible. In particular, the archaeologist Vinzenz Brinkmann, whose research informed Gods in Color, has done important work, applying various technologies and ultraviolet light to antique statues in order to analyze the minute vestiges of paint on them and then recreate polychrome versions.
> 
> ...

----------


## Jovialis

^^I guess we can rule out the idea that the Moots paper is going to show that the Romans were Nordics. Obviously, she isn't going to retweet an article that contradicts her findings.

----------


## halfalp

> Here is an interesting article retweeted by Hannah Moots' on her twitter feed:


This gonne give way more faith to people that science is not influenced by politics... Also a lot of projections, who can say how Romans view themselves.

----------


## Jovialis

> This gonne give way more faith to people that science is not influenced by politics... Also a lot of projections, who can say how Romans view themselves.


I don't understand what you are saying.

----------


## xskramx2

Is she putting forth the statement that Southern Europeans "Greeks and Romans" aren't white , thats a ridiculous statement..shes just feeding into the modern stereotype of a scale of whiteness..with Northern Europeans types at the top and Southern at the Bottom, im not looking forward to any of her work anymore lol

----------


## Jovialis

> Is she putting forth the statement that Southern Europeans "Greeks and Romans" aren't white , thats a ridiculous statement..shes just feeding into the modern stereotype of a scale of whiteness..with Northern Europeans types at the top and Southern at the Bottom, im not looking forward to any of her work anymore lol


This obfuscation is detrimental to our discourse in the thread. She's obviously not saying that. You have received an infraction for disruptive/provocative behavior; stop t-rolling.

----------


## bigsnake49

I have long known that the ancient sculptures were painted. Now I will have to look at this exhibit and make a value judgement on whether the painting of the statues was artistically pleasing or not.

----------


## halfalp

> I don't understand what you are saying.


That's literally an article who promotes forced mixing in Europe ( by an American btw ) because some analogy between painted marble and weird white supremacist assumptions on marble ( _It also continues to buttress the false construction of Western civilization._ ) I guess she considers mediterraneans as Colored People. ( _The Romans, in fact, did not define people as “white”; where, then, did this notion of race come from?_ ) How do they know what ancient Romans thought about themselves? Following the logic of the article, white supremacists only wear white clothes. 

The conclusion is even more Revisionnistic, it claims because " some colored people maybe wants to learn ancient history, we need to rewrite it to fit them ".

----------


## dominique_nuit

As a passive reader of this thread, I hope it doesn't get derailed by that Moots quotation ----> maybe it should be made the basis for another thread, with attendant political controversy

----------


## halfalp

> This obfuscation is detrimental to our discourse in the thread. She's obviously not saying that. You have received an infraction for disruptive/provocative behavior; stop t-rolling.


Why exactly are you juging him after yourself created this environnement putting political affairs on things that could hurt other people? You surely now that this community is not only made of the same kind of peoples right? You literrally created this then it's like you didn't measure what the consequences will be.

----------


## Jovialis

> Why exactly are you juging him after yourself created this environnement putting political affairs on things that could hurt other people? You surely now that this community is not only made of the same kind of peoples right? You literrally created this then it's like you didn't measure what the consequences will be.


Wow, it is almost amusing how hysterical you are right now.

What did I create? I posted that she retweeted that article on April 4th.

If you can't handle the truth, perhaps you should stick your head in the sand.

----------


## Jovialis

> That's literally an article who promotes forced mixing in Europe ( by an American btw ) because some analogy between painted marble and weird white supremacist assumptions on marble ( _It also continues to buttress the false construction of Western civilization._ ) I guess she considers mediterraneans as Colored People. ( _The Romans, in fact, did not define people as “white”; where, then, did this notion of race come from?_ ) How do they know what ancient Romans thought about themselves? Following the logic of the article, white supremacists only wear white clothes. 
> 
> The conclusion is even more Revisionnistic, it claims because " some colored people maybe wants to learn ancient history, we need to rewrite it to fit them ".


What the hell are you rambling about? Are you really this upset that she retweeted that article?

It was racist morons like Tenny Frank that argued that the Roman empire declined due to _race-mixing_, which the article said was untrue; which she retweeted. It was the Nazis that exaggerated the validity of Tacitus, to meet their own political agenda.

What, because it is not what you want to hear, you feel indignant? Give me a break.

----------


## halfalp

> Wow, it is almost amusing how hysterical you are right now.
> 
> What did I create? I posted that she retweeted that article on April 4th.
> 
> If you can't handle the truth, perhaps you should stick your head in the sand.


What truth mate? It's basically used datas for " progressive " politics, while the datas of ancient history dont equals modern immigration or cosmopolitan problems. And yes use the only power you have in life to dictate that you are right and Progressive while i'm wrong and Regressive, its probably the only power you have in life. Probably you should be more professional as a Moderator and not let your political views come into topic. You can go discuss this with your friends in a starbuck coffee.

----------


## Jovialis

> What truth mate? It's basically used datas for " progressive " politics, while the datas of ancient history dont equals modern immigration or cosmopolitan problems. And yes use the only power you have in life to dictate that you are right and Progressive while i'm wrong and Regressive, its probably the only power you have in life. Probably you should be more professional as a Moderator and not let your political views come into topic. You can go discuss this with your friends in a starbuck coffee.


It is not news that the Greeks and Roman statues were painted in these colors. So I don't know why you are so outraged.

----------


## Angela

That article has been posted on our Board before, in the context that neither the buildings nor the statues were of unadorned white marble. 

I frankly don't think it has anything to do with art historians having been racist. The only reason we now know they were once painted is because we've got the technology to pick it up. 

If she thinks it did then I'm disappointed because then I would think she's drunk the kool-aid they're selling on university campuses nowadays. 

The same thing happened when the Sistine Chapel was restored. Art historians had written for hundreds of years about how appropriately gloomy the colors were for "The Last Judgment". Surprise, surprise, the colors were vibrant. :)

Augustus



Caligula:


Time enough to judge her population genetics research as somehow biased, if it indeed is, when it comes out.

Which reminds me that maybe we should get back to talking about genetics.

----------


## Jovialis

> As a passive reader of this thread, I hope it doesn't get derailed by that Moots quotation ----> maybe it should be made the basis for another thread, with attendant political controversy


Derailed in what sense? The author of the paper on Ancient Italian DNA retweeted a post, which is quite illuminating in regards to what we can expect from her findings on the Ancient Romans.

It is safe to say they weren't Nordics, that's all. They looked like Southern Europeans.

----------


## dominique_nuit

> Derailed in what sense? The author of the paper on Ancient Italian DNA retweeted a post, which is quite illuminating in regards to what we can expect from her findings on the Ancient Romans.
> 
> It is safe to say they weren't Nordics, that's all. They looked like Southern Europeans.


My impression from this thread is that the Romans looked like Northern Italians genetically (or is it a 60/40 split?). As a Calabrese, my bias is of course for the Southern Italians :) -- I am merely joking of course -- let the science yield what it shall yield

----------


## halfalp

> Derailed in what sense? The author of the paper on Ancient Italian DNA retweeted a post, which is quite illuminating in regards to what we can expect from her findings on the Ancient Romans.
> 
> It is safe to say they weren't Nordics, that's all. They looked like Southern Europeans.


The article clearly has nothing to do with Notherners or Southerners.

" _First, we must consider why we are such a homogenous field. According to the Society for Classical Studies, the leading association for Classics in the United States, in 2014, just 9% of all undergraduate Classics majors were minorities. This number decreases the higher into academia you go. Just 2% of tenured full-time Classics faculty were minorities, according to the study.


Do we make it easy for people of color who want to study the ancient world? Do they see themselves in the ancient landscape that we present to them? The dearth of people of color in modern media depicting the ancient world is a pivotal issue here. Movies and video games, in particular, perpetuate the notion that the classical world was white. This is an issue when 70% of my students tell me that games such as Ryse: Son of Rome (which uses white statues to decorate the city of Rome and white Roman soldiers as lead characters), as well as films like Gladiator (which has a man from New Zealand playing the Spaniard Maximus) and the 300 (which has xenophobic depictions of Persians) led them to take my courses.

If we want to see more diversity in Classics, we have to work harder as public historians to change the narrative — by talking to filmmakers, writing mainstream articles, annotating our academic writing and making it open access, and doing more outreach that emphasizes the vast palette of skin tones in the ancient Mediterranean. I’m not suggesting that we go, with a bucket in hand, and attempt to repaint every white marble statue across the country. However, I believe that tactics such as better museum signage, the presentation of 3D reconstructions alongside originals, and the use of computerized light projections can help produce a contextual framework for understanding classical sculpture as it truly was. It may have taken just one classical statue to influence the false construction of race, but it will take many of us to tear it down. We have the power to return color to the ancient world, but it has to start with us._ "

I think what she tries to say is that there is not enough *Black people* in ancient europe mainstream depictions. Mediterranean, North African, Middle-Easterners are all " White Peoples ". 

She mingle skin tone, origin, race as a whole. White and Black aren't even colors, this is all social science and affirmative action bias. We all know that ancient greeko-roman statues and temples were painted, who are seeing the world in black or white shades? We only see colors.

----------


## Jovialis

> The article clearly has nothing to do with Notherners or Southerners.
> 
> " _First, we must consider why we are such a homogenous field. According to the Society for Classical Studies, the leading association for Classics in the United States, in 2014, just 9% of all undergraduate Classics majors were minorities. This number decreases the higher into academia you go. Just 2% of tenured full-time Classics faculty were minorities, according to the study.
> 
> 
> Do we make it easy for people of color who want to study the ancient world? Do they see themselves in the ancient landscape that we present to them? The dearth of people of color in modern media depicting the ancient world is a pivotal issue here. Movies and video games, in particular, perpetuate the notion that the classical world was white. This is an issue when 70% of my students tell me that games such as Ryse: Son of Rome (which uses white statues to decorate the city of Rome and white Roman soldiers as lead characters), as well as films like Gladiator (which has a man from New Zealand playing the Spaniard Maximus) and the 300 (which has xenophobic depictions of Persians) led them to take my courses.
> 
> If we want to see more diversity in Classics, we have to work harder as public historians to change the narrative — by talking to filmmakers, writing mainstream articles, annotating our academic writing and making it open access, and doing more outreach that emphasizes the vast palette of skin tones in the ancient Mediterranean. I’m not suggesting that we go, with a bucket in hand, and attempt to repaint every white marble statue across the country. However, I believe that tactics such as better museum signage, the presentation of 3D reconstructions alongside originals, and the use of computerized light projections can help produce a contextual framework for understanding classical sculpture as it truly was. It may have taken just one classical statue to influence the false construction of race, but it will take many of us to tear it down. We have the power to return color to the ancient world, but it has to start with us._ "
> 
> ...


Well, I think it does have a lot to do with the repudiation of the Nordicist concept of Romans. Many looked like Mediterranean Southern Europeans, at least by the time of Julius Caesar. As in not pale, anglo-saxon/germans. Sorry you had a conniption fit over the last part. Granted, that is PC-nonsense. But It was not the part I'd thought people would zero-in on. Jeez, you shouldn't get so worked up, it is bad for your health.

----------


## halfalp

> Well, I think it does have a lot to do with the repudiation of the Nordicist concept of Romans. Many looked like Mediterranean Southern Europeans, at least by the time of Julius Caesar. As in not pale, anglo-saxon/germans. Sorry you had a conniption fit over the last part. Granted, that is PC-nonsense. But It was not the part I'd thought people would zero-in on. Jeez, you shouldn't get so worked up, it is bad for your health.


We all have bias, and beliefs etc. But i trust science, method and rigor. But i feel Millenials ( wich i am ) are too rebellious and biased toward something. Contestataires as we say in French. And Political Correctness is something i'm strongly opposed, so when i see it come in into subjects with political or social repercussions such as Genomic. I become rebellious myself. Some people are not ready to understand the ultra infinite details of ancient dna and how the world was and will be bittersweet for ever.

I mean this White Supremacist discussion is non-sense as well, not every ethno-nationalist is a Julius Savola. Some peoples are just conservative to the extremes without believing that ancient mediterranean civilizations were Pleiadians. But America is a place where Donald Trump is considered White Supremacist, indeed there is extreme extremes.

----------


## Jovialis

> We all have bias, and beliefs etc. But i trust science, method and rigor. But i feel Millenials ( wich i am ) are too rebellious and biased toward something. Contestataires as we say in French. And Political Correctness is something i'm strongly opposed, so when i see it come in into subjects with political or social repercussions such as Genomic. I become rebellious myself. Some people are not ready to understand the ultra infinite details of ancient dna and how the world was and will be bittersweet for ever.
> 
> I mean this White Supremacist discussion is non-sense as well, not every ethno-nationalist is a Julius Savola. Some peoples are just conservative to the extremes without believing that ancient mediterranean civilizations were Pleiadians. But America is a place where Donald Trump is considered White Supremacist, indeed there is extreme extremes.


Well, what ever anyone believes, the point is to be civil. People can believe in what ever they want. What they can't do is act stridently, aggressive, and accusatory when they see something they do not agree with. Had you articulated your point in a non-hostile manner, it would have been perfectly fine. Incivility/rebelliousness, and ad hominems are completely inappropriate, and will be stopped.

----------


## halfalp

> Well, what ever anyone believes, the point is to be civil. People can believe in what ever they want. What they can't do is act stridently, aggressive, and accusatory when they see something they do not agree with. Had you articulated your point in a non-hostile manner, it would have been perfectly fine.


Yes i'm sorry, i first thought you put this article in provocative way, like " heil political correctness and affirmative action ". I dont really take the nordic mediterraneans white marble hypothesis seriously, so i thought the main point was the PC one.

----------


## Jovialis

No worries, and btw, I'm also opposed to political correctness.

The far-left and the far-right, are two sides of the same coin. Individuals not governed by fact, but by their own biases, and prejudices.

----------


## Salento

@halfalp imo You have exceeded the Anti-American Bias threshold long ago.

Speak for yourself about**: “We all have bias, and beliefs etc”.

----------


## Duarte

> @halfalp imo You have exceeded the Anti-American Bias threshold long ago.
> 
> Speak for yourself about**: “We all have bias, and beliefs etc”.


Yes. In fact he considers that we all have a bias. Once he said that I have a black bias. That I exalt blackness. I think he should reflect a little on his own biases, maybe together with his own students. He should do a catharsis and review your own concepts.

----------


## berun

then, some Greeks were indeed dumb, they used different kinds of marble if it was to sculpt white tunics or tanned skin like with Aesculapius of Emporion, just to paint over the marble. But, yes, I must be a white supremacist by writting down this kind of info. Please by political correctness paint all Greek statues, provide a leaf to those naked.

----------


## halfalp

> Yes. In fact he considers that we all have a bias. Once he said that I have a black bias. That I exalt blackness. I think he should reflect a little on his own biases, maybe together with his own students. He should do a catharsis and review your own concepts.


Are you not talking only about SSA ancestry?

----------


## Salento

> Yes. In fact he considers that we all have a bias. Once he said that I have a black bias. That I exalt blackness. I think he should reflect a little on his own biases, maybe together with his own students. He should do a catharsis and review your own concepts.


he also said this: 


> and American idea that their world comprise the entire humanity


https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...l=1#post568835

back to topic

----------


## halfalp

> @halfalp imo You have exceeded the Anti-American Bias threshold long ago.
> 
> Speak for yourself about**: “We all have bias, and beliefs etc”.


You mean Europeans cannot juge America, but Americans can juge Europe because they originally came from there?

----------


## Jovialis

> I must be a white supremacist by writting down this kind of info.


Don't worry, the real white supremacists would not accept you.

----------


## Salento

> You mean Europeans cannot juge America, but Americans can juge Europe because they originally came from there?


Not at all, Read my previous post.

----------


## halfalp

> Not at all, Read my previous post.


Well i'm not anti-american at all, most of my culture comes from there. But what Jovialis quoted.

----------


## Jovialis

If this conversation does not go back to the topic of this thread, there will be consequences.

----------


## xskramx2

who ever seriously thought they were nordics, thats just an idiotic meme..

----------


## Jovialis

> who ever seriously thought they were nordics, thats just an idiotic meme..


The main thing I wanted to highlight was that the article specifically denied the interpretation of older historians like Tenny Frank and Tacitus. Whose influence was long lasting. I thought it was pertinent to the discussion, and could give some insight to the Moots paper. Since the author retweeted it.

I agree, the author is a strident in her tone. I think using phrases like _lily white_ are needlessly inflammatory. It would have been sufficient to just address her points.

----------


## halfalp

> The main thing I wanted to highlight was that the article specifically denied the interpretation of older historians like Tenny Frank and Tacitus. Whose influence was long lasting. I thought it was pertinent to the discussion, and could give some insight to the Moots paper. Since the author retweeted it.
> 
> I agree the author is a strident in her tone. *I think using phrases like lily white is needlessly inflammatory*. It would have been sufficient to just address her points.


And obviously, she is white herself. Good Era to be a Psychiatrist.

----------


## berun

> Don't worry, the real white supremacists would not accept you.


don't worry by that, I also don't accept supremacists, no matter the colour or ethnicity.

----------


## Jovialis

> don't worry by that, I also don't accept supremacists, no matter the colour or ethnicity.


Good, neither do I. Now, let us please return to the topic of the thread.

----------


## MOESAN

Well , this thread was going very far from the track. LOL.
Just to come back to it, if I d'ont mistake, one of the big questions is the Etruscans Italics question (and Greeks too?).
I have no kee to date. But to come back to posts about the links between ethnicity, genomics and languages, I can say that if a period in those times has been sowing trouble in these relationships, it's the Urnfields one, I think, where maybe religion, surpopulation have had a big role; maybe too gener unbalanced moves -
the phenomenon has showed introgressions, demic moves or/and cultural shift, more or less /brutalgradual or important according to places. My impression is that the origin IS NOT AMONG TUMULI POPS of West but rather in Hungary; we have some clues for this.
maybe Latins, Faliscans came before Etruscans and Osco-Ombrians, here I 've no clue.
Were Etruscans more linked to Late Pallafitti Piledwellings people (I would have linked rather to ancestors of Ligurians lately indoeuropeanized, now I do'nt know) or did they came later from more East at Urnfield times and just-post-Urnfields times , with, or followed or "patchworked" with later Osco-Ombrians? 
What I'm almost sure of is that Urnfields is a multi-ethnic move with more than a step, that even Latins stayed closer to ancestors of Greeks than did the first Celts, and that Etruscans have some link with Urnfields.To date we have no sufficient genetic data to judge and it's this game of bets which please me!
Arguments, ladies and gentlemen? (for the fun only, waiting for valuable data)

----------


## alais

What do you think about what they are saying on Anthrogenica that the Romans, the Etruscans and all the Italic populations were quite similar to the Hallstatt Celts, the Celtiberians and some Bell Beakers and that modern Italians were formed thanks to the contribution of Levantine migrants? 

I personally do not know whether to believe that it is true or not.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> What do you think about what they are saying on Anthrogenica that the Romans, the Etruscans and all the Italic populations were quite similar to the Hallstatt Celts, the Celtiberians and some Bell Beakers and that modern Italians were formed thanks to the contribution of Levantine migrants? 
> 
> I personally do not know whether to believe that it is true or not.


Who said that? I’m skeptical even though I think immigration played a bigger role than most

----------


## alais

> Who said that? I’m skeptical even though I think immigration played a bigger role than most



Generalissimo/Davidski/Polako and other users of Anthrogenica who try always to levantinize the Italians.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> Generalissimo/Davidski/Polako and other users of Anthrogenica who try always to levantinize the Italians.


Link/quote pls

If he said something that explicitly I’m inclined to believe him. I could definitely believe the early Italic tribes were Hallstatt-like but given I believe the Etruscans derive from the Sea Peoples and imposed themselves on top of existing populations I am very skeptical that they were Hallstatt derived. Why were the Etruscans so much more developed than the Italic tribes around them if they were both derived from Central Europe and for that matter why would they speak such different languages?

----------


## alais

> Link/quote pls
> 
> If he said something that explicitly I’m inclined to believe him. I could definitely believe the early Italic tribes were Hallstatt-like but given I believe the Etruscans derive from the Sea Peoples and imposed themselves on top of existing populations I am very skeptical that they were Hallstatt derived. Why were the Etruscans so much more developed than the Italic tribes around them if they were both derived from Central Europe and for that matter why would they speak such different languages?



The origin of the Etruscans from the Sea Peoples is a completely debunked hypothesis. The PCA on anthrogenica shows Etruscans more north of the Romans and completely European.

----------


## Angela

> What do you think about what they are saying on Anthrogenica that the Romans, the Etruscans and all the Italic populations were quite similar to the Hallstatt Celts, the Celtiberians and some Bell Beakers and that modern Italians were formed thanks to the contribution of Levantine migrants? 
> 
> I personally do not know whether to believe that it is true or not.


I'd say how the hell could they possibly know or even reasonably "guess" without some more ancient samples? 

That bunch have been absolutely sure, insisting for years (Agamemnon, Sikeliot, all the latter's socks, etc.) that the Etruscans were recent transplants from the Aegean, i.e. as in first millennium BC. I mean just look at all those dark Minoan looking people on the wall paintings! And the language! No Indo-European descended group would "ever" adopt a language from another group (ignoring, of course, the Basques). If the hints from the papers about ancient DNA are correct, they were completely and utterly WRONG.

So, why would they necessarily be correct about this?

First of all, we still don't have the ancient Etruscan and Roman samples so we can't compare them to the Hallstatt samples or the ancient Iberian samples or Beaker samples. 

Plus, I don't know why any similarity to populations with steppe ancestry has to rely on Hallstatt, or specifically the Beakers for that matter. The Parma Beakers were very heterogeneous. One had steppe ancestry, one or two had almost none. How do we know how deeply that ancestry spread? That was a rhetorical question. We don't. 

Then there is Polada to consider, and the Terramare. I'm currently reading a very recently published book called Northern Italy in the Roman World. After the collapse of the Terramare, the area south of the Po in Emilia was de-populated but not empty, and there's also archaeological evidence of movement into the hills of the Apennines. Trade routes through the Apennines with "Etruria" was long standing, so there could have been movement in that direction. As for the areas north of the Po, the author provides evidence that the settlements around the old Polada areas still existed.

Then, of course, we get to Frantesina. The "elite" burial, from the leaks, is someone "different" from the locals (although we don't know what either were really like yet), but we do know that this was a center with good links to the Baltics, and imported and then worked and traded lots of amber. Cremation also entered Italy through the northeast. When we get their samples, we'll know if this was a later migration of more steppe admixed people.

So, we have a lot of possibilities. 

We also, by the way, don't really know what all the inhabitants of Northern Italy were like before the days of the Empire. There are the Celtic migrations to consider. One thing I've always emphasized and which this book emphasizes is that there not only is, but was, a lot of substructure in northern Italy, more than in southern Italy. Then there is Toscana, which is not northern, not southern, but not really "center" either. 

As for this mass Levantine migration theory, are they really still peddling it? Even after seeing PCAs where people from the Greek Islands plot closer to the east than the Sicilians? If someone ever shows me archaeological and genetic proof of a mass migration from the Levant to Italy rather than the migration of Levant admixed Bronze Age populations, I would be happy to accept it. However, I tend to doubt that would happen. There would have had to have been an even larger "Levantine" mass migration to the Aegean, and the recent paper on Crete, as well as the prior one on the Peloponnese makes that unlikely.

Basically, I like and have always like to work by putting together the facts, all the facts, not just the ones I prefer, and then trying to deduce some logical speculations. It's both the way my mind works and the way I was trained.

Some people aren't very logically minded in the first place, and even if they are, tend to start with the hypothesis they prefer, for whatever personal or ideological reasons, and then selectively choose facts to support it. 

It also amazes me how many times people happily say the same things thousands of times. It's like a compulsion.

Just saw the comment about Polako. He was saying precisely that for years. Now, with continued exposure of his agenda, he modifies his words so it's not quite so obvious. 

How people can be so naive about him is beyond me given his documented history.

----------


## brick

> Generalissimo/Davidski/Polako and other users of Anthrogenica who try always to levantinize the Italians.



Generalissimo/Davidski/Polako playes a lot of tricks against the Italians, just see his Global 25.

----------


## Megalophias

> What do you think about what they are saying on Anthrogenica that the Romans, the Etruscans and all the Italic populations were quite similar to the Hallstatt Celts, the Celtiberians and some Bell Beakers and that modern Italians were formed thanks to the contribution of Levantine migrants?


Who is saying that? Even Generalissimo said "migrants from across the Eastern Mediterranean" and didn't claim it was all or mostly Levantine. IIRC most people leaning this way were looking at the Greeks as the main source.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> What do you think about what they are saying on Anthrogenica that the Romans, the Etruscans and all the Italic populations were quite similar to the Hallstatt Celts, the Celtiberians and some Bell Beakers and that modern Italians were formed thanks to the contribution of Levantine migrants? 
> 
> I personally do not know whether to believe that it is true or not.


The Latins and the Etruscans have indeed archaeologically a connection with the central European urnfields (Latial culture and Villanovan culture both derived from the proto-Villanovan by regionalization). It's no surprise to anyone who's read archaeology texts. Obviously only academic studies can tell us if they were really similar to the Hallstatt Celts, but I don't think these studies have been published yet.

Those who support this theory ("Italians were formed thanks to the contribution of Levantine migrants" or more generally from the Eastern Mediterranean sea during Roman times) are the same users who for years supported the eastern origin of the Etruscans, without a real knowledge of the main texts of etruscology, and if you contributed on Anthrogenica with arguments based on academic sources simply to say that there was no certainty of this eastern origin, you were consequently mocked, harassed, and accused of the worst wrongs. 

Now the same users clearly support the new game, and the new game is the thesis that the Italian cline was formed thanks to the Levantines of Imperial Rome. A game created by the Nordicists but which also enjoys a certain popularity among the Orientalists. Which is very funny, because we forget for example the Greeks (any type of Greeks, also Greeks from Asia Minor) who arrived everywhere in Italy, even in the north, and the Italian cline follows much of the geography of Italy and this theory makes it appear that the Romans distributed along the peninsula with the measuring cup these Levantine migrants to form the current genetic cline of the Italians, forgetting for example to bring them to Sardinia that has never been a very populated island. So they all lack credibility. We are also all forgetting that the ones that have come out so far are just rumors, some of them contradictory, and that we can't draw conclusions before the studies are published.


To be clear, I'm not denying that in Roman imperial times in Italy there really were Levantines or more generally people of middle-eastern descent or someone even from further away (many Levantines arrived for example in the Christian era to proselytize Christianity), who have certainly not disappeared but who were assimilated by the population of the Italian peninsula. Nothing to be ashamed of. But I don't think they were the main cause of the Italian cline. 

For the Romans, I really don't know. We should not forget that the Romans and the Latins were not exactly the same thing. On the Etruscans we have this academic PCA, the genome of the three Etruscans analyzed by Stanford. Etruscans rich in EEF, WHG and even Steppe is also compatible with their mtDNA and archaeology, and both the Neolithic and the Bell Beaker are documented arcehologically in areas that will later become Etruscan. But we must not forget that we only have the elite burials of the Etruscans. If their position in the PCA discredits the theory that the Etruscan elite was of recent eastern origin, it cannot be ruled out that the Etruscan lower-class people not belonging to the elite kept less of an archaic genetic profile.

Then before drawing conclusions I'd like to see the samples of the culture of Rinaldone, Apennine culture, Gaudo culture, Laterza culture and many others. The archaeological history of the Italian peninsula is very complex, and cannot be reduced to a few samples taken from the ports of ancient Rome, which were obviously full of foreigners and less conservative than internal areas.

----------


## Jovialis

Most people who have almost no interest in population genetics, *already* assume Greeks and Italians share an affinity. Most regular people would chalk up the fantasy of a mass transformational migration from the Levant, as complete nonsense. Because it would be the first they've heard of it, since it is not in any historical record. Thus, people who know next to nothing on the subject, are actually more informed than the people who subscribe to that sophistry.

----------


## Johane Derite

Eric Hamp's mature position was that the "North-West IE" (Italic-Celtic-Phrygian according to him) were the first inhabitants of the Hallstatt. He was a specialist of Celtic and one of the most renowned linguists of the 20th and 21st Century.

----------


## hrvclv

I'll leave Italian matters to Italians. So I'll just submit a few random remarks.

There is one element that clearly points to influx from north of the Alps. It's language. 

Genitives in -i are said to be a western-IE innovation shared by Latin and Proto-Celtic (dominus > domini - tigernos > tigerni). It implies that the two populations were neighbors (or more) at a given point in time.

Similarly, Osco-Umbrian languages, though distinctly close to Latin, underwent the same kw/p mutation that occurred in the Brythonic and Gaulish Celtic languages. The two mutations may have happened independently. Or they may be due to the fact that an IE language was imposed upon similar substrate populations, speaking similar languages, and unable to properly manage the "kw". Or it may suggest that Osco-Umbrian tribes and P-Celtic tribes had shared the same "areal change" - ie, had been neighbors.

In other words, I wouldn't be surprised to learn sooner or later that there were in fact several waves from the north (and/or northeast) into Italy. Bell-Beaker pots were found in Remedello tombs. Villanovan biconic funerary urns seem Urnfield-derived.

An early migration could have ended up somewhere in the Po Valley and Tuscany, altering the culture and genetics, but not the language, in a process similar to the one described for the Basque Country. Later, the abundance of various metal ores - notably gold - in Tuscany would have shifted the center of gravity to where affluence was.

The Latins would have been another wave, still speaking a "kw" IE language, but with the "new" genitives already.

Then the Osco-Umbrians, with languages very much like Latin, but affected by the kw/p mutation.

(I don't know what to make of Veneti, with their language apparently half-way between Osco-Umbrian and Celtic, plus that strange, archaic, Germanic-looking pronominal system)

Genetically, the Celtic tribes that later settled in Northern Italy can't be discounted either, in the light of the proximity of northern Italians with some ancient samples. Have a look at the Mytrueancestry timeline results, and fitness levels.

That said, there still remains the riddle of those distinctly oriental influences in Etruscan art. Did a small elite group come and settle, altering the culture, but not the genes? Did locals imitate, and improve on, models brought to them by Greek merchants? Not a clue.

That's all, folks! As said above, these are strictly personal conjectures proposed here as food for thought. Feel free to disregard...

----------


## torzio

I have always held the belief that the etruscans where an ancient offshoot of the Umbrians and we do know that that the sabines, sabellics and samnites are also an offshoot of the umbrians............we also know that that umbrians entered italy from central europe via the NE of Italy.
There seems more etruscan connection with the umbrians and less with the Ligures

a paper below to consider on the linguistic and personnel names of Central european italian names/words

https://www.academia.edu/36806069/Th...d_South-Picene

----------


## Pax Augusta

> I have always held the belief that the etruscans where an ancient offshoot of the Umbrians



This has been strongly discredited by archaeology.

----------


## CrazyDonkey

> An early presence of Italic in Italy would explain why the two branches (Latino-Faliscan and Osco-Umbrian) are so different from each other. I think that's one of the problems with the Villanovs hypothesis.
> 
> Agreed with your general sentiment. I guess the problem are the events we can never truly exclude with just DNA and archaeology: language shifts, elite dominance, tribal alliances etc. .


Or subsequent geographic separation:

----------


## Angela

Came across an interesting little tid-bit in the book I'm currently reading:

"Analyses of haplotype distributions and strontium isotope studies of La Tene cemeteries across Europe-including the necropolis at Monte Bibele-show small groups of men moving long distances, a pattern that suggests raiding or mercenary activity."
Arnold,2012,91; see Sheeres et al 2013 on the mobility of Monte Bibele's population.

The author claims there is no evidence of population "replacement" in Northern Italy by the Gauls (La Tene or Hallstatt). In fact, she posits small movements of men who may have taken positions of power, but adjusted to and were absorbed by the "local" people.

So, I would think the archaeology puts paid to the idea that all North Italians were like the La Tene or Hallstatt Celts before the arrival of the Romans. They might have had more steppe than at certain other periods, but I see no evidence as of yet for the comments made at anthrogenica. Of course, some people don't pay much attention to archaeology, or only to the archaeology which fits their hypothesis. 

"As to the "Etruscans", I'm not aware of "commoner" Etruscan graves. I could go back and check my books, but I thought they were all "elite" graves.

If the "elites" came from the Aegean or Asia Minor, how come they wind up looking so very North Italian, Spanish and French?

----------


## hrvclv

> Came across an interesting little tid-bit in the book I'm currently reading:
> 
> "Analyses of haplotype distributions and strontium isotope studies of La Tene cemeteries across Europe-including the necropolis at Monte Bibele-show small groups of men moving long distances, a pattern that suggests raiding or mercenary activity."
> Arnold,2012,91; see Sheeres et al 2013 on the mobility of Monte Bibele's population.
> 
> The author claims there is no evidence of population "replacement" in Northern Italy by the Gauls (La Tene or Hallstatt). In fact, she posits small movements of men who may have taken positions of power, but adjusted to and were absorbed by the "local" people.
> 
> So, I would think the archaeology puts paid to the idea that all North Italians were like the La Tene or Hallstatt Celts before the arrival of the Romans. They might have had more steppe than at certain other periods, but I see no evidence as of yet for the comments made at anthrogenica. Of course, some people don't pay much attention to archaeology, or only to the archaeology which fits their hypothesis. 
> 
> ...



It's a bit surprising.

Golasecca seems already distinctly Celtic, or, at the very least, Celto-Ligurian.

Plus, Livy doesn't seem to suggest the Celts who moved into Italy arrived in small numbers. This would have happened prior to La Tène, by the way, except maybe for the Senones. Anyway, they were numerous enough to defeat the Etruscans and the Umbrians.

Too bad it's in French, but that's all I have :

« À l’époque où Tarquin l'Ancien règne à Rome [vers *600 av. J.-C*. ...] à Bellovèse [des Bituriges], les dieux montrent un plus beau chemin, celui de l’Italie. *Il appelle à lui, du milieu de ses surabondantes populations, des Bituriges, des Arvernes, des Éduens, des Ambarres, des Carnutes, des Aulerques ; et, partant avec de nombreuses troupes de gens à pied et à cheval*, il arrive chez les Tricastins. Là, devant lui, s’élèvent les Alpes ; et, ce dont je ne suis pas surpris, il les regarde sans doute comme des barrières insurmontables [...]

Arrêtés, et pour ainsi dire enfermés au milieu de ces hautes montagnes, les Gaulois cherchent de tous côtés, à travers ces roches perdues dans les cieux, un passage par où s’élancer vers un autre univers, quand un scrupule religieux vient encore les arrêter ; ils apprennent que des étrangers, qui cherchent comme eux une patrie, ont été attaqués par les Salyens. Ceux-là sont les Massaliotes qui sont venus par mer de Phocée. Les Gaulois voient là un présage de leur destinée : ils aident ces étrangers à s’établir sur le rivage où ils ont abordé et qui est couvert de vastes forêts.

Pour eux, ils franchissent les Alpes par des gorges inaccessibles, traversent le pays des Taurins, et, après avoir vaincu les Étrusques, près de la rivière Tessin, ils se fixent dans un canton qu’on nomme la terre des Insubres. Ce nom, qui rappelle aux Éduens les Insubres de leur pays, leur paraît d’un heureux augure, et ils fondent là une ville qu’ils appellent Mediolanum.

*Bientôt, suivant les traces de ces premiers Gaulois, une troupe de Cénomans, sous la conduite d'Etitovios, passe les Alpes par le même défilé, avec l’aide de Bellovèse, et vient s’établir aux lieux alors occupés par les Libuens, et où sont maintenant les villes de Brescia et de Vérone. Après eux, les Salluviens se répandent le long du Tessin, près de l’antique peuplade des Lèves Ligures. Ensuite, par les Alpes pennines, arrivent les Boïens et les Lingons, qui, trouvant tout le pays occupé entre le Pô et les Alpes, traversent le Pô sur des radeaux, et chassent de leur territoire les Étrusques et les Ombriens : toutefois, ils ne passent point les Apennins. Enfin, les Sénons, qui viennent en dernier, prennent possession de la contrée qui est située entre le fleuve Utens et l’Aesis*. »

— Tite-Live, Histoire romaine, VI, 34-35 - Traduction Charles Nisard, 1864

----------


## LTG

There is a lot of confusion and mystery surrounding the upcoming Roman studies at the moment because the preliminary information that we have from the two of them does not completely match. The larger study from Stanford stems the last 12,000 years and has 134 ancient samples, which is great, but the overwhelming majority of the samples are from the Imperial and Late Roman periods. They are also almost exclusively collected from the necropolis of Isola Sacra. This is quite problematic for a few reasons with the most obvious one being how cosmopolitan and susceptible to merchants and other migrants a port town that close to Rome would be during the height of the Roman Empire. 

That said, the information that we have from the preliminary presentation paints an interesting picture that allows us to disregard certain scenarios. We know that from the Iron Age towards the end of the Republic there existed two relatively distinct groups in Latium; one clustered with Northern Italians and the other with Southern Italians, with no samples clustering between the two groups. In the Imperial period the majority of the samples cluster around Southern Italians but there exists samples who are also near Tuscans, Greeks, Northern Italians and Iberians as well as some that are drifting towards Cyprus (as well as obvious migrants who cluster with Near Easterners). The majority of Imperial Romans from this necropolis seem to cluster somewhere around Southern Italians and Greeks. The important thing to note here is that the person who took the notes from the official presentation explicitly stated that Levant Neolithic ancestry was only sporadic and inhomogeneous throughout both the Republican and Imperial periods with those who have it showing large quantities and clustering differently. In other words, we need to look at other factors outside of the mass migration of Near Easterners to explain the clustering of most of these Romans.

We were told that the Iran Neolithic component increased from the Bronze Age to Iron Age, as well as homogeneously from the Republic to Imperial period in the Roman samples. This strongly points towards a moderate and widespread genetic impact of colonizing Greeks once Magna Graecia was absorbed into the Roman Republic. We already know that Rome had strong influences from both Etruscan and Hellenic cultures, and it looks like they absorbed both groups in equal measure. It would also explain why we see a distinct population clustering with Southern Italians (as the Mycenaean and Empuries samples do) in the Iron Age/Republic that is different from the population that clusters with the Northern Italians (we now know that Etruscans and early Romans/Italic speakers clustered like this from the other leak). The varied cline that we see in the Imperial period would mostly be the natural result of Romans (Northern Italian like), Romanized Greeks (Southern Italian to Cypriot like) and those of Greco-Roman descent (Tuscan/Greek like). Magna Graecia would have still been largely Mycenaean in it's genetic profile at the time of it being conquered but it's highly likely that there would also be Greeks there who originated from the colonies in Anatolia, or had partial ancestry from areas in the Near East, which would explain why a minority pull towards Jews/Cypriots on the PCA. People of mixed Roman and migrant ancestry would also cluster in this fashion which would not be unheard of in a port town but I doubt it occurred on a large scale outside of cosmopolitan centers.

This does not mean that migrants were not Romanized and absorbed eventually but rather that there exists more logical and historically accurate ways to describe the clustering of the Imperial Roman samples outside of strange fantasies regarding slaves and mass migrations that meet the ideological needs of both Nordicists and as Pax Augusta put it, "Orientalists", alike. I know a few of these types myself and their goals overlap significantly with one another. We are already being told that the majority of Romans are much more southern shifted and outside of modern Italian variation because of migrants from Persia, Egypt, Palestine and every other place under the sun. The end goal of both groups is to undermine, degrade and eventually partition off Italian history between them just like they were planning to do with the Mycenaeans and Etruscans until that blew up in their face. I tried to post the "leaked" PCA with my own annotations alongside a near identical West Eurasian one which does a good job of showing the natural Roman cline and how it is mainly related to Etruscan, Latin and Greek ancestries. Needless to say, roughly 85% of them cluster between Iberians and Southern Italians, with many of those being clearly shifted towards the "archaic Europe" cline alongside Mycenaeans and Sardinians. This leaves around 15% of the samples pulling towards Cypriots but clustering with Sephardic Jews in actuality.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> It's a bit surprising.
> 
> Golasecca seems already distinctly Celtic, or, at the very least, Celto-Ligurian.
> 
> Plus, Livy doesn't seem to suggest the Celts who moved into Italy arrived in small numbers. This would have happened prior to La Tène, by the way, except maybe for the Senones. Anyway, they were numerous enough to defeat the Etruscans and the Umbrians.


The text posted by Angela refers specifically to the Gauls who invaded northern Italy from about 400 BC, Golasecca that is already considered Celtic (Lepontic) is much older as a migration and among other things people from Golasecca were commercial partners of the Etruscans. The Celts, at one point in northern Italy, were of various different types. I should reread it, but I think Livy's text about Belloveso backtracked many events. 


The Etruscans were busy on other fronts when the Gauls pushed for control the area, and not having a national organization Etruscans struggled to defend the settlements in the Po Valley. For example Spina, always there in the Po valley, remained in the hands of the Etruscans for longer than Bologna. 


It also considers that Bologna, called Felsina/Felzna by the Etruscans, was the capital of the Etruscans in northern Italy and a city with a very important strategic role in connecting the Etruscans, the Alps, the people of Golasecca and the ancient Veneti. When the Romans renamed Bologna (Bononia) after the Boii Gauls, they deliberately wronged the Etruscans. The Etruscan toponym was preserved until the Roman conquest, and therefore also during the Celtic occupation according to some Italian sources that should be controlled. So it is possible that Livy has exaggerated in his stories about the Gauls.


Everything is more complicated and blurry. For example, in Monte Bibele (Tuscan-Emilian Apennines) tombs of both Etruscans (especially women and children) and Gauls (especially men) who lived together have been found. If I remember correctly, and I could remember wrongly, in Monte Bibele there are also tombs of children who have both Etruscan and Gaulish objects, if they had been the children of mixed marriages.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> Came across an interesting little tid-bit in the book I'm currently reading:
> 
> "Analyses of haplotype distributions and strontium isotope studies of La Tene cemeteries across Europe-including the necropolis at Monte Bibele-show small groups of men moving long distances, a pattern that suggests raiding or mercenary activity."
> Arnold,2012,91; see Sheeres et al 2013 on the mobility of Monte Bibele's population.
> 
> The author claims there is no evidence of population "replacement" in Northern Italy by the Gauls (La Tene or Hallstatt). In fact, she posits small movements of men who may have taken positions of power, but adjusted to and were absorbed by the "local" people.
> 
> So, I would think the archaeology puts paid to the idea that all North Italians were like the La Tene or Hallstatt Celts before the arrival of the Romans. They might have had more steppe than at certain other periods, but I see no evidence as of yet for the comments made at anthrogenica. Of course, some people don't pay much attention to archaeology, or only to the archaeology which fits their hypothesis. 
> 
> ...


We'll see, I don't really believe in coincidences though and a lot of things (mostly to do with names) point towards a Sea Peoples origin of the Etruscans.

----------


## torzio

> The text posted by Angela refers specifically to the Gauls who invaded northern Italy from about 400 BC, Golasecca that is already considered Celtic (Lepontic) is much older as a migration and among other things people from Golasecca were commercial partners of the Etruscans. The Celts, at one point in northern Italy, were of various different types. I should reread it, but I think Livy's text about Belloveso backtracked many events. 
> The Etruscans were busy on other fronts when the Gauls pushed for control the area, and not having a national organization Etruscans struggled to defend the settlements in the Po Valley. For example Spina, always there in the Po valley, remained in the hands of the Etruscans for longer than Bologna. 
> It also considers that Bologna, called Felsina/Felzna by the Etruscans, was the capital of the Etruscans in northern Italy and a city with a very important strategic role in connecting the Etruscans, the Alps, the people of Golasecca and the ancient Veneti. When the Romans renamed Bologna (Bononia) after the Boii Gauls, they deliberately wronged the Etruscans. The Etruscan toponym was preserved until the Roman conquest, and therefore also during the Celtic occupation according to some Italian sources that should be controlled. So it is possible that Livy has exaggerated in his stories about the Gauls.
> Everything is more complicated and blurry. For example, in Monte Bibele (Tuscan-Emilian Apennines) tombs of both Etruscans (especially women and children) and Gauls (especially men) who lived together have been found. If I remember correctly, and I could remember wrongly, in Monte Bibele there are also tombs of children who have both Etruscan and Gaulish objects, if they had been the children of mixed marriages.


In late bronze italy, the only people spoken about where
NW Italy the ligures
NE Italy the euganei
Central italy the Umbri
There was no gauls or celts ........can you link your info for this late bronze age period
I will leave out south italy for this discussion

----------


## Pax Augusta

> There is a lot of confusion and mystery surrounding the upcoming Roman studies at the moment because the preliminary information that we have from the two of them does not completely match.(...) The varied cline that we see in the Imperial period would mostly be the natural result of Romans (Northern Italian like), Romanized Greeks (Southern Italian to Cypriot like) and those of Greco-Roman descent (Tuscan/Greek like).



I agree with you that there is a lot of confusion on the upcoming Roman studies, but there is not a Tuscan-Greek cluster that implies a Greek-Roman descent, because when you go to see the PCA with all the Italian populations, the Tuscans are to the west in direction of Corsica and WEurope (the pink and reddish ones are the Tuscans, while the green ones are Ligurians, Emilians and a part of the Venetians, the blue ones are Lombards and a part of Trentini, the purple ones are the central Italians who speak "italiano mediano") and well distinct from the Greeks who are always to the east (SEEurope1 and SEEurope2). It is clear that confusion over Roman samples increases with inadequate PCA and poor sampling, typical of all discussions in amateur blogs and forums.











> They are also almost exclusively collected from the necropolis of Isola Sacra. This is quite problematic for a few reasons with the most obvious one being how cosmopolitan and susceptible to merchants and other migrants a port town that close to Rome would be during the height of the Roman Empire.



Yes, the fact the samples come from the ports of ancient Rome is extremely problematic. In fact, some archaeologists I know have already said that they have made a very targeted choice. 





> I tried to post the "leaked" PCA with my own annotations alongside a near identical West Eurasian one which does a good job of showing the natural Roman cline and how it is mainly related to Etruscan, Latin and Greek ancestries. Needless to say, roughly 85% of them cluster between Iberians and Southern Italians, with many of those being clearly shifted towards the "archaic Europe" cline alongside Mycenaeans and Sardinians. This leaves around 15% of the samples pulling towards Cypriots but clustering with Sephardic Jews in actuality.



We have to be patient and wait for the studies to be published. 





> In late bronze italy, the only people spoken about where





> NW Italy the ligures
> NE Italy the euganei
> Central italy the Umbri
> There was no gauls or celts ........can you link your info for this late bronze age period
> I will leave out south italy for this discussion





In the late Bronze Age in Italy, the known _ethnos_ of the Iron Age have not yet been formed, and this also applies to your examples.

----------


## Angela

Yes, I know they already spoke a form of Celtic in Golasecca. 

The statement to which I was responding was specifically talking about Hallstatt and La Tene.

From the text, actually from right before the section that I quoted:
"Polybius and Livy both present a narrative in which waves of Celts cross the Alps and settle in Northern Italy, displacing the Etruscans. The reality was more complicated...

"In Lombardy the Protogolasecca evolved almost seamlessly into the Golasecca culture of the Early Iron Age. Inscriptions there show an early presence for Celtic language. A late seventh-century inscription from Sesto Callende indicates that the Golasecca peoples spoke a Celtic language...

...for most of Northern Italy, the eighth through the fifth centuries BCE were marked by general continuity, growh and urbanization...

There were abrupt changes in the fourth century, as the number and distribution of La Tene objects characteristic of central and western Europe increased...Sites throughout Northern Italy were abandoned or saw contraction, and in the southern Po Plain there was an increasing presence for fortified hill settlements...

There were important limits to the transformation. Even in the southern Po Plain, newer Celtic-speaking inhabitants did not totally displace the earlier inhabitants or their customs. Most famously, at the necropolis of Monte Bibele, near Bologna, fourth-and-third century tombs contain mixtures of La Tene ornaments and Etruscan ceramic goods, indicating a cosmopolitan population, and a cultural middle ground similar to that seen at Greco-Etruscan Spina. Nor did the La Tene practice of inhumation entirely displace the older Golaseccan style of cremation in Lombardy. In Piedmont and Liguria there seems to have been less disruption...

The changes of the fourth century are not necessarily the result of a large scale Celtic invasion, as suggested by later Greek and Roman authors. In the southeastern and central Po Plain, the invasion model may be appropriate...however, some of northern Italy's new inhabitants likely migrated in military bands or worked as mercenaries. Rather than as a series of invasions, northern Italy's fourth-century transformation is perhaps more accurately described as a combination of large scale migrations, raiding parties, and changes to transalpine trade networks and economic systems."

In other words, there was a lot of substructure in northern Italy even then.

In later chapters which I'm reading now, the author explains that many of those Celtic warriors were killed or enslaved by the Romans, although winners always exaggerate the losses of their opponents, and many enslaved. The Boii in particular come to mind. 

Just in case it's forgotten, I'll repeat my mantra that we need Polada samples and Terramare samples, and yes, some Golasecca and Boii and most importantly, the mixed communities in these larger settlements. Oh, and the Veneti as well. Then we can compare them to moderns and to their contemporaneous Etruscans and Roman Republic era Romans and the later Romans as well. Then we'll be getting somewhere. Just how steppe admixed were the Golasecca? Remedello was supposed to be heavily steppe too, and weren't. Parma Beaker were a very mixed bunch, with some having almost no steppe. So, we'll have to wait for the samples to see when it arrived with any significance. After all, you don't need a massive genetic change to change the language. Look at the coming of the Greeks.

I'm actually just getting to the part about "Roman" settlements in the north. 

More later. 


The author casts quite a bit of shade on Livy's accounts, which I think is warranted. He had his own ax to grind. 

Her footnotes and citations are extensive. I haven't checked each and every one, but the one's I've checked seem to indeed support her conclusions, for ex., that after Terramare Northern Italy was not a blank slate.

----------


## Angela

I'll be sure to send the author of the book and the editors at Johns Hopkins University your opinion of the PHD thesis and the book, Messier. :)

Why don't you cut out the passive aggressive nonsense and present experts of your own if you disagree with the conclusions of this scholar. She backs up every single conclusion with archaeological papers. Make sure you do the same.

----------


## LTG

> I agree with you that there is a lot of confusion on the upcoming Roman studies, but there is not a Tuscan-Greek cluster that implies a Greek-Roman descent, because when you go to see the PCA with all the Italian populations, the Tuscans are to the west in direction of Corsica and WEurope (the pink and reddish ones are the Tuscans, while the green ones are Ligurians, Emilians and a part of the Venetians, the blue ones are Lombards and a part of Trentini, the purple ones are the central Italians who speak "italiano mediano") and well distinct from the Greeks who are always to the east (SEEurope1 and SEEurope2). It is clear that confusion over Roman samples increases with inadequate PCA and poor sampling, typical of all discussions in amateur blogs and forums.


I do not disagree with you.

Greeks and Tuscans are obviously different populations from an intra-European perspective due to their own unique population histories. Greeks are part of the Southeastern European cline that bridges the Mediterranean to Eastern Europe and Tuscans are part of the Southwestern European cline that bridges the Mediterranean to Western Europe. The point that I was making was that on many academic PCA charts of Western Eurasia we can observe a grouping that comprises of Tuscans, Albanians and mainland Greeks who cluster together as a result of their similar ancient ancestry proportions (EEF, WHG, Yamnaya). This group appears (again, on certain PCA charts and the Roman one in question) as being between Northern Italians and Southern Italians. This is why I said those people who are saying that the Imperial Romans are mostly south of modern Italians are plain wrong because most of the samples cline between Northern Italy and Southern Italy. Of course, this is not exactly the most nuanced approach because the PCA includes all of Western Eurasia so it's pretty oversimplified and hard to distinguish one group from the next. Once we get the official paper we will be able to observe the genetic variation on a micro level.




> Yes, the fact the samples come from the ports of ancient Rome is extremely problematic. In fact, some archaeologists I know have already said that they have made a very targeted choice.


That would not surprise me at all to be honest. It's a great shame that they spent all of this time and effort without sampling more regions from across Italy, especially the more inland rural areas where you wouldn't expect much (if any) migrants or peoples.

----------


## Jovialis

> Eric Hamp's mature position was that the "North-West IE" (Italic-Celtic-Phrygian according to him) were the first inhabitants of the Hallstatt. He was a specialist of Celtic and one of the most renowned linguists of the 20th and 21st Century.


I find this to be very sensible, and is in lock-step with what calculators like Mytrueancestry suggest for my results.

----------


## Johane Derite

> I find this to be very sensible, and is in lock-step with what calculators like Mytrueancestry suggest for my results.


Accidentally downvoted, meant to upvote

----------


## Jovialis

No worries :)

----------


## davef

> I'd say how the hell could they possibly know or even reasonably "guess" without some more ancient samples? 
> 
> That bunch have been absolutely sure, insisting for years (Agamemnon, Sikeliot, all the latter's socks, etc.) that the Etruscans were recent transplants from the Aegean, i.e. as in first millennium BC. I mean just look at all those dark Minoan looking people on the wall paintings! And the language! No Indo-European descended group would "ever" adopt a language from another group (ignoring, of course, the Basques). If the hints from the papers about ancient DNA are correct, they were completely and utterly WRONG.
> 
> So, why would they necessarily be correct about this?
> 
> First of all, we still don't have the ancient Etruscan and Roman samples so we can't compare them to the Hallstatt samples or the ancient Iberian samples or Beaker samples. 
> 
> Plus, I don't know why any similarity to populations with steppe ancestry has to rely on Hallstatt, or specifically the Beakers for that matter. The Parma Beakers were very heterogeneous. One had steppe ancestry, one or two had almost none. How do we know how deeply that ancestry spread? That was a rhetorical question. We don't. 
> ...


Since there were very few Phoenicians who were in Italy and Sicily and going by what the Levantine slaves went through in Ancient Rome, i don't see how the gene pool of southern Italy and Sicily could've changed due to a substantial inflow from the Levant. These people would have to travel across miles of harsh mountainous terrain to find people to mate with but that would be a huge effort. the Phoenicians were very intelligent and I'm certain they would never have risked their lives over mating with a certain group of people. So if we discard the phoenicians and Levantine slaves, that leaves what other Levantine group responsible for impacting the southern Italian gene pool?

disclaimer: I have nothing against levantines, it's the t-rolls who want to kick south Italians out of Europe due to their hatred and bigoted views

----------


## Jovialis

> Since there were very few Phoenicians who were in Italy and Sicily and going by what the Levantine slaves went through in Ancient Rome, i don't see how the gene pool of southern Italy and Sicily could've changed due to a substantial inflow from the Levant. These people would have to travel across miles of harsh mountainous terrain to find people to mate with but that would be a huge effort. the Phoenicians were very intelligent and I'm certain they would never have risked their lives over mating with a certain group of people. So if we discard the phoenicians and Levantine slaves, that leaves what other Levantine group responsible for impacting the southern Italian gene pool?
> 
> disclaimer: I have nothing against levantines, it's the t-rolls who want to kick south Italians out of Europe due to their hatred and bigoted views


There’s plenty of _victimization_ to go around, Davef, not just for southern Italians. The Irish, Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, and others were subject to genocide, not just “getting kicked out”. As a matter of fact, regretfully, southern Italians actually helped to facilitate some of those genocides against those people. For example, in Bari, there was a genocide committed against Jews in the Middle Ages. Some were kicked out of Puglia, or fled. This forced the Jews into other lands in Europe where they were subjected to the same treatment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor...dieval_history

Hatred of Yugoslavians was a component of Fascism, and people in my grandfather’s generation bitterly despised them. Hatred of Slavs in general was a component of Nazism. Polish people were on the same level of inferiority as Jews, and Gypsies according to Nazi Directive No.1306. 

*Nazi Germany's Directive No.1306 stated: "Polishness equals subhumanity. Poles, Jews and gypsies are on the same inferior level."[8]
*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Slavic_sentiment#Fascism_and_Nazism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Polish_sentiment

In Anglophone, and Francophone countries, many other groups, Italians included, were subjected to heinous discrimination. American History was one of my majors, so I am well versed in the subject. Blacks and Irish were nearly basically one in the same for a long time, in regards to social status in the United States. Often, you would see dehumanizing caricatures of Irish people looking like monkeys, in US newspapers. There was even racist sophistry, that promoted a theory that the Irish were descended from Africans, via Iberia. With the implication that this made them inferior.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_(Ireland)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Irish_sentiment



Mexicans, and Spanish in general were regarded as non-whites, who were barred from services, at some establishments in the U.S. south.


Even the Nordicist concept of Ancient Greece could be seen as a projection of a feeling of inferiority on the part of the 19th century historians that conceived of Nordic Greeks. Especially since so many in the gentry admired people like Aristotle, who suggested that only Greek men were truly human, and all other races were of a servile and barbaric disposition; who were only fit for slavery. Lo and behold, Ancient Greeks cluster with Southern Italians. Even the Armenoi_Crete sample, that new age Nordicist Steppists use as some kind of straw-grabbing justification, clusters with southern Italians, when you include other regions in the south.

At any rate, let’s stay focused on the subject of the thread. Generally southern Italians, and actual geneticists are aloft to the aspersions of t-rolls, and their laughable theories.

----------


## hrvclv

> There’s plenty of _victimization_ to go around, Davef, not just for southern Italians. The Irish, Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, and others were subject to genocide, not just “getting kicked out”. As a matter of fact, regretfully, southern Italians actually helped to facilitate some of those genocides against those people. For example, in Bari, there was a genocide committed against Jews in the Middle Ages. Some were kicked out of Puglia, or fled. This forced the Jews into other lands in Europe where they were subjected to the same treatment.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor...dieval_history
> 
> Hatred of Yugoslavians was a component of Fascism, and people in my grandfather’s generation bitterly despised them. Hatred of Slavs in general was a component of Nazism. Polish people were on the same level of inferiority as Jews, and Gypsies according to Nazi Directive No.1306. 
> 
> *Nazi Germany's Directive No.1306 stated: "Polishness equals subhumanity. Poles, Jews and gypsies are on the same inferior level."[8]
> *
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Slavic_sentiment#Fascism_and_Nazism
> ...


Very nicely explained. Yet I wonder...

I wonder whether being constantly on the lookout for nordicist/supremacist attitudes is not counterproductive in the long run. In my opinion, it ends up fueling the idea that we, farmer-descended people, suffer from some sort of inferiority complex.

Isn't simply enough to let the Greek and Roman (and Fertile Crescent) civilizations speak for themselves as self-sufficient achievements?

----------


## Stuvanè

Some reflections about these studies that I have also reported elsewhere: it's true that anyone can work only with what is available, and evidently the harbours are generous with human remains more than other places. But it's also true that starting from a sample of dockers and projecting their results on the whole of Roman Italy to represent the overall genetic picture is not very convincing.

It has long been known that, for example, among members of imperial fleets, finding an "authentic" Italic was an almost impossible undertaking, from the earliest times and for precise military provisions, because almost all of them were of servile origin and / or - according to the center (Miseno, Ravenna...) of provincial origin: Greek, Balkan, Levantine, North African, Sardinian and Corsican. It's possible that many of them, discharged at the end of the military service, remained in the area and started a family (it could be the case of Ravenna, which I know well). This is an old article published in the Treccani Encyclopedia, but if you have the time and the desire, you can scour the inscriptions of the CIL or PLRE

http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/...a-Italiana%29/

Having said that, and having little and no geneticist skills, I limit myself only to some considerations more of a historical / literary and mythological / legendary nature, often scholastic knowledges, which should avoid us being so surprised before these links with the eastern Mediterranean world. I don't know what the new genetic samples of these ancient Romans will say, but wanting to associate the "Levantine" contributions solely with massive movements of the imperial or late imperial age seems to me a bit naive. As Pax rightly said, the idea that this component was distributed with the measuring cup along the entire Paeninsula is a bit funny.

If I had to make a bet, I believe that even in the future we will not find a unique position to establish who or what was the "true" Roman of Antiquity. Meanwhile they were the first to know that they were somehow mixed from the beginning, not attributable to a single group, it does not seem to me that they made a great mystery of it, quite the contrary. The scheme of the archaic distribution and merger between Ramnenses, Titienses and Luceres, although it may be a simplification, should already offer us an important caveat and talk about an ethnogenesis not entirely linear.

But going back to this Greek-Levantine quota that causes so many tummy aches, I’d remember that the Romans recorded in their historical sources - and I'm talking about ancient phases - not indifferent contacts with that world, and I believe that in the long run they admitted a partial origin or mingling with the Greeks. The most paradigmatic case, on which all of them have been slaughtered, is the famous theme of the Tarquini dynasty, Etruscans, but according to the narrative direct descendants in paternal line of Demaratus from Corinto, reported by series of authors including Cicero and Titus Livius. Read it as you see fit, but it is to some extent symptomatic of a possible significant mobility of peoples among the Greeks and the Roman-Etruscan world (in the contribution by Ampolo, which here I paste, there is a section dedicated to some epigraphic evidence that would seem to indicate Greek presences in Rome very dated).

On the even more archaic phases, which in my opinion are the ones most involved in the arrival of the Aegean / Anatolian / Caucasian... genetic component in Italy, we have no historical sources like the ones mentioned above, but we have some mythological / epic / legendary support that his way provides a (albeit confused) memory of complex upheavals of peoples occurring - among other things - precisely at the end of the Bronze Age. In my personal way of seeing the material of the "Nostoi" (for the little that remains), which reports the events of the Achaeans after the Troy war, like the legend of Anthenor, coming back to the west towards the Adriatic sea, until he settled in Veneto, and in the end the Eneide itself - with Aeneas and her family sheltering in Latium - it seems to me that they testify that in the Mycenaean and/or Anatolian /Hittite world the Italian Peninsula was not something so far away, but a known and sought-after destination in some critical phases of their history

https://www.academia.edu/36759719/De...iC2cHff3Ad_SKY

----------


## Duarte

@Jovialis @hrvclv @Stuvanè

Good morning guys, 
I think there are no mirrors in the house of the supremacists. They probably consider this item of household furniture superfluous and expendable. They do not like to look at themselves. :Thinking: 

Sorry me for the slightly off-thread comment Jovialis, but I could not fail to do so after your spectacular and clear explanation about the fundamentals of racism against the non anglo-saxon people in southern US.

Hugs to all.

----------


## Angela

> Very nicely explained. Yet I wonder...
> 
> I wonder whether being constantly on the lookout for nordicist/supremacist attitudes is not counterproductive in the long run. In my opinion, it ends up fueling the idea that we, farmer-descended people, suffer from some sort of inferiority complex.
> 
> Isn't simply enough to let the Greek and Roman (and Fertile Crescent) civilizations speak for themselves as self-sufficient achievements?


A lot of people aren't educated enough to know any history, and more so as time goes on. Also, lies repeated often enough become the truth. I see it happening all the time even today. 

From the master spreader of lies:

"“It would not be impossible to prove with sufficient repetition and a psychological understanding of the people concerned that a square is in fact a circle. They are mere words, and words can be molded until they clothe ideas and disguise.” 
― *Joseph Goebbels

*I also wouldn't say that I, at least, am constantly on the look out for these ideas. I've been interested in this field for at least twelve years, when people were far less guarded about what they said, about which authors they quoted, and on which forums. Some of their comments were horrifying. The founders of some of these sites were sent to prison. I have a long memory. I know who a lot of these people are and what they're trying to do. History has a nasty way of repeating itself.

----------


## Ailchu

> Very nicely explained. Yet I wonder...
> 
> I wonder whether being constantly on the lookout for nordicist/supremacist attitudes is not counterproductive in the long run. In my opinion, it ends up fueling the idea that we, farmer-descended people, suffer from some sort of inferiority complex.
> 
> Isn't simply enough to let the Greek and Roman (and Fertile Crescent) civilizations speak for themselves as self-sufficient achievements?


this inferiority complex exists. and probably it exists in all europeans to some degree. maybe it is just the wish to be considered as equal or not be pushed on the same level as near eastern or other non-european people. in another thread on another site i tried to explain to an italian woman that there is no european "white" race and a near eastern "arab" race. that those people are all basically the same and that you just can't draw such a line. she thought i must be arab or "mixed" cause no european would say such a thing. those racial categories are all just there to make people feel different and special. and many europeans still do not want to accept that the concept europeans being one distinct racial group that is somehow special is in fact just a big fat lie.

as long as it is just genetics then it doesn't really matter. but when people start to steal cultural achievements by saying those were made by different people it gets a bit annoying.

----------


## torzio

> Some reflections about these studies that I have also reported elsewhere: it's true that anyone can work only with what is available, and evidently the harbours are generous with human remains more than other places. But it's also true that starting from a sample of dockers and projecting their results on the whole of Roman Italy to represent the overall genetic picture is not very convincing.
> 
> It has long been known that, for example, among members of imperial fleets, finding an "authentic" Italic was an almost impossible undertaking, from the earliest times and for precise military provisions, because almost all of them were of servile origin and / or - according to the center (Miseno, Ravenna...) of provincial origin: Greek, Balkan, Levantine, North African, Sardinian and Corsican. It's possible that many of them, discharged at the end of the military service, remained in the area and started a family (it could be the case of Ravenna, which I know well). This is an old article published in the Treccani Encyclopedia, but if you have the time and the desire, you can scour the inscriptions of the CIL or PLRE
> 
> http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/...a-Italiana%29/
> 
> Having said that, and having little and no geneticist skills, I limit myself only to some considerations more of a historical / literary and mythological / legendary nature, often scholastic knowledges, which should avoid us being so surprised before these links with the eastern Mediterranean world. I don't know what the new genetic samples of these ancient Romans will say, but wanting to associate the "Levantine" contributions solely with massive movements of the imperial or late imperial age seems to me a bit naive. As Pax rightly said, the idea that this component was distributed with the measuring cup along the entire Paeninsula is a bit funny.
> 
> If I had to make a bet, I believe that even in the future we will not find a unique position to establish who or what was the "true" Roman of Antiquity. Meanwhile they were the first to know that they were somehow mixed from the beginning, not attributable to a single group, it does not seem to me that they made a great mystery of it, quite the contrary. The scheme of the archaic distribution and merger between Ramnenses, Titienses and Luceres, although it may be a simplification, should already offer us an important caveat and talk about an ethnogenesis not entirely linear.
> ...


in regards to your last paragraph
natgeno tested in venice from 2005-2010 and presented this below in their paper



the veneti apart from mixing with the indigenous Euganei and their 34 towns in veneto and friuli , did come from the region in anatolia with its linguistic split called Pala or Palaic ...........the venedi in poland or veneti in brittany france have zero dna connection

----------


## Angela

A few more interesting tidbits about Roman Northern Italy.

The author spends quite a bit of time explaining how thoroughly the Romans "intervened" in Northern Italy: its agriculture and land distribution, its routes of water and land transportation, and even its demography and why.

The latter is interesting in light of our discussions here. In this area we are talking about layers of migration. The coming of the Gauls didn't erase the prior peoples, just as the coming of the Romans didn't obliterate the Gauls. The Romans did do a number on some of the Gallic tribes, however, like the Senones, and particularly the Boii. Why there was more animus toward the Boii than toward tribes like the Insubri of the transpadana is a complicated one, and I won't go into it here. It existed, and it meant that the Romans.

"These land confiscations expelled the Senones and Boii from much of their former territory; in the mid second century Polybius recorded that"not long afterwards I was to see these tribes expelled from the valley of the Po, except for a few districts at the foot of the Alps.""

In the author's opinion that's an exaggeration. While there was expulsion south of the Po, and the Boii and Senones were no longer present as political entities, the continuation of certain cult practices at Parma, for example, show that it was not a complete wipe out of the Gaulish tribes there in the southern Po Valley. 

In the north at places like Brixia and Mediolanum, the centers of the Insubres and Cenomani, there was no such expulsion at all, and it wasn't until the later half of the second and first centuries BC that we see signs of expansion and re-organization. Before that, they continued to make their own coinage, and Latin, Celtic, and Italic names all still appear into the early Empire. The Veneti also remained nominally independent for a while. 

This may be part of the explanation for some of the differences between the transpadana and the more southern part of Cisalpine Gaul, particularly the Romagna and the Emilian plain. Even then, there was a difference between the people of the mountains and the people of the plains.

Speaking of which, western Liguria seems to have been left alone, but eastern Liguria was heavily impacted. As probably everyone knows, most of the Apuani were exiled to Samnium, and the hill and mountain people were forcibly relocated to the plains around the Magra. The establishment of Luni also brought settlers from Central Italy into the mix. 

One of the signs of cultural change? No more horse burials, which were common among all the Celtic tribes and even more so among the Veneti.



How thoroughly Northern Italy became part of "Rome" is shown by the speed with which it was given citizenship, but also by its participation in the legions. "...by the Julio-Claudian period roughly half of those legionnaires serving in upper and lower Germany whose origins could be determined come from Cisalpine Gaul. The same proportion holds true for the Legio XI Claudia in Dalmatia and the Legio VII in Moesia. "

----------


## torzio

The veneti became allies of rome circa 300bc and absorbed into the roman system by 100bc
They are saud to dress and have customs of the celts but have a different language....this is comments from the time of the celtic invasion of north italy.

The period of 800bc saw the venetic border at modern oderzo, where the illyrian histrians shared a market area with the venetic

----------


## Stuvanè

I refer to Angela's last post, which I subscribe to 100%.
In fact it is always Polybius (II, 19-21) who remembers that it was Gaius Flaminius's policy of massive colonization in the northern Marche region that alarmed the Boi who, fearing the same fate as their Senones neighbors, turned out to be quite hostile towards Rome.

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/4412...-h/44125-h.htm

http://docenti.unimc.it/simone.sisan...20Romana_5.pdf

I believe that with regard to the Insubres, the Cenomans and other transpadane populations in general, the Romans of a later generation were more wary, even with more practical policies of local military recruitment and subsequent granting of Roman citizenship, precisely in order not to trigger reactions to chain that would become less and less controllable as they left Rome.

That those territories, now corresponding more or less to the province of Pesaro-Urbino and to the entire Emilia-Romagna region, have been the object of an important Roman-Italic colonization is beyond doubt (in fact all the cities and centers along the Via Emilia have been Roman colonies). The Emilians and even more so the Romagnols, compared to their present Lombardi neighbors, emphasized in their autosomal - of some point - Caucasian and Mediterranean-eastern components that could very well be attributed to the arrival of Central Italic settlers.

However, I have always had many doubts about the total expulsion of Senoni and Boi from the Picenus and Po valley. In the first place, from the dialectal point of view, these are territories that remained Gallo-Italic in all respects, with very marginal external influences (in the province of Pesaro, the dialect is a variety of Romagna), where the general rule is a Latin that merges with a Celtic substrate. Some substantial pouch still had to be present.
What sense would the persistence of a language (or of such an important linguistic phenomenon) be due to a people decimated, vanquished, marginalized or even expelled?

Another hypothesis that I would like to advance is a supposition of mine born in relation to the 23andMe tool, Your DNA Family.
Given that in Italy this kind of test is still little known and adopted while it is widespread in the USA, UK, Canada, (so we are talking about statistics that are not significant on the one hand and overrepresented on the other), it remains to ask why someone like me - a matter of fact of areas of eastern Emilia/Romagna where the Gallic influence was already diluted in Antiquity, due to Etruscan, Umbrian and Greek strong coexistence and which clearly underwent Roman domination - it is found, however, at the top of the rankings respectively 87 % of genetic cousins ​​with Franco-German ancestral origins and another 85% with British origins? (For the moment my Italians are 28%). Keep in mind that I'm not talking about Italian-Americans and / or Italian-British, so individuals who do not bear Italian origins.

For now, in my opinion, the only possibility is to admit that even after the Roman conquest the Gallic genetic signal in northern Italy, in turn linked to the Celtic continental and insular, has remained more than persistent. Those written testimonies speaking of such drastic military interventions towards the Cispadan Gauls could be attributed to a certain kind of propaganda and above all to the need of the Romans to exorcise the fear of those unique barbarians who actually - like the Senones - managed to violate Rome and take it over.

----------


## Angela

> I refer to Angela's last post, which I subscribe to 100%.
> In fact it is always Polybius (II, 19-21) who remembers that it was Gaius Flaminius's policy of massive colonization in the northern Marche region that alarmed the Boi who, fearing the same fate as their Senones neighbors, turned out to be quite hostile towards Rome.
> 
> https://www.gutenberg.org/files/4412...-h/44125-h.htm
> 
> http://docenti.unimc.it/simone.sisan...20Romana_5.pdf
> 
> I believe that with regard to the Insubres, the Cenomans and other transpadane populations in general, the Romans of a later generation were more wary, even with more practical policies of local military recruitment and subsequent granting of Roman citizenship, precisely in order not to trigger reactions to chain that would become less and less controllable as they left Rome.
> 
> ...


I, in turn, agree with your post. :)

The author presents solid evidence that the claims of the Romans as to the total decimation of the Celts south of the Po (according to Polybius, even to a large extent North of the Po) are an exaggeration. At the same time, the Insubrians and Cenomani were treated somewhat differently. Expansion did arrive there, just not yet and not as intensively.

A word as to your matches with people of northwestern and northern Europe: I'm in the same situation. A very few of my cousins have tested, some people from the Lunigiana, La Spezia, eastern Liguria in general, and some from western Emilia, mostly the mountains, however, and not the plain, and some Piemontesi, who are from what are actually old Ligurian areas in the mountains, and show up in my list. Other than that my top matches are all northwestern Europeans, Irish and Welsh in particular, and Scandinavians. One Scandinavian family and one Irish family are within my top top 20 matches, and my top mtDna match is an Irish family! 

I don't have any relatively close matches with anyone south of the Lucca, Versilia area of Toscana, and, in fact, I don't even have matches with people from the Veneto or eastern Lombardia. Yet, it's undeniable that I'm autosomally more similar to someone from the Veneto than someone from Ireland. 

So, what gives? I also noticed that I don't have any matches with Spaniards, despite the fact we're supposed to be so alike autosomally, and indeed they come up very high in a lot of my gedmatch results, before southern Italians in most of them. I get no French matches either.

I think some of this is definitely down to the nature of the reference samples. You're going to get "northern" matches, perhaps even more than "southern" matches because there are so many more of them than there are of Italian, Spanish, and especially French ones, with the latter being particularly true given how difficult it is to test there. 

However, it's pointing out something very real. While autosomally we may be different, as the Spanish are very different from the Celts of the British Isles, within the relatively recent past we received a good chunk of ancestry from these people, but not just "Celtic" or "Gallic". There were still "Italic" names in Italy north of the Po well into the Empire. 

I also think there's some Lombard, at least in my case, although I've somewhat resisted the idea in the past, given my feelings about the local aristocracy, a loathing I think I imbibed with my mother's milk.:) I've said often enough they bred anarchists, socialists and communists here. My mother's father was a committed Socialist, although her mother's family was mostly a-political. No one was going to be looking for connections to Germanic overlords, even without the horrors of World War II to consider. However, facts must be faced honestly. I don't think it's true on a broad scale; more of it is present more north and especially north east, where there is more sign of their settlements, but all those Lombard castles dotting every damn hill in the Lunigiana mean something. It doesn't mean a huge effect on the autosomes, necessarily , especially by the time they got to the Lunigiana it was probably mostly young men, but they did leave their calling card in the form of yDNA. I just checked family tree dna's northern Italy project, and there in the foothills of the Apennines in the northern Lunigiana there's a lot of I1 and U-106, as well as the usual R1b. The other lineages up there seem to be "T" and the "northern" G2a, while the further south you go the more that E-V13 shows up, although it's still mostly R1b of the Z36, Z56, and L2 variety all. 

Dna doesn't lie, right?

I suppose I've just given some support to Ancestry's contention that I'm 55% Italian and 45% French. The point still stands that if someone is adopted or for any other reason has no ideas as to their ancestry, DO NOT use Ancestry. Use 23andme. There, I'm definitely Italian. Also, upon reflection, if I had my parents' dna results, I would guess that most of the "Italian" comes from my mother, and most of the "French" comes from my father. He wouldn't mind a "French" connection, I don't think: he was quite the Francophile. However, the implication that it was "Celtic", i,e. to him, naked, blue painted barbarians and no or less connection to Romans would have him spinning in his grave. To each generation their own prejudices, I guess; he was brought up still under the sway of Mussolini's form of population genetics unfortunately.

----------


## Jovialis

> Eric Hamp's mature position was that the "North-West IE" (Italic-Celtic-Phrygian according to him) were the first inhabitants of the Hallstatt. He was a specialist of Celtic and one of the most renowned linguists of the 20th and 21st Century.

----------


## Salento

> 


 :) .....

----------


## Jovialis

> Accroding to Anthrogenica, the Stanford Roman paper already has had samples in it uploaded to a academic database and the paper should be coming soon enough.


Thanks for the heads up!

----------


## alais

> Originally Posted by *kolgeh* 
> 
> Iron age Italian populations - including Etruscans and Italic tribes - were very homogeneous and predominantly R1b-U152+. Romans on the other hand autosomally were closer to Aegean populations and Y dna wise were very diverse including R1b-U152, R1b-P312(xU152), R1b-U106, T, G2a, I1, E1b, J2a, J2b and J1 haplogroups.
> 
> Italics have some G2a2b2a. 
> 
> G2a2b2a appears in central Italy. E and J appear mainly in Romans from southern Italy. 
> 
> First confirmed Italian R1b-U152 sample appears in *early* bronze age and predates urnfield culture. 
> ...



The same guy on Anthrogenica who posted the leaked PCA is saying that the Etruscans and the Italics were R1b-U152+. Romans on the other hand autosomally were closer to Aegean population.

Does it make sense?

----------


## alais

> https://anthrogenica.com/showthread....ent-DNA/page95
> 
> See here.


I'm asking Eupedia users for their opinion.

----------


## Angela

It's impossible to have a rational discussion about this without the paper in front of us. 

If, by "Romans" being more "Aegean" like they mean some samples from Ostia, Rome's biggest port, then that conclusion is just plain stupid. 

I can't put it any more clearly than that. 

I mean, I know not everybody has a PHD or an IQ of 140+, but for crying out loud if some people don't have the mental capacity to examine these kinds of claims with some degree of intelligence they should just shut up. 

Of course, then there are those with agendas or mental health issues who muddy up the waters as well. 

Sorry to be so blunt, but I'm losing patience, not, I hasten to add, with you, but with the general level of stupidity and agenda driven content in the hobby as a whole.

You have to define your freaking terms to make sense of all of this. If you don't, even having the samples in hand won't help. The people who built the first huts on the seven hills of Rome are not necessarily exactly the same people who belonged to the various tribes of the Republic, and those people are not necessarily completely similar to the inhabitants of Imperial Rome as defined as the city of Rome itself in the time of Augustus and after. 

To think that samples from Ostia, which more than likely might have been mostly merchants or sailors from lots of different parts of the empire, but predominantly perhaps from the east, should serve as the standard genetically for "Romans" is a whole different level of absurdity. 

All of that will have to be kept in mind when we have the actual samples, see their isotope values, their burial contexts, where they were found, and their dates.

That isn't to say that I don't think there was steady gene flow from southern Italy north, because I think there was. 

I'll post later about some other findings from my book on Northern Italy during Roman times.

----------


## Salento

It may depend on the Period :) Pre or Post Roma Imperiale.

I turned that Map around, now it’s easier to make sense of Italy. imo and others too.








Nice!  :Grin:

----------


## Angela

Man, they're really geniuses over there at anthrogenica. 

"G2a2b2a appears in central Italy. [I presume in addition to the U-152] E and J appear mainly in Romans from southern Italy." 

DUH!!!!

Romans in a general, imperial sense, people.

Have these people ever read a single, even popularized and dumbed down book on the Romans???? That was a rhetorical question. The answer is no.

----------


## brick

> I turned that Map around, now it’s easier to make sense of Italy. imo and others too.


Good idea. I put in the labels inspired by the other PCAs.

----------


## Angela

I would suggest waiting, unlike "Generalissimo" until, as I said above, we have definite and precise information about where each sample was found, the date, the burial context, and the isotope analysis. 

I don't know how many of those samples, if any, come from places like Ostia, but if they do they're not terribly informative about Italian genetics as a whole.

In terms of Italian genetics in general and Southern Italian/Sicilian genetics in particular it's the late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age which interests me more. Did most of the gene flow into Southern Italy/Sicily during that period come by way of the Balkans and Greece, or did some come directly from Anatolia or other places, or both? When did it start to arrive and in what numbers? What were Southern Italians/Sicilians like in the beginning of the first millenium BC before Greek colonization, and what were they like afterwards? Once we know the answers to those questions we'll be in better shape to understand precisely what was going on during the empire and after.

----------


## brick

I agree. The studies have not yet come out, we do not know where the samples come from. In short, there are still no conditions for drawing conclusions.

----------


## Salento

imho We already know the Main Conclusion.

We’ve been staring at it for months.

The map is the Central Piece of the Study.

Once they publish their findings, everything else will be details.

... and the debate will continue to go on.

----------


## lynxbythetv

sorry but can someone make any type of conclusion in regards to the 664 replies ? 

i suspect ancient northern romans were heavily celtic, judging by the roman busts anyway. 

prior to the celtic invasions/migrations there was the calcolitic invasions/migrations. now as italians are heavily R1B paternally and it seems they are maternally J2......is E hiding within J2. forexample did the calcolithic men took the E women ?

Sent from my SM-G977B using Tapatalk

----------


## lynxbythetv

> imho We already know the Main Conclusion.
> 
> We’ve been staring at it for months.
> 
> The map is the Central Piece of the Study.
> 
> Once they publish their findings, everything else will be details.
> 
> ... and the debate will continue to go on.


what is the main conclusion ?

Sent from my SM-G977B using Tapatalk

----------


## Salento

> what is the main conclusion ?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G977B using Tapatalk


The Etruscans are closer to the Northern Italians, and the Romans are closer to the Central and Southern Italians.

The: who else, why, when, how much, how, ... we will wait for the study to confirm the details.

----------


## lynxbythetv

> The Etruscans are closer to the Northern Italians, and the Romans are closer to the Central and Southern Italians.
> 
> The: who else, why, when, how much, how, ... we will wait for the study to confirm the details.


what do you think ? 

Sent from my SM-G977B using Tapatalk

----------


## Salento

> what do you think ? 
> 
> Sent from my SM-G977B using Tapatalk


There will be Romans shifting North, South, and South/East.

I think that regardless of the findings, the study will be challenged by some.

----------


## Demetrios

> I would suggest waiting, unlike "Generalissimo" until, as I said above, we have definite and precise information about where each sample was found, the date, the burial context, and the isotope analysis. 
> 
> I don't know how many of those samples, if any, come from places like Ostia, but if they do they're not terribly informative about Italian genetics as a whole.
> 
> In terms of Italian genetics in general and Southern Italian/Sicilian genetics in particular it's the late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age which interests me more. Did most of the gene flow into Southern Italy/Sicily during that period come by way of the Balkans and Greece, or did some come directly from Anatolia or other places, or both? When did it start to arrive and in what numbers? What were Southern Italians/Sicilians like in the beginning of the first millenium BC before Greek colonization, and what were they like afterwards? Once we know the answers to those questions we'll be in better shape to understand precisely what was going on during the empire and after.


Spot-on questions, that's exactly what we need to know. Do we know when the paper (related to the leaked PCA) is due to get published? By the way, this is not the Moots paper we are awaiting any time now, correct?

----------


## Pax Augusta

> The Etruscans are closer to the Northern Italians, and the Romans are closer to the Central and Southern Italians..



Romans in that PCA are definitely closer to Southern Italians. Abruzzesi are genetically Southern Italians even if more northern shifted than southern Italian average. Of course assuming that PCA is accurate.

----------


## Angela

> Spot-on questions, that's exactly what we need to know. Do we know when the paper (related to the leaked PCA) is due to get published? By the way, this is not the Moots paper we are awaiting any time now, correct?


I don't know for sure but I don't think so. The Moots paper, from the little information I have, is centered only on the environs of Rome itself, and doesn't include Etruscans. I think the PCA may be from the paper that I think is coming from Stanford. 

My point throughout this discussion has been that people want to talk about what "Romans" were or were not like without defining what they mean by "Roman". I keep trying to get through to them that it has a different meaning through time, and applies to people from different genetic clusters through time. By the end of the Empire practically everyone within its borders would have considered themselves "Romans". The Byzantines considered themselves "Romans" for centuries after that. At what point does the term become meaningless for population genetics purposes, and especially as concerns Italian genetics?

In terms of Republican Era Romans I would be quite surprised if the Republican Era "Romans" were "Aegean" like. I would expect them to be like other members of the Latin League and related groups, which is NOT to say that they were "Gaulish" like. I don't expect even northern Italians of the Republican period to be the same as the Gauls, of, well, Gaul. :) 

I wouldn't be at all surprised if inhabitants of many parts of southern Italy were "Aegean like" already during the Roman Republican Era period. I would expect Imperial Era Italians, which is the more appropriate term, in my opinion, even in the northern reaches of the peninsula, to be different from what they were like during the Republic, but the question is, how different? Did the cline still exist, even if less defined? Were the "Collegno" Italians of the late Empire the norm or was there variation? Although even there, not all were "Aegean" like. I'm extremely close to one, and I am not "Aegean" like. 

I would remind people that the "leaks", if accurate, say that in Republican Rome the "Romans" were split into two groups, one more "northern" Italian like, and one more "southern" Italian like. Note that none of them are Germanic like. So much for much of 19th and early 20th century anthropology. None plotted with Central Italians. If the papers show I'm on the wrong track, fine. I have no problem with being "slightly" wrong. :)

The darkest red is the "original" Rome.



Note that even the bright red is Rome and her "allies", not considered Romans by the Romans themselves.

Timeline of the conquest of Italy:



That's why the dates for each sample are crucial. 

@lynxbythetv (Could you people pick shorter, more recognizable "names"? Sometimes I don't address people by their names just because it's too annoying to reproduce them.)

You think these people look "Celtic", do you?

----------


## Pax Augusta

> I don't know for sure but I don't think so. The Moots paper, from the little information I have, is centered only on the environs of Rome itself, and doesn't include Etruscans. I think the PCA may be from the paper that I think is coming from Stanford.



An archaeologist friend of mine confirmed to me that Etruscan samples were sent to various laboratories for autosomal analysis. 

And then certainly Stanford has already analyzed some Etruscan samples 4 or 5 years ago.

There are more than one university right now, so I'm guessing more than one study.

----------


## Angela

> Romans in that PCA are definitely closer to Southern Italians. Abruzzesi are genetically Southern Italians even if more northern shifted than southern Italian average. Of course assuming that PCA is accurate.


So it would appear from the PCA. However, that doesn't square with the supposed "leak" that in Republican Rome there were "two" groups: one more Northern Italian like and one more Southern Italian like.

The question is which to believe, if any.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> So it would appear from the PCA. However, that doesn't square with the supposed "leak" that in Republican Rome there were "two" groups: one more Northern Italian like and one more Southern Italian like.
> 
> The question is which to believe, if any.



In fact, they seem like two completely different things. 


Beyond the conclusions that might be correct or wrong, Hannah Moots is real and we know from published sources that she is really working on her study. 


On the rest so far only rumors.

----------


## Demetrios

> I don't know for sure but I don't think so. The Moots paper, from the little information I have, is centered only on the environs of Rome itself, and doesn't include Etruscans. I think the PCA may be from the paper that I think is coming from Stanford.


Thanks a lot for your answer. I agree with all of your points. These are all valid questions you raise, that require answering. Before we jump on conclusions we need to examine all of the details. Hopefully the paper (if real after all) will be worthwhile and able to provide answers.

----------


## Angela

This is not a thread about phenotypes. 

Anyone posting off topic responses to posts will find it has been deleted.

----------


## Angela

The rumour is that the majority of the samples used in the Stanford study, i.e. the one from which the PCA comes, were collected from Isola Sacra.

*If* that is true, and it's a BIG if, this is not going to be a paper that necessarily tells us a lot of useful information about Italian genetics.

Even Wiki knows that many of them aren't Italian. :)

See:

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

"The *Isola Sacra Necropolis was the first large-scale pagan cemetery of Roman Imperial times to be excavated. The excavator-in-chief of most of Isola Sacra was Guido Calza. The necropolis was found on the manmade island of Isola Sacra, which lies between the cities of Portus and Ostia Antica, a region just south of Rome. The emperor Trajan was in power when this artificial island was created. Much of the excavated necropolis flanked the Via Severiana, which ran through Isola Sacra and traveled southeast from Ostica to Terracina.**"*


"*A great number of the inscriptions on the tombs suggest Graeco-Oriental origin. Scholars believe this is because Portus and Ostica were a cosmopolitan towns where the bourgeois population was full of businessmen of non-Italian birth.**[4]** Latin, however, was the language that most townspeople used during the time that the necropolis was built*. "


Is that to say that there weren't Southern Italians who were similar to them? Absolutely not. It just means we won't be able to tell that from this paper. 

It also seems that there is some sort of amazed disbelief at the supposed leaks that the Etruscan samples studied didn't have any J1 and J2a. Now, maybe some will show up somewhere in the future, but for now they seem to have been G2a, J2b, and some form of R1b, like maybe R1b V88. The latter is totally unexpected, but who knows with rumours. Maybe the samples are degraded and they couldn't get good data. Still, as I said, no J1 and J2a. 

Some people really don't want to let go of that "Etruscans were from Asia Minor", even if it's only "Elite Etruscans were from Asia Minor". 

Tell me again these people aren't operating from an agenda, and even that they are whom they claim to be.

----------


## kingjohn

dear angela 
do you got some information on e1b1b1 ?
was it found in remains ?
and if they do which subclade .... { e-v13 , e-m34}?
regards
adam

----------


## Angela

> dear angela 
> do you got some information on e1b1b1 ?
> was it found in remains ?
> and if they do which subclade .... { e-v13 , e-m34}?
> regards
> adam


All I heard is what I posted. 

It wouldn't at all surprise me if they found some E-M34 in a cemetery full of Hellenes and "Orientals" from the east, but I've heard nothing about it. 

It might have been present among some Southern Italians of the Empire as well, but I have no knowledge of that either.

----------


## Angela

Now it appears that of the strictly Etruscan samples, four low quality ones are R-M269, one high quality one is R-U152, and one is I1. 

Yes, indeed, if true, very Asia Minor like elites! :)

There is a reason, as Pax has been saying since FOREVER, that there is so much R1b in Toscana.

Any of the huge proponents of the "the Etruscans were recently arrived people from Anatolia" group, i.e. Sikeliot, Principe, Claudio, Fritz, Agamemnon, and let's not forget Polako, admitted they were completely wrong yet???? I would very much bet not. :)

----------


## lynxbythetv

> Now it appears that of the strictly Etruscan samples, four low quality ones are R-M269, one high quality one is R-U152, and one is I1. 
> 
> Yes, indeed, if true, very Asia Minor like elites! :)
> 
> There is a reason, as Pax has been saying since FOREVER, that there is so much R1b in Toscana.
> 
> Any of the huge proponents of the "the Etruscans were recently arrived people from Anatolia" group, i.e. Sikeliot, Principe, Claudio, Fritz, Agamemnon, and let's not forget Polako, admitted they were completely wrong yet???? I would very much bet not. :)


does that lead to any clues in regards to the language. werent the etruscans always deemed to be middle-eastern or something due to the language being non indo-european. 

maybe its a creole calcolithic/indo european one.

Sent from my SM-G977B using Tapatalk

----------


## Angela

I've never said a dishonest thing on this site in all the years I've been here. How dare you?

I reported what was said on other sites. Plus, I couldn't have made it clearer that I'm taking a wait and see attitude. Learn to read more carefully before you go shooting off your mouth. Or perhaps you need some remedial classes in reading comprehension, like Polako.

"The rumour is that the *majority* of the samples used in the Stanford study, i.e. the one from which the PCA comes, were collected from Isola Sacra.*


"IF* that is true, and it's a *BIG if*, this is not going to be a paper that necessarily tells us a lot of useful information about Italian genetics."

Get it now? Did I make it simple enough for you?

You're punching above your weight class, buddy. It never ends well.

----------


## lynxbythetv

i wonder why etruscan have "aiser" as one of their main gods.

----------


## Cpluskx

Angela, why do you think there is an agenda behind Etruscans from Anatolia hypothesis?

----------


## Angela

> Angela, why do you think there is an agenda behind Etruscans from Anatolia hypothesis?


I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I believe everyone who maintained that had or has an agenda. Jean Manco believed it wholeheartedly. We had heated debates about it. I just thought she was too dogmatic about it, ignoring the archaeology completely in favor of believing Herodotus' version of events in preference to those of other ancient historians. She generally gave too much credence to these "historians", which they weren't really, who were just recounting myths of things which happened long before their time. 

I myself stated more than once that it was possible that a small elite might have come from Asia Minor in the first millennium BC, but it was just that: a possibility. Certainly, there was no sign of a folk migration sufficient in size to have a real effect on the genome. There was just too much against it, with the archaeology first and foremost: there was and is absolutely no sign of a mass invasion, or destroyed settlements etc., just a gradual change in the culture as contact increased with the east. There was also the fact that the high levels of J2a are in the east, closer to the Balkans, not Toscana; that there is so much R1b in Toscana; that Greece, for example, has even more "West Asian" according to the old calculators based on modern populations which people loved to use; that there definitely seemed to be a south/north cline in terms of this ancestry etc. I specifically asked rhetorically many times if the Lydians went not just to Toscana but to Albania, Greece, Sicily, Calabria, Puglia, Campania and the Marche as well. I could go on, but you probably know all of this. 

As for those with an agenda, I know they have one partly because I know who they are and what their motivations are. They were quite open about their ideas in the past, although they aren't now. One, Polako, is a Slavic/Nordic racist of long standing, member for years, and prolific poster at horrifically racist sites who, while such a member, posted numerous times highly anti-semitic content and highly racist comments about Southern Italians, calling them mongrels and non-Europeans because they had "too much" of the "Near Eastern" ancestry he so disdained. It's always amazed me that South Asians like Razib Khan could stomach him. I guess they didn't see the posts where he called "them" mongrels too.

As for Sikeliot, I have it in personal PMs from him that his father was Sicilian and rejected his son for his sexual orientation, as well as disdaining his Islander Portuguese mother for her African ancestry. Sikeliot has now convinced people that he is just a "fan" of Levantine and Anatolian ancestry. That couldn't be further from the truth. For years he masqueraded as "Portuguese Princess" (and under other sock accounts) at theapricity, and under other sock accounts here and elsewhere, even at citydata, and his only mission was to prove the Portuguese were "superior" to Sicilians and Southern Italians because they had less "Levantine" and/or Anatolian ancestry. How people don't know the latter is beyond me. 

Principe is one of those Southern Italian Americans or Southern Italian Canadians, if he isn't just another one of Sikeliot's socks, rare but present, who like to believe they're Jewish. A Calabrian woman is sort of famous for this, actually converted and became a rabbi, and now lives in Italy. It takes all kinds, I guess. In his case it's all supposedly because he thinks his ydna is Jewish. Maybe it is. I have no doubt some Jews in southern Italy converted and tried to blend into the background to escape expulsion. It happened in Portugal and Spain, why not in Sicily and Southern Italy? That doesn't make you Jewish or Levantine. For crying out loud, I carry an mtDna from the European hunter-gatherers, no doubt via steppe people who came into Italy. Does that mean I should identify with them, tout all things hunter-gatherer and steppe just for that reason, try to get accepted by some far right group? It's completely ridiculous. We are what our autosomal inheritance, 98% of our genome, and culture make us. Anything else is as ridiculous as Elizabeth Warren claiming to be Amerindian because she carries 2% of that ancestry.

There are way too many people in this hobby who just aren't stable mentally, or are just out and out racists, and for whatever reason, partly, I'm sure, because we are living proof that "excellence", and achievement, and contribution to European civilization doesn't depend on high levels of WHG and steppe, and also probably because most of us don't give a **** about whether we have more "West Asian" or "Levantine" than northerners. I certainly don't, and I certainly don't disdain that ancestry. Would I have married someone more than half Calabrian if I did?

I could go on, but I won't. These are what could be called impeachable witnesses. Certain behaviors call people's veracity into question.

They're all very quiet about their motivations now, but I've been around for a long time, and I know who they are and what motivates them, and I see how they ignore any facts that don't fit into their "explanation" of things. Nothing that they say should be taken at face value. You have to check every statement of supposed "fact" because some of them, especially someone like Polako, and on every topic, think absolutely nothing of outright lying, misrepresenting the findings of academic papers, or manipulating the data. 

I've spent my professional life pinning liars to the wall and exposing them, and I'm not going to do any different when the topic is genetics.

----------


## Cpluskx

@Angela But Etruscans were very sophisticated / advanced people and had considerable influence on Romans. I mean from their perspective you can understand why would they want Italians to have more Arab ancestry, so that they could call them non-European/white etc. But why would these Nord-Eastern supremacists would like Etruscans to be Near Eastern? Isn't Etruscans being closer to the steppe better for their ideology? Then in their mind they can claim Romans' successes too. 

On Razib Khan, he used to write on Unz along with Jared Taylor etc. I think he is Republican too. I find it a little weird, i don't think most republicans would have positive views about South Asians, even though they are the richest/most educated group in US. Maybe he thinks deeper than me, i don't know.

----------


## Salento

Politics and Genetics don’t match.

It’s called Cultural Appropriation, but I call it Cultural Misappropriation.

... and don't assume that all Republicans are racist !!!

Republicans come in all sizes shapes and colors!

----------


## Angela

> @Angela But Etruscans were very sophisticated / advanced people and had considerable influence on Romans. I mean from their perspective you can understand why would they want Italians to have more Arab ancestry, so that they could call them non-European/white etc. But why would these Nord-Eastern supremacists would like Etruscans to be Near Eastern? Isn't Etruscans being closer to the steppe better for their ideology? Then in their mind they can claim Romans' successes too. 
> 
> On Razib Khan, he used to write on Unz along with Jared Taylor etc. I think he is Republican too. I find it a little weird, i don't think most republicans would have positive views about South Asians, even though they are the richest/most educated group in US. Maybe he thinks deeper than me, i don't know.


The point is that these people don't care and have never cared about the sophistication and achievements of certain ancient civilizations. Shouldn't it have been obvious to anyone with two brain cells who managed to graduate even from just middle school that the Near East was "civilized" long before any "European" civilization? Where did farming start, or animal husbandry, or real cities, or metallurgy, or writing and on and on? 

They don't care. All that matters is that these people to their minds are the "other", dark foreigners whom they can't, to this day, admit form part of their heritage too. Has Polako ever talked about the ANF in Poles? He can't even admit that the "Caucasus" half of the Yamnaya, and which is also present in Corded Ware, is Near Eastern in origin. The fact that these people might have gone onto the steppe in the Eneolithic instead of the Bronze Age is supposed to be all that matters, not their genetic make-up. He wants everyone to forget or ignore that the difference between the "CHG" and Iran Neolithic/Chalcolithic of which there is more in Italians and some Balkanites is laughably small. He's just pathetic. 

These people made a fetish not of literate, sophisticated cultures, but of hunter-gatherers living off fish and half raw meat while living in yurts. Or, they envisioned themselves as blonde, wild, he-men, raiding on horseback, killing "inferior" dark males and stealing their women. That's the kind of crap that they used to openly say. I have some beautiful examples from Polako talking about blonde cow-boys of the steppe, an anachronism if I ever saw one, and others getting misty eyed about the great old days when they roamed the land hunting and fishing and all that new-fangled "civilization" was far away, or almost weeping when the saw the "blondes" of Central Asia.

When advanced civilizations are on European soil they have indeed tried to "claim" them. That's what's behind all the old "the ancient Greeks and Romans were Nordic people" nonsense. That's why there are thousands, maybe tens of thousands of idiotic posts on the internet about how "Nordic" they looked, how blonde and blue eyed they were. Meanwhile, even Central European looking ancient Greeks and Romans are by no means the norm, nor even, by a long shot, the majority.

With all the murals we have of the Etruscans they couldn't claim that. Plus, there was the Herodotus story. So, that narrative just became a convenient way to support their exaggerated ideas about Italian genetic history.

This is what I mean:





Trust me, if the murals showed blonde people, they would have called Herodotus a quack.

What they ignored, of course, but now suddenly seem to have discovered is that some of the Etruscans did seem to have lighter hair. They also never gave credence to the well-known fact that artistic representations are not always reliable in terms of the phenotype of the people of the locale. A lot of those artists were Greek, there was a fad for Greek art, and the Etruscans wanted to associate themselves with the advanced civilizations of the east.

Never expect consistency from people with an agenda. Instead of following the money, you have to follow the agenda. :)

I assure you that if it turns out that the Etruscans, but especially the Etruscan elite, were much more "northern" than thought, these people will suddenly discover what a "cool" culture they had, how superior they were, etc.


As for the "Republican" thing, that has absolutely nothing to do with the interpretation of genetics. Khan used to be very libertarian. Libertarianism has absolutely nothing to do with racism. I have my own libertarian leanings to a degree, and I haven't voted Democrat for a very, very, long time, and I absolutely am not a racist of any kind. You've been listening to too much "leftist-progressive" propaganda where they are trying to brainwash everyone into equating conservatism or even just being moderate, which is basically what I am, with racism and fascism.

There is no difference, you know, in terms of human rights abuses, between communism and fascism. They're just too sides of the same coin.

----------


## Cpluskx

Yeah, i think now they will slowly start to claim Etruscans. But i continue to disagree with you on the republicans. Core republicans would just like to stop immigration from South Asia. I think it should be kind of weird knowing that and voting for them if you are South Asian. That's just my opinion. (I am not a progressive btw i don't have any ideology)

----------


## Salento

Republicans prefer an immigration policy based on merit, no matter where they come from.

gone off-topic, sorry, I Stop.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> Now it appears that of the strictly Etruscan samples, four low quality ones are R-M269, one high quality one is R-U152, and one is I1. 
> 
> Yes, indeed, if true, very Asia Minor like elites! :)
> 
> There is a reason, as Pax has been saying since FOREVER, that there is so much R1b in Toscana.



Personally, I prefer to wait for the publication of the studies. Rumors may be fake, too.





> This is what I mean:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trust me, if the murals showed blonde people, they would have called Herodotus a quack.



I obviously agree with you. 

As you know these frescoes from southern Etruria were made during the Orientalizing period and reflect the artistic taste of that precise period and often they were also painted by foreign artists. Many etruscologists have repeatedly said, not least Nancy Thomson de Grummond, that they are not realistic portraits and that they cannot be taken as evidence of anything.

The wrong Nordicist reading of these frescoes led over time in the forums even to the falsification of some images. The image below is also from an Etruscan tomb in southern Etruria. Both dancers are part of the same fresco, but the one with the lightest hair becomes "Latin", when of course there's no evidence of it.

Nordicism, but this applies also to certain exasperated forms of Orientalism, always manipulates the alleged evidence.

----------


## Angela

> Personally, I prefer to wait for the publication of the studies. Rumors may be fake, too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I obviously agree with you. 
> 
> As you know these frescoes from southern Etruria were made during the Orientalizing period and reflect the artistic taste of that precise period and often they were also painted by foreign artists. Many etruscologists have repeatedly said, not least Nancy Thomson de Grummond, that they are not realistic portraits and that they cannot be taken as evidence of anything.
> ...


I, in turn, agree with you. That's why I always say, "if true". Sometimes I even say *IF*, true, and it's a* BIG* *if*", to drive the point home. :)

I wouldn't, for example, be shocked if some J2 does show up among them. That haplogroup and ancestry from the east had been filtering into Italy for a long time.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> Angela, why do you think there is an agenda behind Etruscans from Anatolia hypothesis?


Of course there's alywas an agenda behind this. Just see how many people talk about Etruscans in the forums without ever having read anything and are focused only on the origins. The "agenda" starts with the ancient Greek writers who obviously had a different mindset from us and what they wrote cannot be judged by the standards of our time. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the Greek authors were tr-olls. Many scholars, who have studied the Etruscans in depth, explain the Greek authors do not always report historical facts, and in the case of the theories about the Etruscans, these theories are the result of how the Greeks "see" the Etruscans in a specific historical moment and in a specific Greek context. The oldest Greek sources that mention the Etruscans do not report an eastern origin of the Etruscans. Then it was only from the 5th century B.C. that the Greek authors began to discuss about the origins of the Etruscans, which coincides roughly with the end of the period of the Etruscan Kings of Rome, when the Etruscans are perhaps the most powerful civilization in Italy. When Greek authors claim that the Etruscans come from Lydia in Anatolia (which is broadly speaking Hellenized peripheral world) and or from Thessaly in Greece, Greek authors want to connect, even peripherally, the Etruscans to themselves. When, on the other hand, they claim that the Etruscans are autochthonous, they want to distance the Etruscans from the Greeks (in fact in the latter case they connect instead the Romans with themselves). 

The Anatolia hypothesis, as in Herodotus' text, is not believed true by etruscologists. For linguistic, archaeological and historical reasons, there is nothing that can support a link between Etruscans and the Lydians, who spoke an Indo-European language closer to Greek and or Latin than to the Etruscan language. Usually it is non-Etruscologists or Indo-Europeanists who push this theory.

It is necessary to reiterate a starting assumption at this point: language and genetics in southern Europe are not necessarily the same thing between the end of the Bronze Age and the beginning of the Iron Age, when historical ethnos are going to be formed. Language and genetics are maybe the same long before this period. So it is not surprising at all that in this period people who spoke a pre-Indo-European language and people who spoke a Indo-European language were similar genetically. A similar situation also existed in the Iberian peninsula, where both Indo-European and pre-Indo-European languages ​​are documented in this same period.

Having said this, the origin of the Etruscan language is obviously still not entirely clear. Today we know that a similar and connected language has existed in the Alps of northern Italy, the Rhaetian language. Etruscan and Rhaetian together with the language attested in the few inscriptions of Lemnos are part of a hypothetical pre-Indo-European linguistic family. Some people say that another language spoken in the Alps of northern Italy, the Camunic language, may also be part of this linguistic family. The linguists are still working here. 





> @Angela *But Etruscans were very sophisticated* / advanced people and had considerable influence on Romans. I mean from their perspective you can understand why would they want Italians to have more Arab ancestry, so that they could call them non-European/white etc. But why would these Nord-Eastern supremacists would like Etruscans to be Near Eastern? Isn't Etruscans being closer to the steppe better for their ideology? Then in their mind they can claim Romans' successes too. .


Etruscans were very sophisticated but it's only true from a certain time onwards and this has nothing to do with the origin of the Etruscans but is due to the contact with the Greeks and the Orientalizing period, the spread in southern Europe of art, culture and even religious elements from the ancient Near East. The Greeks themselves are culturally indebted to the cultures of the Ancient Near East.

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

----------


## Tutkun Arnaut

> Of course there's alywas an agenda behind this. Just see how many people talk about Etruscans in the forums without ever having read anything and are focused only on the origins. The "agenda" starts with the ancient Greek writers who obviously had a different mindset from us and what they write cannot be judged by the standards of our time. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the Greek authors were tr-olls. Many scholars, who have studied the Etruscans in depth, explain the Greek authors do not always report historical facts, and in the case of the theories about the Etruscans, these theories are the result of how the Greeks "see" the Etruscans in a specific historical moment and in a specific Greek context. When Greek authors claim that the Etruscans come from Lydia in Anatolia (which is broadly speaking Hellenized peripheral world) and or from Thessaly in Greece, Greek authors want to connect, even peripherally, the Etruscans to themselves. When, on the other hand, they claim that the Etruscans are autochthonous, they want to distance the Etruscans from the Greeks (in fact in the latter case they connect instead the Romans with themselves). 
> 
> The Anatolia hypothesis, as in Herodotus' text, is not believed true by etruscologists. For linguistic, archaeological and historical reasons, there is nothing that can support a link between Etruscans and the Lydians, who spoke an Indo-European language closer to Greek and or Latin than to the Etruscan language. Usually it is non-Etruscologists or Indo-Europeanists who push this theory.
> 
> It is necessary to reiterate a starting assumption at this point: language and genetics in southern Europe are not necessarily the same thing between the end of the Bronze Age and the beginning of the Iron Age, when historical ethnos are going to be formed. Language and genetics are the same long before this period. So it is not surprising at all that in this period people who spoke a pre-Indo-European language and people who spoke a Indo-European language were similar genetically. A similar situation also existed in the Iberian peninsula, where both Indo-European and pre-Indo-European languages ​​are documented in this same period.
> 
> Having said this, the origin of the Etruscan language is obviously still not entirely clear. Today we know that a similar and connected language has existed in the Alps of northern Italy, the Rhaetian language. Etruscan and Rhaetian together with the language attested in the few inscriptions of Lemnos are part of a hypothetical pre-Indo-European linguistic family. Some people say that another language spoken in the Alps of northern Italy, the Camunic language, may also be part of this linguistic family. The linguists are still working here. 
> 
> 
> ...


The Greeks themselves are culturally indebted to the cultures of the Ancient Near East.

Absolutely true! Greeks did to near east cultures what Romans did to Greek culture! They embraced those achievements and advanced them!
let say:
sea going ships were Arab invention 
alphabet an Egyptian invention
sculpting n Egyptian invention
Anatomy Egyptian inventionAlgebra Arab invention
Literature, trade Babylonian invention
And list going on.....
I always believed that Etruscans were an early farmer stratum population. So they could have genetic similarities with Greeks or Turks. On the other side most Greeks and Albanians are Bronx age population. The contact of Greeks and Etruscans could have happened in sicily

----------


## Pax Augusta

> Absolutely true! Greeks did to near east cultures what Romans did to Greek culture! They embraced those achievements and advanced them!
> 
> 
> I always believed that Etruscans were an early farmer stratum population. So they could have genetic similarities with Greeks or Turks. On the other side most Greeks and Albanians are Bronx age population. The contact of Greeks and Etruscans could have happened in sicily


Albanians and almost all southern European have no less farmer ancestry than Greeks and Italians. Modern Turks are extremely variable, since they have assimilated over centuries everything from the Balkans, the Slavs and the Middle East. 

The contact between Greeks and Etruscans happened in Campania (Pithecusa, Cuma), where both Greeks and Etruscans had colonies.

----------


## Silesian

> As for those with an agenda.......


There are two sides that make up a coin; so there are two sides to a story. 
Do you think if we were to get Sara's side of the story of how her brother/husband pimped her out to two kings [Pharaoh's harem]as his sister to save his own skin; and or Isaac calling Rebekah his wife, and or Abraham's uncle Lot getting drunk and raping his two daughters in a cave would change your perspective of Abraham,Lot, Isaac ?

Sometimes we don't know the full story/reason why people post silly things if it is about an agenda or something deeper.

----------


## Angela

> There are two sides that make up a coin; so there are two sides to a story. 
> Do you think if we were to get Sara's side of the story of how her brother/husband pimped her out to two kings [Pharaoh's harem]as his sister to save his own skin; and or Isaac calling Rebekah his wife, and or Abraham's uncle Lot getting drunk and raping his two daughters in a cave would change your perspective of Abraham,Lot, Isaac ?
> 
> Sometimes we don't know the full story/reason why people post silly things if it is about an agenda or something deeper.


Silesian, you're talking about the whys of behavior. If I'm interpreting you correctly, you're saying there may be more behind people's actions than is apparent on the surface. 

That's very true, but I can also tell you that people spin the most incredible falsehoods about their parents, spouses, friends, co-workers and on and on in order to put themselves and their own behavior in a better light. Never believe anyone when they're trying to pin the blame for their bad behavior on someone else. Not only is it often a lie, but it doesn't excuse anything. Even revenge against an individual human being who has harmed you is wrong. To denigrate a whole large subset of the human race for something done to one personally would still be evil. A lot of the darkness in human beings is just there, innate; bad parenting doesn't necessarily make a criminal. Otherwise, there would be a hell of a lot more criminals.

Plus, while motivations can in some cases help you understand "why" people do the things they do, in others you can't ever really understand the motivations even when you have heard everyone's version of the events. The human psyche is still a mystery. (I almost said "soul".) If anyone tells you they completely understand why some people become serial killers, or pedophiles, or torturers, or batterers/rapists and on and on they're either lying or they don't know what they're talking about. I'm not equating the kind of behavior we're discussing with those aberrations, but there is definitely something wrong with some posters on genetics sites, and dishonesty and egomania is only the tip of the iceberg. 

Plus, you can't do anything about whatever happened to them in the past. You can't fix people's bad brain wiring or chemistry, or go back and make all their bad experiences good ones. All you can do is protect whom and what you can by exposing bad behavior, warning people about the perpetrators of it, and, where you can, removing them from situations where they can cause harm.

----------


## davef

What really turns me red is when these t-rolls on anthro forums either get some sort of amnesia when shown data from reputable journals and carry on with their ideas or when they play anthro forum chess and say things like "well there's not enough samples" (when there are ), "the scientists are politically motivated", "those so called Etruscans are only Etruscan culturally, not genetically", or my favorite: "just you wait and see, as more burial sites are uncovered, there will be more samples that are genetically X"

----------


## Silesian

What you say is true in many respects. Many of us come from different backgrounds. For example I was raised in a cult as my wife; and forbidden to go to University with the penalty of having my friends and family never speaking to me again. So my perspective on peoples [outright criminals, like for example Paul Bernardo or Clifford Olsen as Canadian examples] behavior is different but similar to yours. My parents [ from the region of Poland/Germany/Prussia ]who were staunch catholic/protestants converted to a cult after surviving WW2 had a different perspective after witnessing first hand the horrors of human behavior. I will spare you the details of their hardship, however I still remember my mother digging in the garbage after I finished a half eaten sandwich scolding me for wasting food,saying I never new what it was like to be starving. Poles were treated very bad by Germans, some Poles had their surnames changed to make them sound more German[like ours]; it's not until you take a genetic test and the revelations that come with it that you can see all the people who you are related to, be it Polish,German,Italian, Czech, Lithunanian, etc.....Some Polish even have small amounts of Jewish ancestry, although you would never know by the way they act or post online. Sometimes the more we learn about a situation the more we grow in our understanding.

----------


## Salento

> What really turns me red is when these t-rolls on anthro forums either get some sort of amnesia when shown data from reputable journals and carry on with their ideas or when they play anthro forum chess and say things like "well there's not enough samples" (when there are ), "the scientists are politically motivated", "those so called Etruscans are only Etruscan culturally, not genetically", or my favorite: "just you wait and see, as more burial sites are uncovered, there will be more samples that are genetically X"


They’re purposely selective, and they omit or doubt the “Inconvenient Truth”.

----------


## Angela

> What you say is true in many respects. Many of us come from different backgrounds. For example I was raised in a cult as my wife; and forbidden to go to University with the penalty of having my friends and family never speaking to me again. So my perspective on peoples [outright criminals, like for example Paul Bernardo or Clifford Olsen as Canadian examples] behavior is different but similar to yours. My parents [ from the region of Poland/Germany/Prussia ]who were staunch catholic/protestants converted to a cult after surviving WW2 had a different perspective after witnessing first hand the horrors of human behavior. I will spare you the details of their hardship, however I still remember my mother digging in the garbage after I finished a half eaten sandwich scolding me for wasting food,saying I never new what it was like to be starving. Poles were treated very bad by Germans, some Poles had their surnames changed to make them sound more German[like ours]; it's not until you take a genetic test and the revelations that come with it that you can see all the people who you are related to, be it Polish,German,Italian, Czech, Lithunanian, etc.....Some Polish even have small amounts of Jewish ancestry, although you would never know by the way they act or post online. Sometimes the more we learn about a situation the more we grow in our understanding.


Sometimes, for those who are capable of it, hardship leads to great insight and understanding. You sound like one of those people. Thank you for sharing it with us.

----------


## Angela

I knew the mental midgets at anthrogenica would try to retaliate for me calling them out, but I honestly didn't think they'd be so lame about it.

All these pronouncements about whether "Italy" or "Italians" exist before we have any halfway complete knowledge about Italian ethnogenesis is completely absurd. 

More importantly, as if any "pure" ethnicity exists anywhere, or as if there aren't clines in lots of countries. 

It's laughable.

Look at our fake Jew: 


"As do I it goes with out saying that I feel a connection to ancient Israel, the Phoenicians and Carthaginians (hence my avatar being Hannibal Barca)."

I'm now absolutely convinced he's just a Sikeliot sock. Nobody else could be this crazy or know so little about how Italians actually think and feel about these things. 

Going by this standard I should feel a connection with EHG people sitting in their yurts eating half raw meat. I carry their mtdna after all. What idiots.

Or how about our fake Sicilian (half at most):


" Originally Posted by *Sikeliot*I would also say I identify more with ancient Greece rather than Rome and the primary reason for this is that Romans didn't go to Greece to experience and borrow Greek culture, they encountered it in southern Italy. Southern Italy was absolutely necessary for the development of Roman culture and identity, by virtue of its Greek culture.

Though obviously with some family from right around Palermo as well, I also admire the Phoenicians.






Sure you do, Sikeliot. That's why you spent years on the apricity, city data and here trying to prove Sicilians were inferior to the Portuguese. What's the matter, do you want to forget your years as "Portuguese Princess"?

I'm going to treat this parading of genetic malpractice the way it deserves: I'm going to ignore it.

As for the concept of Italy as a defined geographic space, and Italians as a group, I will address it, but only because I am discussing it in a thread I am preparing about Northern Italy in the Roman era. What even people with Italian citizenship don't know about their own history is a disgrace. They should yank it away from all of them.

----------


## Salento

*I call for Unity!*

_Italy is wearing the Helmet of Scipio who defeated Hannibal !!!_
_
from the Song of the Italians
_
... Italy has woken, Bound Scipio's helmet Upon her head...

... From the Alps to Sicily, Legnano is everywhere; ...
....

*remember this!*

----------


## Angela

> *I call for Unity!*
> 
> _Italy is wearing the Helmet of Scipio who defeated Hannibal !!!_
> _
> from the Song of the Italians
> _
> ... Italy has woken, Bound Scipio's helmet Upon her head...
> 
> ... From the Alps to Sicily, Legnano is everywhere; ...
> ....


They don't even know who the hell Scipio was, or Legnano. 

Let all the socks talk to each other. 

They're not Italians; they're fakes, phonies, and frauds, wannabes, or suffering from a massive inferiority complex about their own origins, and our history, our achievements, our very existence, is a threat to their perverted ideologies. 

I shouldn't let such know-nothings cause me to lose my temper, but we are who we are, all of us.

----------


## Angela

This is how it should be sung! :)




A reminder even to me that not all Italians are gracile. :) Some of these guys definitely have more than the average amount of Neanderthal. 

It has to be said that the soccer players are better looking.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzmzQnOelH0

----------


## lynxbythetv

who runs eurogenes ?

Sent from my SM-G977B using Tapatalk

----------


## Salento

_What’s in a Name:_

Calabria was called Italy, so the original Italians are the Calabresi.

... Italia, the ancient name of the Italian peninsula, which is also eponymous of the modern republic, originally applied only to a part of what is now Southern Italy ...

... during the reign of Augustus, at the end of the 1st century BC, the term was expanded to cover the entire peninsula until the Alps ...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_of_Italy#Etymology

----------


## Salento

Why do I know that Calabria was called Italy?

Because: Salento was called Calabria :) 

... the name Calabria was originally given to the Adriatic coast of the Salento peninsula in Apulia ...

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

----------


## kingjohn

> This is how it should be sung! :)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A reminder even to me that not all Italians are gracile. :) Some of these guys definitely have more than the average amount of Neanderthal. 
> 
> It has to be said that the soccer players are better looking.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzmzQnOelH0


rugby players naturally should be more robust and muscular than footballers thats it is rare to find a italian rugby player who look 
like totti ( which when i think on romans i see his face) :)

----------


## Angela

> rugby players naturally should be more robust and muscular than footballers thats it is rare to find a italian rugby player who look 
> like totti ( which when i think on romans i see his face) :)


Well, I don't think Totti is particularly "gracile Med" looking either, but perhaps not like a rugby player. How much that "rugby" look is due to steroids is an open question, imo.



Nor is Buffon "gracile". Takes after his Lunigianese mother. :)




Diversity, diversity...

One of my grandmothers was built like that. She could knock her sons flying when they were grown men, and did, once to my forty something year old father when she thought he stayed out too late celebrating a winning bid with his friends. "A decent man comes home to his family at a decent hour." WHACK! :)

Perhaps more representative? Click only if you don't mind seeing men in their undies.
http://whygo-eur.s3.amazonaws.com/ww.../dgad_2010.jpg

The best body among them, bar none. Cannavaro...just gorgeous in every way. Napoli produces more than its fair share of beautiful people.
https://static.flickr.com/73/180416708_4e5a918ba9_o.jpg

----------


## kingjohn

tell you the truth i am no expert in this field of anthropology and classifications 
there are many "experts" in this field in apricity or so do they think  lol .....  :Laughing: 
regards
adam 

p.s
not gay or something generally speaking italian man are good looking

----------


## Salento

_K36 Similarity could match some of the Romans in the leaked PCA;
_


_

Pre Imperial Roman
_


_Imperial+ Roman
_


https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/34142-Tool-for-K36-your-similarities-rates-on-maps/page6 :)

----------


## halfalp

> I don't know for sure but I don't think so. The Moots paper, from the little information I have, is centered only on the environs of Rome itself, and doesn't include Etruscans. I think the PCA may be from the paper that I think is coming from Stanford. 
> 
> My point throughout this discussion has been that people want to talk about what "Romans" were or were not like without defining what they mean by "Roman". I keep trying to get through to them that it has a different meaning through time, and applies to people from different genetic clusters through time. By the end of the Empire practically everyone within its borders would have considered themselves "Romans". The Byzantines considered themselves "Romans" for centuries after that. At what point does the term become meaningless for population genetics purposes, and especially as concerns Italian genetics?
> 
> In terms of Republican Era Romans I would be quite surprised if the Republican Era "Romans" were "Aegean" like. I would expect them to be like other members of the Latin League and related groups, which is NOT to say that they were "Gaulish" like. I don't expect even northern Italians of the Republican period to be the same as the Gauls, of, well, Gaul. :) 
> 
> I wouldn't be at all surprised if inhabitants of many parts of southern Italy were "Aegean like" already during the Roman Republican Era period. I would expect Imperial Era Italians, which is the more appropriate term, in my opinion, even in the northern reaches of the peninsula, to be different from what they were like during the Republic, but the question is, how different? Did the cline still exist, even if less defined? Were the "Collegno" Italians of the late Empire the norm or was there variation? Although even there, not all were "Aegean" like. I'm extremely close to one, and I am not "Aegean" like. 
> 
> I would remind people that the "leaks", if accurate, say that in Republican Rome the "Romans" were split into two groups, one more "northern" Italian like, and one more "southern" Italian like. Note that none of them are Germanic like. So much for much of 19th and early 20th century anthropology. None plotted with Central Italians. If the papers show I'm on the wrong track, fine. I have no problem with being "slightly" wrong. :)
> ...


 I can tell you a load of Swiss guys without any Italian ancestry do look like this, myself included. Even some French and British peoples do look like this. I call it the Alpine look, with those specific receding hairs, that you can brush from behind to the front. I think the Celtic Phenotype popularized is kinda overrated. In strong Eastern Hallstatt and La Tène compounds physical type was probably more leading towards Balkans and in Western compounds toward Alpine ones.

----------


## dosas

> Silesian, you're talking about the whys of behavior. If I'm interpreting you correctly, you're saying there may be more behind people's actions than is apparent on the surface.


I am really thankful of your posts because they helped my understanding of the evolution of the enthusiast forum crowd and confirm some of my own suspicions about certain posters and websites.

There are alot of enthusiast websites on genetics with insidious agendas behind them, in my opinion (like openly ultra-racist ones), and a lot of their posters actively masquerading as academics while they manipulate data in order to push the outcomes that fit their own narrative.

On one of those websites, in fact the most popular one (I am not mentioning it, I don't want to advertise, but you know which one it is) an air of academic discourse is actively mantained while, in fact, there is nothing of the sort. For example, on that website, the calculators and spreadsheets maintained by the aforementioned eastern european fellow are used as a gospel, not to be challenged by any means, and people (like me) who dare to question the validity of the methodology and sampling of the eurogene dogma are met with passive-agressive irony and disdain.

The active posters there often misuse and abuse the naming of samples in order to push their own version of history and reality. An example I can give, without it being the only one or even a representative one, is mislabeling medieval and iron age samples as 'Ancient Macedonian', even though there is no such sample published to my knowledge by any academic institution, in order to push a certain narrative about the history of the southeastern parts of the Balkans. When met with questions about the validity of such naming practices, the authors either laugh it off saying that their spreadsheets and calculators are 'just for fun' or simply ignored.

There are too many examples like this to give, but the general concept that emerges, in my eyes, is perfectly in-tune with the rise of modern-day ultra-right/alt-right nationalism and racism in Central/Eastern Europe and elsewhere, and its aggression towards the people of the so-called Near East/Levant. Any connection of their warped perception of what entails to be European must be cleansed by any influence, genetic or otherwise, from the East, the 'other', the 'invader'. Whether this invader is identified as CHG genes, Natufian genes, or w/e else, depends heavily on each poster.

But the narrative remains the same.

----------


## Salento

> I can tell you a load of Swiss guys without any Italian ancestry do look like this, myself included. Even some French and British peoples do look like this. I call it the Alpine look, with those specific receding hairs, that you can brush from behind to the front. I think the Celtic Phenotype popularized is kinda overrated. In strong Eastern Hallstatt and La Tène compounds physical type was probably more leading towards Balkans and in Western compounds toward Alpine ones.


There’s a noticeable difference between the Swiss themselves.

It's also possible that those guys have some Italian ancestors, but they don’t know it.

(receding hair transcend ethnicity :)

----------


## halfalp

> There’s a noticeable difference between the Swiss themselves.
> 
> It's also possible that those guys have some Italian ancestors, but they don’t know it.
> 
> (receding hair transcend ethnicity :)


It's not about ancestry or ethnicity, it is about founding leaks in phenotypes. Its like when you look at Charlie Hunnam and you know his phenotype are likely of Anglo-Saxon or Vikings origin without knowing his ancestry wich could tell something else. Remember that Slonk Hill guy reconstructed from south england? This guy clearly looks of Alpine origin, he has this alpine-dinaric that differentiate him from what a local Bell Beaker phenotype would look like at this time. And Italians mainly northern, Swiss, French people have a continuum in some phenotypical aspects alongside southern germans and austrians. All the classical depictions of romans patricians shows an alpine guy, not a mediterranean one. There is a kind of a continuum. It's like a relic of ancient times, of ancient migrations, dont know what or when, but there is a thing. Like if i take myself, i'm R1b-U152 ( very italian right? ), everybody tells me i look like those classical roman sculptures, but my ancestry would show more dna linked to british islands than to italy. It's that old thing that link some of us europeans without a direct common origin or ancestry.

----------


## Ailchu

> There are too many examples like this to give, but the general concept that emerges, in my eyes, is perfectly in-tune with the rise of modern-day ultra-right/alt-right nationalism and racism in Central/Eastern Europe and elsewhere
> .


"elsewhere". we aren't going to play victim here are we? and racism stays racism no matter against what kind of people or admixtures the hate goes.

----------


## halfalp

> I am really thankful of your posts because they helped my understanding of the evolution of the enthusiast forum crowd and confirm some of my own suspicions about certain posters and websites.
> 
> There are alot of enthusiast websites on genetics with insidious agendas behind them, in my opinion (like openly ultra-racist ones), and a lot of their posters actively masquerading as academics while they manipulate data in order to push the outcomes that fit their own narrative.
> 
> On one of those websites, in fact the most popular one (I am not mentioning it, I don't want to advertise, but you know which one it is) an air of academic discourse is actively mantained while, in fact, there is nothing of the sort. For example, on that website, the calculators and spreadsheets maintained by the aforementioned eastern european fellow are used as a gospel, not to be challenged by any means, and people (like me) who dare to question the validity of the methodology and sampling of the eurogene dogma are met with passive-agressive irony and disdain.
> 
> The active posters there often misuse and abuse the naming of samples in order to push their own version of history and reality. An example I can give, without it being the only one or even a representative one, is mislabeling medieval and iron age samples as 'Ancient Macedonian', even though there is no such sample published to my knowledge by any academic institution, in order to push a certain narrative about the history of the southeastern parts of the Balkans. When met with questions about the validity of such naming practices, the authors either laugh it off saying that their spreadsheets and calculators are 'just for fun' or simply ignored.
> 
> *There are too many examples like this to give, but the general concept that emerges, in my eyes, is perfectly in-tune with the rise of modern-day ultra-right/alt-right nationalism and racism in Central/Eastern Europe and elsewhere, and its aggression towards the people of the so-called Near East/Levant. Any connection of their warped perception of what entails to be European must be cleansed by any influence, genetic or otherwise, from the East, the 'other', the 'invader'. Whether this invader is identified as CHG genes, Natufian genes, or w/e else, depends heavily on each poster.*
> ...


Dont want to do the devil's advocat, but do you have exemples? European Far-Rights is targeting mostly Islam as a religion wich cannot enter in any way into the option of Racism but in Critical Thinking and not Middle-Easterners has a CHG or Natufian population. 

I think you mingle two things here, some europeans fears of their traditional lifestyle being targeted from outsider cultures wich is legitimate. To some kind of internet racialism were people are debating who is the master race and such. 

Because i never saw actual far right politicians actually talk about Yamnaya, Indo-Europeans, CHG or i dont know what else. Your point sounds confusing and just tied to Liberalism without any point to make.

----------


## Ailchu

> European Far-Rights is targeting mostly Islam as a religion wich cannot enter in any way into the option of Racism but in Critical Thinking and not Middle-Easterners has a CHG or Natufian population.


that might be the case for the politicians (i somehow doubt that), but i'm sure many of the people who voted and thus helped this rise of the far-right have something against migrants in general not really because they are muslims. now if that is only tied to racism, i don't know but it certainly is part of it.

----------


## dosas

> "elsewhere". we aren't going to play victim here are we? and racism stays racism no matter against what kind of people or admixtures the hate goes.


Sorry, your tone reeks of white supremacist apologist rationale. Not all racism is the same, like for example institutionalized racism in the form of slavery and handicapped economic and political liberties on minorities or other groups of ethnic origin or "color" is not the same as a swiss italian, for example, on the internet getting his feelings hurt by some other poster.

And I am not playing victim, even up until recently (and certainly an ongoing theme on anthro-forums) is the Greek ethnicity being targeted as 'non-European' enough (like that's even an issue for most Greeks) for Central/West European standards (or proponents of other ideologies like Pan-Slavism) due to admixture of the Greek population with other groups deemed as not 'white-enough'. Just take a look at the racist attacks of the German popular press against the Greek people, in the recent 'crisis' related events, something that other PIIGS countries (how imaginative and quaint) did not have to deal with, to this extent at least.

Your e-outrage is misplaced and contrived, 'friend'. Angela's posts were spot on and very informative.

----------


## dosas

> Dont want to do the devil's advocat, but do you have exemples? European Far-Rights is targeting mostly Islam as a religion wich cannot enter in any way into the option of Racism but in Critical Thinking and not Middle-Easterners has a CHG or Natufian population. 
> 
> I think you mingle two things here, some europeans fears of their traditional lifestyle being targeted from outsider cultures wich is legitimate. To some kind of internet racialism were people are debating who is the master race and such. 
> 
> Because i never saw actual far right politicians actually talk about Yamnaya, Indo-Europeans, CHG or i dont know what else. Your point sounds confusing and just tied to Liberalism without any point to make.


Yeah, let's not play dumb, most people in the alt/extreme-far right don't know what CHG/Natufian admixture is, but proponents of such ideologies on forums like this one certainly do, and in the past, as Angela has attested before, have lost their shit when they discovered that their blue eyed/blond hair aryans had significant CHG admixture, for example.

----------


## Ailchu

> Sorry, your tone reeks of white supremacist apologist rationale. Not all racism is the same, like for example institutionalized racism in the form of slavery and handicapped economic and political liberties on minorities or other groups of ethnic origin or "color" is not the same as a swiss italian, for example, on the internet getting his feelings hurt by some other poster.
> 
> And I am not playing victim, even up until recently (and certainly an ongoing theme on anthro-forums) is the Greek ethnicity being targeted as 'non-European' enough (like that's even an issue for most Greeks) for Central/West European standards (or proponents of other ideologies like Pan-Slavism) due to admixture of the Greek population with other groups deemed as not 'white-enough'. Just take a look at the racist attacks of the German popular press against the Greek people, in the recent 'crisis' related events, something that other PIIGS countries (how imaginative amd quaint) did not have to deal, to this extent at least.
> 
> Your e-outrage is misplaced and contrived, 'friend'. Angela's posts were spot on and very informative.


of course racism is not always the same but it is always racism and it doesn't matter against what kind of people. placing people in boxes and hate them for beeing in those boxes? i didn't have "whites" in my mind when i said that btw.

you know i think it's just funny that you mention the rise of the far right in central europe when there are other places where the far right saw a way bigger rise. i think someone else got hurt feelings because of germans? i don't think it was through racism in popular press though you would have to show me that first.

----------


## Angela

> "elsewhere". we aren't going to play victim here are we? and racism stays racism no matter against what kind of people or admixtures the hate goes.


There’s no “playing” involved here. I've been reading this crap about Italians and Greeks for over eleven years now. You going to pretend it didn't permeate theapricity, forum biodiversity, where Agamemnon was a moderator, as well as Skadi and sites that were even worse? 

You're being completely dishonest, and convince no one who has been on these forums for a long time. It used to be very much in the open.

Now a lot of them have migrated to more "respectable" sites and pretend it's all objective scientific analysis. 

I'm going to keep exposing it so that newcomers to the "hobby" aren't fooled by this b.s.

Nor are these people who they say they are: Sikeliot has gone from claiming to be half Sicilian/half Portuguese Islander, to half Sicilian/1/4 Portuguese Islander/1/4 Polish, to now all Sicilian. That's when he wasn't claiming to be a Portuguese woman or a Hispanic. What is wrong with some people? Are they brain dead to believe anything someone like this says?

Or how about a 100% Italian, who grew up singing "Fratelli d'Italia", putting HANNIBAL up as his avatar?Yeah, that's normal, right? It would be like a Greek putting Xerxes up as his avatar. Inconceivable. 

Don't waste your time. You will convince no honest people that it's something we made up. Not unless they just haven't been around very long. That's why I have screen shots of horrible comments by these people. They freaking keep annoying me and I'll put them up.

----------


## halfalp

You just sound like a guy Instutitionalized by America's modern liberal views ( using White Supremacist, Institutionalized Racism, [ Outrage ] as actual important concepts ). The kind of those Twitter people, also called SJW people. Fine for you. But it doesn't make sense because if you are talking about Yamnaya, pretty sure we knew they were Dark Haired and Eyed before it was revealed that the middle-eastern-like component was CHG. Wich what is even the point, because the specialists of the subject tends to believe this CHG was in Eastern Europe and the Volga already for a long time, making it Local in terms of Migrations arguments.

Therefore, you only are a " positive " extremist as probably you would call yourself, flamming all types of people from different background and beliefs into some regressive american social science concepts. And because i cannot shut my mouth when someone is condenscending and have too high opinion about socio-cultural subjects than only concern himself and his world, we are there.

----------


## halfalp

> that might be the case for the politicians (i somehow doubt that), but i'm sure many of the people who voted and thus helped this rise of the far-right have something against migrants in general not really because they are muslims. now if that is only tied to racism, i don't know but it certainly is part of it.


You need to make difference between Race and Socio-Cultural. It's not per hasard than Dresden is the bastion of Far-Right Germans, it's because it's also one of the poorest place in germany with high unemployement. 

People who work 8-9 hours per day are just discusted by migrants walking, drinking alcohol on the street, doing nothing. And dont tell me those guys would accept a job as a blue collar at any coast, they would not. Islam is another story because it's tied to the Fear of it. 

Racism isn't a real thing, people are naturally careful with new things, but in general after a few sign of hospitality they are open-minded. 

When shit start to get real with Far-Right grinding all the places everywhere, it's because there is a clear social problem, we are not talking about Black and White Americans here. We are talking about people with different languages, different cultures, different religions, that are supposed to do how they want. 

What is happening in Europe, is exactly what needs to happen because people dont do anything, and when they do, it's just with words of critics and threats.

----------


## dosas

> You just sound like a guy Instutitionalized by America's modern liberal views ( using White Supremacist, Institutionalized Racism, [ Outrage ] as actual important concepts ). The kind of those Twitter people, also called SJW people. Fine for you. But it doesn't make sense because if you are talking about Yamnaya, pretty sure we knew they were Dark Haired and Eyed before it was revealed that the middle-eastern-like component was CHG. Wich what is even the point, because the specialists of the subject tends to believe this CHG was in Eastern Europe and the Volga already for a long time, making it Local in terms of Migrations arguments.
> 
> Therefore, you only are a " positive " extremist as probably you would call yourself, flamming all types of people from different background and beliefs into some regressive american social science concepts. And because i cannot shut my mouth when someone is condenscending and have too high opinion about socio-cultural subjects than only concern himself and his world, we are there.


I have flamed no-one, you're the one who is liberal with the accusations, you seem obsessed to try to label me somehow, I can do you a favor and inform you that I consider myself to be a classical-liberal, inspired by the writings of John Locke and Adam Smith. I don't champion any 'SJW' cause as you say, this type of political activism does not exist where I live and work and I am not interested in it. I despise racism, especially in its Western and Eastern European/Balkan varieties and I try to treat all ethnic groups the same, even those who call me a 'sand-nigger' online due to my mixed background and pull to the East, although I have to admit it is very hard sometimes and they do manage to make my blood boil on occasions.

As for my post, I merely described what I perceived to be a current trend among a lot of users on the anthro-boards. I know the Steppe people were probably not blonde haired/blue eyed, and you know it and I am pretty sure those with the racist agendas know it as well. They just chose to downplay it and hide it within their narrative.

----------


## halfalp

> I have flamed no-one, you're the one who is liberal with the accusations, you seem obsessed to try to label me somehow, I can do you a favor and inform you that I consider myself to be a classical-liberal, inspired by the writings of John Locke and Adam Smith. I don't champion any 'SJW' cause as you say, this type of political activism does not exist where I live and work and I am not interested in it. I despise racism, especially in its Western and Eastern European/Balkan varieties and I try to treat all ethnic groups the same, even those who call me a 'sand-nigger' online due to my mixed background and pull to the East.
> 
> As for my post, I merely described what I perceived to be a current trend among a lot of users on the anthro-boards. I know the Steppe people were probably not blonde haired/blue eyed, and you know it and I am pretty sure those with the racist agendas know it as well. They just chose to downplay it and hide it within their narrative.


I mean you are using White Supremacist and Institutionalized Racism, wich are clearly more rooted to the United States and Black People fights for Rights than European history, so you clearly seem to at least being a little bit Institutionalized by American Social Sciences, even if you dont see it. And obviously if you are Greek, you shouldn't know those terms, but this is Internet, not Greece. And by Liberalism i'm talking about the social left american views, not about Locke.

Why are you despising Eastern and Southeastern Europeans Racism, and not all type of Racism? Dont you ever see it around yourself? Because i do.

When you talk about Institutionalized Racism you are also thinking i guess that Reverse Racism against White People cannot exist, because Racism is only tied to social dominance and if you are Poor or a Migrant you dont have any dominance right? What about the hypothetic dominance of a man on a woman, and it's dominance is tied to racial conflict?

I never saw or remember have seen clear sign of Racism leading towards Steppe people being some kind of dominant blue and blonde race. I do believe myself, away from samples that some Steppe people must have been Blonde and Redhaired according to some easy correlations, but i dont make it a special case. And i do not understand to WHO exactly are going those targets. I see sometimes on Eurogenes some dubious affirmations from all sides, mainly by posters, but nothing that dramatic it may look.

Edit: And about the picture you posted it's kind of hilarious and no, i never saw it. 

But tell me, where did you found it yourself? Did you dig something? Did you typed Blonde - Aryans - Sintashta - Conquerors - India in Google Images? Kind of suspicious you give me that, if you go dig on white nationalist photos some ways to get offended... well it's your life.

----------


## MOESAN

Are we not a bit out of topic here? Do open a dedicated thread about racism (but I think there is or are already one or more?)

----------


## Angela

> You need to make difference between Race and Socio-Cultural. It's not per hasard than Dresden is the bastion of Far-Right Germans, it's because it's also one of the poorest place in germany with high unemployement. 
> 
> People who work 8-9 hours per day are just discusted by migrants walking, drinking alcohol on the street, doing nothing. And dont tell me those guys would accept a job as a blue collar at any coast, they would not. Islam is another story because it's tied to the Fear of it. 
> 
> Racism isn't a real thing, people are naturally careful with new things, but in general after a few sign of hospitality they are open-minded. 
> 
> When shit start to get real with Far-Right grinding all the places everywhere, it's because there is a clear social problem, we are not talking about Black and White Americans here. We are talking about people with different languages, different cultures, different religions, that are supposed to do how they want. 
> 
> What is happening in Europe, is exactly what needs to happen because people dont do anything, and when they do, it's just with words of critics and threats.


Do you freaking know how to stay on topic and pursue an argument logically?

We're not talking about European attitudes toward unchecked, un-documented mass migration of people without skills and from a non-Western culture coming into Europe.

We're talking about one group of Europeans believing another group of Europeans is inferior and should be "kicked out of Europe", to use his own phrase.

THAT IS RACISM. It exists; nobody made it up, like stupid cultural appropriation at Halloween.

And it's dangerous.

They're condemned out of their own mouths. 

Dosas' political beliefs, his attitude toward migration, like mine, are irrelevant to the topic, although I will tell you I'm probably much more conservative than you are. 

It's either real or it's not, and I have the screenshots which prove it's real. Why do you think they sent that guy who was a "star" at theapricity to jail? You think it was just because of the classifications they do and their comments about Italians"? They did a hell of a lot more than that, those people. 

The only point upon which I would disagree with Dosas is as to whether it's recent or not. I believe this toxic ideology has been around since at least the 1800s in England, the U.S., Germany, Scandinavia, even France. 
All you have to do is read a little history to know I'm right; start with Vienna in the early part of the 1900s, for example. It's no mystery where Hitler got his ideas; they were common currency in the cafes and beer joints he frequented. Read about the Dreyfus case. For God's sake, they're still ranting about Jews in Poland and Hungary when there are none left in their countries. It's like a disease. No wonder there are still hidden Jews there. Or, read the opinions of some of those "physical anthropologists" they claim to follow. 

As to the Yamnaya, you clearly don't remember the stuff you read on eurogenes. Until the Sandra Wilde and Mathiesen papers came out, the perceived wisdom among all the amateur experts like Polako was that the Yamnaya would turn out to be blonde and blue eyed. Where do you think he got the whole "blonde cowboys of the steppe" thing? Then he turned it to Corded Ware. Unfortunately for him they trundled along behind their cow pulled wagons. :)

It extended to the Mycenaeans as well. Two weeks before the paper on them came out showing "maybe" 15-18% steppe and a dark southeastern European type phenotype, he was promising that they would be blonde/blue eyed R1a Corded Ware people. 

See what happens when you draw conclusions from your agenda instead of the data? More than half the time you wind up looking like a fool. 

If the leaks are correct, that whole crew was completely wrong about the Etruscans, and for the same reason.

Now, enough off topic. Get back to genetics.

----------


## Ailchu

> There’s no “playing” involved here. I've been reading this crap about Italians and Greeks for over eleven years now. You going to pretend it didn't permeate theapricity, forum biodiversity, where Agamemnon was a moderator, as well as Skadi and sites that were even worse?
> 
> You're being completely dishonest, and convince no one who has been on these forums for a long time. It used to be very much in the open.
> 
> Now a lot of them have migrated to more "respectable" sites and pretend it's all objective scientific analysis.
> 
> I'm going to keep exposing it so that newcomers to the "hobby" aren't fooled by this b.s.
> 
> Nor are these people who they say they are: Sikeliot has gone from claiming to be half Sicilian/half Portuguese Islander, to half Sicilian/1/4 Portuguese Islander/1/4 Polish, to now all Sicilian. That's when he wasn't claiming to be a Portuguese woman or a Hispanic. What is wrong with some people? Are they brain dead to believe anything someone like this says?
> ...


but i'm not trying to say that all this shit is made up. i just don't care about all of it and you should do that too. the thing is that in the case of italy much of this racism is coming from their own people. certainly not the majority but since you already talked about italian unity, these problems are not caused by outsiders but largely by italians themselves. it wasn't always like this. as you already said it's a relatively new product of inferiority complexes and the lacking will to stand on their own feet without listening to opinions of northern racists, giving them way too much value. all this due to an intoxication with our very own racism. you can't hate an outsider without hating the inside who ressembles them a bit. maybe you even hate yourself because of it. 
and it's like that in ever european country with all racists. if you tie nationality or just your preference for the people, with whom you sourround yourself, to ethnicity(genetics not culture) it just doesn't end well. 


btw it's not like a greek admiring xerxes, i see no problem there. there is also no problem with italians who like hannibal or why should that be strange? 





> even those who call me a 'sand-nigger' online due to my mixed background and pull to the East, although I have to admit it is very hard sometimes and they do manage to make my blood boil on occasions.


unless they don't try to steal your history and say it was the yamna elite who made greece to what it was, you are giving it too much value, especially when you find those comments on sites where you found that picture. who cares what others think of you? 

they are not you, you are not them. you don't want to be them. they are racists and you aren't.

but look around you. in greece the party golden dawn whose colors are red, white, black and that uses the fascist salute got 7% of votes in european elections. and you are concerned about the rise of the "far-right" in central europe? 
you surely didn't vote for them but open your eyes.

----------


## halfalp

> Do you freaking know how to stay on topic and pursue an argument logically?
> 
> We're not talking about European attitudes toward unchecked, un-documented mass migration of people without skills and from a non-Western culture coming into Europe.
> 
> We're talking about one group of Europeans believing another group of Europeans is inferior and should be "kicked out of Europe", to use his own phrase.
> 
> THAT IS RACISM. It exists; nobody made it up, like stupid cultural appropriation at Halloween.
> 
> And it's dangerous.
> ...


You didn't get what i say, he had two different points 1: Europeans of the real world having issues with Middle-Easterners 2: Europeans of the internet having issues with what an Ubermensch should be.

And i responded to both topics differently.

I literally have no clue about what's happened on Eurogenes before 2015 ( days i joined Eupedia, and first Anthro Forum i joined ever ) and to Apricity. But i was on Apricity some times between then and its really a shit show about who has the best ancestry / country so that's that.

It's just kind like when we talk about supremacism it's always comes as a general topic ( the devil white man / race ). It's start to become annoying to always must read this weight that doesn't concern you, but you are labeled and tied to it. An European must behave, he needs to accept everyone else, he needs to do this, he needs to do that. No free will anymore, apparently some people knows better than yourself what's good for you, yadi yada... At least it's not as cramped as north america, but it's still a weight.

Now we get back on topics.

----------


## Angela

Both of you are being extremely short-sighted imo. People thought the rhetoric Hitler spouted was nonsense too, until people voted him into office and he started implementing policies based on it. 

You think you know what's going to happen in Europe in twenty years, or even ten years from now? I don't. 

This is dangerous ideology and people who espouse it should be exposed. Plus, if this sort of agenda doesn't make you an impeachable witness or "expert" on population genetics, then I don't know what does.

----------


## Demetrios

> but look around you. in greece the party golden dawn whose colors are red, white, black and that uses the fascist salute got 7% of votes in european elections. and you are concerned about the rise of the "far-right" in central europe? 
> you surely didn't vote for them but open your eyes.


I know this is not related to the topic of the thread, just want to make a couple of quick corrections.

Most of the people that voted for "Golden Dawn" didn't do it because of their ideological affiliations to them, but rather because it was an anti-establishment party that was trending during the years of the economic crisis. "Golden Dawn" has existed since 1985, and registered as a political party since 1993, yet it never managed to get any significant attention until the crisis began. Furthermore, the political party of "Golden Dawn" in the last "2019 European Parliament" (26th May) and "2019 National" (7th July) elections achieved a percentage of 4.87% and 2.93% respectively. So, "Golden Dawn" didn't enter the new parliament, as a result of failing to cross the minimum barrier of 3%. The party is essentially finished, not only because of these unexpected results, but also because after the results many of the leading MPs separated themselves from the party, such as Ioannis Lagos, Panagiotis Iliopoulos, etc.. And when it comes to the aforementioned elections, you also have to take into account the considerable abstention of the Greek people, which approximates 45% of the total voters, therefore to get a realistic view, divide 4.87% and 2.93% by two and you will get an even more representative result. Instead, many former "Golden Dawn" voters have voted for other conservative parties, such as the new "Greek Solution (Elliniki Lisi)" and the much older "New Democracy" parties, with the latter winning the elections with an outright majority. As for my personal political views, i am myself a conservative but didn't vote for any party, similar to many other Greeks who feel that our political system and that of much of the world, is inherently corrupt and oligarchic in nature, not a real democracy, in addition to the reality that our own political scene remains a fossil of the same older politicians. Some have moved to other parties, some have created new ones, whiles others have remained steadfastly in the same. In any case, a political stagnation.

Last, what you term "Fascist" salute is essentially the "Roman" salute, and you don't have to be a "Fascist" in order to do it. In the case of "Golden Dawn" it was and is used as a tribute to Ioannis Metaxas and his "4th of August Regime" which led Greece against the foreign occupation forces in WWII, including Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. That's how the "4th of August Regime" also saluted. Although it is true that "Golden Dawn", especially in the early years admired "National Socialism" and even praised Hitler ideologically, but not completely. Don't forget that "Golden Dawn" and its nationalist ideology descends from the same people that fought Hitler, and even them despise what is seen in certain far-right groups of Europe, where they term Italians and Greeks as non-Europeans, despite the fact that their autosomal profiles are closer to the ones of the Neolithic Europeans.

----------


## Angela

In a relatively recent Boattini paper on str mutation rates, they used ydna from Emilia Romagna and the Veneto.

This is what they found:


I'm pretty sure the R1a-M458 is from the Veneto, probably just relatively recent spill over from the east. The R1b seems to be about 60%, which seems about right because I don't think they were looking at highly drifted areas. The E-V13 is lower than I thought, and so is the J2a, almost non-existent. The J2b certainly shows up, though. The "T" is a decent number. I wonder with which Neolithic wave it arrived.

See:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45398-3

----------


## torzio

LT-P326 is very old ....circa 45000 years old

I am surprised no L ydna appeared even though L and T ydna appear in ancient Tyrol lands 
*Population Isolates in South Tyrol and Their Value for Genetic Dissection of Complex Diseases
*F. Marroni
I. Pichler
First published: 24 March 2006

Date is before L and T appear in 2008....they are designated K at the time




https://www.yfull.com/tree/LT/

----------


## Regio X

No L-M20? I'd expect some. At least in Treviso province it'd be between 5 and 10%, if I'm not mistaken, which is pretty curious.

I couldn't read the study, as always.  :Sad:  Does it distinguish numbers for Veneto and Emilia? 23andMe informs abt. 12% of G-M201 for NE Italy (based on its database, I presume), similar to Ethnopedia's, so, given the average above, Emilia Romagna must have significantly less G in comparison, which I guess it's also in line with Ethnopedia's.

ED: torzio, we thought the same. :)

23andMe.jpg

----------


## Angela

> No L-M20? I'd expect some. At least in Treviso province it'd be between 5 and 10%, if I'm not mistaken, which is pretty curious.
> I couldn't read the study, as always.  Does it distinguish numbers for Veneto and Emilia? 23andMe informs abt. 12% of G-M201 for NE Italy (based on its database, I presume), similar to Ethnopedia's, so, given the average above, Emilia Romagna must have significantly less G in comparison, which I guess it's also in line with Ethnopedia's.
> ED: torzio, we thought the same. :)
> 23andMe.jpg


Well, isolates with their exaggerated drift are hardly good sources of either uniparental or autosomal inheritance, or it just may be where the samples were collected. For Emilia-Romagna I think it might have been around Bologna that Boattini et al collect samples, if I remember correctly. I think there might be even more R1b further west. 

I found a table in the Supplement (SI) with the typed snps. 

Hopefully you guys can access this one, or I'll try to copy it for you. I see one M20, but not L-M20

https://static-content.springer.com/...MOESM1_ESM.pdf

----------


## torzio

> No L-M20? I'd expect some. At least in Treviso province it'd be between 5 and 10%, if I'm not mistaken, which is pretty curious.
> I couldn't read the study, as always.  Does it distinguish numbers for Veneto and Emilia? 23andMe informs abt. 12% of G-M201 for NE Italy (based on its database, I presume), similar to Ethnopedia's, so, given the average above, Emilia Romagna must have significantly less G in comparison, which I guess it's also in line with Ethnopedia's.
> ED: torzio, we thought the same. :)
> 23andMe.jpg


I cannot recall the L-m20 in treviso province....i do recall in the friulian alps

The samples apparently came from venezia province and ravenna , rimini coastal romangna areas......i need to revisit

----------


## Regio X

@Angela @torzio
M20 is a SNP that represents haplogroup L-M20, yes, so that one M20 must be actually L-M20
But never mind. I just checked, and indeed the supposed high number of L-M20 in Treviso is based on Boattini's study. But those are relatively few samples tested, and perhaps from the city of Treviso only, so...

----------


## Angela

> @Angela @torzio
> M20 is a SNP that represents haplogroup L-M20, yes, so that one M20 must be actually L-M20
> But never mind. I just checked, and indeed the supposed high number of L-M20 in Treviso is based on Boattini's study. But those are relatively few samples tested, and perhaps from the city of Treviso only, so...


Yeah, percentages are going to switch dramatically when you go from a few samples to 166 of them.

Again, interesting how little J2a is present. 

Has anyone taken a look at the J1 snps? I'm not an expert in this, but they don't seem to be the "Jewish" clades, do they? Nor the North African ones from what I can tell. One seems to how up in Great Britain of all places. I'll certainly yield to people who are more expert in this, however.

----------


## Polska

Looking forward to the eventual release of the paper (can’t believe there are 28 pages worth of posts regarding a paper that is yet to be released). In my case, I come from a Polish family with a well established history in Poland dating back over 1,000 years, but it’s rumored that our Y line (J2b2 L283 PH1602) may have come from Italy. Curious if any PH1602 pops up.

----------


## Regio X

> Yeah, percentages are going to switch dramatically when you go from a few samples to 166 of them.
> 
> Again, interesting how little J2a is present. 
> 
> Has anyone taken a look at the J1 snps? I'm not an expert in this, but they don't seem to be the "Jewish" clades, do they? Nor the North African ones from what I can tell. One seems to how up in Great Britain of all places. I'll certainly yield to people who are more expert in this, however.


I'd expect more J2a as well, but most of Js are J2b after all. 

As for J1s, I'm affraid they haven't tested that deep, so it's not possible to determine whether some J1 samples belong to the the "Jewish" clades etc.

Using the PDF you shared and ISOGG tree...

L1086......A00
L1085......A0-T
V148.......A0
V168.......A1
M31........A1a
P108.......A1b
L419.......A1b1
V50........A1b1a
M32........A1b1b
V42........E1b1b1b2b3b
M168.......CT
P257.......G
M174.......D
M91........BT
P97........BT
M42........BT
M203.......DE
M213.......F
M45........P1 or K2b2a
M181.......B
M216.......C
M9.........K
M215.......E1b1b
M35........********** not found **********
M78........E1b1b1a1
M81........E1b1b1b1a
M123.......E1b1b1b2a1
V6.........E1b1b1b2b3a
V6.........E1b1b1c
P72........E1b1b1b2b1
M224.......E1b1b1a1a1a
M136.......E1b1b1b2a1a1a1a1c
V12........E1b1b1a1a1
V22........E1b1b1a1b2
V65........E1b1b1a1a2
M34........E1b1b1b2a1a
P15........G2a
P16........********** not found **********
P18........********** not found **********
M286.......G2a2a1a1a1
U8.........G2a2b
U16........G2a2b1a1a
U1.........G2a2b2a1a1a
U13........G2a2b2a1a1a1
M377.......G2b1
M253.......I1
M21........I (Notes)
M227.......I1a1a1a1a
P109.......I1a1b1a1
P259.......I (Notes)
M72........I1a1a1a1a2a1
P215.......I2
P37.2......I2a1a
M359.......********** not found **********
M26........I2a1a1a
M161.......I (Notes)
M161.......I2a1a1a1a1a1a1e6a5
M223.......I2a1b1
M284.......I2a1b1a1a
M379.......I (Notes)
P78........I2a1b1a2a1
P95........I2a1b1a2b1a1a1a1
M267.......J1
M62........J (Notes)
M365.......********** not found **********
M390.......J (Notes)
P56........J1a2a1a1a
P58........J1a2a1a2
M367.......********** not found **********
M369.......J (Notes)
M172.......J2
M410.......J2a
M47........J2a1a1a2a2b
M67........J2a1a1a2b2
M68........J2a1a2b2a2a2
M137.......J2a1a4b1a1a
M158.......********** not found **********
M289.......J (Notes)
M318.......J2a1a1b2a1b1b2b1
M319.......J2a1a1a2b1b
M339.......J2a1a3
M340.......J2a2a1a1a2b1
M419.......J2a1a1b1a1a1a1
P81........J2a1a1a2a2a2
P279.......J2a2a1a1a2
M92........J2a1a1a2b2a1a
M327.......J (Notes)
M166.......J2a1a1a2b2a2b1b2
M12........J2b
M205.......J2b1
M241.......J2b2a
M99........J (Notes)
M280.......J (Notes)
M321.......J (Notes)
P84........********** not found **********
M20........L
M20........L or K1a
M27........L1a1
M317.......L1b
M357.......L1a2
M242.......Q
P36.2......********** not found **********
MEH2.......********** not found **********
M378.......Q2a1
SRY10831.2.R1a1
M17........R1a1a
M56........R (Notes)
M157.......********** not found **********
M287.......G (Notes)
P98........R (Notes)
PK5........R (Notes)
M343.......R1b
P25........********** not found **********
M18........R1b1b1
P297.......R1b1a1
M335.......R1b2a
M73........R1b1a1a
M269.......R1b1a1b
P310.......R1b1a1b1a1
U106.......R1b1a1b1a1a1
P312.......R1b1a1b1a1a2
M37........********** not found **********
M65........********** not found **********
M153.......R1b1a1b1a1a2a1a1a1a1
SRY2627....R1b1a1b1a1a2a1b1a1
M222.......R1b1a1b1a1a2c1a1a1a1a1
U152.......R1b1a1b1a1a2b
P66........********** not found **********
M160.......********** not found **********
M70........T1a
L208.......T1a1a
M320.......T (Notes)
P77........T1a1a1b2b2b1a
Z18........R1b1a1b1a1a1b
Z381.......R1b1a1b1a1a1c
L48........R1b1a1b1a1a1c2b
U198.......R1b1a1b1a1a1c2a1
Z195.......R1b1a1b1a1a2a1
M529.......R1b1a1b1a1a2c1
L2.........R1b1a1b1a1a2b1
L20........R1b1a1b1a1a2b1a1
M60........B
M145.......DE
M145.......DE
M147.......K2e
M96........E
M89........F
M282.......H2
M69........H1a
M522.......IJK
M258.......I
M304.......J
M526.......K2
P308.......S1a1a1
P79........S1a2
P261.......K2c
P256.......M or K2b1b
M231.......N
M231.......N or K2a1a
M175.......O
M175.......Oor K2a1b
P202.......S1a1b
P326.......LT or K1
P326.......LT [K1]
M412.......R1b1a1b1a
L11........R1b1a1b1a1a
M124.......R2a
M173.......R1
M207.......R
M281.......E1b1b2
M516.......R1a1
M479.......R2
V13........E1b1b1a1b1a

According to this old paper, the highest STR diversity of J1-P58 would be found in Zagros/Taurus mountain region:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2987219/

Some insights from Maciamo:
https://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplo...A.shtml#J1-P58
https://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplo...A.shtml#Arabic

----------


## Angela

> I'd expect more J2a as well, but most of Js are J2b after all. 
> 
> As for J1s, I'm affraid they haven't tested that deep, so it's not possible to determine whether some J1 samples belong to the the "Jewish" clades etc.
> 
> Using the PDF you shared and ISOGG tree...
> 
> L1086... A00
> L1085... A0-T
> V148.... A0
> ...


Are you sure, Regio? They picked up no "A" at all according to the list.

----------


## Regio X

> Are you sure, Regio? They picked up no "A" at all according to the list.


Sure. I built the list via software. Those are the SNPs listed in the PDF you shared. You can check some of them either in ISOGG or in YFull. 
L1086 (A00), for example... Access https://www.yfull.com/tree/A00/ , click on +2913 SNPs, Ctrl F, L1086, and find it. 
V50... Access https://www.yfull.com/tree/A-L602/ , click on +1000 SNPs, CTrl F, V50, and find it.
And so on. :)

ED: I added links in my previous message.

----------


## Angela

Then maybe those are what they checked, not what they found? This is what they found:



If the ones checked don't appear on this list then they didn't find them, I guess. 

The G2a-U8 is also interesting.

"*G2a2b (L30, PF3267, S126, U8)[edit]*

G-L30 (also G-PF3267, G-S126 or G-U8; G2a2b, previously G2a3) Men who belong to this group but are negative for all its subclades represent a small number today. This haplogroup was found in a Neolithic skeleton from around 5000 BC, in the cemetery of Derenburg Meerenstieg II, Germany, which forms part of the Linear Pottery culture, known in German as Linearbandkeramik (LBK),[10] but was not tested for G2a3 subclades."

I wonder if finer resolution is possible. They only checked these downstream:
_U16..... G2a2b1a1a_
_U1...... G2a2b2a1a1a_
_U13..... G2a2b2a1a1a1

_If this is how we're meant to interpret the chart, then they only checked these J1?
_M267.... J1_
_M62..... J (Notes)_
_M365.... ********** not found **********_
_M390.... J (Notes)_
_P56..... J1a2a1a1a_
_P58..... J1a2a1a2_

----------


## Regio X

> Then maybe those are what they checked, not what they found? This is what they found:
> 
> 
> 
> If the ones checked don't appear on this list then they didn't find them, I guess. 
> 
> The G2a-U8 is also interesting.
> 
> "*G2a2b (L30, PF3267, S126, U8)[edit]*
> ...


G-U8 is merely G-L30, i.e., too old (ancestral to G-U1 itself, G-L497, G-M406...). https://www.yfull.com/tree/G-L30/ So the G2a-U1 in the list is also G-U8, while G-U8 in there must mean G-U8 (xU1). 

As for J1s, the problem is that some SNPs in the study are not used by ISOGG anymore, but they could be informative. I'll check them again.

----------


## Regio X

Apparently the M367 corresponds to M368: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M267#J-M368

Also, some SNPs labeled as J (Notes) must be SNPs used much time ago that are not used anymore. The notes can be found here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...gid=1603190133

Some of them belonged to J1, and could perhaps be informative: M62 (downstream J1-L236), and M390, M367 and M369 (all three below J1-P58).
I wonder if the study includes STR markers.

----------


## Regio X

Here the positions may be found: http://www.yseq.net/images/trees/J1-M267_tree.pdf
M390 is below J1-L136, sister to J1-P58 and J1-PF7264 (so not in the Eupedia tree in the previous post).
M367 would be a subgroup of M368, which in turn is just below J1-P58. It's not in the tree above either.
M369 would be another subgroup of J1-P58. Again, not in the tree.

The Z643 and Y4067 SNPs above in Eupedia tree would be below J1-CTS9070 according to YSEQ tree, and CTS9070 is still a P58 equivalent in YFull. J1-M368 and J1-M369 would not be directly related to J1-Z643 nor J1-Y4067 as per YSEQ.

Hope this helps.

----------


## Angela

> Apparently the M367 corresponds to M368: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M267#J-M368
> 
> Also, some SNPs labeled as J (Notes) must be SNPs used much time ago that are not used anymore. The notes can be found here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...gid=1603190133
> 
> Some of them belonged to J1, and could perhaps be informative: M62 (downstream J1-L236), and M390, M367 and M369 (all three below J1-P58).
> I wonder if the study includes STR markers.


It's actually all about strs. Maybe you can access it through this?
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45398-3#Sec2

----------


## Regio X

> It's actually all about strs. Maybe you can access it through this?
> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45398-3#Sec2


I couldn't find it. They say "The Y-STR data of all samples are available on the YHRD database (www.yhrd.org) with accession numbers YA004601."

https://yhrd.org/YA004601 (Emilia-Romagna - 47 haplotypes)
https://yhrd.org/YA004602 (Veneto - 25 haplotypes)

https://yhrd.org/tools/national_database/Italy
Notice that Veneto and Emilia-Romangna are the only regions with results for "Maximal".

But I couldn't find the STR results per se.

----------


## Dibran

My friend is predicted J2a1-L25. He is from Bari on his fathers side, and Calabria on the mothers side.

----------


## Ailchu

> Last, what you term "Fascist" salute is essentially the "Roman" salute, and you don't have to be a "Fascist" in order to do it. ... . Although it is true that "Golden Dawn", especially in the early years admired "National Socialism" and even praised Hitler ideologically, but not completely.


who in their right mind would use this salute in modern times without thinking about the fascists or nazis? why would the partys colours ressemble so much those of the nazi party? and why did a representative of this party talk good about hitler and national socialism rather recently? that it would have been good for the white man if nazis won?




> ...and even them despise what is seen in certain far-right groups of Europe, where they term Italians and Greeks as non-Europeans, despite the fact that their autosomal profiles are closer to the ones of the Neolithic Europeans.


are those nationalists despising all far-right groups who think beeing european has something to do with genetics or only those who think greeks aren't european? calling italians and greeks non europeans is ridiculous just like the reaction of some greeks and italians to this. they then try to argue back with genetic concepts the wrong way. why would you try to argue with a racist by explaining him how genetically "european" your people are? if you yourself believe in this "europeaness" or not doesn't matter at this point, you are to some part getting involved with the arguments of the other side. this way you can't change the others opinion about racism itself. better would be to make clear how non-european everyone in europe actually is. or that genetics just don't matter in this discussion. racism against for example southern europeans from far right groups all over europe also in southern europe itself can't and also should never be seperated from racism against non-europeans.

----------


## Jovialis

> who in their right mind would use this salute in modern times without thinking about the fascists or nazis? why would the partys colours ressemble so much those of the nazi party? and why did a representative of this party talk good about hitler and national socialism rather recently? that it would have been good for the white man if nazis won?
> 
> 
> 
> are those nationalists despising all far-right groups who think beeing european has something to do with genetics or only those who think greeks aren't european? calling italians and greeks non europeans is ridiculous just like the reaction of some greeks and italians to this. they then try to argue back with genetics. why would you try to argue with a racist by explaining him how genetically "european" your people are? if you yourself believe in this "europeaness" or not doesn't matter at this point, you are to some part getting involved with the arguments of the other side. this way you can't change the others opinion about racism itself. better would be to make clear how non-european everyone in europe actually is. or that genetics just don't matter in this discussion. racism against for example southern europeans from far right groups all over europe also in southern europe itself can't and also should never be seperated from racism against non-europeans.


This thread is not the place to express your personal opinions on these matters.

This thread is specifically about the paper in the original post.

Stop making all these threads about your personal issue with the concept of ethnicity.

----------


## Angela

This is how the results from a paper can be distorted. 

From another site:

Vettor/Torzio/Sile

"There is not a representation of Italian population : E, J2a, G2a are too weak. It is not said it is a representation of Italy or any Italian region. It is only a panel to study the mutation rates of STR mutations. As the Italian laboratories of the study are in Bologna, probably Bologna region is avantaged , but nothing to say if the panel representative of Bologna region."

First of all, the fact that the results don't conform to your preconceived notions has nothing to do with whether the study is representative or not. Conclusions should flow from the data. Second of all, there was no claim the set was representative of ALL of modern Italy. How could it be, since it comes only from two provinces?

Whether it's totally representative of those two provinces, I don't know.

However, here is what Boattini et al had to say about the representativeness of their data set:

"On the whole, our data comprise 47 Y-STRs and 166 Y-SNPs typed in a set of 135 individuals from 66 paternally related namesakes, which, for some markers, were augmented up to 234 individuals and 95 paternal genealogies by including previously published paternally-related individuals from the same geographic area9,28, *so as to maximize the accuracy and the representativeness of our dataset*.

Read the papers first, people, then if you think the sample set might not be sufficiently representative, that's fine. I might even agree with withholding from any firm conclusions until a very large representative sample is available. 

Another doozy...

"because bologna is only in the romagna part of the region of emilia romagna , samples came from there along with veneto samples......basically only around the adriatic sea ...........so Ravenna, rimini in the romagna and venice and chioggia in veneto
Emilia is the western part , north of tuscany and south of Lombardy

...........................................

BTW
The LT-P326 sample is between 41000 to 49000 years old

It is generally believed that LT (L298/P326) originated somewhere in West Asia.

LT is a direct descendant of haplogroup K (M9).

The direct descendants of LT are haplogroup L (M20), also known as K1a, and haplogroup T (M184), also known as K1b.[2][3] 


I do know that in 2 papers pre 2010 from the italian alps study that haplogroups T and also L where present there."


There is no supporting evidence for these claims about the sample set. If someone knows precisely where they were taken I would be very interested to hear it. Otherwise, it's baseless speculation. I would also point out that Bologna, IF all the Emilia Romagna samples were taken there, which I don't know, is NOT on the Adriatic. Nor is any evidence provided that the Veneto samples all came from the Adriatic. What's the matter, are they still too "southern" for your supposedly "Nordic" Veneto? 



Just generally, people, stop posting things you're pulling out of a hat. PRESENT THE DATA and the caveats, if necessary, not unsubstantiated musings.

----------


## Demetrios

> who in their right mind would use this salute in modern times without thinking about the fascists or nazis? why would the partys colours ressemble so much those of the nazi party? and why did a representative of this party talk good about hitler and national socialism rather recently? that it would have been good for the white man if nazis won?
> 
> are those nationalists despising all far-right groups who think beeing european has something to do with genetics or only those who think greeks aren't european? calling italians and greeks non europeans is ridiculous just like the reaction of some greeks and italians to this. they then try to argue back with genetic concepts the wrong way. why would you try to argue with a racist by explaining him how genetically "european" your people are? if you yourself believe in this "europeaness" or not doesn't matter at this point, you are to some part getting involved with the arguments of the other side. this way you can't change the others opinion about racism itself. better would be to make clear how non-european everyone in europe actually is. or that genetics just don't matter in this discussion. racism against for example southern europeans from far right groups all over europe also in southern europe itself can't and also should never be seperated from racism against non-europeans.


There is no reason to write the same stuff, i have included everything in my original comment. I agree with @Jovialis, this is not the thread to discuss this. If you want some clarification, send me a PM.

----------


## torzio

> This is how the results from a paper can be distorted. 
> 
> From another site:
> 
> Vettor/Torzio/Sile
> 
> "There is not a representation of Italian population : E, J2a, G2a are too weak. It is not said it is a representation of Italy or any Italian region. It is only a panel to study the mutation rates of STR mutations. As the Italian laboratories of the study are in Bologna, probably Bologna region is avantaged , but nothing to say if the panel representative of Bologna region."
> 
> First of all, the fact that the results don't conform to your preconceived notions has nothing to do with whether the study is representative or not. Conclusions should flow from the data. Second of all, there was no claim the set was representative of ALL of modern Italy. How could it be, since it comes only from two provinces?
> ...


your distorting myself with other people , Palamede stated the top half of your quote ............but you can blame me for everything else including the the LT if you like
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_LT
although I do not write in wiki

Why do you say nordic, the area around the alps is part of central europe, the alps is neither north or south europe,.............nordic is not part of Italy or the balkans, why do you want it too be?

do you think nordic is the british isles
mine below


I am one of the highest percentage Italians ..........what are your numbers?

----------


## Angela

> your distorting myself with other people , Palamede stated the top half of your quote ............but you can blame me for everything else including the the LT if you like
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_LT
> although I do not write in wiki
> 
> Why do you say nordic, the area around the alps is part of central europe, the alps is neither north or south europe,.............nordic is not part of Italy or the balkans, why do you want it too be?
> 
> do you think nordic is the british isles
> mine below
> 
> ...



Go back and read what I actually WROTE: you pasted it but apparently didn't read it. 
_"There is no supporting evidence for these claims about the sample set. "

_Do you see that? The *CLAIMS ABOUT THE SAMPLE SET*. Do I have to bold and put bells and whistles on all the important phrases?

I see you don't address my main points, as you never do, because you are devoid of the ability to use logic and don't understand what you read, and drift onto tagents when that has been pointed out once more. You have no proof of where those samples originated yet you categorically pronounce their origin. It's deceptive, as anyone who reads your post but hasn't read the paper might take your word for it.

Whether that's deliberate or not I don't know, but you do it all the time, and often when it has something to do with the Veneto. 

If "Palamede" wrote the first statement then my caution applies to him as well. 

Spare me the sudden claims of how Italian you are. Last time we discussed this topic, you wouldn't even claim Italian ancestry, and wanted "Alpine" Italy to join with Switzerland and Austria. As if they'd have you, which I also told you at the time. 

What's the matter? Think being a closet nordicist could get you into trouble? Don't worry. Italy's got too many problems to go spying on the opinions of all extreme Lega Nord supporters in the diaspora.

----------


## torzio

> Go back and read what I actually WROTE: you pasted it but apparently didn't read it. 
> _"There is no supporting evidence for these claims about the sample set. "
> 
> _Do you see that? The *CLAIMS ABOUT THE SAMPLE SET*. Do I have to bold and put bells and whistles on all the important phrases?
> 
> I see you don't address my main points, as you never do, because you are devoid of the ability to use logic and don't understand what you read, and drift onto tagents when that has been pointed out once more. You have no proof of where those samples originated yet you categorically pronounce their origin. It's deceptive, as anyone who reads your post but hasn't read the paper might take your word for it.
> 
> Whether that's deliberate or not I don't know, but you do it all the time, and often when it has something to do with the Veneto. 
> 
> ...


All i can say is that i am more italian , 70% as noted above.........my ancestry by BOM records counting only my direct paternal and maternal lines is only from veneto and trentino...from 1450 to ybp1950, either you accept this is italian or accept that
Italian 1870 to present
1820 to 1870 austrian
1797 to 1820 french
1389 to 1797 venetian......that is my line, you need to clarify to us how you read ethnicity and not confuse people when you change you ideas

When i get home, i will send a map of my paternal and maternal direct lines....and you will see i am more italian than yourself, i still have dual citizenship, do you ?

----------


## Salento

I don't mean to steal one's thunder, it's not a competition.

It’s about a perceived lack of pride.

(... I score more than that in some my results :)

----------


## Angela

This is the same guy who took "Italian" out of his "ethnic" designation, claimed to be an "Alpine European" instead, and espoused the well known extreme Lega Nord position that "Alpine Italy" should join a confederation with Switzerland and Austria.

Just a note to people: your old posts don't go away. They can be accessed. 

I don't know what game he's playing or if he's gone so far over the edge that he's now delusional, and I don't care, but I don't let lies go unanswered.

Or is this supposed to be like those prison conversions? Instead of I've repented, I'm now a Christian, it's I'm now an Italian????

That's it. I'm not wasting any more time on this.

----------


## Messier 67

https://twitter.com/Raveancic/status/1169316526983454720


Not the moots:*

Population structure of modern-day Italians reveals patterns of ancient and archaic ancestries in Southern Europe*



https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/9/eaaw3492

----------


## Salento

Interesting, a new Ancient Genetic Component:

... We detected the presence of a novel ancient component in Italy, more so in the genomes of modern Southern Italians ...

https://capelligroup.wordpress.com/a...an-population/

----------


## Angela

Thanks for bringing it to our attention, Messier.

I just read it. It seems basically the same as the pre-print, so I don't know what "novel" component they're talking about, unless they mean their claim that Iran Neolithic is only in Southern Italy.

What some geneticists don't seem able to grasp is that their conclusions have to bear some relationship to historical processes.

----------


## Messier 67

> Thanks for bringing it to our attention, Messier.
> 
> I just read it. It seems basically the same as the pre-print, so I don't know what "novel" component they're talking about, unless they mean their claim that Iran Neolithic is only in Southern Italy.
> 
> What some geneticists don't seem able to grasp is that their conclusions have to bear some relationship to historical processes.


Hannah Moots brought the study to my attention, she retweeted this.

https://twitter.com/mootspoints

I think the Moots Stanford paper might be out this month and I am following Moots because I believe she will post her link on twitter when the paper is out.

----------


## Jovialis

> Hannah Moots brought the study to my attention, she retweeted this.
> https://twitter.com/mootspoints
> I think the Moots Stanford paper might be out this month and I am following Moots because I believe she will post her link on twitter when the paper is out.


I e-mailed her again. She said her paper won't be out until either later this year, or early 2020.

I'm eager to check it out, but it is worth the wait.

----------


## Jovialis

> A new open-access paper on Italian genetics, Population structure of modern-day Italians reveals patterns of ancient and archaic ancestries in Southern Europe:
> European populations display low genetic differentiation as the result of long-term blending of their ancient founding ancestries. However, it is unclear how the combination of ancient ancestries related to early foragers, Neolithic farmers, and Bronze Age nomadic pastoralists can explain the distribution of genetic variation across Europe. Populations in natural crossroads like the Italian peninsula are expected to recapitulate the continental diversity, but have been systematically understudied. Here, we characterize the ancestry profiles of Italian populations using a genome-wide dataset representative of modern and ancient samples from across Italy, Europe, and the rest of the world. Italian genomes capture several ancient signatures, including a non–steppe contribution derived ultimately from the Caucasus. Differences in ancestry composition, as the result of migration and admixture, have generated in Italy the largest degree of population structure detected so far in the continent, as well as shaping the amount of Neanderthal DNA in modern-day populations.
> My interpretation of what’s in the paper
> – The largest impact on genetic variation across all Italians is “Early European Farmers” who derive from the expansion about of Anatolia. The descendants of Pleistocene hunter-gatherers had a marginal impact and were mostly absorbed.
> – A “steppe” component shows a north-south gradient and seems to have arrived in the 3rd millennium. It’s almost absent in Sardinia. It is a minority component, but I believe it brought Indo-European languages to the Italian peninsula.
> – Looking at the Tuscan results (more affinity with northern than southern Italy), it seems to me that the genetic impact of West Asians leading to the emergence of Etruscans is now no longer quite so viable. We’ll see. But the demographic impact of the steppe people seems to have been lesser in the Southern European peninsulas than in Northern Europe. Basque survived into the modern period in Spain. Paleo-Sardinian, which persisted into Classical times, was probably not Indo-European. And the ancient languages of Crete seem to have been non-Indo-European. It seems entirely plausible that Etruscan then was a pre-Indo-European survival, though the relationship to Lemnian is still there.
> – Southern Italy and Sicily is interesting because of the strong West Asian (“Caucasus”) imprint. A 2017 paper on ancient Mycenaean and Minoan genomes showed evidence of gene-flow from the same area, likely during the Copper or Bronze Age. This could be part of the same migration. Or, it could be part of the legacy of Magna Graecia, the colonization of the region by Greeks during antiquity. Or, it could be due to Roman and later admixtures and migrations.
> – The evidence of North African ancestry in Sicily is due probably to the settlements during the two centuries of Islam rule, when Sicily was in many ways part of greater North Africa
> https://www.gnxp.com/WordPress/2019/...ian-peninsula/


Here is Razib Khan's take on the paper.

----------


## Jovialis

> The Copper Age Anatolian sample now shows up on the map in the Neolithic. I0184 looks like it comes from North-Western Anatolia, in 3800 BC: 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe this is what links me to a lot of the other samples from later time periods; via other groups who share the Copper Age Anatolians as a source population:
> 
> 
> 
> As for the deep dive, all I get is 0.67 cM for the Mycenaean sample, I9033:
> ...


This is a more recent post, but I've been saying for the past year now that the copper age Anatolians that migrated to the Aegean, also may have settled around that time in Italy. Which would have been before the colonization by the Greeks. I'm happy to see that Razib Khan has comparable musings on the subject, as I do.




> _– Southern Italy and Sicily is interesting because of the strong West Asian (“Caucasus”) imprint. A 2017 paper on ancient Mycenaean and Minoan genomes showed evidence of gene-flow from the same area, likely during the Copper or Bronze Age. This could be part of the same migration. Or, it could be part of the legacy of Magna Graecia, the colonization of the region by Greeks during antiquity. Or, it could be due to Roman and later admixtures and migrations._
> _– The evidence of North African ancestry in Sicily is due probably to the settlements during the two centuries of Islam rule, when Sicily was in many ways part of greater North Africa_
> https://www.gnxp.com/WordPress/2019/...ian-peninsula/

----------


## Jovialis

By the Late Republic, if the Italics from the steppe did mix with the Aegean-like populations in Southern Italy; figures C and F sort of look like Italia during that time.



Moreover, my K36 heat map sort of looks like a silhouette of the Roman empire.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> Here is Razib Khan's take on the paper.


Razib Khan proves once again to be the most accurate and honest on Italians.

----------


## Jovialis

> Razib Khan proves once again to be the most accurate and honest on Italians.


I totally agree.

----------


## Aaron1981

> @Angela But Etruscans were very sophisticated / advanced people and had considerable influence on Romans. I mean from their perspective you can understand why would they want Italians to have more Arab ancestry, so that they could call them non-European/white etc. But why would these Nord-Eastern supremacists would like Etruscans to be Near Eastern? Isn't Etruscans being closer to the steppe better for their ideology? Then in their mind they can claim Romans' successes too. 
> 
> On Razib Khan, he used to write on Unz along with Jared Taylor etc. I think he is Republican too. I find it a little weird, i don't think most republicans would have positive views about South Asians, even though they are the richest/most educated group in US. Maybe he thinks deeper than me, i don't know.


South Asians, and you can probably include East Asians are very wealthy in USA because that country has attracted the brightest and richest people to immigrate. If history worked out differently and India or China had different immigration rules or began booming a century or more ago, you would find the brightest and wealthiest white folks move to those countries (if possible). Although racism and ethnocentrism is alive and well in both countries, so it would never happen.

----------


## Jovialis

> In this admixture chart on line 550, it shows that the Ibiza_Phoenician sample's autosomal components looks very close to that of the Mycenaean. Let us see how things pan out in the final peer-reviewed version of the paper.
> 
> Here's another aspect of the paper I found to be intriguing:
> 
> 
> 
> The Reich paper states that it is plausible that the Caucasus-related ancestry reported in Ravenae et al is likely to have been there since the early or middle Bronze-Age. Thus it stands to reason that this makes Southern Italian mainlanders; especially SItaly3 (see figure G, below) are indeed different from Sicilians. But who knows how Reich would model them. This is just my observations and speculation. At any rate, here are examples of the difference, below. If the plausibility is indeed correct, than the mainland south owes a lot of it's ancestry to the early to middle bronze age. While Sicily took a different route to get where it is today (Perhaps with Messina being an exception).
> 
> 
> ...


Here's the one I was thinking of.

----------


## Aaron1981

If accurate, this would suggest a split of Italo-Celtic in central Europe and tons of R1b moving into the Italian peninsula in the late Bronze, early Iron Age. Imperial Rome can be explained as diverse for many reasons. One being that the further south in the peninsula, you have a variety of different ethnic groups who arrived at various points in time, whereas in the north, it would appear that it was a singular, monolithic movement of similar people, like we see with Bell Beaker ethnicities. Rome was also the capital at the height of the empire's power it would have attracted many people from around the Mediterranean, especially sophisticated traders from the east. Who knows what this sample actually represents. The Etruscan result is somewhat bizarre. If they were also from the north, which seems to be the case from the male haplogroups at least, how did they create such a sophisticated civilization? I am not aware of any parallel in Bell Beaker related groups, but I might be mistaken.

----------


## Cpluskx

Also as Razib Khan stated, Etruscan-Lemnian connection is still there. Were Lemnians really just traders? Or they ran away to Aegean when the steppe population invaded Italy?

----------


## Jovialis

> If accurate, this would suggest a split of Italo-Celtic in central Europe and tons of R1b moving into the Italian peninsula in the late Bronze, early Iron Age. Imperial Rome can be explained as diverse for many reasons. One being that the further south in the peninsula, you have a variety of different ethnic groups who arrived at various points in time, whereas in the north, it would appear that it was a singular, monolithic movement of similar people, like we see with Bell Beaker ethnicities. Rome was also the capital at the height of the empire's power it would have attracted many people from around the Mediterranean, especially sophisticated traders from the east. Who knows what this sample actually represents. The Etruscan result is somewhat bizarre. If they were also from the north, which seems to be the case from the male haplogroups at least, how did they create such a sophisticated civilization? I am not aware of any parallel in Bell Beaker related groups, but I might be mistaken.


Idk, but I think my explanation seems pretty viable in regards to the Romans of the late Republic. Moreover, I believe your presentation is invalid. Certainly, the Greeks, and Greek-like populations in the south were a monolithic genetic entity too. The Italics mixing with these populations makes sense for the lion's share of the genetic composition of the Late Republican Romans of Italia. Moreover as Razib said the biggest contributing factor was EEF. We don't even know how similar the Italics were from Celts by the time they got to Italy. Moreover, some of that SBA in the modern populations in the North came much after the Romans.




> By the Late Republic, if the Italics from the steppe did mix with the Aegean-like populations in Southern Italy; figures C and F sort of look like Italia during that time.
> 
> 
> 
> Moreover, my K36 heat map sort of looks like a silhouette of the Roman empire.

----------


## Angela

> Here is Razib Khan's take on the paper.


That's what an honest and objective take on the published data looks like. I have no quarrel with any of it.

Too bad so many people in the amateur popgen world are incapable of this kind of analysis.

As to the paper itself, it's been discussed before, but the only North African found is in Sicily, so we can put paid to all the frenzied attempts to find anything but traces of it in the mainland. It all makes sense, of course, because the Saracens were in Sicily, as they were in Iberia, which has similar levels of North African, for two centuries, and barely settled in the mainland.

History matters.

Their designation of Sicily Bell Beaker as essentially already Anatolian Bronze Age type people is also interesting. As some of us have been saying forever, it didn't need the Empire to bring that ancestry to Southern Italy.

The strange thing is their finding of "Iran Neolithic" in the south.If they are correct, we need ancient dna to understand it. The farmers of Iran didn't fly over all the territory in between to land in Southern Italy at some late date. Nor, I would suggest, did undiluted Iranian farmer ancestry still exist in the Roman Era. Everything indicates to me that it started to spread during the Copper Age, mixing with, in West Asia, earlier farmer ancestry. Likewise, Anatolian type farmer ancestry moved to the lands of the Iranian farmers. 

I don't see how it could have arrived in Italy undiluted. 

Nor, to forestall the usual suspects, can we attribute it to "Levantine" ancestry, as it would be a minority element in them, following, as it does, a north south cline in Western Asia. 

Interestingly enough, they don't find "Levantine" ancestry anywhere but Sicily if I'm reading the charts correctly.

As to the high levels of sophistication of the Etruscan civilization, it certainly didn't come from Bell Beaker people or Central Europe. The metallurgy of Bell Beaker, for one thing, and their pottery, for another, was initially inferior to that of MN people in the Balkans, for example. Most of it had to come about from adoption of more sophisticated metallurgy, art, and on and on from the east, perhaps via their contacts with Sardinia. Also, less disruption from the steppe admixed people meant less disruption to the prior culture. The same thing happened to Italy in what became the Early Renaissance. More of the ancient culture survived, so it re-ignited there. I'm not saying that some highly advanced people from the east didn't go there. It's possible. We'll see. I'm more inclined, however, to see it as a slow spread up the peninsula.

I do, as always, have a problem with their admixture dates. I just don't think these programs are accurate. They pick up only the latest signal. That was the case for the Egyptians, if I remember correctly.

----------


## Angela

> That's what an honest and objective take on the published data looks like. I have no quarrel with any of it.
> 
> Too bad so many people in the amateur popgen world are incapable of this kind of analysis.
> 
> As to the paper itself, it's been discussed before, but the only North African found is in Sicily, so we can put paid to all the frenzied attempts to find anything but traces of it in the mainland. It all makes sense, of course, because the Saracens were in Sicily, as they were in Iberia, which has similar levels of North African, for two centuries, and barely settled in the mainland.
> 
> History matters.
> 
> Their designation of Sicily Bell Beaker as essentially already Anatolian Bronze Age type people is also interesting. As some of us have been saying forever, it didn't need the Empire to bring that ancestry to Southern Italy.
> ...



I did find something which I think is new, and should be investigated:

*"**"Contrary to previous reports (4), the occurrence of CHG as detected by our CP/NNLS analysis did not mirror the presence of SBA, with several populations testing positive for the latter but not for the former (Fig. 2 and fig. S5, A and B). When we compared this analysis and the one using a different CHG sample (SATP) (5), the two were highly correlated (Spearman ρ = 0.972, P < 0.05; fig. S5F). We therefore speculate that our approach might, in general, underestimate the presence of CHG across the continent*; however, we note that even considering this scenario, the excess of Caucasus-related ancestry detected in the south of the European continent, and in Southern Italy in particular, is notable and unexplained by currently proposed models for the peopling of the continent."

----------


## Angela

Just as an aside, looking at the amounts of AN in Europe, except for the low population extreme northeast, Europeans are close to or over 50% AN. 

Contrary to the way people think about Europe, that's the single most important component.

----------


## Jovialis

> Just as an aside, looking at the amounts of AN in Europe, except for the low population extreme northeast, Europeans are close to or over 50% AN. 
> 
> Contrary to the way people think about Europe, that's the single most important component.


Indeed, and the pre-print that's been pinned on Lazaridis' tweeter for nearly a year has been under-discussed IMO

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/423079v1

As the Anatolian_N-like population from the Paleolithic Caucasus, is suggested to be the core of all West Eurasian ancestry.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> As to the high levels of sophistication of the Etruscan civilization, it certainly didn't come from Bell Beaker people or Central Europe. The metallurgy of Bell Beaker, for one thing, and their pottery, for another, was initially inferior to that of MN people in the Balkans, for example. Most of it had to come about from adoption of more sophisticated metallurgy, art, and on and on from the east, perhaps via their contacts with Sardinia. Also, less disruption from the steppe admixed people meant less disruption to the prior culture. The same thing happened to Italy in what became the Early Renaissance. More of the ancient culture survived, so it re-ignited there. I'm not saying that some highly advanced people from the east didn't go there. It's possible. We'll see. I'm more inclined, however, to see it as a slow spread up the peninsula.


According to many etruscologists and archaeologists, the high levels of sophistication of Etruscan civilization have nothing to do with their origins and are mostly due to the orientalizing period. The question of the origins of the Etruscans was solved long ago by archaeologists. The thesis of the eastern origin has been proposed again by indo-europeanists, orientalists, non-etruscologists and mostly by amateur scholars. While the majority of etruscologists, of any nationality (it is a lie written by the indo-europeanist Beekes that the autochthony of the Etruscans was only supported by Italian etruscologists), have never changed their minds.

The Etruscans certainly had many contacts and not only with the Greeks, being connected to all the main cultural and commercial routes of the time. From central Europe, to south-western and south-eastern Europe and the Aegean, of course. The Greeks called the Tyrrhenians "pirates". But the first contacts with the East Mediterranean with archaeological evidence date back to Frattesina in the south of Veneto, which is a site of the proto-Villanovan era. While today there are testimonies of previous contacts with movements not only from east to west, but also from west to east.

The Etruscans are the cultural synthesis of all this. Then, of course, small groups of foreigners may have arrived in Etruria, but they were foreigners assimilated by the Etruscans, not the ancestors of the Etruscans.

Of course the question of the language remains open, but it is difficult to believe and very unlikely that the Rhaetian language spoken in the Eastern Alps also came from a recent migration and that the Rhaetians were "Etruscans" driven out by the Gauls. The Rhaetian language is attested before the Gallic invasions of northern Italy, the Rhaetians are identified with a material culture called Fritzens-Sanzeno which is not Etruscan and the relations between Rhaetians and Etruscans seem very ancient both on an archaeological and linguistic level. Then, if it is definitively proved that also the Camunic language spoken in the Central Alps was also related to the Rhaetian language and therefore part of the same family, at this point it becomes really clear that it is a pre-Indo-European language that has been present for a long time. Moreover, the few inscriptions of Lemnos, written in an alphabet more common in Italy and Greece than in Asia Minor, are more recent than the oldest Etruscan inscriptions in Italy. 

Without a doubt, the Etruscans owe much of their growth to their contacts with the Aegean Sea and the ancient Near East, but this is also true for the Greeks and, to a lesser extent, for the Romans.

----------


## Ailchu

> South Asians, and you can probably include East Asians are very wealthy in USA because that country has attracted the brightest and richest people to immigrate.


you mean the exception confirms the rule? would republicans dislike south asians if there wasn't such a bias in your opinion?

----------


## Angela

How the hell does Davidski have all the Raveane genomes already and plugged into G25? Anyone know if they were published anywhere and when?

I guess he doesn't like people from Emilia Romagna. They're not included. :)

Anyone remember how much Iran Neo was in the Greek Neolithic? How much was in the Minoans?

----------


## Angela

I'm sorry to say it, but ONE Liguria sample and no samples from Emilia Romagna is NOT helpful.

We've known for ages that there's a difference between western and eastern Liguria, as we know that Emilia Romagna is a bridge between areas further north and Toscana. 

Without these samples it's going to look like there's a break between the far north and Toscana, which is not true. The break starts with Central South/Italy, i.e. Marche, Umbria, and especially Lazio and the Abruzzi. Only someone completely clueless about Italian genetics would exclude them. Makes no sense, unless there's some purpose to this madness?

This is the kind of stuff that makes me distrust the Global 25 results in general. Everything depends on the samples chosen.

Edit:
Like I said, it leads to an incorrect PCA. 
https://postimg.cc/z33FbLvm

----------


## torzio

> According to many etruscologists and archaeologists, the high levels of sophistication of Etruscan civilization have nothing to do with their origins and are mostly due to the orientalizing period. The question of the origins of the Etruscans was solved long ago by archaeologists. The thesis of the eastern origin has been proposed again by indo-europeanists, orientalists, non-etruscologists and mostly by amateur scholars. While the majority of etruscologists, of any nationality (it is a lie written by the indo-europeanist Beekes that the autochthony of the Etruscans was only supported by Italian etruscologists), have never changed their minds.
> 
> The Etruscans certainly had many contacts and not only with the Greeks, being connected to all the main cultural and commercial routes of the time. From central Europe, to south-western and south-eastern Europe and the Aegean, of course. The Greeks called the Tyrrhenians "pirates". But the first contacts with the East Mediterranean with archaeological evidence date back to Frattesina in the south of Veneto, which is a site of the proto-Villanovan era. While today there are testimonies of previous contacts with movements not only from east to west, but also from west to east.
> 
> The Etruscans are the cultural synthesis of all this. Then, of course, small groups of foreigners may have arrived in Etruria, but they were foreigners assimilated by the Etruscans, not the ancestors of the Etruscans.
> 
> Of course the question of the language remains open, but it is difficult to believe and very unlikely that the Rhaetian language spoken in the Eastern Alps also came from a recent migration and that the Rhaetians were "Etruscans" driven out by the Gauls. The Rhaetian language is attested before the Gallic invasions of northern Italy, the Rhaetians are identified with a material culture called Fritzens-Sanzeno which is not Etruscan and the relations between Rhaetians and Etruscans seem very ancient both on an archaeological and linguistic level. Then, if it is definitively proved that also the Camunic language spoken in the Central Alps was also related to the Rhaetian language and therefore part of the same family, at this point it becomes really clear that it is a pre-Indo-European language that has been present for a long time. Moreover, the few inscriptions of Lemnos, written in an alphabet more common in Italy and Greece than in Asia Minor, are more recent than the oldest Etruscan inscriptions in Italy. 
> 
> Without a doubt, the Etruscans owe much of their growth to their contacts with the Aegean Sea and the ancient Near East, but this is also true for the Greeks and, to a lesser extent, for the Romans.


The cumunic language is from the camuni people, a major group of the indigenous people called Euganei.....the euganei are the first venetic people.... they should also be connected with polada and este cultures

----------


## Pax Augusta

> The cumunic language is from the camuni people, a major group of the indigenous people called Euganei.....the euganei are the first venetic people.... they should also be connected with polada and este cultures


Camunic language is considered a pre–Indo-European language and some scholars think is related to the Rhaetian language. Others think Camunic language might be related to that of the Euganei, but we have not Euganei inscriptions as I know. Euganei were very unlikely the first Venetic people.

----------


## torzio

> Camunic language is considered a pre–Indo-European language and some scholars think is related to the Rhaetian language. Others think Camunic language might be related to that of the Euganei, but we have not Euganei inscriptions as I know. Euganei were very unlikely the first Venetic people.


Eth. EUGA´NEI a people of Northern Italy, who play but an unimportant part in historical times, but appear at an earlier period to have been more powerful and widely spread. Livy expressly tells us (1.1) that they occupied the whole tract from the Alps to the head of the Adriatic, from which they were expelled by the Veneti. And it is quite in accordance with this statement that Pliny describes Verona as inhabited partly by Rhaetians, partly by Euganeans, and that Cato enumerated 34 towns belonging to them. (Plin. Nat. 3.19. s. 23, 20. s. 24.) They appear to have been driven by the Veneti into the valleys of the Alps on the Italian side of the chain, where they continued to subsist in the time of Pliny as a separate people, and had received the Latin franchise. But they must also have occupied the detached group of volcanic hills between Patavium and Verona, which are still known as the Euganean Hills (Colli Euganei), a name evidently transmitted by uninterrupted tradition, though not found in any ancient geographer.


Clearly Ateste is a euganei town in origin

----------


## Pax Augusta

> Eth. EUGA´NEI a people of Northern Italy, who play but an unimportant part in historical times, but appear at an earlier period to have been more powerful and widely spread. Livy expressly tells us (1.1) that they occupied the whole tract from the Alps to the head of the Adriatic, from which they were expelled by the Veneti. And it is quite in accordance with this statement that Pliny describes Verona as inhabited partly by Rhaetians, partly by Euganeans, and that Cato enumerated 34 towns belonging to them. (Plin. Nat. 3.19. s. 23, 20. s. 24.) They appear to have been driven by the Veneti into the valleys of the Alps on the Italian side of the chain, where they continued to subsist in the time of Pliny as a separate people, and had received the Latin franchise. But they must also have occupied the detached group of volcanic hills between Patavium and Verona, which are still known as the Euganean Hills (Colli Euganei), a name evidently transmitted by uninterrupted tradition, though not found in any ancient geographer. Clearly Ateste is a euganei town in origin


If Euganei were expelled from the Veneti, how can they be the first Venetic people? The Euganei were certainly one of the first Venetic people, if not the first, in a broad sense. But they were more similar to Camuni and Rhaetians than to the Veneti in my opinion. Euganei probably represented the pre-indo-European layer. Of course, this does not imply that in the late Bronze Age or early Iron age Euganei were genetically completely pre-Indo-European or EEF. I don't know if it's clear what I mean.

----------


## torzio

> If Euganei were expelled from the Veneti, how can they be the first Venetic people? The Euganei were certainly one of the first Venetic people, if not the first, in a broad sense. But they were more similar to Camuni and Rhaetians than to the Veneti in my opinion. Euganei probably represented the pre-indo-European layer. Of course, this does not imply that in the late Bronze Age or early Iron age Euganei were genetically completely pre-Indo-European or EEF. I don't know if it's clear what I mean.


If the venetic and rhaetic are similar in languages, then clearly they did not come via any anatolian migration, but from the indigenous Euganei
With oxford uni. papers claiming venetic appeared not before 1150bc, then the Euganei must be the source.

Also roman historian Cato stating the euganei where numerous , 34 towns , and wide spread, ......we need to only investigate how long they where there

----------


## Pax Augusta

> If the venetic and rhaetic are similar in languages


I think you're confusing the language with the alphabet/script again. 


If the Venetic and the Rhaetic/Rhaetian are similar in languages, it means that the Venetic is also a Tyrrhenian language.

----------


## Jovialis

> By the Late Republic, if the Italics from the steppe did mix with the Aegean-like populations in Southern Italy; figures C and F sort of look like Italia during that time.
> 
> 
> 
> Moreover, my K36 heat map sort of looks like a silhouette of the Roman empire.





> From 340 BCE, Rome started expanding its territory by waging war with its neighbours, first the other Latin tribes, then the Samnites and Umbrians (other Italic peoples), the Etruscans and the Greeks of southern Italy, who were all conquered by 270 BCE. All these people became assimilated by the Romans and acquired Roman citizenship in 88 BCE at the end of the Social War. During the Late Republican period, the Roman ethnicity was no longer purely Italic, but increasingly a meger of Italic, Greek and Etruscan people.
> 
> https://www.eupedia.com/history/roman_trivia.shtml


Maciamo is spot on with his trivia of the Ancient Romans.

I think that after this point, that merger which created the Late Republican Romans of Italia, then permeated throughout Europe, within the boarders of the empire.

----------


## Jovialis

Great post on Twitter by Razib Khan:

----------


## Angela

How peculiar that these authors are still running up the flag for a significantly Near Eastern arrival in Toscana, i.e. the Herodotus theory. I guess they're not very plugged in. If the rumours are correct they're going to have eggs all over their faces, along with Carlos Quilles. 

Maybe that's why they were looking for an "Iranian farmer" component. Unfortunately for them, it's only in the south.

The more I think about that component, the more bizarre it seems. Iran Neo is really a lot of Iran herder plus a lot of Anatolian Neo. It probably could be split up into Anatolian Neo and CHG like. 

They themselves think there are differences in the results depending upon which CHG sample they use. 

No, this paper is definitely NOT the one. 

Not to mention that PCAs are being generated all over the place which are incorrect because there's only ONE Ligurian sample, and NO Emilia Romagna samples. 

Shoemakers, my dad would have said. :)

----------


## torzio

> I think you're confusing the language with the alphabet/script again. 
> 
> 
> If the Venetic and the Rhaetic/Rhaetian are similar in languages, it means that the Venetic is also a Tyrrhenian language.


your missing the point, it has nothing to do with alphabet or script , nothing to do with the venetic from the black sea area or the rhaetic people from central europe. it has to do with that it must belong to the indigenous people of the eastern alps and the plains of modern veneto and friuli ....the Euganei people ..........who are associated with Camunic, Magre or Atestine and these are all the same as is rhaetic , venetic...........the alphabet or script or anything could not have migrated to this area from anywhere with any other people. I cannot see this script or alphabet being from Black sea anatolia to the german lands of central europe, it makes no sense, it can only come from the Euganei.

Giancarlo Tomezzoli states the Rhaetic came from The ancient Rhaetians were a Central European people spread in a land comprising: Voralberg and Tirol in present Austria, Trentino and Western Veneto in present Italy, Eastern Switzerland Cantons, part of Bavaria and Baden-Würtenberg in present Germany. The Venetic from the Black sea Anatolia

----------


## brick

I had to remove some samples because they were drifting too much. G25 miscalculations or because of the samples themselves? An individual from Italian_Trentino-Alto-Adige plots in the Hungarian cluster, an individual from Italian_Northeast plots between Slovenes and Croats. Why did the study use people from the Alps who are not completely Italian?

Yes, Liguria is represented by a single individual. There is a small hole between central Italy and northern Italy due to the lack of samples but the distance is small especially between Italian_Tuscany and the Ligurian sample in this PCA.

What I find interesting is that the PCA with these new samples shows that not all northern Italy is Iberian-like. The genetic structure of northern Italy seems to me more complex than that of the rest of the country and more samples for northern Italy are needed.

----------


## Angela

The "hole" is not between central and northern Italy but between Northern Italy and Toscana, and it doesn't exist in reality. Emilia Romagna would undoubtedly fill that space, as it does on PCAs based on complete sets of samples. Btw, Toscana is not Central Italy.

Western Liguria, from which the Ligurian sample probably comes given where it plots, is more "northern" than eastern Liguria, but you wouldn't know it by using one sample. There is also a lot of variation within Emilia Romagna, especially west versus east.

I have been saying for more than ten years that there is by far more variation within the Northern Italian group than there is within the part of Italy which was known as the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies. The only slight difference is the North African in Sicilians.

Amateurs have been sold a bill of goods about Southern Italy based on old calculator results of people of unknown actual provenance, although this paper's conclusions deserve no prize. It certainly isn't a good sign that they couldn't be trusted to make sure that all four grandparents were Italian, and not some descendants of German or Croatian families stranded when the borders changed. Where did they go to get some samples, in the most northern regions of the Alto Adige or Istria? For crying out loud. If they're using them to calculate fst distances from western Sicilians for example, they're exaggerating the overall variation. I don't know if they're just dumb or what.

Ed.
Geneticists have to be very careful with samples from Trentino Alto-Adige. A lot of the real "natives" are actually of Austrian/German stock. Then there are some much more recent Italian arrivals from further south. You have to decide what you're trying to see and then pick the samples carefully accordingly. Even after taking the obvious outliers out, I wouldn't necessarily trust the placement of that Trentino sample(s). The same is true for "northeast" Italy. You shouldn't use those highly drifted samples that were part of a medical study if I remember correctly. They're not representative. Neither, of course, should you use samples like those from, for example, a family like that of Lidia Bastianich.


If samples from, say, Provence, were available, you'd see other correspondences.

----------


## brick

It always depends on the samples chosen. This is very true for every amateur tool, also true for academic studies.

----------


## Angela

> It always depends on the samples chosen. This is very true for every amateur tool, also true for academic studies.


Very true, Brick. That's why not only should the samples be chosen honestly, they should also be chosen with professionalism and a knowledge of the "ethnic" context.

It's inexcusable to include Croatians and Germans, and to think you can capture the variation of any Italian province with one sample. What makes it worse is that these are Italians.

Why Davidski didn't include Emilia Romagna in what he released I have no idea. If the authors didn't want to release them then likewise I don't get it. Did they use substandard samples?

You can't test the work of another group unless you have access to all the samples. How is anyone supposed to try to replicate their analysis?

----------


## ibro

> Very true, Brick. That's why not only should the samples be chosen honestly, they should also be chosen with professionalism and a knowledge of the "ethnic" context.
> 
> It's inexcusable to include Croatians and Germans, and to think you can capture the variation of any Italian province with one sample. What makes it worse is that these are Italians.
> 
> Why Davidski didn't include Emilia Romagna in what he released I have no idea. If the authors didn't want to release them then likewise I don't get it. Did they use substandard samples?
> 
> You can't test the work of another group unless you have access to all the samples. How is anyone supposed to try to replicate their analysis?


Not even a sample was release from Piedmont.

----------


## Stuvanè

> The "hole" is not between central and northern Italy but between Northern Italy and Toscana, and it doesn't exist in reality. Emilia Romagna would undoubtedly fill that space, as it does on PCAs based on complete sets of samples. Btw, Toscana is not Central Italy.
> 
> Western Liguria, from which the Ligurian sample probably comes given where it plots, is more "northern" than eastern Liguria, but you wouldn't know it by using one sample. There is also a lot of variation within Emilia Romagna, especially west versus east.


Well said, Angela.
In the past few days Pax had the patience to rework the PCA, including my data, and I fall exactly into the "ghost" cluster, a little dispersed from the others.


_Beata solitudo, sola beatitudo_ :)

_________________

(without eigenvalue scale)




(with eigenvalue scale)

----------


## Jovialis

@Angela, and Brick:

Here are some of the samples from the study, along with the Sample ID. I took it from the supplement material, in the study. It is in the first excel sheet, in Data File S1 on the cluster composition tabs

SCItaly1
ITC-ABR_G
Alp090

SCItaly1
ITC-ABR_G
Alp140

SCItaly1
ITC-ABR_G
ALP161

SCItaly1
ITC-ABR_G
Alp162

SItaly3
ITC-ABR_G
ALP205

SCItaly1
ITC-ABR_G
Alp380

SItaly3
ITC-ABR_G
Alp503

SCItaly1
ITC-ABR_G
Alp616

SCItaly1
ITC-LAZ_G
id004

SCItaly1
ITC-LAZ_G
id019

SCItaly1
ITC-LAZ_G
id022

SCItaly1
ITC-LAZ_G
id056

SCItaly1
ITC-LAZ_G
id066

SCItaly1
ITC-LAZ_G
id083

SCItaly1
ITC-LAZ_G
id100

SCItaly1
ITC-LAZ_G
id113

SCItaly1
ITC-LAZ_G
id118

SCItaly1
ITC-LAZ_G
id146

SCItaly1
ITC-LAZ_G
id185

SCItaly1
ITC-LAZ_G
id188

SCItaly1
ITC-LAZ_G
id189

SCItaly1
ITC-LAZ_G
id209

SCItaly1
ITC-LAZ_G
id215

SCItaly1
ITC-LAZ_G
id216

SCItaly1
ITC-LAZ_G
id223

SCItaly1
ITC-LAZ_G
id225

SCItaly1
ITC-LAZ_G
id230

SCItaly1
ITC-LAZ_G
id236

SCItaly1
ITC-LAZ_G
id251

SCItaly1
ITC-LAZ_G
id257

SCItaly1
ITC-LAZ_G
id262

SCItaly1
ITC-LAZ_G
id273

SCItaly1
ITC-LAZ_G
id274

SCItaly1
ITC-LAZ_G
id278

SCItaly1
ITC-LAZ_G
id288

SCItaly1
ITC-LAZ_G
id300

SCItaly1
ITC-LAZ_G
NOR24

SCItaly1
ITC-LAZ_G
NOR28

SCItaly1
ITC-LAZ_G
PG28

SCItaly1
ITC-LAZ_G
PG30

SCItaly1
ITC-MAR_G
MarABG010D

SCItaly1
ITC-MAR_G
MarABI020D

SCItaly1
ITC-MAR_G
MarABN020D

SCItaly1
ITC-MAR_G
MarABP050D

SCItaly1
ITC-MAR_G
MarABQ080D

SCItaly1
ITC-MAR_G
MarABU050D

SCItaly1
ITC-MAR_G
MarABY030D

SCItaly1
ITC-MAR_G
MarACM040D

SCItaly1
ITC-MAR_G
MarACO060D

SCItaly1
ITC-MAR_G
MarACO100D

SCItaly1
ITC-MAR_G
MarACV100D

SCItaly1
ITC-MAR_G
MarACW030D

SCItaly1
ITC-MAR_G
MarACW080D

SCItaly1
ITC-MAR_G
MarACY030D

SCItaly1
ITC-MAR_G
MarADC050D

SCItaly1
ITC-MAR_G
MarADG030D

NCItaly1
ITC-TSI_G
id018

NCItaly1
ITC-TSI_G
id031

NCItaly1
ITC-TSI_G
id065

NCItaly1
ITC-TSI_G
id068

NCItaly1
ITC-TSI_G
id074

NCItaly1
ITC-TSI_G
id086

NCItaly1
ITC-TSI_G
id091

NCItaly1
ITC-TSI_G
id117

NCItaly1
ITC-TSI_G
id122

NCItaly3
ITC-TSI_G
id136

NCItaly1
ITC-TSI_G
id169

NCItaly1
ITC-TSI_G
id177

EXCLUDED
ITC-TSI_G
id183

NCItaly3
ITC-TSI_G
id213

NCItaly1
ITC-TSI_G
id239

NCItaly1
ITC-TSI_G
id240

NCItaly3
ITC-TSI_G
id283

NCItaly1
ITC-TSI_G
id286

SCItaly1
ITC-TSI_G
id296

NCItaly3
ITC-TSI_G
MURLO114

NCItaly2
ITC-TSI_G
NA20502

NCItaly2
ITC-TSI_G
NA20503

NCItaly1
ITC-TSI_G
NA20504

NCItaly2
ITC-TSI_G
NA20505

NCItaly2
ITC-TSI_G
NA20506

NCItaly1
ITC-TSI_G
NA20507

NCItaly1
ITC-TSI_G
NA20508

NCItaly1
ITC-TSI_G
NA20509

NCItaly2
ITC-TSI_G
NA20510

NCItaly1
ITC-TSI_G
NA20512

NCItaly1
ITC-TSI_G
NA20513

NCItaly2
ITC-TSI_G
NA20514

NCItaly1
ITC-TSI_G
NA20515

NCItaly2
ITC-TSI_G
NA20516

NCItaly2
ITC-TSI_G
NA20517

NCItaly2
ITC-TSI_G
NA20518

NCItaly1
ITC-TSI_G
NA20519

NCItaly2
ITC-TSI_G
NA20520

NCItaly2
ITC-TSI_G
NA20521

NCItaly1
ITC-TSI_G
NA20522

NItaly3
ITC-TSI_G
NA20524

NCItaly1
ITC-TSI_G
NA20525

NCItaly1
ITC-TSI_G
NA20527

NCItaly1
ITC-TSI_G
NA20528

NCItaly2
ITC-TSI_G
NA20529

NCItaly1
ITC-TSI_G
NA20530

NCItaly2
ITC-TSI_G
NA20531

NCItaly2
ITC-TSI_G
NA20532

NCItaly2
ITC-TSI_G
NA20533

NCItaly2
ITC-TSI_G
NA20534

NItaly3
ITC-TSI_G
NA20535

NCItaly1
ITC-TSI_G
NA20536

NCItaly2
ITC-TSI_G
NA20537

NCItaly2
ITC-TSI_G
NA20538

NCItaly2
ITC-TSI_G
NA20539

NCItaly2
ITC-TSI_G
NA20540

NCItaly2
ITC-TSI_G
NA20541

NCItaly1
ITC-TSI_G
NA20542

NCItaly1
ITC-TSI_G
NA20543

NCItaly1
ITC-TSI_G
NA20544

NCItaly1
ITC-TSI_G
NA20581

NCItaly1
ITC-TSI_G
NA20582

NCItaly1
ITC-TSI_G
NA20585

NCItaly2
ITC-TSI_G
NA20586

NCItaly1
ITC-TSI_G
NA20588

NCItaly1
ITC-TSI_G
NA20589

NCItaly2
ITC-TSI_G
NA20752

NCItaly2
ITC-TSI_G
NA20753

NCItaly2
ITC-TSI_G
NA20754

NCItaly1
ITC-TSI_G
NA20755

NCItaly1
ITC-TSI_G
NA20756

NCItaly1
ITC-TSI_G
NA20757

NCItaly1
ITC-TSI_G
NA20758

NCItaly1
ITC-TSI_G
NA20759

NCItaly1
ITC-TSI_G
NA20761

NCItaly1
ITC-TSI_G
NA20765

NCItaly1
ITC-TSI_G
NA20766

NCItaly2
ITC-TSI_G
NA20768

NCItaly2
ITC-TSI_G
NA20769

NCItaly2
ITC-TSI_G
NA20770

NCItaly1
ITC-TSI_G
NA20771

NCItaly1
ITC-TSI_G
NA20772

NCItaly1
ITC-TSI_G
NA20773

NCItaly1
ITC-TSI_G
NA20774

NCItaly1
ITC-TSI_G
NA20775

NCItaly1
ITC-TSI_G
NA20778

NCItaly2
ITC-TSI_G
NA20783

NCItaly1
ITC-TSI_G
NA20785

NCItaly1
ITC-TSI_G
NA20786

NCItaly2
ITC-TSI_G
NA20787

NCItaly2
ITC-TSI_G
NA20790

NCItaly1
ITC-TSI_G
NA20792

NCItaly2
ITC-TSI_G
NA20795

NCItaly2
ITC-TSI_G
NA20796

NCItaly1
ITC-TSI_G
NA20797

NCItaly2
ITC-TSI_G
NA20798

NCItaly1
ITC-TSI_G
NA20799

NCItaly1
ITC-TSI_G
NA20800

NCItaly2
ITC-TSI_G
NA20801

NCItaly1
ITC-TSI_G
NA20802

NCItaly1
ITC-TSI_G
NA20803

NCItaly1
ITC-TSI_G
NA20804

NCItaly1
ITC-TSI_G
NA20805

NCItaly1
ITC-TSI_G
NA20806

NCItaly1
ITC-TSI_G
NA20807

NCItaly2
ITC-TSI_G
NA20808

NCItaly1
ITC-TSI_G
NA20809

NCItaly1
ITC-TSI_G
NA20810

NCItaly1
ITC-TSI_G
NA20811

NCItaly1
ITC-TSI_G
NA20812

NCItaly1
ITC-TSI_G
NA20813

NCItaly1
ITC-TSI_G
NA20814

NCItaly1
ITC-TSI_G
NA20815

NCItaly2
ITC-TSI_G
NA20816

NCItaly1
ITC-TSI_G
NA20818

NCItaly1
ITC-TSI_G
NA20819

NCItaly2
ITC-TSI_G
NA20826

NCItaly1
ITC-TSI_G
NA20828

NCItaly1
ITC-TSI_G
VO59

NCItaly1
ITC-TSI_G
VO65

NCItaly1
ITC-TSI_G
VO109

SCItaly1
ITC-UMB_G
PG03

SCItaly1
ITC-UMB_G
PG04

SCItaly1
ITC-UMB_G
PG05

SCItaly1
ITC-UMB_G
PG06

SCItaly1
ITC-UMB_G
PG07

SCItaly1
ITC-UMB_G
PG08

SCItaly1
ITC-UMB_G
PG11

SCItaly1
ITC-UMB_G
PG12

SCItaly1
ITC-UMB_G
PG15

NItaly3
ITN-EMI_G
id008

NCItaly1
ITN-EMI_G
id029

NItaly3
ITN-EMI_G
id030

NItaly3
ITN-EMI_G
id034

NItaly3
ITN-EMI_G
id042

NItaly3
ITN-EMI_G
id048

NItaly3
ITN-EMI_G
id057

NItaly3
ITN-EMI_G
id059

NItaly3
ITN-EMI_G
id067

NItaly3
ITN-EMI_G
id078

NItaly3
ITN-EMI_G
id079

NItaly3
ITN-EMI_G
id082

NItaly3
ITN-EMI_G
id084

NItaly3
ITN-EMI_G
id092

NItaly3
ITN-EMI_G
id101

NItaly3
ITN-EMI_G
id103

NCItaly1
ITN-EMI_G
id116

NItaly3
ITN-EMI_G
id124

NItaly3
ITN-EMI_G
id162

NItaly3
ITN-EMI_G
id172

NItaly3
ITN-EMI_G
id178

NItaly3
ITN-EMI_G
id180

NItaly3
ITN-EMI_G
id191

NItaly3
ITN-EMI_G
id224

NItaly3
ITN-EMI_G
id229

NItaly3
ITN-EMI_G
id238

NItaly3
ITN-EMI_G
id245

NItaly3
ITN-EMI_G
id260

NItaly3
ITN-EMI_G
id291

NItaly3
ITN-EMI_G
id295

NItaly6
ITN-FRI_G
ALP081

NItaly6
ITN-FRI_G
ALP093

EEurope1
ITN-FRI_G
ALP188

NItaly6
ITN-FRI_G
ALP220

NItaly6
ITN-FRI_G
ALP233

NItaly6
ITN-FRI_G
ALP235

NItaly6
ITN-FRI_G
ALP280

NItaly6
ITN-FRI_G
ALP346

NItaly6
ITN-FRI_G
ALP354

NItaly6
ITN-FRI_G
ALP435

NItaly6
ITN-FRI_G
ALP506

NItaly6
ITN-FRI_G
KF1800761

NItaly6
ITN-FRI_G
KF1803129

NItaly6
ITN-FRI_G
KF2700922

NItaly6
ITN-FRI_G
KF2700960

NItaly3
ITN-LIG_G
ALP099

NItaly3
ITN-LIG_G
id027

NItaly3
ITN-LIG_G
id035

NItaly4
ITN-LIG_G
id041

NItaly3
ITN-LIG_G
id045

NItaly3
ITN-LIG_G
id047

NItaly3
ITN-LIG_G
id060

NItaly3
ITN-LIG_G
id062

NItaly3
ITN-LIG_G
id063

NItaly3
ITN-LIG_G
id089

NItaly3
ITN-LIG_G
id093

EXCLUDED
ITN-LIG_G
id105

NItaly3
ITN-LIG_G
id119

NItaly3
ITN-LIG_G
id126

NItaly3
ITN-LIG_G
id132

NItaly3
ITN-LIG_G
id138

NItaly3
ITN-LIG_G
id141

NItaly3
ITN-LIG_G
id153

NItaly3
ITN-LIG_G
id158

NItaly3
ITN-LIG_G
id187

NItaly6
ITN-LIG_G
id200

NItaly6
ITN-LIG_G
id204

NItaly3
ITN-LIG_G
id250

NItaly3
ITN-LIG_G
id290

SCItaly1
ITN-LIG_G
id292

NItaly3
ITN-LOM_G
ALP288

NItaly4
ITN-LOM_G
BGD28

NItaly4
ITN-LOM_G
BGD31

NItaly4
ITN-LOM_G
BGD103

NItaly4
ITN-LOM_G
BGD301

NItaly3
ITN-LOM_G
id002

NItaly4
ITN-LOM_G
id013

NItaly4
ITN-LOM_G
id040

NItaly3
ITN-LOM_G
id046

NItaly3
ITN-LOM_G
id050

NItaly4
ITN-LOM_G
id055

NItaly3
ITN-LOM_G
id080

NItaly4
ITN-LOM_G
id081

NItaly4
ITN-LOM_G
id090

NItaly3
ITN-LOM_G
id104

EXCLUDED
ITN-LOM_G
id106

NItaly3
ITN-LOM_G
id121

NItaly3
ITN-LOM_G
id123

NItaly4
ITN-LOM_G
id145

EXCLUDED
ITN-LOM_G
id147

EXCLUDED
ITN-LOM_G
id148

NItaly4
ITN-LOM_G
id149

NItaly4
ITN-LOM_G
id154

NItaly4
ITN-LOM_G
id181

NItaly4
ITN-LOM_G
id192

NItaly4
ITN-LOM_G
id201

NItaly4
ITN-LOM_G
id202

NItaly4
ITN-LOM_G
id205

NItaly3
ITN-LOM_G
id219

NItaly4
ITN-LOM_G
id221

NItaly4
ITN-LOM_G
id222

NItaly3
ITN-LOM_G
id233

NItaly3
ITN-LOM_G
id241

NItaly3
ITN-LOM_G
id243

NItaly4
ITN-LOM_G
id246

NItaly4
ITN-LOM_G
id252

NItaly3
ITN-LOM_G
id265

NItaly4
ITN-LOM_G
id267

NItaly3
ITN-LOM_G
id294

NItaly3
ITN-LOM_G
id298

NItaly3
ITN-PIE_G
id007

NItaly3
ITN-PIE_G
id010

NItaly3
ITN-PIE_G
id011

NItaly3
ITN-PIE_G
id015

NItaly3
ITN-PIE_G
id016

NItaly3
ITN-PIE_G
id049

NItaly3
ITN-PIE_G
id069

NItaly3
ITN-PIE_G
id088

NItaly3
ITN-PIE_G
id097

NItaly3
ITN-PIE_G
id098

NItaly3
ITN-PIE_G
id099

NItaly3
ITN-PIE_G
id129

NItaly3
ITN-PIE_G
id137

NItaly3
ITN-PIE_G
id150

NItaly3
ITN-PIE_G
id163

NItaly3
ITN-PIE_G
id207

NItaly3
ITN-PIE_G
id212

NItaly3
ITN-PIE_G
id217

NItaly3
ITN-PIE_G
id218

NItaly3
ITN-PIE_G
id227

NItaly3
ITN-PIE_G
id244

NItaly3
ITN-PIE_G
id247

NItaly3
ITN-PIE_G
id255

NItaly3
ITN-PIE_G
id259

NItaly3
ITN-PIE_G
id264

NItaly3
ITN-PIE_G
id272

NItaly3
ITN-PIE_G
id281

NItaly3
ITN-PIE_G
id282

NItaly3
ITN-PIE_G
id289

NItaly6
ITN-TRE_G
ALP070

NItaly6
ITN-TRE_G
ALP071

NItaly3
ITN-TRE_G
ALP114

NItaly6
ITN-TRE_G
ALP200

NItaly6
ITN-TRE_G
ALP259

EXCLUDED
ITN-TRE_G
ALP395

EEurope1
ITN-TRE_G
ALP414

NItaly6
ITN-TRE_G
ALP420

NItaly1
ITN-VDA_G
ALP225

NItaly1
ITN-VDA_G
ALP227

NItaly1
ITN-VDA_G
id028

EXCLUDED
ITN-VDA_G
id039

NItaly1
ITN-VDA_G
id044

NItaly1
ITN-VDA_G
id071

NItaly1
ITN-VDA_G
id073

NItaly1
ITN-VDA_G
id077

NItaly1
ITN-VDA_G
id096

NItaly1
ITN-VDA_G
id110

NItaly1
ITN-VDA_G
id112

NItaly1
ITN-VDA_G
id114

NItaly1
ITN-VDA_G
id128

NItaly1
ITN-VDA_G
id159

NItaly1
ITN-VDA_G
id160

NItaly1
ITN-VDA_G
id164

NItaly1
ITN-VDA_G
id171

NItaly1
ITN-VDA_G
id176

EXCLUDED
ITN-VDA_G
id182

NItaly1
ITN-VDA_G
id184

NItaly1
ITN-VDA_G
id186

NItaly1
ITN-VDA_G
id193

NItaly1
ITN-VDA_G
id196

NItaly1
ITN-VDA_G
id198

NItaly1
ITN-VDA_G
id210

NItaly1
ITN-VDA_G
id214

EXCLUDED
ITN-VDA_G
id220

NItaly1
ITN-VDA_G
id234

NItaly3
ITN-VDA_G
id242

NItaly6
ITN-VEN_G
ALP022

NItaly6
ITN-VEN_G
ALP040

NItaly6
ITN-VEN_G
Alp100

NItaly3
ITN-VEN_G
ALP116

NItaly3
ITN-VEN_G
ALP209

NItaly6
ITN-VEN_G
ALP249

NItaly6
ITN-VEN_G
ALP250

NItaly6
ITN-VEN_G
ALP273

NItaly6
ITN-VEN_G
ALP322

NItaly6
ITN-VEN_G
ALP378

NItaly6
ITN-VEN_G
Alp401

NItaly3
ITN-VEN_G
KF1800751

NItaly3
ITN-VEN_G
KF1800772

NItaly6
ITN-VEN_G
KF1803105

NItaly3
ITN-VEN_G
KF1803109

NItaly6
ITN-VEN_G
KF1803151

SItaly3
ITS-BAS_G
id005

SItaly3
ITS-BAS_G
id009

SItaly3
ITS-BAS_G
id017

SItaly3
ITS-BAS_G
id026

SItaly3
ITS-BAS_G
id038

SItaly2
ITS-BAS_G
id043

SItaly3
ITS-BAS_G
id053

SItaly3
ITS-BAS_G
id072

SItaly3
ITS-BAS_G
id075

SItaly3
ITS-BAS_G
id102

SItaly3
ITS-BAS_G
id107

SItaly3
ITS-BAS_G
id111

SItaly3
ITS-BAS_G
id115

SItaly3
ITS-BAS_G
id127

SItaly2
ITS-BAS_G
id152

SItaly3
ITS-BAS_G
id155

SItaly2
ITS-BAS_G
id156

SItaly1
ITS-BAS_G
id167

SItaly3
ITS-BAS_G
id170

SItaly3
ITS-BAS_G
id179

SItaly3
ITS-BAS_G
id194

SItaly2
ITS-BAS_G
id211

EXCLUDED
ITS-BAS_G
id226

SItaly3
ITS-BAS_G
id248

SItaly3
ITS-BAS_G
id258

SItaly3
ITS-BAS_G
id263

SItaly2
ITS-BAS_G
id271

SItaly3
ITS-BAS_G
id297

SItaly3
ITS-BAS_G
PG16

SItaly3
ITS-BAS_G
PG17

SItaly3
ITS-BAS_G
PG18

SItaly3
ITS-BAS_G
PG19

SItaly3
ITS-BAS_G
PG20

SItaly3
ITS-BAS_G
PG21

SItaly3
ITS-BAS_G
PG22

SItaly3
ITS-BAS_G
PG24

SItaly3
ITS-BAS_G
PG25

SItaly1
ITS-CAL_G
ALP582

SItaly3
ITS-CAL_G
ALP596

SItaly1
ITS-CAL_G
id014

SItaly1
ITS-CAL_G
id020

SItaly1
ITS-CAL_G
id032

SItaly1
ITS-CAL_G
id054

SItaly1
ITS-CAL_G
id061

SItaly1
ITS-CAL_G
id094

SItaly1
ITS-CAL_G
id139

SItaly1
ITS-CAL_G
id157

SItaly1
ITS-CAL_G
id174

SItaly1
ITS-CAL_G
id253

SItaly1
ITS-CAL_G
id266

SItaly1
ITS-CAL_G
id280

SItaly3
ITS-CAM_G
NaN43TC

SItaly3
ITS-CAM_G
NaN46TC

SItaly3
ITS-CAM_G
NaN58AC

SItaly3
ITS-CAM_G
NaN65DFG

SItaly3
ITS-CAM_G
NaN77FAM

SItaly3
ITS-CAM_G
NaN119AMR

SItaly3
ITS-CAM_G
NaN128LA

SItaly3
ITS-CAM_G
NaN195ST

SItaly3
ITS-CAM_G
NaN207MM

SCItaly1
ITS-CAM_G
NaN212CR

SCItaly1
ITS-CAM_G
NaN238DM

SItaly3
ITS-CAM_G
NaN275IS

SItaly3
ITS-CAM_G
NaN289RM

SItaly3
ITS-CAM_G
NaN293SF

SItaly3
ITS-MOL_G
PG26

SCItaly1
ITS-MOL_G
PG27

SItaly3
ITS-PUG_G
ALP379

SItaly3
ITS-PUG_G
ALP583

SItaly3
ITS-PUG_G
cera1

SItaly3
ITS-PUG_G
cera2

SItaly3
ITS-PUG_G
cera8

SCItaly1
ITS-PUG_G
cera9

SItaly3
ITS-PUG_G
GS32

SItaly3
ITS-PUG_G
GS34

SItaly3
ITS-PUG_G
GS47

SItaly3
ITS-PUG_G
Pu2

SItaly3
ITS-PUG_G
Pu3

SItaly3
ITS-PUG_G
Pu7

SItaly1
ITS-PUG_G
Pu8

SItaly3
ITS-PUG_G
Pu45

Sardinia1
ITS-SAR_G
id001

Sardinia1
ITS-SAR_G
id003

Sardinia1
ITS-SAR_G
id006

Sardinia1
ITS-SAR_G
id021

Sardinia1
ITS-SAR_G
id024

Sardinia1
ITS-SAR_G
id037

Sardinia1
ITS-SAR_G
id051

Sardinia1
ITS-SAR_G
id058

Sardinia1
ITS-SAR_G
id085

Sardinia1
ITS-SAR_G
id108

Sardinia1
ITS-SAR_G
id109

Sardinia3
ITS-SAR_G
id120

Sardinia1
ITS-SAR_G
id130

Sardinia1
ITS-SAR_G
id134

Sardinia1
ITS-SAR_G
id135

Sardinia3
ITS-SAR_G
id161

Sardinia1
ITS-SAR_G
id165

Sardinia3
ITS-SAR_G
id173

Sardinia1
ITS-SAR_G
id175

Sardinia3
ITS-SAR_G
id195

Sardinia1
ITS-SAR_G
id197

Sardinia1
ITS-SAR_G
id228

Sardinia3
ITS-SAR_G
id235

Sardinia3
ITS-SAR_G
id256

Sardinia1
ITS-SAR_G
id269

Sardinia1
ITS-SAR_G
id276

Sardinia3
ITS-SAR_G
id277

Sardinia3
ITS-SAR_G
id279

Sardinia1
ITS-SAR_G
id284

Sardinia1
ITS-SAR_G
id287

Sicily1
ITS-SIC_G
id012

Sicily1
ITS-SIC_G
id023

Sicily1
ITS-SIC_G
id025

Sicily2
ITS-SIC_G
id033

SItaly1
ITS-SIC_G
id052

SItaly1
ITS-SIC_G
id064

Sicily2
ITS-SIC_G
id070

Sicily1
ITS-SIC_G
id076

SItaly1
ITS-SIC_G
id087

Sicily1
ITS-SIC_G
id095

EXCLUDED
ITS-SIC_G
id125

SItaly1
ITS-SIC_G
id131

SItaly3
ITS-SIC_G
id140

Sicily1
ITS-SIC_G
id142

SItaly1
ITS-SIC_G
id143

Sicily2
ITS-SIC_G
id144

Sicily1
ITS-SIC_G
id166

SItaly1
ITS-SIC_G
id168

SItaly1
ITS-SIC_G
id190

SItaly3
ITS-SIC_G
id199

Sicily1
ITS-SIC_G
id203

SItaly1
ITS-SIC_G
id206

Sicily1
ITS-SIC_G
id208

SItaly1
ITS-SIC_G
id231

Sicily2
ITS-SIC_G
id232

SItaly1
ITS-SIC_G
id249

SItaly3
ITS-SIC_G
id254

SItaly1
ITS-SIC_G
id268

SItaly1
ITS-SIC_G
id270

Sicily1
ITS-SIC_G
id275

SItaly3
ITS-SIC_G
id293

----------


## Jovialis

FYI

The SBA like ancestry in this study is mostly associated with Finnish-like ancestry. That is want they mean by NEurope 1

NEurope1
Finnish
HG00171

NEurope1
Finnish
HG00173

NEurope1
Finnish
HG00174

NEurope1
Finnish
HG00176

NEurope1
Finnish
HG00177

NEurope1
Finnish
HG00178

NEurope1
Finnish
HG00179

NEurope1
Finnish
HG00180

NEurope1
Finnish
HG00181

NEurope1
Finnish
HG00182

NEurope1
Finnish
HG00183

NEurope1
Finnish
HG00185

NEurope1
Finnish
HG00186

NEurope1
Finnish
HG00187

NEurope1
Finnish
HG00188

NEurope1
Finnish
HG00189

NEurope1
Finnish
HG00190

NEurope1
Finnish
HG00266

NEurope1
Finnish
HG00267

NEurope1
Finnish
HG00268

NEurope1
Finnish
HG00269

NEurope1
Finnish
HG00270

NEurope1
Finnish
HG00271

NEurope1
Finnish
HG00272

NEurope1
Finnish
HG00273

NEurope1
Finnish
HG00274

NEurope1
Finnish
HG00275

NEurope1
Finnish
HG00276

NEurope1
Finnish
HG00277

NEurope1
Finnish
HG00278

NEurope1
Finnish
HG00280

NEurope1
Finnish
HG00281

NEurope1
Finnish
HG00282

NEurope1
Finnish
HG00284

NEurope1
Finnish
HG00285

NEurope1
Finnish
HG00306

NEurope1
Finnish
HG00308

NEurope1
Finnish
HG00309

NEurope1
Finnish
HG00310

NEurope1
Finnish
HG00311

NEurope1
Finnish
HG00312

NEurope1
Finnish
HG00313

NEurope1
Finnish
HG00315

NEurope1
Finnish
HG00318

NEurope1
Finnish
HG00319

NEurope1
Finnish
HG00320

NEurope1
Finnish
HG00321

NEurope1
Finnish
HG00323

NEurope1
Finnish
HG00324

NEurope1
Finnish
HG00325

NEurope1
Finnish
HG00326

NEurope1
Finnish
HG00327

NEurope1
Finnish
HG00328

NEurope1
Finnish
HG00329

NEurope1
Finnish
HG00330

NEurope1
Finnish
HG00331

NEurope1
Finnish
HG00332

NEurope1
Finnish
HG00334

NEurope1
Finnish
HG00335

NEurope1
Finnish
HG00336

NEurope1
Finnish
HG00337

NEurope1
Finnish
HG00338

NEurope1
Finnish
HG00339

NEurope1
Finnish
HG00341

NEurope1
Finnish
HG00342

NEurope1
Finnish
HG00343

NEurope1
Finnish
HG00344

NEurope1
Finnish
HG00345

NEurope1
Finnish
HG00346

NEurope1
Finnish
HG00349

NEurope1
Finnish
HG00350

NEurope1
Finnish
HG00351

NEurope1
Finnish
HG00353

NEurope1
Finnish
HG00355

NEurope1
Finnish
HG00356

NEurope1
Finnish
HG00357

NEurope1
Finnish
HG00358

NEurope1
Finnish
HG00359

NEurope1
Finnish
HG00360

NEurope1
Finnish
HG00361

NEurope1
Finnish
HG00362

NEurope1
Finnish
HG00364

NEurope1
Finnish
HG00365

NEurope1
Finnish
HG00366

NEurope1
Finnish
HG00367

NEurope1
Finnish
HG00368

NEurope1
Finnish
HG00369

NEurope1
Finnish
HG00371

NEurope1
Finnish
HG00372

NEurope1
Finnish
HG00373

NEurope1
Finnish
HG00375

NEurope1
Finnish
HG00376

NEurope1
Finnish
HG00377

NEurope1
Finnish
HG00378

NEurope1
Finnish
HG00379

NEurope1
Finnish
HG00380

NEurope1
Finnish
HG00381

NEurope1
Finnish
HG00382

NEurope1
Finnish
HG00383

NEurope1
Finnish
HG00384

----------


## Jovialis

To make a broad generalization according to this study, you can say everyone in Europe is just on a gradient of being Finnish-like (SBA), Sardinian-like (EEF), Apulian-Like (ABA), with WHG as a minority component. Because that’s what is inferred by using these types of components.

----------


## Tomenable

*Some comments on samples from Aosta Valley:
*
This study has only two samples from Aosta. There was a study a few years ago with over 20 samples from Aosta.

I compared these two new Aostans to those 20 Aosta samples, from the old study which I have also downloaded.

*And here is what I see:*

ALP225 - this sample is just like Aostans from the old study, a little bit more Piedmont-like
ALP227 - this sample is almost certainly *a German-speaking Aostan* *(Walser minority)

*The second sample is much more northern-shifted, similar to Saarland and Swiss Germans.

=====

PS:

A bit disappointed that some regions are not represented or represented by very few samples.

----------


## Tomenable

​Two more outliers:*

ALP188* from Friuli and *ALP414* from Trentino have at least partially Slavic ancestry (probably Slovene or Carinthian Slovene).

Is there a Slavic-speaking minority in Friuli and/or in Trentino?

----------


## torzio

> ​Two more outliers:*
> 
> ALP188* from Friuli and *ALP414* from Trentino have at least partially Slavic ancestry (probably Slovene or Carinthian Slovene).
> 
> Is there a Slavic-speaking minority in Friuli and/or in Trentino?



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

and

East Tyrol has about 10% slavic 

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

----------


## Regio X

> Yes, in Friuli we have Resian and Slovenian minorities, plus the plains were heavy repopulated after hungarian and turkish raids and differents plagues which hitted the area between medieval age and renaissance with people from Balkans, mostly slavic speaking. So there are both slavic speaking minority and an important slavic component in the development of Friulian "ethnicity" (attested also by a great deal of slavic loanwords and toponyms). Besides the two major towns in eastern Friuli region (Gorizia and Trieste) received a not irrelevant influx of settlers from all the former Austro-Hungarian Empire till the annexation of this area to Italy (since you are a Pole I can make you the example of my chemistry teacher in high school whose family came to my hometown from the polish speaking area in the XIX century).


There is this guy with ancestry from Trieste, with whom I would form a new Y branch based on STR markers. Indeed, he has an "Italian" family name, but it's derived from a Slovenian one, ended by "vitz". There must be many similar cases in there.

Also, I know abt. a man from Udine province (close to Gemona del Friuli, more specifically) who scores almost 50% of East Europe in myOrigins, in line with what you said. I myself score 10%, then I assume he would score in 23andMe less than those 50%. Still... 
It must be linked with all those R1a-s in Udine province. (Out of curiosity, according to a 23andMe match, this seems to be the line of my mother-in-law's father, whose father was born precisely in Udine-UD.)

----------


## torzio

> There is this guy with ancestry from Trieste, with whom I would form a new Y branch based on STR markers. Indeed, he has an "Italian" family name, but it's derived from a Slovenian one, ended by "vitz". There must be many similar cases in there.
> 
> Also, I know abt. a man from Udine province (close to Gemona del Friuli, more specifically) who scores almost 50% of East Europe in myOrigins, in line with what you said. I myself score 10%, then I assume he would score in 23andMe less than those 50%. Still... 
> It must be linked with all those R1a-s in Udine province. (Out of curiosity, according to a 23andMe match, this seems to be the line of my mother-in-law's father, whose father was born precisely in Udine-UD.)


Not all R1a are in friuli, my wife line is from the north of livenza river to san stino di livenza in the south, province of venice


Btw....plwase send me privately the link to check our relatives as i lost it when my old pc died in early august

----------


## torzio

> Mr. torzio, maybe you don't know that the historical border between Venetians and Friulians is exactly the Livenza river (old people in Portogruaro area still speak a venetianized version of Friulian). In a more general point of view I think that as for all the Y haplogroups there can be a lot of different explanations for the presence of a specific line in a specific area.


Thank you......i know what people speak, i was in veneto , ponzano a few years ago to see my first cousins and went to porcia near pordenone to see some 2nd cousins.... the area only speaks venet and does not know furlan.....thats what i found being there 3 weeks
Livenza river is the border of veneto and friuli and my wife is from motta and they know zero furlan even though its a border town

I was trying to say that R1a is not only slav as it was already in alps, balkans , germany etc before any slavs got there

----------


## Salento

I’ve seen around East_Med related discussions about the V2 K15 results of Pugliesi (and other Regions).

Generally, they're not very different from mine, until they reach the Red_Sea. After that, they start to vary with each other.

fwiw my results from that point down:



https://anthrogenica.com/showthread....689#post599689

----------


## Jovialis

I get 29.86 Pct,

It is a meaningless construct that subsumes disparate groups with different source populations, that do not apply to one another.

----------


## Regio X

> Not all R1a are in friuli, my wife line is from the north of livenza river to san stino di livenza in the south, province of venice
> Btw....plwase send me privately the link to check our relatives as i lost it when my old pc died in early august


Yes, I know R1a can be found in other places, but while it's relatively common in Friuli and particularly Udine, it's uncommon elsewhere, even in Treviso.

I don't know what the link is. Please send me a PM with more details.

----------


## Salento

> I get 29.86 Pct,
> 
> It is a meaningless construct that subsumes disparate groups with different source populations, that do not apply to one another.


I had the same impression.

You said it so well, I couldn't have said it like that even if I wanted to :)

----------


## Jovialis

> I had the same impression.
> 
> You said it so well, I couldn't have said it like that even if I wanted to :)




My single population sharing distance of K15 vs the autosomal components assigned in the paper, to those populations.

As you can see there are some differences, thus I think "Eastern Mediterranean" is not a sufficient construct to go by. Rather, it is better to go by the ancient samples. In this case, modeled with ABA, which largely accounts for the overlap.

----------


## Jovialis

> My single population sharing distance of K15 vs the autosomal components assigned in the paper, to those populations.
> 
> As you can see there are some differences, thus I think "Eastern Mediterranean" is not a sufficient construct to go by. Rather, it is better to go by the ancient samples. In this case, modeled with ABA, which largely accounts for the overlap.


The Ashkenazi Jews probably get a great deal of their _North African-like_ component from ancient times. For example, the brown Natufian component here. This further illustrates the disparity between the cohort of populations in "Eastern Mediterranean":

----------


## Jovialis

Taking a look at _East-Med's_ proximity to Palestine, and seeing the great-genetic diversity within that in the academic chart; Idk how it can serve as a measure for much.

I always looked at those components within GEDmatch calculators as arbitrary. I find it interesting to look at how samples fall in relation to one another on the PCA. But I defer to academic papers for what they're made of. That's also why consumer genomic testing percentages should be taken with a grain of salt as well; they're not academic.

----------


## Angela

"Components" based on modern populations are bound to be faulty. Once we had no choice. Now we do. 

It's extremely foolhardy to attach these labels to any actual migration of people and try to put a date on it. 

Dienekes realized that years and years ago, but you'd never know it from the way some internet "experts" use these calculators. 

See:
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/09...decad-k7b.html

We've learned a lot since then. There are even more layers. Like I said: you'd never know that from some of the commentary.

----------


## Salento

> My single population sharing distance of K15 vs the autosomal components assigned in the paper, to those populations.
> 
> As you can see there are some differences, thus I think "Eastern Mediterranean" is not a sufficient construct to go by. Rather, it is better to go by the ancient samples. In this case, modeled with ABA, which largely accounts for the overlap.


A while ago, I noticed that SItaly3 (us, Puglia), has *2* less component than the other neighbors (no NAfrica1 and no EEN).

_... my PCA:
_https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...l=1#post580199

_... EDIT:

_

WHG = Western Hunter-Gatherer
EEN = European Early Neolithic
SBA = Bronze Age from steppe
ABA = Bronze Age from Anatolia

----------


## Jovialis

> A while ago, I noticed that SItaly3 (us, Puglia), has *2* less component than the other neighbors (no NAfrica1 and no EEN).
> 
> _... my PCA:
> _https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...l=1#post580199
> 
> _... EDIT:
> 
> _
> 
> ...


All in all, these are also constructs that have a lot of overlap too:

Antaolian Copper age/ Bronze age is basically Anatolain_N + CHG. There's overlaps with the EEN with Anatolain_N. SBA is a mix of EHG and CHG, so there's overlap there. Then there's also a bit Anatolian_N there too, especially by the MLBA.





Nevertheless, these _constructs_ are based on ancient DNA, and have an archaeological basis to exist in reality.

----------


## Jovialis

> All in all, these are also constructs that have a lot of overlap too:
> 
> Antaolian Copper age/ Bronze age is basically Anatolain_N + CHG. There's overlaps with the EEN with Anatolain_N. SBA is a mix of EHG and CHG, so there's overlap there. Then there's also a bit Anatolian_N there too, especially by the MLBA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nevertheless, these _constructs_ are based on ancient DNA, and have an archaeological basis to exist in reality.


Moreover, I take Angela's point in regards to the Iran Neo. It is probably from ABA, as it can be modeled that way in the study. CHG and Iran Neo are very similar; as the Post-Roman Egypt paper admixture chart shows.




> The strange thing is their finding of "Iran Neolithic" in the south.If they are correct, we need ancient dna to understand it. The farmers of Iran didn't fly over all the territory in between to land in Southern Italy at some late date. Nor, I would suggest, did undiluted Iranian farmer ancestry still exist in the Roman Era. Everything indicates to me that it started to spread during the Copper Age, mixing with, in West Asia, earlier farmer ancestry. Likewise, Anatolian type farmer ancestry moved to the lands of the Iranian farmers.


Also, when looking at the study this way, you can see that the only place that was really impacted by NAfrica1 was in Sicily, and parts of Iberia; albeit a marginal degree.

----------


## Jovialis

> Moreover, I take Angela's point in regards to the Iran Neo. It is probably from ABA, as it can be modeled that way in the study. CHG and Iran Neo are very similar; as the Post-Roman Egypt paper admixture chart shows.
> 
> 
> 
> Also, when looking at the study this way, you can see that the only place that was really impacted by NAfrica1 was in Sicily, and parts of Iberia; albeit a marginal degree.


Tomorrow it will be one year since this pre-print came out. I will be looking forward to seeing it published. Keeping with my point above, you can model these populations like below as well. The Dzudzuana population were Paleo-Caucasians, that were very similar to Anatolian Neolithic; who make up the majority of autosomal DNA in West Eurasia.



https://www.biorxiv.org/content/earl...23079.full.pdf

----------


## Jovialis

> Steppe Ancestry Reached Switzerland Before Germany; Implications For Etruscan Origins. For what it’s worth, I don’t know what says about Etruscan origins, who are as mysterious to me as they were 20 years ago.
> 
> https://www.gnxp.com/WordPress/2019/...ad-09-25-2019/


Here's an interesting comment by Razib Khan on Etruscan origins.

----------


## Angela

> Here's an interesting comment by Razib Khan on Etruscan origins.


I agree with Khan. I don't see how that makes anything clearer.

We just have to wait for the actual samples.

As pertains to the comments on the "Turtle Island" site, you gotta love how "Andrew" doesn't care that the "leaks" are that the Etruscans were nearly identical to the Italics genetically. He knows better, and they aren't.

If, when the samples are published, they indeed turn out to be like Italics, then it's irrelevant what anyone has speculated in the past. Any explanations will have to take that into account. 

Language is separate from genetics. You'd think the Basques would have taught us that.

----------


## Ygorcs

> I agree with Khan. I don't see how that makes anything clearer.
> 
> We just have to wait for the actual samples.
> 
> As pertains to the comments on the "Turtle Island" site, you gotta love how "Andrew" doesn't care that the "leaks" are that the Etruscans were nearly identical to the Italics genetically. He knows better, and they aren't.
> 
> If, when the samples are published, they indeed turn out to be like Italics, then it's irrelevant what anyone has speculated in the past. Any explanations will have to take that into account. 
> 
> Language is separate from genetics. You'd think the Basques would have taught us that.


You know, I have wondered if the fact that Etruscans seem to have developed from a subset of Urnfield culture, which also occupied much of what already had steppic ancestry since many centuries before and would be certainly IE-speaking areas centuries later, tell us something about what the Urnfield was really about. I'm thinking of something like the High Middle Ages civilization of Catholic Christendom in Europe, which was multilingual and multicultural, but there were clear common features and a sense of loose sociocultural connection because of a shared religion (and we know a shared religious identity would manifest particularly well in people's burial traditions). If the Bronze Age in much of the central part of Europe experienced somewhat of a religious revolution, causing some sense of being part of a shared civilization, despite cultural and linguistic diversity, it could explain the genetic homogeneization and partial cultural homogeneization without them speaking the same language Family.

----------


## Angela

> You know, I have wondered if the fact that Etruscans seem to have developed from a subset of Urnfield culture, which also occupied much of what already had steppic ancestry since many centuries before and would be certainly IE-speaking areas centuries later, tell us something about what the Urnfield was really about. I'm thinking of something like the High Middle Ages civilization of Catholic Christendom in Europe, which was multilingual and multicultural, but there were clear common features and a sense of loose sociocultural connection because of a shared religion (and we know a shared religious identity would manifest particularly well in people's burial traditions). If the Bronze Age in much of the central part of Europe experienced somewhat of a religious revolution, causing some sense of being part of a shared civilization, despite cultural and linguistic diversity, it could explain the genetic homogeneization and partial cultural homogeneization without them speaking the same language Family.


It's certainly possible, Ygorcs.

We're working in the dark now because we have so few samples from so many areas of ancient Italy that it's difficult to come to firm conclusions. 

It certainly will help to get more of a fix on the Etruscans autosomally, but we need to compare them with people from earlier periods from north of them on the Italian peninsula, imo, as well as with Italics like Umbrians. We also need to compare them to Romans from the early Republican period, before Rome became a great metropolis and the capital city of an international empire.

What isn't helpful in figuring out the relationship between them and the Romans genetically is labeling, before even seeing the studies and examining the samples, Empire Era merchants living in Ostia, most of them "Greco-Oriental" in origin from the inscriptions, "Romans". Sorry, those were not Italic Romans. Geneticists have got to define what they mean by "Romans". It changed over time: by the third century people from England to Damascus and Egypt would have considered themselves Romans. Of course, it's perfectly possible that some of those people, or their children, stayed in Italy and blended into the population. We just don't know how widespread this phenomena was, whether it was localized to port cities, whether it was widespread, what happened to the big urban populations with the fall and on and on.

Some people want the Genetics for Dummies version. It won't work with such a complicated history.

People approach this topic without even the most basic understanding of Roman history. It's just very disheartening. 

I find it amusing that now that the Etruscans may perhaps be more "northern" than once thought, all of a sudden there are all these posts on the net about how much they contributed to making "Rome" Rome.

I have news for these people: the Etruscans got none of those things from central Europe; they are all improvements on the civilization of Greece and Anatolia. :)

What is even more amusing is my memory of how, even on this site, there were those opining that the modern Italians were much more "Etruscan" like in character than Roman like, which was not a good thing, of course. :)

----------


## Pax Augusta

It always amazes me how the Etruscans always attract the comments of people who know nothing about the Etruscans. Apart from commonplaces, of course.

----------


## MOESAN

> You know, I have wondered if the fact that Etruscans seem to have developed from a subset of Urnfield culture, which also occupied much of what already had steppic ancestry since many centuries before and would be certainly IE-speaking areas centuries later, tell us something about what the Urnfield was really about. I'm thinking of something like the High Middle Ages civilization of Catholic Christendom in Europe, which was multilingual and multicultural, but there were clear common features and a sense of loose sociocultural connection because of a shared religion (and we know a shared religious identity would manifest particularly well in people's burial traditions). If the Bronze Age in much of the central part of Europe experienced somewhat of a religious revolution, causing some sense of being part of a shared civilization, despite cultural and linguistic diversity, it could explain the genetic homogeneization and partial cultural homogeneization without them speaking the same language Family.


It is what I thought and think yet about Urnfields. Some old scholars (archeology of the 1960/70) said that already: a lot of true moves on diverse directions, maybe pushed by a demographic increase in some places, and new cultural exchanges and adoptions, without an unique centre of origin concerning demes, and without a complete osmosis, just partial leveling.

----------


## lynxbythetv

> It's certainly possible, Ygorcs.
> 
> We're working in the dark now because we have so few samples from so many areas of ancient Italy that it's difficult to come to firm conclusions. 
> 
> It certainly will help to get more of a fix on the Etruscans autosomally, but we need to compare them with people from earlier periods from north of them on the Italian peninsula, imo, as well as with Italics like Umbrians. We also need to compare them to Romans from the early Republican period, before Rome became a great metropolis and the capital city of an international empire.
> 
> What isn't helpful in figuring out the relationship between them and the Romans genetically is labeling, before even seeing the studies and examining the samples, Empire Era merchants living in Ostia, most of them "Greco-Oriental" in origin from the inscriptions, "Romans". Sorry, those were not Italic Romans. Geneticists have got to define what they mean by "Romans". It changed over time: by the third century people from England to Damascus and Egypt would have considered themselves Romans. Of course, it's perfectly possible that some of those people, or their children, stayed in Italy and blended into the population. We just don't know how widespread this phenomena was, whether it was localized to port cities, whether it was widespread, what happened to the big urban populations with the fall and on and on.
> 
> Some people want the Genetics for Dummies version. It won't work with such a complicated history.
> ...


how exactly did the greeks influence the tyrsennians, as they called them ?



Sent from my SM-G977B using Tapatalk

----------


## Angela

> how exactly did the greeks influence the tyrsennians, as they called them ?
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-G977B using Tapatalk


Perhaps you're new at this, so...

Let's look at generalities...

"Western Asia and the Near East was the first region to enter the Bronze Age, which began with the rise of the Mesopotamian civilization of Sumer in the mid 4th millennium BC. Cultures in the ancient Near East (often called one of "the cradles of civilization") practiced intensive year-round agriculture, developed a writing system, invented the potter's wheel, created a centralized government, written law codes, city and nation states and empires, embarked on advanced architectural projects, introduced social stratification, economic and civil administration, slavery, and practiced organized warfare, medicine and religion. Societies in the region laid the foundations for astronomy, mathematics and astrology."

All of this was transmitted to the Etruscans either through the Greeks or more directly through trade with the Phoenicians. The alphabet, which they then passed on to the Latin speaking Romans, and thence to the rest of Europe, is a good example.

You can find some information in this google book, although as always it's irritating because just as you get to the "good" parts, there are pages missing. You can see, though, the change in architecture, for example, not only for megastructures, but in house design.
https://books.google.com/books?id=HA...uscans&f=false

They went a long way very quickly from mud and wattle circular huts to this:



I'd buy it tomorrow. :)



Then, of course, particularly in pottery and the arts,there's what is called the "Orientalizing period". You can look it up on Wiki.

The fact that there is such a quick change from a rather primitive culture to a very sophisticated one is why some people found it hard to credit that this was an autochthonous Italian culture. If the leaks are correct that is precisely the case, however, which makes their achievements even more remarkable. 

It has to also be said that although they did a lot of borrowing, unlike some cultures they did a lot of innovation as well, making those "borrowings" very much their own. One example from the social sphere involves their borrowing the "symposia" form of feasting, eating, in company while reclining.

Whereas in the east it was limited to men, in Etruscan society women were part of the social gatherings, leading to the Greek calumny about them that their women were all prostitutes.

----------


## Dibran

> …………..)


Kind of off topic. I had to change my password 4 times today. Additionally, I made sure they would be entered correctly. Each time locking me out automatically for incorrect entry which is beyond false. This is now my 4th password change in a day.

----------


## Jovialis

> Kind of off topic. I had to change my password 4 times today. Additionally, I made sure they would be entered correctly. Each time locking me out automatically for incorrect entry which is beyond false. This is now my 4th password change in a day.


It happens to me as well. I get locked out, but later the password will work.

----------


## I()

> Kind of off topic. I had to change my password 4 times today. Additionally, I made sure they would be entered correctly. Each time locking me out automatically for incorrect entry which is beyond false. This is now my 4th password change in a day.


I have to change at random intervals of 1 minute - 1 hour .... the forum account. This has been happening continuously for about a month now ... Why? God knows ... and his angels. :Distrust:

----------


## lynxbythetv

> Perhaps you're new at this, so...
> 
> Let's look at generalities...
> 
> "Western Asia and the Near East was the first region to enter the Bronze Age, which began with the rise of the Mesopotamian civilization of Sumer in the mid 4th millennium BC. Cultures in the ancient Near East (often called one of "the cradles of civilization") practiced intensive year-round agriculture, developed a writing system, invented the potter's wheel, created a centralized government, written law codes, city and nation states and empires, embarked on advanced architectural projects, introduced social stratification, economic and civil administration, slavery, and practiced organized warfare, medicine and religion. Societies in the region laid the foundations for astronomy, mathematics and astrology."
> 
> All of this was transmitted to the Etruscans either through the Greeks or more directly through trade with the Phoenicians. The alphabet, which they then passed on to the Latin speaking Romans, and thence to the rest of Europe, is a good example.
> 
> You can find some information in this google book, although as always it's irritating because just as you get to the "good" parts, there are pages missing. You can see, though, the change in architecture, for example, not only for megastructures, but in house design.
> ...


thankyou, quality info.

Sent from my SM-G977B using Tapatalk

----------


## Jovialis

> By the Late Republic, if the Italics from the steppe did mix with the Aegean-like populations in Southern Italy; figures C and F sort of look like Italia during that time.
> 
> 
> 
> Moreover, my K36 heat map sort of looks like a silhouette of the Roman empire.


Map of Caesarian and Augustan Roman colonies during the Imperial era:



https://www.britannica.com/place/Roman-Empire

----------


## Dibran

> I have to change at random intervals of 1 minute - 1 hour .... the forum account. This has been happening continuously for about a month now ... Why? God knows ... and his angels.





> It happens to me as well. I get locked out, but later the password will work.


Yup. 2 times again today. Quite annoying lol.

----------


## Joey37

Screen Shot 2019-08-04 at 6.58.49 PM.jpgYour heat map look like Roman Empire, wonder what mine looks like...uhh, Empire of the Franks?

----------


## Angela

> Map of Caesarian and Augustan Roman colonies around the beginning of the Imperial era:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.britannica.com/place/Roman-Empire


Nice find, Jovialis. 

I'd forgotten about all those colonies along the Dalmatian coast and is it part of Albania as well?

I have quite a few friends from that part of Croatia (the islands too). Between the two world wars they were part of "us" again. They all speak some Italian, and wholeheartedly adopted the cuisine. Actually, parts of it they'd always had, I think. A lot of Northern Italian restaurants in New York are actually owned by Croatians. They go by their Italian first names to seem more "authentic". :) 

Fine by me. Two of my uncles (and one aunt) had restaurants, highly successful ones too, and none of their children wanted to continue them. The restaurant "life" is a really difficult one. If the Croatians are willing to do it, more power to them.

----------


## Jovialis

> Nice find, Jovialis. 
> 
> I'd forgotten about all those colonies along the Dalmatian coast and is it part of Albania as well?
> 
> I have quite a few friends from that part of Croatia (the islands too). Between the two world wars they were part of "us" again. They all speak some Italian, and wholeheartedly adopted the cuisine. Actually, parts of it they'd always had, I think. A lot of Northern Italian restaurants in New York are actually owned by Croatians. They go by their Italian first names to seem more "authentic". :) 
> 
> Fine by me. Two of my uncles (and one aunt) had restaurants, highly successful ones too, and none of their children wanted to continue them. The restaurant "life" is a really difficult one. If the Croatians are willing to do it, more power to them.



Indeed it is, my friend's wife's family are Albanians, and her cousins can speak Italian fluently. Moreover, they have lived in Italy prior to coming to the USA. I also knew a Croatian girl, from one of the Islands near Venice, she was also fluent in Italian.

----------


## Duarte

> Map of Caesarian and Augustan Roman colonies during the Imperial era:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.britannica.com/place/Roman-Empire


Nice discovery Jovialis :)

I'm not Italian, but an Iberian descendant. In many autosomal calculators I have a great overlapping with Northern Italia, for example, Eurogenes K36 and LM Genetics, among others:

LM Genetics:



Eurogenes - nMonte3 Oracle Results - YourPortalDNA

Eurogenes K36
Europe : 99%
West Asia: 0.8 %
Sub-Saharan Africa: 0.2%
TOTAL: 100%:




Interesting that my map from ancient times of MyTrueAncestry - MTA reminds much this map of Roman Empire that shows roman the colonies on the begining of Imperial era, except, in my specific case, the Greece, Anatolia and Sicily, and It can explain, I think, the matches that appears for Italins and Iberians in MTA to samples of ancient Illyrians:




Enviado do meu iPhone usando Tapatalk

----------


## Jovialis



----------


## Ailchu

^what are the red lines showing?

----------


## Jovialis

> ^what are the red lines showing?


It just outlines the continuum between SBA, ABA, AN, and along with the resurgence of WHG, to form the modern Italian populations, as well as the others within it.

Which can be seen in the modeling:

----------


## Hawk

I am very curious to know the Y-DNA of more Etruscan samples. Was that J2b2-L283 an outlier or it was a common Y-DNA among them.

----------


## Ailchu

> It just outlines the continuum between SBA, ABA, AN, and along with the resurgence of WHG, to form the modern Italian populations, as well as the others within it.
> 
> Which can be seen in the modeling:


i see. it's not very accurate though if we just use those 4 as direct sources for modern europeans.

----------


## ratchet_fan

> i see. it's not very accurate though if we just use those 4 as direct sources for modern europeans.


Wouldn't there be some Uralic Sammi type stuff there too?

----------


## ratchet_fan

> It just outlines the continuum between SBA, ABA, AN, and along with the resurgence of WHG, to form the modern Italian populations, as well as the others within it.
> 
> Which can be seen in the modeling:


I'm confused by this graph. Which color is WHG? And why do North Africa and East Africa look so similar?

----------


## Jovialis

> i see. it's not very accurate though if we just use those 4 as direct sources for modern europeans.


Correct, it wasn't distributed directly from those sources. For example some ABA-like admixture could have come via greek settlement. Some Steppe could have come via central europe, etc.

----------


## Jovialis

> I'm confused by this graph. Which color is WHG? And why do North Africa and East Africa look so similar?


That's from a lack of appropriate sample for those populations, no SSA. North African is the closest to them

----------


## Jovialis

WHG is red:

----------


## Jovialis

> i see. it's not very accurate though if we just use those 4 as direct sources for modern europeans.


However, it is interesting that samples like R850, clusters with Anatolian_ChL. I speculate _ABA-like_ people likely existed in Italy, perhaps further south during the Bronze-Age, and certainly among the Antonio et al 2019 samples in the Iron Age. Though maybe it came through a slow process of Iran-like admixture arriving since the Neolithic. Perhaps partly related to the migration of Iran-like admixture that augmented Antolian_N-like populations which gave rise to the Minoans, and Mycenaean; but traveled further west to Italy.

I also speculate that the Italic tribes are similar to samples like R1, and mixed with samples like R850, chiefly contributing to the North-South cline in Italy. But was a process that began prior:

----------


## Ailchu

> However, it is interesting that samples like R850, clusters with Anatolian_ChL. I speculate _ABA-like_ people likely existed in Italy, perhaps further south during the Bronze-Age, and certainly among the Antonio et al 2019 samples in the Iron Age. Though maybe it came through a slow process of Iran-like admixture arriving since the Neolithic. Perhaps partly related to the migration of Iran-like admixture that augmented Antolian_N-like populations which gave rise to the Minoans, and Mycenaean; but traveled further west to Italy.
> 
> I also speculate that the Italic tribes are similar to samples like R1, and mixed with samples like R850, chiefly contributing to the North-South cline in Italy. But was a process that began prior:


if we assume those 4 were the only source populations and that south italians were minoan like then only a big migration of ABA like ancestry to south italy that replaced 50+% of the local ancestry can explain their current position on the PCA just by estimating the distances. they are almost in the same place as ABA so wouldn't that mean that they descend mostly from ABA? but it's hard to tell since the greeks were so close. south italians seem to be more ABA-like than ancient greeks though. and the steppe in myceneans pulled them towards central italy.
the people that cluster identical with ABA are probably cypriots?

----------


## Palermo Trapani

Jovialis: Consistent with your statements in post 804, I can model "me" using 0.25X with 4 Iron Age Romans with a distance of 2.0134. So we have yourself whose ancestors are from Puglia and Mine who are from overwhelmingly from Sicily (with some link to Calabria on maternal Grandmother Father's lineage going back to early 1800's).

Target: PalermoTrapani
Distance: 2.0134% / 2.01340808 | ADC: 0.25x

57.2
R437_Iron_Age_Palestrina_Selicata



24.4
R850_Iron_Age_Ardea



13.4
R474_Iron_Age_Civitavecchia



5.0
R475_Iron_Age_Civitavecch



Dodecad K12B distances for Iron Age Romans (R435 distance in Blue is 30.24)

Distance to:
PalermoTrapani

4.18976133
R437_Iron_Age_Palestrina_Selicata

13.23641568
R850_Iron_Age_Ardea

16.54641653
R475_Iron_Age_Civitavecchia

17.40331865
R1_Iron_Age_Protovillanovan_Martinsicuro

20.72008205
R474_Iron_Age_Civitavecchia

23.17349132
R1015_Iron_Age_Veio_Grotta_Gramiccia

23.21816315
R1016_Iron_Age_Castel_di_Decima

23.78614092
R473_Iron_Age_Civitavecchia

25.41911682
R1021_Iron_Age_Boville_Ernica

27.54563123
R851_Iron_Age_Ardea

30.24831400
R435_Iron_Age_Palestrina_Colombella

----------


## Jovialis

> if we assume those 4 were the only source populations and that south italians were minoan like then only a big migration of ABA like ancestry to south italy that replaced 50+% of the local ancestry can explain their current position on the PCA just by estimating the distances. they are almost in the same place as ABA so wouldn't that mean that they descend mostly from ABA? but it's hard to tell since the greeks were so close. south italians seem to be more ABA-like than ancient greeks though. and the steppe in myceneans pulled them towards central italy.
> the people that cluster identical with ABA are probably cypriots?


During the Late Bronze age a large migration of ABA-like replaced over 50% of the Northern Levant's admixture. There seems there have at least been some large scale movements from this kind of ancestry.

I think Italians have been accumulating Iran-like ancestry since the since Neolithic Central Italians, can be modeled as 95% Greece_N or Central Anatolian. I think even a relatively smaller but still respectable impact could have shifted them to their current position; not necessarily 50%:




> Similar to early farmers from other parts of Europe, Neolithic individuals from central Italy project near Anatolian farmers in PCA (_13_, _14_, _17_–_19_) (Fig. 2A). However, ADMIXTURE reveals that, in addition to ancestry from northwestern Anatolia farmers, all of the Neolithic individuals that we studied carry a small amount of another component that is found at high levels in Neolithic Iranian farmers and Caucasus hunter-gatherers (CHG) (Fig. 2B and fig. S9). This contrasts with contemporaneous central European and Iberian populations who carry farmer ancestry predominantly from northwestern Anatolia (fig. S12) Furthermore, _qpAdm_ modeling suggests that Neolithic Italian farmers can be modeled as a two-way mixture of ~5% local hunter-gatherer ancestry and ~95% ancestry of Neolithic farmers from central Anatolia or northern Greece (table S7), who also carry additional CHG (or Neolithic Iranian) ancestry (fig. S12) (_14_ ). These findings point to different or additional source populations involved in the Neolithic transition in Italy compared to central and western Europe.
> 
> https://science.sciencemag.org/content/366/6466/708.full




Cypriots are not far off in terms of the PCA, but I am not sure of how well they can be modeled as ABA, or how big of a share they have.

----------


## Palermo Trapani

Ailichu/Jovialis: Model fits using 1) Ancient Sicilian samples from Fernandes et al 2020, 2) Ancient Greeks from Lazaridis et al 2018. Those ancient Sicilian samples in Fernandes et al 2020 were analyzed and indicated that Steppe Ancestry arrived in Sicily in 2200 BC, before the Mycenean's which also had some Steppe ancestry documented. So for me fits are pretty good, but I get slightly better fit with the Ancient Sicilian Samples than the Ancient Greeks but I would think (I will go and check) that some of those Ancient Sicilian Samples are not going to be way, way off from a galaxy far far away from the Ancient Greek samples. 

1) Model fit Dodecad 12B using Bronze Age Sicilian samples from Fernandes et al 2020

Target: PalermoTrapani
Distance: 6.2704% / 6.27041187 | ADC: 0.25x

39.2
I4383_Sicily_EBA_lowcov_Vallone_Inferno



32.2
I11443_Sicily_EBA_Buffa_Cave_II



28.6
I7796_Sicily_EBA_Contrada_Paolina_Castellucciana



Model Fits using Dodecad 12B and Ancient Greek Samples from Lazaridis et al 2017 "Genetic origins of the Minoans and Mycenaeans" 

Target: PalermoTrapani
Distance: 8.5519% / 8.55188147 | ADC: 0.25x

58.0
I9123_Bronze_Age_Armenoi_Crete



24.4
I9131_Bronze_Age_Minoan_Moni_Odigitria_Heraklion_C rete



17.6
I9041_Bronze_Age_Mycenaean_Galatas_Apatheia_Pelopo nnese




3) Dodecad model fit using ancient Natufian, Chalcolithic_Levant, and Early_MPPNB_Ain_Ghazal_Jordan samples. Looks like the early Levant Neolithic from the AinGhazal Jordanian site can get me to 14 at best, which again shows some relationship between all Near East Populations as they all stem from some Base Western Eurasian cluster but still enough variation such that Anatolian Farmers, Levant-Neolithic, Caucus HG and Iran Neolithic were distinct genetic clusters, again all somewhat related.
Target: PalermoTrapani
Distance: 14.0635% / 14.06345771 | ADC: 0.25x

56.4
I1415_AG84/2_Late_MPPNB_Ain_Ghazal_Jordan



43.6
I1416_AG83/1_Early_MPPNB_Ain_Ghazal_Jordan




Need to see how well I can fit myself using CHG type ancestry or Iran-Neolithic or similar from Armenia, etc. But based on the Ancient Sicilian samples, the ancient Greek samples and the ancient Levant samples, and the Iron Age Roman samples from my post 806, 

1) Iron Age Roman samples give me best fit, 2) Bronze Age Sicilians give me the next best fit, 2) Ancient Greeks give me the next, and 4) Levant-Neolithic type ancestry average at best fit. Of course, the Iron Age Roman samples are from a closer time period but still we are talking about samples from 900 BC to 300 BC period.

----------


## Palermo Trapani

Ailchu/Jovialis:

Continuing on from post 806 and 808, 1) Used Chalcolithic Iran and Neolithic and Bronze Age Armenian samples from Dodecad 12B Ancient. I get similar distance as I did using Levant-Neolithic. There are no ancient Caucus samples (i.e Maykop) in Dodecad 12B. But those are going to be very heavily Steppe Herder type ancestry so not sure they will fit me well anyway.

1) Ancient Iran and Armenian samples from Dodecad 12B
Target: PalermoTrapani
Distance: 14.4336% / 14.43356185 | ADC: 0.25x

52.2
I1633_KA1/14_Kura-Araxes_Early_Bronze_Age_Gegharkunik_Armenia



27.0
RISE397_Kapan_Armenia_2807_years



20.8
RISE416_Nerquin_Getashen_Armenia_3259_years

----------


## Salento

... Vahaduo site - EU k15



http://vahaduo.genetics.ovh/k15ancient-vahaduo.htm

----------


## Palermo Trapani

> ... Vahaduo site - EU k15
> 
> 
> 
> http://vahaduo.genetics.ovh/k15ancient-vahaduo.htm


Buonaserra Salento: I have probably seen the model in the past but what is your fit using 0.25X. For me I have always gotten better fits with K13 (more source data) vs K15 and even better with Dodecad 12B.

----------


## Salento

> Buonaserra Salento: I have probably seen the model in the past but what is your fit using 0.25X. For me I have always gotten better fits with K13 (more source data) vs K15 and even better with Dodecad 12B.


I Don’t think that EU K13 and K15 are meant for me, and I also get higher distances than Dodecad.

eu13 Single at 0.25 and 0.5:

----------


## Palermo Trapani

Salento: The K13 model fits are pretty good. K15 not my favorite either. Dodecad K12b gives me best model fits as well.

----------


## Demetrios

Here are mine at 0.5 for K13, K15, and Dodecad K12b. Wish we had more samples from Greece.

----------


## Palermo Trapani

Demetrios: Those are all good model fits for you. But I agree, we need more ancient samples from Greece for all our Greek brethren here at Eupedia. My distances in post 806 and 808 were using sub-samples, not full source samples available. But I have always had some really good distances for the Ancient Roman samples from Antonio et al 2019 which helps me get good overall model fits. 

Dodecad 12B (I can get fit to 0.53 using 0.25X but there are 11 components, 3 components between 1 and 1.4, and 4 components are < 1% so 0.5X more parsimonious) 

Target: PalermoTrapani
Distance: 1.0717% / 1.07167155 | ADC: 0.5x

35.4
R56_Medieval_Era_Villa_Magna



33.8
R52_Medieval_Era_Villa_Magna



17.2
R35_Late_Antiquity_Celio



9.0
R835_Imperial_Era_Civitanova_Marche



4.6
I3808_SE_Iberia_c.10-16CE



Eurogenes K13 (0.25X has one less component than 0.5X which has I8215 in it, distance 1.32 so still good model fit)

Target: PalermoTrapani
Distance: 0.7512% / 0.75119401 | ADC: 0.25x

53.8
SZ40_Hungary_Langobard_1442_ybp



24.2
R131_Lazio_Rome_Roman_Imperial



12.0
I9033_Mycenaean_1352_bc_M_



5.6
R1283_Lazio_Rome_Medieval_Italy



2.2
R122_Lazio_Rome_Italy_Late_Antiquity



2.2
R132_Lazio_Rome_Roman_Imperial




Eurogenes K15 (While 0.25X has best fit at 1.62, it has 10 components, 3 less than 1 ) 

Target: PalermoTrapani
Distance: 3.6236% / 3.62362071 | ADC: 0.5x

70.6
IA_Prenestina_Selicata_R437



19.4
Mycenaean_I9041



4.4
Canaanite_ERS1790729



3.4
IA_Protovillanovan_Martinsicuro_R1



1.4
France_IA_ERS88



0.8
Botai_BOT15

----------


## Demetrios

> Demetrios: Those are all good model fits for you. But I agree, we need more ancient samples from Greece for all our Greek brethren here at Eupedia. My distances in post 806 and 808 were using sub-samples, not full source samples available. But I have always had some really good distances for the Ancient Roman samples from Antonio et al 2019 which helps me get good overall model fits. 
> 
> Dodecad 12B (I can get fit to 0.53 using 0.25X but there are 11 components, 3 components between 1 and 1.4, and 4 components are < 1% so 0.5X more parsimonious) 
> 
> Target: PalermoTrapani
> Distance: 1.0717% / 1.07167155 | ADC: 0.5x
> 
> 35.4
> R56_Medieval_Era_Villa_Magna
> ...


Very nice, thanks for sharing.

----------


## Jovialis

Here is a link from the supplementary material of this paper for where to locate the modern Italian population samples.

They are in bed, bim, and fam, format. Does anyone know how to convert them to BAM, or raw data txt. file format?

https://capelligroup.wordpress.com/data/

https://www.dropbox.com/s/i3xpko28yi...ciAdv.zip?dl=0

I would like to create coordinates for each of them to using in gedmatch calculators.

----------


## Salento

> Here is a link from the supplementary material of this paper for where to locate the modern Italian population samples.
> 
> They are in bed, bim, and fam, format. Does anyone know how to convert them to BAM, or raw data txt. file format?
> 
> https://capelligroup.wordpress.com/data/
> 
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/i3xpko28yi...ciAdv.zip?dl=0
> 
> I would like to create coordinates for each of them to using in gedmatch calculators.


… got it ….



```
Alp090_Abruzzo,6.69,0,3.58,0,30.19,16.26,0.10,0,11.63,0,31.57,0
Alp140_Abruzzo,8.98,0,3.12,0,28.13,17.65,0,0.31,11.18,0,30.64,0
ALP161_Abruzzo,6.41,0,1.44,0,30.32,19.51,0,0.22,10.75,0.24,31.01,0.11
Alp162_Abruzzo,7.51,0,0.94,0.19,28.60,17.33,1.26,0,13.22,0,30.60,0.34
ALP205_Abruzzo,6.36,0.17,2.26,0,27.71,15.44,0,0.55,12.57,0,34.86,0.07
Alp380_Abruzzo,8.30,0,1.69,0,30.67,14.58,0.47,0.06,12.53,0,31.44,0.27
Alp503_Abruzzo,9.66,0,2.68,0.05,29.99,14.21,0,0.19,10.83,0,32.39,0
Alp616_Abruzzo,7.89,0,1.28,0,29.09,16.96,0,0.71,10.92,0,33.15,0
AL9_Albanian,5.26,0,2.47,0.71,29.56,24.40,0,0.08,7.74,0,27.78,1.99
AL12_Albanian,4.45,0.91,0.08,0,33.95,23.40,0,0,7.39,0.02,29.81,0
AL17_Albanian,5.38,0,1.12,0,30.35,22.13,0.88,0,9.59,0,30.54,0
AL29_Albanian,4.54,1.26,2.31,0.12,29.18,21.93,0,0.27,9.86,0,30.53,0
AL82_Albanian,5.30,0.23,0.73,0.46,27.08,27.71,0.23,0.14,7.14,0.14,30.84,0
AL98_Albanian,6.43,1.04,1.58,0,26.80,22.39,0.29,0,8.69,0.21,31.63,0.94
ALP225_Aosta-Valley,6.87,0.27,1.13,0,37.44,30.93,0.24,0,3.30,0,19.83,0
ALP227_Aosta-Valley,5.37,0.04,0.99,0,38.11,32.94,0,0.11,3.91,0,18.53,0
ALP379_Apulia,5.72,0,3.90,0,28.18,15.53,0.67,0,11.69,0.17,34.13,0.01
ALP583_Apulia,8.10,0,3.61,0,27.70,15.00,0.82,0.30,10.01,0,34.43,0.04
cera1_Apulia,7.91,0,5.44,0,29.16,15.42,0,0,10.25,0,31.76,0.05
cera2_Apulia,7.80,0,2.79,0,30.50,15.34,0,0,10.15,0,33.37,0.05
cera8_Apulia,6.06,0,3.14,0.70,29.98,15.74,0,0.10,10.47,0.14,33.35,0.32
cera9_Apulia,5.36,0,3.54,0,31.06,16.26,0.36,0,10.87,0,32.56,0
GS32_Apulia,7.03,0.70,2.10,0,29.17,14.00,0.41,0.25,10.95,0,35.38,0
GS34_Apulia,6.15,0.62,2.80,0,28.01,16.49,0,0.12,13.62,0.13,32.06,0
GS47_Apulia,5.92,0,2.56,0,27.84,14.32,0,0.27,12.35,0.63,36.11,0
Pu2_Apulia,5.84,0,2.93,0,26.59,17.67,0,0.71,12.28,0,33.99,0
Pu3_Apulia,6.03,0,1.87,0,26.47,14.41,0,0.09,13.66,0,37.47,0
Pu7_Apulia,7.79,0,3.12,0,27.68,12.85,0,0.19,11.83,0,36.54,0
Pu8_Apulia,6.95,0,6.23,0.02,25.75,11.41,0,0.45,14.01,0.76,34.43,0
Pu45_Apulia,7.53,0.05,2.22,0.39,29.68,15.35,0,0.40,10.10,0,34.28,0
PG16_Basilicata,7.16,0.47,4.11,0.25,27.15,12.87,0.34,0.60,11.52,0.36,35.16,0
PG17_Basilicata,8.95,0,1.39,0,29.77,14.55,0,0,12.92,0,32.25,0.16
PG18_Basilicata,6.66,0,2.84,0.02,27.29,16.11,0,0,13.23,0.74,33.04,0.06
PG19_Basilicata,6.05,0,2.34,0,28.94,15.65,0,1.07,13.30,0,32.65,0
PG20_Basilicata,6.11,0,3.11,0,27.89,14.45,0.06,0,12.27,0,36.11,0
PG21_Basilicata,7.28,0,3.97,0,26.27,17.49,1.27,0.28,12.37,0.28,30.79,0
PG22_Basilicata,7.19,0,3.44,0,25.84,16.55,0,0,9.57,0,37.42,0
PG24_Basilicata,7.33,0.09,4.22,1.09,28.61,14.27,0,0.83,12.06,0,31.50,0
PG25_Basilicata,6.69,0.27,2.65,0.38,28.09,14.21,0.26,0.40,12.13,0.46,34.45,0
ALP582_Calabria,6.25,0,3.73,0.03,27.11,10.05,0.99,0,13.80,1.01,36.24,0.79
ALP596_Calabria,6.33,0,3.91,0,27.04,13.26,0,0.64,13.48,0,35.33,0
NaN43TC_Campania,5.55,0,3.35,0.40,30.13,14.02,0,0.50,12.39,0,33.66,0
NaN46TC_Campania,6.39,0,2.56,0,29.12,13.31,0.46,0,14.30,0,33.51,0.34
NaN58AC_Campania,10.21,0.49,3.75,0,28.63,12.20,0.90,0.04,12.10,0.03,31.66,0
NaN65DFG_Campania,8.00,0,4.30,0.03,27.55,10.62,0.47,0.12,13.44,0.51,34.95,0
NaN77FAM_Campania,6.20,0,3.00,0.36,26.45,12.15,0.43,0.86,13.24,0.25,37.04,0
NaN119AMR_Campania,6.33,0,3.12,0,27.98,15.23,0,0.79,13.71,0.40,32.44,0
NaN128LA_Campania,7.42,0,3.69,0,29.35,12.81,0,0,12.42,0,34.31,0
NaN195ST_Campania,7.21,0,4.57,0.68,30.71,10.79,0,0.07,10.77,0.16,34.89,0.15
NaN207MM_Campania,7.08,0,3.16,0,26.85,14.76,0,0,14.32,0,33.60,0.22
NaN212CR_Campania,6.82,0,2.61,0,30.35,14.95,0.28,0.35,12.19,0,32.45,0
NaN238DM_Campania,7.03,0,1.59,0,29.82,15.65,0,0,11.91,0.14,33.86,0
NaN275IS_Campania,7.93,0.39,3.73,0,25.40,11.31,0,0.18,14.81,0,36.08,0.17
NaN289RM_Campania,6.45,0,2.51,1.17,28.02,14.99,0,0.55,10.85,0,35.45,0
NaN293SF_Campania,8.28,0.11,1.74,0,29.38,13.62,0.42,0,12.80,0,33.37,0.28
ALP081_Friuli-Venezia-Giulia,4.34,0.84,2.33,0,36.22,29.46,0.26,0.04,5.34,0,21.18,0
ALP093_Friuli-Venezia-Giulia,6.43,0.41,0.05,0,33.92,32.71,0,0.07,5.38,0,21.03,0
ALP188_Friuli-Venezia-Giulia,4.99,0.74,0.01,0,26.21,47.57,0,0,3.72,0.76,16.00,0
ALP220_Friuli-Venezia-Giulia,5.39,0,0,0.17,34.02,36.20,0,0,6.01,0,18.14,0.05
ALP233_Friuli-Venezia-Giulia,4.08,0,0,0,34.26,30.43,0.52,0,6.58,0.50,23.63,0
ALP235_Friuli-Venezia-Giulia,5.64,0.57,1.23,0.01,35.63,28.80,0.84,0,5.51,0,21.76,0
ALP346_Friuli-Venezia-Giulia,6.20,0.81,0.77,0,34.42,29.93,0,0,6.17,0.18,21.52,0
ALP354_Friuli-Venezia-Giulia,5.56,0.50,0.39,0,37.04,29.93,0,0,6.12,0,20.32,0.14
ALP259_Friuli-Venezia-Giulia,3.03,0,1.50,0,39.87,28.48,0,0,5.82,0,21.30,0
ALP280_Friuli-Venezia-Giulia,5.74,0,0.56,0,37.35,28.82,0.30,0,4.85,0,22.40,0
ALP435_Friuli-Venezia-Giulia,5.42,0.70,0.01,0,31.91,35.91,0,0.24,6.52,0,19.29,0
ALP506_Friuli-Venezia-Giulia,3.59,0.13,0.92,0,36.19,30.55,0,0,5.31,0.19,23.12,0
KF1800761_Friuli-Venezia-Giulia,4.15,0.03,1.60,0.62,35.36,29.80,0,0.10,6.99,0,21.35,0
KF1803129_Friuli-Venezia-Giulia,3.70,0,1.39,0,35.87,31.44,0,0,5.88,0.31,21.41,0
KF2700922_Friuli-Venezia-Giulia,4.76,0.29,0.58,0.30,32.64,33.31,0.22,0,6.10,0,21.79,0.02
KF2700960_Friuli-Venezia-Giulia,6.04,0.50,1.49,0,35.21,30.23,0,0,6.36,0.30,19.88,0
NOR24_Lazio,7.94,0,1.16,0,33.01,15.72,0,0.08,10.15,0,31.94,0
NOR28_Lazio,8.17,0.11,2.62,0.22,31.46,15.60,0,0,11.20,0,30.62,0
PG28_Lazio,4.14,0,2.92,0,34.41,18.64,0,0,11.40,0,28.49,0
PG30_Lazio,6.88,0,2.01,0,32.07,18.84,0,0.19,11.81,0.04,28.16,0
ALP099_Liguria,5.13,0,2.43,0,36.41,24.40,0.65,0.05,6.88,0.51,23.32,0.22
ALP288_Lombrardy,6.04,0.79,1.67,0,36.54,24.68,0,0.23,7.79,0,22.27,0
BGD28_Lombrardy,6.14,0,1.99,0.13,40.22,23.5,0,0,6.74,0.27,21.03,0
BGD31_Lombrardy,3.7,0,2.07,0,40.09,22.45,0,0,6.06,0.64,24.99,0
BGD103_Lombrardy,3.81,0.41,0,0,38.8,25.35,0.64,0,7.31,0,23.67,0
BGD301_Lombrardy,4.99,0,1.58,0,41.82,21.45,0,0,6.79,0.49,22.9,0
MarABG010D_Marche,6.05,0,3.02,0.18,32.69,19.66,0.12,0.25,10.45,0,27.57,0
MarABI020D_Marche,7.25,0,3.21,0,33.85,17.74,0,0.10,8.68,0,28.86,0.32
MarABN020D_Marche,7.08,0.73,1.75,0.22,31.78,18.77,0,0,10.49,0,29.18,0
MarABP050D_Marche,7.43,0,2.35,0,32.72,17.90,0,0.21,9.80,0.20,29.41,0
MarABQ080D_Marche,6.21,0.17,1.89,0,32.81,19.04,0,0,10.96,0.12,28.79,0
MarABU050D_Marche,7.29,0,1.62,0,33.47,21.39,0,0,9.14,1.17,25.92,0
MarABY030D_Marche,6.75,0,3.69,0,29.95,18.59,0,0.23,11.27,0,29.52,0
MarACO100D_Marche,6.86,0,2.00,0,30.72,17.68,0,0,12.10,0.08,30.56,0
MarACV100D_Marche,7.26,0,1.62,0,31.47,21.05,0.39,0,10.41,0.48,27.31,0
MarACW030D_Marche,6.82,0,3.04,0,33.76,20.81,0,0,8.63,0,26.94,0
MarACW080D_Marche,9.16,0.87,0.94,0,31.17,19.68,0,0,9.61,0,28.58,0
MarACY030D_Marche,6.26,0,2.36,0.35,31.64,18.52,0.43,0,10.01,0,30.43,0
MarADC050D_Marche,4.77,0,1.93,0,33.54,20.62,0.11,0,7.86,0,31.17,0
MarADG030D_Marche,6.69,0,2.77,0,31.83,21.00,0.02,0,10.04,0.11,27.55,0
PG26_Molise,7.76,0,2.20,0,29.91,16.67,0,0.57,10.84,0,32.01,0.04
PG27_Molise,6.36,0.05,1.15,0.55,29.66,17.90,0,0,10.92,0.28,32.78,0.33
ALP070_Trentino-Alto-Adige,5.23,0.08,0.80,0,38.53,31.31,0,0,5.23,0.41,18.42,0
ALP071_Trentino-Alto-Adige,4.72,0,0.88,0,37.95,33.21,0,0,4.51,0.47,18.18,0.09
ALP114_Trentino-Alto-Adige,5.13,0.56,1.16,0,38.67,21.62,0,0,7.86,0,25,0
ALP200_Trentino-Alto-Adige,5.96,0,0.65,0,35.41,26.93,0.24,0,7.64,0.25,22.93,0
ALP395_Trentino-Alto-Adige,4.20,0,0.07,0,38.17,29.09,0.83,0,5.00,0,22.64,0
ALP414_Trentino-Alto-Adige,4.90,1.04,0.99,0,29.11,46.33,0.19,0,3.54,0,13.91,0
ALP420_Trentino-Alto-Adige,5.76,0,0.48,0,39.10,28.16,0.12,0,6.97,0.13,19.29,0
MURLO114_Tuscany,5.80,0,3.27,0,34.81,20.54,1.23,0,8.47,0.02,25.86,0
VO59_Tuscany,7.52,0,0.82,0.28,35.01,21.98,0,0,9.50,0,24.88,0
VO65_Tuscany,3.64,0,2.60,0.17,35.94,21.03,0,0.20,8.37,0,28.06,0
VO109_Tuscany,3.75,0.22,2.79,0,32.67,21.45,0.79,0,10.67,0,27.56,0.09
PG03_Umbria,5.94,0,2.12,0,32.67,17.12,0.56,0.20,11.11,0.02,30.25,0
PG04_Umbria,6.34,0.25,2.53,0,30.64,20.66,0,0,9.10,0,30.47,0
PG06_Umbria,8.95,0.13,1.08,0.52,30.94,17.60,0.02,0,8.80,0,31.89,0.06
PG07_Umbria,7.81,0.34,3.48,0,32.31,17.63,0,0,10.47,0,27.96,0
PG08_Umbria,5.00,0,2.37,0.43,35.24,21.61,0.48,0,7.69,0.03,27.15,0
PG11_Umbria,7.93,0.01,2.36,0,33.05,19.77,0,0,8.56,0,28.32,0
PG12_Umbria,8.62,0.02,1.77,0.07,34.90,20.05,0,0,7.63,0.04,26.90,0
PG15_Umbria,7.94,0,2.72,0,32.52,16.83,0.67,0,10.33,0,28.99,0
ALP022_Veneto,6.59,0,0.49,0,36.53,27.87,0,0,7.34,0,21.18,0
ALP040_Veneto,5.15,0,1.04,0,41.60,25.12,0,0,3.85,0,23.24,0
Alp100_Veneto,4.58,0.41,0.87,0.93,39.09,28.70,0,0,7.01,0.28,18.13,0
ALP116_Veneto,5.45,0.19,2.34,0,36.99,24.61,0,0,7.69,0,22.73,0
ALP209_Veneto,4.85,0,2.14,0,34.32,25.27,0,0,7.89,0,25.49,0.04
ALP249_Veneto,5.45,0,2.23,0,35.92,27.84,0.14,0,5.44,0,22.98,0
ALP250_Veneto,4.19,0.15,0.96,0.11,37.49,30.40,0.47,0,6.61,0.02,19.60,0
ALP273_Veneto,4.14,0.12,0.71,0,35.42,29.00,0.35,0,7.02,0,23.07,0.16
ALP322_Veneto,3.54,0,1.12,0,35.56,30.22,0.15,0,5.64,0,23.77,0
ALP378_Veneto,5.59,0.04,0.53,0,35.23,29.58,0.40,0,4.93,0,23.71,0
Alp401_Veneto,5.76,0,0.27,0.72,39.59,27.28,0,0,5.84,0,20.49,0.04
KF1800751_Veneto,4.56,0,0.81,0,38.52,26.88,0,0.05,7.07,0,22.11,0
KF1800772_Veneto,5.25,0,1.04,0,38.57,25.21,0.67,0,5.09,0,24.17,0
KF1803105_Veneto,4.62,0,1.32,0.04,37.25,29.44,0,0.07,5.73,0,21.53,0
KF1803109_Veneto,4.97,0.48,2.18,0,36.60,25.47,0,0,8.09,0,22.22,0
KF1803151_Veneto,7.23,0,0,1.06,36.73,29.47,0.05,0,6.47,0,18.99,0
```

----------


## Palermo Trapani

Salento/Jovialis:

I might have missed it but what paper are those samples that Salento produced coordinates for in post #811. Are they from all 6 in the link from Jovialis post? Salento, BTW, thanks for those coordinates. My first pass at them (top 25)

Distance to:
PalermoTrapani_ANCESTRY

2.29802089
NaN212CR_Campania

2.34757322
PG24_Basilicata

2.76515822
NaN43TC_Campania

2.88128444
Alp380_Abruzzo

3.07784015
Alp090_Abruzzo

3.34148171
NaN128LA_Campania

3.38487814
NaN46TC_Campania

3.38625161
NOR28_Lazio

3.46723233
NaN293SF_Campania

3.53749912
PG19_Basilicata

3.57910603
PG17_Basilicata

3.58319690
NaN119AMR_Campania

3.81167942
Alp503_Abruzzo

3.93417081
cera8_Apulia

3.96143913
cera9_Apulia

4.00804192
cera1_Apulia

4.01978855
cera2_Apulia

4.13014528
NaN238DM_Campania

4.21352584
PG25_Basilicata

4.23049642
PG26_Molise

4.28063079
NaN58AC_Campania

4.32399121
GS34_Apulia

4.52071897
ALP379_Apulia

4.69476304
PG18_Basilicata

4.70507173
Pu45_Apulia

----------


## torzio

Distance to:	Torziok12b
1.63711731	ALP022_Veneto
2.08712721	ALP235_Friuli-Venezia-Giulia
2.80196360	ALP249_Veneto
2.82104591	KF2700960_Friuli-Venezia-Giulia
2.84116173	ALP346_Friuli-Venezia-Giulia
3.05674664	ALP200_Trentino-Alto-Adige
3.09166622	ALP354_Friuli-Venezia-Giulia
3.11242671	ALP280_Friuli-Venezia-Giulia
3.25023076	KF1803151_Veneto
3.28800852	KF1803105_Veneto
3.42483576	ALP081_Friuli-Venezia-Giulia
3.61798286	KF1800761_Friuli-Venezia-Giulia
3.89629311	ALP378_Veneto
3.92330218	ALP273_Veneto
4.13805510	ALP420_Trentino-Alto-Adige
4.16438471	KF1803109_Veneto
4.19916658	KF1800751_Veneto
4.21149617	ALP288_Lombrardy
4.36495132	ALP250_Veneto
4.37962327	Alp401_Veneto
4.60943597	ALP225_Aosta-Valley
4.63782277	ALP395_Trentino-Alto-Adige
4.66079392	ALP116_Veneto
4.85242208	KF1803129_Friuli-Venezia-Giulia
4.92197115	ALP099_Liguria



Target: Torziok12b
Distance: 0.4478% / 0.44777121
35.4	ALP225_Aosta-Valley
29.2	ALP420_Trentino-Alto-Adige
15.0	NaN58AC_Campania
9.3	KF1803151_Veneto
7.8	ALP414_Trentino-Alto-Adige
3.3	MURLO114_Tuscany

----------


## torzio

my father numbers

Distance to:	Ponsan_K12b
2.04137209	KF1800761_Friuli-Venezia-Giulia
2.17639610	KF2700960_Friuli-Venezia-Giulia
2.19034244	ALP250_Veneto
2.25153281	ALP354_Friuli-Venezia-Giulia
2.64340689	KF1803105_Veneto
2.70848666	ALP235_Friuli-Venezia-Giulia
2.73808327	ALP081_Friuli-Venezia-Giulia
2.82092184	ALP022_Veneto
3.14057320	ALP346_Friuli-Venezia-Giulia
3.22077630	KF1803151_Veneto
3.30548030	KF1803129_Friuli-Venezia-Giulia
3.36611052	ALP273_Veneto
3.64498285	ALP420_Trentino-Alto-Adige
3.86326287	Alp100_Veneto
3.87063302	ALP280_Friuli-Venezia-Giulia
3.98472082	ALP249_Veneto
4.09752364	ALP200_Trentino-Alto-Adige
4.20815874	KF1800751_Veneto
4.22960991	ALP506_Friuli-Venezia-Giulia
4.25717042	ALP070_Trentino-Alto-Adige
4.32677709	ALP395_Trentino-Alto-Adige
4.52066367	ALP322_Veneto
4.58528080	ALP233_Friuli-Venezia-Giulia
4.59798869	ALP378_Veneto
4.63966594	Alp401_Veneto


Target: Ponsan_K12b
Distance: 0.5603% / 0.56031111
36.5	ALP250_Veneto
27.0	Alp100_Veneto
11.7	MURLO114_Tuscany
10.4	ALP414_Trentino-Alto-Adige
6.1	ALP420_Trentino-Alto-Adige
3.9	PG21_Basilicata
3.7	Alp162_Abruzzo
0.7	KF1803151_Veneto

----------


## Salento

@PT …yes, these are the samples of Jovialis link and this thread: “Population structure of modern-day Italians reveals patterns of ancient and archaic ancestries in Southern Europe”. The samples are the modern-day Italians.


Target: Salento
Distance: 0.3180% / 0.31803339

57.7
Pu3_Apulia

23.3
Pu2_Apulia

8.1
VO109_Tuscany

5.1
ALP379_Apulia

3.8
ALP188_Friuli-Venezia-Giulia

2.0
PG20_Basilicata



Distance to:
Salento

1.52384382
Pu2_Apulia

2.02150934
ALP205_Abruzzo

2.58338925
PG18_Basilicata

2.83665296
ALP379_Apulia

3.18932595
PG20_Basilicata

3.25306010
GS47_Apulia

3.32890372
GS34_Apulia




I guess GS is Grecìa Salentina, ... I Think :)

----------


## Palermo Trapani

> @PT …yes, these are the samples of Jovialis link and this thread: “Population structure of modern-day Italians reveals patterns of ancient and archaic ancestries in Southern Europe”. The samples are the modern-day Italians.
> 
> 
> Target: Salento
> Distance: 0.3180% / 0.31803339
> 
> 57.7
> Pu3_Apulia
> 
> ...


Salento: The Raveane et al 2019 paper, Grazie Mille. Great work man!

----------


## Stuvanè

Mine: I suppose that since there are no samples from Emilia and Romagna, the results are a little more unusual and work with more atypical averages and combos

Distance to:
Dodecadk12bStuvanè

1.76278189
ALP209_Veneto

4.04056927
PG08_Umbria

4.21613567
MarABU050D_Marche

4.24811723
VO109_Tuscany

4.25477379
VO59_Tuscany

4.43745423
ALP099_Liguria

4.59314707
MarACW030D_Marche

4.67183048
MURLO114_Tuscany

4.75082098
ALP200_Trentino-Alto-Adige

4.76308723
ALP116_Veneto

4.77274554
KF1803109_Veneto

4.89257601
ALP288_Lombrardy

4.91722483
MarADG030D_Marche

5.07163682
VO65_Tuscany

5.16462002
AL12_Albanian

5.25430300
MarACV100D_Marche

5.30606257
AL9_Albanian

5.67941018
MarABG010D_Marche

6.07443825
ALP114_Trentino-Alto-Adige

6.11112919
ALP273_Veneto

6.22093241
ALP249_Veneto

6.38220965
PG11_Umbria

6.38515466
PG12_Umbria

6.53988532
AL17_Albanian

6.74417526
MarABQ080D_Marche



Target: Dodecadk12bStuvanè
Distance: 0.9056% / 0.90556359 | ADC: 0.5x RC

73.0
ALP209_Veneto



19.7
VO109_Tuscany



7.3
MarACV100D_Marche





Target: Dodecadk12bStuvanè
Distance: 0.5258% / 0.52581609 | ADC: 0.25x RC

43.4
VO109_Tuscany



23.3
ALP209_Veneto



21.2
ALP200_Trentino-Alto-Adige



7.8
KF2700922_Friuli-Venezia-Giulia



4.3
MarACV100D_Marche






Target: Dodecadk12bStuvanè
Distance: 0.0662% / 0.06618802

25.9
PG28_Lazio



18.9
ALP259_Friuli-Venezia-Giulia



9.6
ALP435_Friuli-Venezia-Giulia



9.1
NaN207MM_Campania



8.9
GS34_Apulia



6.0
KF1803109_Veneto



4.5
ALP354_Friuli-Venezia-Giulia



4.3
ALP414_Trentino-Alto-Adige



3.2
AL29_Albanian



2.1
KF1803129_Friuli-Venezia-Giulia



2.0
ALP273_Veneto



2.0
Pu3_Apulia



1.9
AL9_Albanian



1.3
ALP209_Veneto



0.3
ALP322_Veneto




Distance to:
Dodecadk12bStuvanè

0.47108631
40.40% KF2700922_Friuli-Venezia-Giulia + 59.60% PG28_Lazio

0.59213139
33.80% ALP435_Friuli-Venezia-Giulia + 66.20% PG28_Lazio

0.65966318
36.40% ALP596_Calabria + 63.60% ALP250_Veneto

0.67380289
37.40% NaN46TC_Campania + 62.60% KF1803129_Friuli-Venezia-Giulia

0.67740110
35.00% ALP346_Friuli-Venezia-Giulia + 65.00% VO109_Tuscany

0.68469318
39.40% GS34_Apulia + 60.60% KF1803105_Veneto

0.69320302
32.60% NaN46TC_Campania + 67.40% KF1800761_Friuli-Venezia-Giulia

0.78136987
36.80% NaN212CR_Campania + 63.20% KF1800761_Friuli-Venezia-Giulia

0.78498697
37.80% PG20_Basilicata + 62.20% ALP250_Veneto

0.78746037
39.80% ALP205_Abruzzo + 60.20% ALP250_Veneto

0.79843771
34.40% NaN43TC_Campania + 65.60% KF1800761_Friuli-Venezia-Giulia

0.81315349
39.80% ALP093_Friuli-Venezia-Giulia + 60.20% PG28_Lazio

0.83685052
39.60% AL29_Albanian + 60.40% KF1803109_Veneto

0.84935993
41.20% ALP379_Apulia + 58.80% ALP250_Veneto

0.85596013
47.20% ALP200_Trentino-Alto-Adige + 52.80% VO109_Tuscany

0.87220888
28.40% ALP093_Friuli-Venezia-Giulia + 71.60% VO109_Tuscany

0.87293066
56.40% KF1800761_Friuli-Venezia-Giulia + 43.60% MarACO100D_Marche

0.87404590
34.00% NaN77FAM_Campania + 66.00% ALP250_Veneto

0.87530950
37.60% GS47_Apulia + 62.40% ALP250_Veneto

0.88563538
51.80% MarABG010D_Marche + 48.20% ALP273_Veneto

0.88596822
32.00% KF2700960_Friuli-Venezia-Giulia + 68.00% VO109_Tuscany

0.90730136
51.20% KF1803129_Friuli-Venezia-Giulia + 48.80% MarACO100D_Marche

0.90939374
78.80% PG28_Lazio + 21.20% ALP414_Trentino-Alto-Adige

0.91331678
43.60% GS34_Apulia + 56.40% ALP250_Veneto

0.91634044
42.20% KF1803129_Friuli-Venezia-Giulia + 57.80% MarABQ080D_Marche

----------


## Stefano

Thanks for the cordinates.
Distance to: Stefano
2.66323112 KF1800772_Veneto
2.78793831 ALP114_Trentino-Alto-Adige
3.85419252 ALP040_Veneto
3.93568291 ALP099_Liguria
3.95282178 ALP116_Veneto
4.43227932 ALP288_Lombrardy
4.81233831 KF1800751_Veneto
4.98877741 KF1803109_Veneto
5.78362343 Alp401_Veneto
5.83278664 PG08_Umbria
6.03167473 ALP200_Trentino-Alto-Adige
6.09994262 VO59_Tuscany
6.22117352 ALP209_Veneto
6.23140434 ALP249_Veneto
6.55176312 ALP280_Friuli-Venezia-Giulia
6.56301760 MURLO114_Tuscany
6.62331488 VO65_Tuscany
6.65864851 ALP022_Veneto
6.79281974 ALP395_Trentino-Alto-Adige
6.80527736 ALP259_Friuli-Venezia-Giulia
6.93600750 PG12_Umbria
7.23706432 ALP420_Trentino-Alto-Adige
7.39709402 MarABU050D_Marche
7.39781049 KF1803105_Veneto
7.43780209 ALP235_Friuli-Venezia-Giulia

Target: Stefano
Distance: 0.4365% / 0.43654232
46.5 ALP040_Veneto
33.5 ALP114_Trentino-Alto-Adige
17.0 PG12_Umbria
2.8 ALP420_Trentino-Alto-Adige
0.2 VO59_Tuscany

----------


## Jovialis

> … got it ….
> 
> 
> 
> ```
> Alp090_Abruzzo,6.69,0,3.58,0,30.19,16.26,0.10,0,11.63,0,31.57,0
> Alp140_Abruzzo,8.98,0,3.12,0,28.13,17.65,0,0.31,11.18,0,30.64,0
> ALP161_Abruzzo,6.41,0,1.44,0,30.32,19.51,0,0.22,10.75,0.24,31.01,0.11
> Alp162_Abruzzo,7.51,0,0.94,0.19,28.60,17.33,1.26,0,13.22,0,30.60,0.34
> ...


Hats off to you, this is excellent!

----------


## Jovialis

Distance to:
Jovialis

1.85132385
PG26_Molise

2.16529444
Alp140_Abruzzo

2.71775643
Alp090_Abruzzo

2.73558038
Alp616_Abruzzo

2.89611809
cera1_Apulia

2.91856129
cera2_Apulia

3.19426048
PG06_Umbria

3.32980480
PG27_Molise

3.34511584
cera8_Apulia

3.38212951
NOR28_Lazio

3.39328749
MarABY030D_Marche

3.47597468
MarACO100D_Marche

3.49479613
Pu45_Apulia

3.70070264
Alp503_Abruzzo

3.77326119
ALP161_Abruzzo

3.80215728
MarACY030D_Marche

3.80621860
cera9_Apulia

3.86023315
NaN212CR_Campania

3.92572286
ALP583_Apulia

3.93819756
NaN238DM_Campania

4.19687979
PG24_Basilicata

4.30936190
PG21_Basilicata

4.37315675
Alp380_Abruzzo

4.45463803
ALP379_Apulia

4.48544312
MarABP050D_Marche

----------


## Jovialis

Nice to see some legitimate modern Italian samples (Albanians too). Now there's no question of authenticity.

----------


## Vallicanus

In which part of Liguria does ALP099 hail from?

----------


## Angela

> Mine: I suppose that since there are no samples from Emilia and Romagna, the results are a little more unusual and work with more atypical averages and combos
> 
> Distance to:
> Dodecadk12bStuvanè
> 
> 1.76278189
> ALP209_Veneto
> 
> 4.04056927
> ...


Maybe it "is" the fact that there's no Emilia sample, but likewise for me it really doesn't work. 

Distance to:
Angela

4.05684607
BGD31_Lombrardy

4.75154712
ALP114_Trentino-Alto-Adige

4.91595362
BGD301_Lombrardy

6.39150217
VO65_Tuscany

6.66355761
PG08_Umbria

7.04687165
KF1800772_Veneto

7.17949859
ALP040_Veneto

7.29915064
MURLO114_Tuscany

7.54232060
BGD28_Lombrardy

7.71702015
PG12_Umbria

7.79937818
BGD103_Lombrardy

7.89701209
ALP099_Liguria

8.23714756
ALP116_Veneto

8.45288117
MarACW030D_Marche

8.65162990
VO59_Tuscany

8.78784957
MarABI020D_Marche

8.89166464
ALP288_Lombrardy

9.09716439
MarADC050D_Marche

9.18601110
PG28_Lazio

9.22564361
AL12_Albanian

9.24457679
MarABU050D_Marche

9.33160758
KF1803109_Veneto

9.34260135
PG11_Umbria

9.43356772
ALP209_Veneto

9.55391019
KF1800751_Veneto



Trentino Alto-Adige has NEVER come up for me, nor should it.

It's born out by the fact that the admixture is a terrible fit.

Are we sure there isn't an Emilia sample? Every other set had one, yes? Is this the one where Davidski never provided the data for it?




Target: Angela
Distance: 290.1789% / 2.90178942

37.8
BGD301_Lombrardy



23.2
ALP040_Veneto



19.6
BGD31_Lombrardy



19.4
NaN195ST_Campania

----------


## Salento

@Angela - the samples are raveane_aneli_montinaro, and there's no Emilia.

*conversion_popname:*
Albanian Albania
ITC-ABR_G Abruzzo
ITC-LAZ_G Lazio
ITC-MAR_G Marche
ITC-TSI_G Tuscany
ITC-UMB_G Umbria
ITN-FRI_G Friuli-Venezia-Giulia
ITN-LIG_G Liguria
ITN-LOM_G Lombrardy
ITN-TRE_G Trentino-Alto-Adige
ITN-VDA_G Aosta-Valley
ITN-VEN_G Veneto
ITS-BAS_G Basilicata
ITS-CAL_G Calabria
ITS-CAM_G Campania
ITS-MOL_G Molise
ITS-PUG_G Apulia

*sample_names:*
Albanian AL9
Albanian AL12
Albanian AL17
Albanian AL29
Albanian AL82
Albanian AL98
ITN-VEN_G ALP022
ITN-VEN_G ALP040
ITN-TRE_G ALP070
ITN-TRE_G ALP071
ITN-FRI_G ALP081
ITC-ABR_G Alp090
ITN-FRI_G ALP093
ITN-LIG_G ALP099
ITN-VEN_G Alp100
ITN-TRE_G ALP114
ITN-VEN_G ALP116
ITC-ABR_G Alp140
ITC-ABR_G ALP161
ITC-ABR_G Alp162
ITN-FRI_G ALP188
ITN-TRE_G ALP200
ITC-ABR_G ALP205
ITN-VEN_G ALP209
ITN-FRI_G ALP220
ITN-VDA_G ALP225
ITN-VDA_G ALP227
ITN-FRI_G ALP233
ITN-FRI_G ALP235
ITN-VEN_G ALP249
ITN-VEN_G ALP250
ITN-TRE_G ALP259
ITN-VEN_G ALP273
ITN-FRI_G ALP280
ITN-LOM_G ALP288
ITN-VEN_G ALP322
ITN-FRI_G ALP346
ITN-FRI_G ALP354
ITN-VEN_G ALP378
ITS-PUG_G ALP379
ITC-ABR_G Alp380
ITN-TRE_G ALP395
ITN-VEN_G Alp401
ITN-TRE_G ALP414
ITN-TRE_G ALP420
ITN-FRI_G ALP435
ITC-ABR_G Alp503
ITN-FRI_G ALP506
ITS-CAL_G ALP582
ITS-PUG_G ALP583
ITS-CAL_G ALP596
ITC-ABR_G Alp616
ITN-LOM_G BGD28
ITN-LOM_G BGD31
ITN-LOM_G BGD103
ITN-LOM_G BGD301
ITS-PUG_G cera1
ITS-PUG_G cera2
ITS-PUG_G cera8
ITS-PUG_G cera9
ITS-PUG_G GS32
ITS-PUG_G GS34
ITS-PUG_G GS47
ITN-VEN_G KF1800751
ITN-FRI_G KF1800761
ITN-VEN_G KF1800772
ITN-VEN_G KF1803105
ITN-VEN_G KF1803109
ITN-FRI_G KF1803129
ITN-VEN_G KF1803151
ITN-FRI_G KF2700922
ITN-FRI_G KF2700960
ITC-MAR_G MarABG010D
ITC-MAR_G MarABI020D
ITC-MAR_G MarABN020D
ITC-MAR_G MarABP050D
ITC-MAR_G MarABQ080D
ITC-MAR_G MarABU050D
ITC-MAR_G MarABY030D
ITC-MAR_G MarACM040D
ITC-MAR_G MarACO060D
ITC-MAR_G MarACO100D
ITC-MAR_G MarACV100D
ITC-MAR_G MarACW030D
ITC-MAR_G MarACW080D
ITC-MAR_G MarACY030D
ITC-MAR_G MarADC050D
ITC-MAR_G MarADG030D
ITC-TSI_G MURLO114
ITS-CAM_G NaN43TC
ITS-CAM_G NaN46TC
ITS-CAM_G NaN58AC
ITS-CAM_G NaN65DFG
ITS-CAM_G NaN77FAM
ITS-CAM_G NaN119AMR
ITS-CAM_G NaN128LA
ITS-CAM_G NaN195ST
ITS-CAM_G NaN207MM
ITS-CAM_G NaN212CR
ITS-CAM_G NaN238DM
ITS-CAM_G NaN275IS
ITS-CAM_G NaN289RM
ITS-CAM_G NaN293SF
ITC-LAZ_G NOR24
ITC-LAZ_G NOR28
ITC-UMB_G PG03
ITC-UMB_G PG04
ITC-UMB_G PG05
ITC-UMB_G PG06
ITC-UMB_G PG07
ITC-UMB_G PG08
ITC-UMB_G PG11
ITC-UMB_G PG12
ITC-UMB_G PG15
ITS-BAS_G PG16
ITS-BAS_G PG17
ITS-BAS_G PG18
ITS-BAS_G PG19
ITS-BAS_G PG20
ITS-BAS_G PG21
ITS-BAS_G PG22
ITS-BAS_G PG24
ITS-BAS_G PG25
ITS-MOL_G PG26
ITS-MOL_G PG27
ITC-LAZ_G PG28
ITC-LAZ_G PG30
ITS-PUG_G Pu2
ITS-PUG_G Pu3
ITS-PUG_G Pu7
ITS-PUG_G Pu8
ITS-PUG_G Pu45
ITC-TSI_G VO59
ITC-TSI_G VO65
ITC-TSI_G VO109

----------


## Stefano

With the new samples


Distance to:	Stefano
2.58623278	BGD31_Lombrardy
2.66323112	KF1800772_Veneto
2.78793831	ALP114_Trentino-Alto-Adige
3.39605654	BGD301_Lombrardy
3.55707745	BGD28_Lombrardy
3.72235141	BGD103_Lombrardy




These are the regional averages, for a reference


Italian_Abruzzo,7.59,0.03,3.23,0.04,29.12,16.1,0,0 .08,10.91,0.32,32.6,0
Italian_Aosta_Valley,5.82,0.06,1.62,0.14,40.65,29. 99,0.25,0.05,4.3,0.03,16.98,0.1
Italian_Apulia,7.38,0.32,2.81,0.34,26.2,17.19,0.27 ,0.27,11.31,0.41,33.36,0.15
Italian_Basilicata,8.9,0,3.92,0.1,27.08,14.41,0.67 ,0.62,11.23,0.05,32.98,0.04 
Italian_Calabria,7,0.13,4.18,0.08,27,11.44,0.26,0. 6,13.52,0.22,35.45,0.1
Italian_Campania,7.07,0.09,2.82,0.09,28.91,13.73,0 .1,0.33,12.32,0.02,34.34,0.1
Italian_Emilia,6.13,0,1.15,0.18,37.61,22.76,0.14,0 .11,7.4,0.25,24.22,0.06
Italian_Friuli_VG,5.44,0.28,1.17,0.01,34.92,29.32, 0.08,0,7.03,0,21.72,0.02
Italian_Jew,5.91,0.27,5.61,0.28,26.04,8.53,0.36,1. 02,16.51,0.14,35.34,0
Italian_Lazio,6.73,0,2.67,0.05,31.7,19.82,0.26,0.0 7,9.79,0.17,28.75,0
Italian_Liguria,5.1,0.05,2.01,0.09,37.89,23.23,0.2 5,0.05,7.89,0.05,23.39,0
Italian_Lombardy,4.75,0.12,1.12,0.04,39.63,25.08,0 .17,0.01,6.41,0.03,22.62,0.03
Italian_Marche,6.42,0.08,2.38,0.05,32.91,18.72,0.2 9,0.27,9.80,0,29.042,0.03
Italian_Molise,6.89,0.1,2.32,0,29.31,15.22,0.03,0. 11,12.03,0.10,33.84,0.02
Italian_Piedmont,5.92,0.13,1.73,0.09,37.82,26.02,0 .04,0.04,6.73,0.02,21.37,0.1
Italian_Romagna,6.08,0,1.87,0.13,34.66,20.98,0.1,0 ,8.99,0,27.19,0
Italian_Sicily,7.31,0.48,4.59,0.10,27.22,13.45,0.2 5,0.65,12.1,0.05,33.16,0.64
Italian_Trentino,4.79,0.22,0.73,0.04,38.71,29.79,0 ,0,5.47,0.02,20.22,0
Italian_Tuscany,6.12,0.05,1.21,0.14,36.89,21.81,0. 16,0.06,8.21,0,25.36,0
Italian_Umbria,5.96,0.10,1.99,0.19,33.10,20.43,0.1 7,0.09,9.25,0.15,28.46,0.06
Italian_Veneto,5.44,0.04,1.43,0.18,36.93,27.16,0.0 6,0,5.73,0.15,22.83,0.03


Angela the BGD31_Lombrardy sample is closer to liguria and the ALP114_Trentino-Alto-Adige to Emilia, hence the similarity.


Distance to:	BGD31_Lombrardy
3.70737104	Italian_Liguria
3.91035804	Italian_Lombardy
3.95045567	Italian_Emilia
4.73982067	Italian_Tuscany
6.07599375	Italian_Piedmont




Distance to:	ALP114_Trentino-Alto-Adige
2.16497113	Italian_Emilia
2.17901354	Italian_Tuscany
2.61774712	Italian_Liguria
4.58607675	Italian_Lombardy
4.93049693	Italian_Romagna
5.97426983	Italian_Piedmont






Stuvanè, the ALP209_Veneto is really close to tuscany, liguria and emilia and the PG08_Umbria to Romagna.




Distance to:	ALP209_Veneto
4.60722259	Italian_Tuscany
4.63417738	Italian_Liguria
4.66076174	Italian_Emilia
4.79977083	Italian_Veneto
4.92280408	Italian_Romagna


Distance to:	PG08_Umbria
2.01905919	Italian_Romagna
3.00507903	Italian_Tuscany
3.37305500	Italian_Umbria
4.31461470	Italian_Emilia






Individual have a variation from their regional averages.

----------


## Angela

> @Angela - the samples are raveane_aneli_montinaro, and there's no Emilia.
> 
> *conversion_popname:*
> Albanian Albania
> ITC-ABR_G Abruzzo
> ITC-LAZ_G Lazio
> ITC-MAR_G Marche
> ITC-TSI_G Tuscany
> ITC-UMB_G Umbria
> ...


Thanks for the info, Salento

----------


## Angela

> With the new samples
> 
> 
> Distance to: Stefano
> 2.58623278 BGD31_Lombrardy
> 2.66323112 KF1800772_Veneto
> 2.78793831 ALP114_Trentino-Alto-Adige
> 3.39605654 BGD301_Lombrardy
> 3.55707745 BGD28_Lombrardy
> ...


Well, they certainly can't be very close to either, because when there's an Emilia sample and a Liguria sample, my fits are less than one, and here it's 2.9.

----------


## Palermo Trapani

Salento: In the Raveane et al 2019 paper, there are two Sicilian Samples (not sure what the N=for each one), Sicily1 and Sicily 2 (I seem to remember 1 each from West and East Sicily)y, as well as 3 Sardinian. Sardinia 1, 2 and 3. Are those samples available to the public?

Thanks again, PT

----------


## Jovialis

Here is the PCA with all of the samples organized by region.

----------


## Salento

> Salento: In the Raveane et al 2019 paper, there are two Sicilian Samples (not sure what the N=for each one), Sicily1 and Sicily 2 (I seem to remember 1 each from West and East Sicily)y, as well as 3 Sardinian. Sardinia 1, 2 and 3. Are those samples available to the public?
> 
> Thanks again, PT


… those were all the samples available, … though I have something similar to that from some other study, … I don’t want to create confusion, … I’ll post them later :)

----------


## Palermo Trapani

> … those were all the samples available, … though I have something similar to that from some other study, … I don’t want to create confusion, … I’ll post them later :)


Salento: Ok, thanks!

----------


## Salento

> Salento: Ok, thanks!


@PT ... some modern Sicilians unrelated to this thread, ... some lacking the study label.


```
TP05_Trapani_LazaridisNat2014,7.76,0,7.31,0,29.40,11.85,0,0,9.38,1.31,32.10,0.89
TP07_Trapani_LazaridisNat2014,8.32,0.77,5.64,0,26.41,12.48,1.43,2.69,11.62,0,30.64,0
SR60_Siracusa_LazaridisNat2014,5.07,0,5.64,0,27.22,15.93,0,0.20,11.48,0,33.31,1.15
SR64_Siracusa_LazaridisNat2014,7.97,0,3.45,0,29.75,13.44,0,2.33,12.10,0,30.48,0.48
C-Sicily50,6.22,0.50,3.62,0,27.78,14.29,0,0.96,12.97,0.12,32.19,1.35
E-Sicily18,4.57,0,4.55,0,28.22,14.85,0.37,0,15.10,0.38,31.41,0.56
W-Sicily1,7.27,0,4.47,0,28.58,13.24,0,1.03,10.76,0,34.42,0.23
W-Sicily3,6.69,0.09,4.53,0,28.83,12.64,0,0.47,12.19,0.18,34.27,0.12
W-Sicily5a,8.76,0,3.46,0.89,26.50,13.84,0,1.77,11.65,0.13,33.00,0
W-Sicily9,7.47,0.24,4.26,0,28.88,13.07,0,0.77,14.72,0,30.48,0.10
W-Sicily21,7.06,0,4.17,0.98,27.98,11.07,0.07,2.67,11.80,0,33.88,0.32
Ag-Sicily5,8.11,0,4.73,0,29.88,12.05,0,0.88,11.66,0,32.68,0
Ag-Sicily8,7.44,0.30,5.18,0.40,27.65,13.74,0.05,0.70,12.31,0,31.71,0.52
```

----------


## Palermo Trapani

Salento: Thanks for the Coordinates,

Distance to:
PalermoTrapani_ANCESTRY

2.74534151
SR64_Siracusa_LazaridisNat2014

2.88513431
Ag-Sicily5

2.97045451
W-Sicily9

3.36884253
Ag-Sicily8

3.47981321
C-Sicily50

3.62692707
W-Sicily3

4.27519590
W-Sicily1

4.44958425
E-Sicily18

5.01247444
W-Sicily21

5.05732143
W-Sicily5a

5.51926626
SR60_Siracusa_LazaridisNat2014

5.66633038
TP05_Trapani_LazaridisNat2014

5.80655664
TP07_Trapani_LazaridisNat2014

----------


## Pax Augusta

> Nice to see some legitimate modern Italian samples (Albanians too). Now there's no question of authenticity.


They are exactly the same samples added in the G25. But in G25 there are also others, like Italian_Piedmont which is probably based on a sample from Val Borbera, TSI and others as well.





> In which part of Liguria does ALP099 hail from?



Unclear and unknown. Perhaps some area in Savona province, but that is a guess based on studies.

While those from Marche and Umbria I found information based on their names and Marche samples are from Ancona (or province of Ancona) and Umbria samples from Perugia (or province of Perugia), respectively. For the Tuscan ones are the old ones from Volterra (VO) and Murlo (Siena). On the other hand, I have not yet figured out the origin of the Lazio ones.





> With the new samples
> 
> Individual have a variation from their regional averages.



True. In individuals from each region there is individual variation, and this is true for any sample set, not just those from Italy. Then clearly, in some cases there can also be variations within the same region due to geographical reasons. Therefore, one should focus more on general trends.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> Nice to see some legitimate modern Italian samples (Albanians too). Now there's no question of authenticity.


They are exactly the same samples added in the G25. But in G25 there are also others, like Italian_Piedmont which is probably based on a sample from Val Borbera, TSI and others as well.





> In which part of Liguria does ALP099 hail from?



Unclear and unknown. Perhaps some area in Savona province, but that is a guess based on studies.

While those from Marche and Umbria I found information based on their names and Marche samples are from Ancona (or province of Ancona) and Umbria samples from Perugia (or province of Perugia), respectively. For the Tuscan ones are the old ones from Volterra (VO) and Murlo (Siena). On the other hand, I have not yet figured out the origin of the Lazio ones.





> With the new samples
> 
> Individual have a variation from their regional averages.



True. In individuals from each region there is individual variation, and this is true for any sample set, not just those from Italy. Then clearly, in some cases there can also be variations within the same region due to geographical reasons. Therefore, one should focus more on general trends.

----------


## Jovialis

@pax I know, what I meant was that now we don't have to use the "updated" Dodecad populations made by apricity users and that racist Italian guy.

----------


## Jovialis

> @PT ... some modern Sicilians unrelated to this thread, ... some lacking the study label.
> 
> 
> ```
> TP05_Trapani_LazaridisNat2014,7.76,0,7.31,0,29.40,11.85,0,0,9.38,1.31,32.10,0.89
> TP07_Trapani_LazaridisNat2014,8.32,0.77,5.64,0,26.41,12.48,1.43,2.69,11.62,0,30.64,0
> SR60_Siracusa_LazaridisNat2014,5.07,0,5.64,0,27.22,15.93,0,0.20,11.48,0,33.31,1.15
> SR64_Siracusa_LazaridisNat2014,7.97,0,3.45,0,29.75,13.44,0,2.33,12.10,0,30.48,0.48
> C-Sicily50,6.22,0.50,3.62,0,27.78,14.29,0,0.96,12.97,0.12,32.19,1.35
> ...


Great work once again! Keep it up! We can have all the samples decoded at this rate.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> @pax I know, what I meant was that now we don't have to use the "updated" Dodecad populations made by apricity users and that racist Italian guy.


Whoever made them are not aberrant anyway, the big picture is more or less the same. To be nitpicky even these samples that come from Raveane 2019 have some problems. One would really have to wonder what is the point of releasing only one Ligurian sample, and not releasing any Piedmontese or Emilan samples. It would also have been helpful if it published information about the exact origin of the various samples. In northeastern Italy, there is quite a difference between the Po Valley, the Pre-Alps, the Alps, and language minorities. Personally, I care about accuracy more than the rest.

In any case, great work, as usual on your part. And a big thank you to Salento.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> @PT ... some modern Sicilians unrelated to this thread, ... some lacking the study label.
> 
> 
> ```
> TP05_Trapani_LazaridisNat2014,7.76,0,7.31,0,29.40,11.85,0,0,9.38,1.31,32.10,0.89
> TP07_Trapani_LazaridisNat2014,8.32,0.77,5.64,0,26.41,12.48,1.43,2.69,11.62,0,30.64,0
> SR60_Siracusa_LazaridisNat2014,5.07,0,5.64,0,27.22,15.93,0,0.20,11.48,0,33.31,1.15
> SR64_Siracusa_LazaridisNat2014,7.97,0,3.45,0,29.75,13.44,0,2.33,12.10,0,30.48,0.48
> C-Sicily50,6.22,0.50,3.62,0,27.78,14.29,0,0.96,12.97,0.12,32.19,1.35
> ...


Salento, a big thank you, great work!

Have you seen these?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/que...i?acc=GSE53626


GSM1297338
SouthItalian4

GSM1297339
SouthItalian5

GSM1297340
SouthItalian6

GSM1297341
SouthItalian7

GSM1297342
SouthItalian8

GSM1297343
SouthItalian9

GSM1297344
SouthItalian10

GSM1297345
SouthItalian11

GSM1297346
SouthItalian12

GSM1297347
SouthItalian13

GSM1297348
SouthItalian14

GSM1297349
SouthItalian15

GSM1297350
SouthItalian16

GSM1297351
SouthItalian17

GSM1297352
SouthItalian18


GSM1297335
SouthItalian1

GSM1297336
SouthItalian2

GSM1297337
SouthItalian3

GSM1297438
EastSicilian1

GSM1297439
EastSicilian2

GSM1297440
EastSicilian3

GSM1297441
EastSicilian4

GSM1297442
EastSicilian5

GSM1297443
EastSicilian6

GSM1297444
EastSicilian7

GSM1297445
EastSicilian8

GSM1297446
EastSicilian9

GSM1297447
EastSicilian10

GSM1297448
WestSicilian1

GSM1297449
WestSicilian2

GSM1297450
WestSicilian3

GSM1297451
WestSicilian4

GSM1297452
WestSicilian5

GSM1297453
WestSicilian6

GSM1297454
WestSicilian7

GSM1297455
WestSicilian8

GSM1297456
WestSicilian9

GSM1297457
WestSicilian10





GSM1297484
Greek12

GSM1297485
Greek13

GSM1297486
Greek14

GSM1297487
Greek15

GSM1297488
Greek16

GSM1297489
Greek17

GSM1297490
Greek18

GSM1297491
Greek19

GSM1297492
Greek20



GSM1297371
Greek4

GSM1297372
Greek5

GSM1297373
Greek6

GSM1297374
Greek7

GSM1297375
Greek8

GSM1297376
Greek9

GSM1297377
Greek10

GSM1297378
Greek11

----------


## Salento

@Pax ... I didn't, ... maybe the Piemonte samples are from a Corsica paper, ... 9 ItalyPiedmont, 2 Piedmont, 7Tuscany, ...


https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-49901-8

----------


## Pax Augusta

> @Pax ... I didn't, ... maybe the Piemonte samples are from a Corsica paper, ... 9 ItalyPiedmont, 2 Piedmont, 7Tuscany, ...
> 
> 
> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-49901-8



I don't know, but it is possible and most likely only the Corsicans are the new samples analyzed in this study, while all the others, including the Italians, are samples from previous studies.

----------


## Jovialis

> Whoever made them are not aberrant anyway, the big picture is more or less the same. To be nitpicky even these samples that come from Raveane 2019 have some problems. One would really have to wonder what is the point of releasing only one Ligurian sample, and not releasing any Piedmontese or Emilan samples. It would also have been helpful if it published information about the exact origin of the various samples. In northeastern Italy, there is quite a difference between the Po Valley, the Pre-Alps, the Alps, and language minorities. Personally, I care about accuracy more than the rest.
> 
> In any case, great work, as usual on your part. And a big thank you to Salento.


I hope even more samples processed will resolve the issues of under sampling and absence of samples.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> I hope even more samples processed will resolve the issues of under sampling and absence of samples.


Yes, I agree but anyway the picture is already clear. What we need are more ancient samples from prehistoric and protohistoric Italy. So far only a few areas have been covered.

----------


## Jovialis

Here is the PCA with the new Sicilian samples posted by Salento.

----------


## Jovialis

Here are my results with the multi tab:

----------


## Palermo Trapani

Jovialis: Thanks for the PCA in post #84.

----------


## Salento

I think that many of the samples I posted on #832 are the same samples that @Pax listed on #839, ... the samples were re-named and recycled for another study, ... see below.



ITS is the SouthItalian of Post #839



```
ITS2,10.04,0,1.14,0,27.18,15.93,0.93,0,11.33,0.26,33.19,0
ITS4,8.05,0,5.16,0,26.62,12.04,0,0,11.74,0.62,35.77,0
ITS5,5.86,1.35,2.20,0,30.35,16.61,0.65,0.06,11.71,0.58,30.45,0.19
ITS7,9.63,0,2.78,0.45,28.77,16.43,0,0.89,12.03,0,29.02,0
```

----------


## Jovialis

> I think that many of the samples I posted on #832 are the same samples that @Pax listed on #839, ... the samples were re-named and recycled for another study, ... see below.
> 
> 
> 
> ITS is the SouthItalian of Post #839
> 
> 
> 
> ```
> ...


Great work once again,

Here is a PCA with those new samples. I am fairly close to ITS7, any idea where that one is from?

----------


## Salento

> Great work once again,
> 
> Here is a PCA with those new samples. I am fairly close to ITS7, any idea where that one is from?


ITS7 is from Crispiano, Province of Taranto, ... Puglia :) 

ITS2 Naples
ITS4 Naples
ITS5 Salerno
ITS7 Crispiano

----------


## enter_tain

> Here is the PCA with all of the samples organized by region.


You flip this 90 degrees and you essentially get the Italian "boot". It's interesting to see Albanians across the pond plot a little more north than they are geographically. I'm assuming without the Slavic/Gothic input they'd plot with Abruzzo.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> I think that many of the samples I posted on #832 are the same samples that @Pax listed on #839, ... the samples were re-named and recycled for another study, ... see below.


Yes, it is absolutely possible, the samples are very often the same for years that from time to time are renamed in a different way in the studies. When the samples are really new it is specified in the study (also because it takes money to analyze new ones).

----------


## Archetype0ne

I have been really thinking lately, remember that one paper stating Albanians and Italians have the highest IBD sharing?
It has been in the back of my mind a lot lately. What it means, that statement, what it says about history. Especially after all the ancient Balkan cluster samples since that paper look modern North Italian like, while most Albanians have Tuscany, Marche and Lombardy as their closest matches bar Central Macedonian Greek.

IIRC, paraphrasing, the paper stated something along the lines Italians share among themselves as much common ancestry with Albanians as between themselves.
What do you guys make of it?
Also, why do Albanians have the greatest resemblance to N. Italians autosomally? One would think given the boot being the closest geographical area, rather South-East Italy would be more so similar.

I really think that one statement went a bit under the radar relatively speaking, and we still have not made enough sense of it.

----------


## enter_tain

> I have been really thinking lately, remember that one paper stating Albanians and Italians have the highest IBD sharing?
> It has been in the back of my mind a lot lately. What it means, that statement, what it says about history. Especially after all the ancient Balkan cluster samples since that paper look modern North Italian like, while most Albanians have Tuscany, Marche and Lombardy as their closest matches bar Central Macedonian Greek.
> 
> IIRC, paraphrasing, the paper stated something along the lines Italians share among themselves as much common ancestry with Albanians as between themselves.
> What do you guys make of it?
> Also, why do Albanians have the greatest resemblance to N. Italians autosomally? One would think given the boot being the closest geographical area, rather South-East Italy would be more so similar.
> 
> I really think that one statement went a bit under the radar relatively speaking, and we still have not made enough sense of it.


I think that paper was more emphasizing the fact that Italy is a diverse place to the point where any 2 Italians share as many ancestors as they do with an Albanian.

Italy is more like a mini-continent where all sorts of ethnicities lived: Italic, Celtic, Etruscan, Messapians, Greeks, etc... and got homogenized with the Roman Republic/Empire.




> Also, why do Albanians have the greatest resemblance to N. Italians autosomally?


Illyrians came from the region ~Hallstatt Culture same as Italics, nothing surprising there. Only difference is that the more south they go, the more EEF-heavy people they mixed with.

----------


## Jovialis

> ITS7 is from Crispiano, Province of Taranto, ... Puglia :) 
> ITS2 Naples
> ITS4 Naples
> ITS5 Salerno
> ITS7 Crispiano


Someone from Puglia, that makes sense. I guess I'm not alone in being Apulian but plotting with Abruzzo and Molise. Our "range" is pan-south Italian.

----------


## Jovialis

> Here is the PCA with all of the samples organized by region.


@Archetype0ne 
To me it looks like Albanians are south Italian-like (Greek-like) + Northeastern European (Slavic). Rather than associated with Northern Italy.

----------


## Jovialis



----------


## Jovialis

Here it is in 3D:

----------


## Jovialis

I myself am closer to some Albanians than I am to some people within my own region. Not by much though. I recall a distance of 4 from my own brother.

Distance to:
Jovialis

1.85132385
Molise:PG26_Molise

2.16529444
Abruzzo:Alp140

2.71775643
Abruzzo:Alp090

2.73558038
Abruzzo:Alp616

2.89611809
Apulia:cera1

2.91856129
Apulia:cera2

3.19426048
Umbria:PG06

3.32980480
Molise:PG27

3.34511584
Apulia:cera8

3.38212951
Lazio:NOR28

3.39328749
Marche:MarABY030D

3.47597468
Marche:MarACO100D

3.49479613
Apulia:Pu45

3.70070264
Abruzzo:Alp503

3.77326119
Abruzzo:ALP161

3.80215728
Marche:MarACY030D

3.80621860
Apulia:cera9

3.86023315
Campania:NaN212CR

3.92572286
Apulia:ALP583

3.93819756
Campania:NaN238DM

4.00362336
ITS7

4.03121570
ITS5

4.19687979
Basilicata:PG24

4.30620483
ITS2

4.30936190
Basilicata:PG21

4.37315675
Abruzzo:Alp380

4.45463803
Apulia:ALP379

4.48544312
Marche:MarABP050D

4.48723746
Umbria:PG04

4.49059016
Umbria:PG15

4.49109118
Abruzzo:Alp162

4.50217725
Marche:MarABN020D

4.52702993
Apulia:GS34

4.52765944
Basilicata:PG18

4.57330296
Basilicata:PG17

4.62709412
Basilicata:PG19

4.66113720
Lazio:NOR24

4.77789703
Umbria:PG03

4.84129115
Apulia:Pu2

4.96169326
Campania:NaN119AMR

5.01162648
Umbria:PG07

5.08283386
Ag-Sicily:8

5.10130375
Basilicata:PG25

5.13775243
Campania:NaN289RM

5.17125710
Abruzzo:ALP205

5.17302619
Campania:NaN293SF

5.20982725
Marche:MarACW080D

5.21470996
Siracusa:SR64_LazaridisNat2014

5.23111843
Siracusa:SR60_LazaridisNat2014

5.24194620
C-Sicily:50

5.26858615
W-Sicily:5a

5.27725307
W-Sicily:1

5.32649040
Apulia:GS32

5.35290575
Campania:NaN43TC

5.54261671
Lazio:PG30

5.67623995
Marche:MarABQ080D

5.76707031
Marche:MarABI020D

5.77688497
Campania:NaN128LA

5.87851172
Ag-Sicily:5

5.96128342
Campania:NaN207MM

5.99716600
Umbria:PG11

6.00906815
Campania:NaN58AC

6.09664662
W-Sicily:3

6.19121959
Basilicata:PG20

6.27799331
Albanian:AL29

6.32832521
Albanian:AL17

6.35270808
Basilicata:PG16

6.39048511
Marche:MarABG010D

6.42788457
Marche:MarADG030D

6.43630329
Apulia:GS47

6.45499806
Albanian:AL98

6.47576250
Campania:NaN46TC

6.60829025
Marche:MarACV100D

6.66920535
W-Sicily:9

6.69049326
Basilicata:PG22

6.95402042
Apulia:Pu7

6.97544264
Marche:MarADC050D

7.01009986
E-Sicily:18

7.01981481
Trapani:TP05_LazaridisNat2014

7.08741843
Calabria:ALP596

7.10824873
Trapani:TP07_LazaridisNat2014

7.56513053
ITS4

7.63080599
Campania:NaN195ST

7.64138731
W-Sicily:21

7.67540227
Lazio:PG28

7.78398356
Marche:MarACW030D

8.27652101
Apulia:Pu3

8.29787322
Tuscany:VO109

8.42525371
Campania:NaN65DFG

8.48450352
Umbria:PG12

8.67656614
Marche:MarABU050D

8.81372793
Campania:NaN77FAM

8.99969444
Apulia:Pu8

9.25859061
Albanian:AL9

9.32910499
Tuscany:MURLO114

9.62319074
Campania:NaN275IS

9.67978306
Umbria:PG08

9.79415642
Albanian:AL12

9.88121956
Tuscany:VO65

9.91437340
Calabria:ALP582

10.50727843
Tuscany:VO59

11.71701327
Albanian:AL82

12.10959950
Veneto:ALP209

13.17558348
Trentino-Alto-Adige:ALP114

13.96517812
Liguria:ALP099

14.50057240
Veneto:ALP116

14.56071083
Lombrardy:ALP288

15.08679224
Trentino-Alto-Adige:ALP200

15.13046926
Veneto:KF1803109

15.71214180
Veneto:KF1800772

16.23050831
Veneto:ALP249

16.85377406
Veneto:ALP273

17.10946229
Veneto:ALP378

17.19271357
Veneto:ALP022

17.33712202
Veneto:KF1800751

17.45904923
Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:ALP233

17.50109425
Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:ALP235

17.81440428
Veneto:ALP322

17.83215074
Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:ALP346

18.09505457
Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:ALP280

18.22550411
Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:KF1800761

18.44658234
Veneto:ALP040

18.66120843
Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:ALP081

18.67363382
Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:ALP506

18.77592075
Veneto:KF1803105

18.85273455
Trentino-Alto-Adige:ALP395

19.15020365
Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:KF2700960

19.19053152
Veneto:Alp401

19.57947395
Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:ALP354

19.83245320
Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:KF1803129

19.84981108
Veneto:KF1803151

19.88534888
Trentino-Alto-Adige:ALP420

19.91540108
Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:ALP259

20.07149471
Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:KF2700922

20.26290206
Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:ALP093

20.55394853
Veneto:ALP250

21.06496618
Veneto:Alp100

21.16655617
Aosta-Valley:ALP225_Aosta-Valley

22.36397326
Trentino-Alto-Adige:ALP070

23.26169383
Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:ALP435

23.45667069
Aosta-Valley:ALP227_Aosta-Valley

23.73422213
Trentino-Alto-Adige:ALP071

24.52472222
Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:ALP220

34.94811154
Trentino-Alto-Adige:ALP414

35.15684571
Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:ALP188

----------


## Jovialis

> 


Because of this, modern Albanians plot more with Central and South-Central Italians (Umbria, Marche, Lazio, Abruzzo):

Distance to:
Albanian:AL98

4.66890780
Umbria:PG04

5.21887919
Abruzzo:ALP161

6.04719770
Molise:PG27

6.49398183
Marche:MarABY030D

6.51769131
Abruzzo:Alp140

6.66135121
Marche:MarACY030D

6.74485730
Marche:MarACW080D

6.74894807
Apulia:Pu2

6.84334713
Abruzzo:Alp616

6.92559745
Marche:MarACV100D

6.92693294
Basilicata:PG21

6.98238498
Umbria:PG06

6.98247807
Marche:MarABN020D

7.01667300
Marche:MarADG030D

7.18716912
Molise:PG26_Molise

7.26298837
Marche:MarACO100D

7.37433387
Marche:MarADC050D

7.37997967
Abruzzo:Alp162

7.62638184
ITS5

7.86326904
Umbria:PG11

7.90179094
Marche:MarABQ080D

7.96841264
Apulia:GS34

7.98931787
Abruzzo:Alp090

8.04067161
Lazio:PG30

8.06556880
Marche:MarABP050D



Distance to:
Albanian:AL82

8.42498071
Umbria:PG04

9.49236535
Veneto:ALP209

9.58334493
Marche:MarACV100D

9.63746336
Abruzzo:ALP161

9.65626739
Marche:MarADG030D

9.72964542
Marche:MarADC050D

10.04359000
Tuscany:VO109

10.39588861
Marche:MarACW080D

10.66618957
Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:ALP233

10.72991146
Marche:MarABU050D

10.81559984
Umbria:PG11

10.83408510
Marche:MarACY030D

10.84737756
Marche:MarACW030D

10.98181224
Marche:MarABN020D

10.98370611
Umbria:PG08

11.01906530
Marche:MarABY030D

11.06733934
Molise:PG27

11.13127576
Marche:MarABG010D

11.22854844
Veneto:ALP378

11.36919082
Marche:MarABQ080D

11.54365194
Veneto:ALP273

11.55654360
Trentino-Alto-Adige:ALP200

11.57606151
Veneto:ALP322

11.59807312
Umbria:PG06

11.70610952
Lazio:PG30



Distance to:
Albanian:AL29

2.95321858
Umbria:PG04

3.75586208
Abruzzo:ALP161

4.75093675
Marche:MarACY030D

4.81131999
Marche:MarABY030D

4.82925460
Marche:MarADG030D

4.95409931
Tuscany:VO109

5.10822866
Marche:MarABN020D

5.15958332
Marche:MarACV100D

5.19803809
Marche:MarADC050D

5.40597817
Molise:PG27

5.47920615
Marche:MarABQ080D

5.56533018
Marche:MarABG010D

5.71072675
Marche:MarACO100D

5.87326144
Lazio:PG30

5.97631157
ITS5

6.02895513
Marche:MarACW080D

6.27383455
Umbria:PG11

6.32691078
Marche:MarABP050D

6.39328554
Umbria:PG03

6.56876701
Abruzzo:Alp140

6.58979514
Molise:PG26_Molise

6.63611332
Marche:MarACW030D

6.69433342
Apulia:cera9

6.73080976
Abruzzo:Alp090

6.82302719
Apulia:Pu2



Distance to:
Albanian:AL17

2.49731856
Umbria:PG04

3.23845642
Abruzzo:ALP161

4.17936598
Marche:MarADC050D

4.18589298
Marche:MarACY030D

4.21675230
Marche:MarACV100D

4.21902832
Marche:MarADG030D

4.54276348
Marche:MarABN020D

4.62622957
Tuscany:VO109

4.75800378
Marche:MarABQ080D

5.08561697
Marche:MarABY030D

5.08609870
Marche:MarABG010D

5.13507546
Marche:MarACW080D

5.23292461
Molise:PG27

5.25961025
Umbria:PG11

5.31314408
Lazio:PG30

5.47590175
Marche:MarACO100D

5.60398965
Marche:MarABP050D

5.81261559
Marche:MarACW030D

5.85947097
Umbria:PG03

6.09036945
Umbria:PG06

6.15388495
Marche:MarABU050D

6.21459572
ITS5

6.42940899
Umbria:PG08

6.45447906
Molise:PG26_Molise

6.45711236
Lazio:PG28



Distance to:
Albanian:AL12

3.78582884
Marche:MarADC050D

4.33865186
Umbria:PG08

4.63721899
Tuscany:VO65

5.27066409
Veneto:ALP209

5.49587118
Tuscany:VO109

5.63255715
Marche:MarACW030D

5.64216271
Umbria:PG04

5.92054896
Marche:MarABU050D

5.95607253
Marche:MarADG030D

5.97453764
Umbria:PG11

6.20506245
Marche:MarACV100D

6.32674482
Tuscany:MURLO114

6.40513856
Marche:MarABQ080D

6.45701944
Umbria:PG12

6.48828174
Marche:MarABG010D

6.54036696
Tuscany:VO59

6.77788315
Marche:MarABN020D

6.78304504
Marche:MarACY030D

6.90411472
Abruzzo:ALP161

7.04853886
Lazio:PG28

7.11023910
Trentino-Alto-Adige:ALP114

7.13679200
Marche:MarACW080D

7.25733422
Marche:MarABP050D

7.29314747
Marche:MarABI020D

7.54707228
Liguria:ALP099



Distance to:
Albanian:AL9

5.35479225
Marche:MarADG030D

5.47200146
Umbria:PG04

5.63879420
Marche:MarACV100D

5.76811061
Veneto:ALP209

5.84665716
Tuscany:VO109

6.26537309
Marche:MarACW030D

6.36008648
Marche:MarABU050D

6.69325780
Umbria:PG08

6.69802956
Marche:MarABG010D

6.79652117
Umbria:PG11

6.83005856
Marche:MarADC050D

7.10505454
Abruzzo:ALP161

7.19623513
Marche:MarACW080D

7.32099037
Tuscany:MURLO114

7.39716838
Marche:MarABN020D

7.50794912
Marche:MarACY030D

7.51221672
Marche:MarABQ080D

7.58893273
Marche:MarABY030D

7.68426965
Tuscany:VO59

7.70999351
Tuscany:VO65

7.82540095
Lazio:PG30

8.02385817
Umbria:PG12

8.26925027
Marche:MarABP050D

8.47895630
Liguria:ALP099

8.51757008
Trentino-Alto-Adige:ALP200

----------


## Archetype0ne

Thanks for taking a look Jov.
Yes it seems from the PCA and the AL9 sample that way. But having seen dozens of various calculator results for various Albanian fora members the consistent close matches are Marche, Swiss Italian, Lombardy, Piedmont (like lol), Tuscany, Greek Central Macedonia, and Moldavian (lol right?).
I think it comes down to similar amounts of base components. Since I saw the results for a Moldavian member and he had similar matches too me with a more Scythian / Sarmatian shift. But then I recalled, was it the Lazaridis paper or some other paper that made that IBD statement. And I was trying to make sense of it. Alas to me historically speaking Marche Lazio etc are central Italian given the history of the region from Naples and below usually being under the same political umbrella, Napolitan, Aragonese etc. While Marche and Lazio IIRC were under Papal influence.

But yeah, still a bit of a puzzle to me given where Umbria, Lazio, Marche, Veneto, Abruzzo, Tuscany are located. Think it might be just a calculator relic. But that IBD part is still rather interesting, since afaik its different from PCA methods.

----------


## Archetype0ne

Another explanation could be-

We have as of now plenty of samples from BA-IA Balkans, and the Szolad samples really foreshadowed the results. It seems BA-IA-Imperial Balkans had particular groups of people with modern North-Central Italian like admixtures. So assuming Albanians are descendants of the southernmost (bar Greek) such stock, they would normally shift further North on the PCA post Slavic migration, giving the relic we see in the calculators. 

That could possibly explain the IBD sharing, since as you have mentioned many times we have this eastern med continuum in BA-IA between mainland Italy, Balkans and maybe other regions yet to be sampled properly (possibly Western Anatolia, if it was ancient Greek like during BA-IA IE migrations. Such continuum being likely created by certain groups of people would explain the IBD sharing, since going back generations, ancestors coalesce into a smaller, more compact number exponentially.

----------


## Dushman

@Jovialis, very interesting. I am closest to Albanian_82 but I realized that some of these Albanian samples are quite strange with 1 having almost 2% SSA and they’re not that close to my South Albanian friend. Perhaps there’s not much variety and they all come from more or less the same region. 

As for the North-Eastern shift, I “discovered” that using Western_Scythians as well as Slavs works better than simply Balkan/Italian+Slav. Those Western_Scythians look more Dacian/Carpathian in my opinion. Their Gedrosia is also way too high and the lack of Gedrosia in Slavs is what makes it problematic to be 80% Balkan % + 20% Slav.

----------


## Archetype0ne

> @Jovialis, very interesting. I am closest to Albanian_82 but I realized that some of these Albanian samples are quite strange with 1 having almost 2% SSA and they’re not that close to my South Albanian friend. Perhaps there’s not much variety and they all come from more or less the same region. 
> 
> As for the North-Eastern shift, I “discovered” that using Western_Scythians as well as Slavs works better than simply Balkan/Italian+Slav. Those Western_Scythians look more Dacian/Carpathian in my opinion. Their Gedrosia is also way too high and the lack of Gedrosia in Slavs is what makes it problematic to be 80% Balkan % + 20% Slav.


Do these Western Scythians look like some Slavo - Scandinavian Vikings autosomally? Cause running various AC-BC calculations it seems to me the contribution at least for Albanians seems much more Eastern Slavic(Ukraine Varangian, various Smolensk Varangian) than Central/Northern Slavic (Poland-Czech).

----------


## Excine

The question then becomes what proportion of this "Northeast" admixture can be attributed to steppe migration and what proportion to Slavic migration. We can't say for certain where the probable Proto-Albanians lived, but there's a good idea. Also, because there are still a great deal of gaps, and because there are no samples from that area. I would find it odd if there was little to no autosomal continuity between modern Albanians and Proto-Albanians. Where could such a population have lived during antiquity or the late iron age if Proto-Albanians resembled a more southern Greek-like population? This leaves me scratching my head.

----------


## Dibran

> Because of this, modern Albanians plot more with Central and South-Central Italians (Umbria, Marche, Lazio, Abruzzo):
> 
> Distance to:
> Albanian:AL98
> 
> 4.66890780
> Umbria:PG04
> 
> 5.21887919
> ...


Is this using G25 coordinates? Would be happy to share mine to compare with the other Albanians.

----------


## Dushman

> Do these Western Scythians look like some Slavo - Scandinavian Vikings autosomally? Cause running various AC-BC calculations it seems to me the contribution at least for Albanians seems much more Eastern Slavic(Ukraine Varangian, various Smolensk Varangian) than Central/Northern Slavic (Poland-Czech).


Western_Scythian:MJ-13:Jarve_2019,*10.64*,1.41,0,0,*20.1*,*51.19*,1.13,3.02,1.35,0,*11.15*,0
Western_Scythian:MJ-14:Jarve_2019,0,0,0,0.64,20.2,56.05,3.47,1.39,0,0, 18.24,0
Western_Scythian:MJ-15:Jarve_2019,19.47,9.31,1.43,3.53,13.87,36.53,4.6 6,0,0,1.96,8.53,0.7
Western_Scythian:MJ-16:Jarve_2019,14.16,8.26,0.31,0,20.61,36.99,1.49,0 ,0,1.48,15.71,0.99
Western_Scythian:MJ-34:Jarve_2019,15.63,6.13,1.19,0,19.5,39.75,0,0.92, 0,0.54,15.34,1.01
Western_Scythian:MJ-35:Jarve_2019,18.53,6.95,0,0,18.82,39.48,3.67,0.83 ,1.76,0.22,9.73,0
Western_Scythian:MJ-46:Jarve_2019,13.6,6.64,0,1.02,23.49,38.42,1.28,1, 0,2.69,11.61,0.25
Western_Scythian:MJ-47:Jarve_2019,*17.47*,1.15,0,0,*18.91,24.94*,3.29,0.63,1.49,3.63,*28.48*,0

The highlighted numbers are the Dodecad K12b for Gedrosia, Atlantic, North European, and Caucasus. 

I get a decent distance in the 2way Vahaduo with a 83% Logkas02 + 17% Western Scythian. This distance would be better with additional early Slav and another possible component to balance out the Caucasus %. 

Anyway, we need more Roman period Central-Western Balkan samples that could make things easier than using Logkas02 and BA Illyrians as a model. 

Still, the absorption of a considerable (maybe 10-20%) of Dacian/Carpathian/so-called West Scythian/Cimmerians makes the modern Albanian results more logical rather than purely 20+% Slavic which does not add up at all.

As a beginner that I am, I have no access nor knowledge to tools that can include 3way or even 4 and 5way options to test it myself, so I'm limited to Vahaduo.

----------


## Dushman

Distance to:
Dushman

2.26419944
78.60% PG27_Molise + 21.40% Western_Scythian:MJ-14:Jarve_2019

2.66266775
74.00% NaN238DM_Campania + 26.00% Western_Scythian:MJ-14:Jarve_2019

2.69995764
82.00% ALP161_Abruzzo + 18.00% Western_Scythian:MJ-14:Jarve_2019

2.90314649
30.80% Western_Scythian:MJ-14:Jarve_2019 + 69.20% Szolad40:Amorim_2018

2.97388276
83.40% PG27_Molise + 16.60% Early_Medieval_Czechs_(n=2)







Target: Dushman
Distance: 1.5872% / 1.58717788 | R4P

41.4
Pu3_Apulia



24.1
ALP233_Friuli-Venezia-Giulia



20.9
Thraco-Cimmerian



13.6
Western_Scythian





Target: Dushman
Distance: 1.6176% / 1.61758475 | R4P

35.7
Pu3_Apulia



28.9
ALP188_Friuli-Venezia-Giulia



24.3
Szolad19



11.1
Szolad20

----------


## Illyria

A lot of Northern Albanians are closer to Northern/Central Italians than Southern Italians, such as myself. Apulia is the closest southern population to me, other South Italian groups, not as much. This is my Eurogenes K36 similarity map, I haven't done G25 yet but I will soon to compare the differences with K36.


Screen Shot 2018-09-18 at 6.58.07 PM.jpg

Not sure why the file size decreased when I uploaded this screenshot, made it blurry

Venice: 77
Lombardy: 74
Tuscany: 73
Apulia: 73
Rome: 71
Marche: 70
Sicily: 68
Naples: 67
Calabria: 65

Outside of the Balkans and Italy, my closest matches are Swiss Italian, and Southern German (Both 69%). Northern Albanians and Albanians from Montenegro seem to have a slight north-west pull compared to other Albanians, and slightly higher Atlantic and Baltic by a few %.

----------


## Dibran

Found the vahaduo source. This is what I get with G25 against entire moderns database. Not sure what calc everyone is using.

----------


## Jovialis

@Dibran, the ones I posted are from Dodecad K12b, but use the same Italian modern samples (provided by Salento)

----------


## Dibran

> @Dibran, the ones I posted are from Dodecad K12b, but use the same Italian modern samples (provided by Salento)


Where do you get the datasheet? since they took most of the calculators off vahaduo. The only ones I found online were the G25 ones for download.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> Where do you get the datasheet? since they took most of the calculators off vahaduo. The only ones I found online were the G25 ones for download.


see post #811

----------


## Jovialis

Here are all of the samples Salento posted, combined with the HGDP samples of Northern Italy, Sardinia, and Tuscany for Dodecad K12b.

Let's allocate more official academic Italian samples from other studies.



```
Sardinian_HGDP00665,0,0,1.7,0,67.49,0,0.41,0,6.47,0.38,23.55,0
Sardinian_HGDP00666,0,0,1.92,0,69.63,0,0,0,4.06,0,24.39,0
Sardinian_HGDP00667,0.27,0,3.17,0.06,66.6,4.42,0,0,5.89,0,19.59,0
Sardinian_HGDP00668,0,0.43,2.6,0,70.27,0,0,0,6.61,0,20.08,0
Sardinian_HGDP00669,0,0,1.63,0.1,69.76,2.42,0.53,0,6.98,0,18.59,0
Sardinian_HGDP00670,0,0.07,2.78,0,71.33,0,0,0,6.09,0,19.74,0
Sardinian_HGDP00671,0,0,0.46,0,72.96,1.27,0.01,0.16,5.46,0,19.67,0
N_Italy:HGDP01147,3.37,0,0.67,0,41.17,27.3,0,0,4.17,0.07,23.25,0
N_Italy:HGDP01151,5.45,1.55,0,0,37.13,28.15,0,0,1.28,0,26.44,0
N_Italy:HGDP01152,3.41,0,1.18,0,41.02,24.23,0.14,0,7.19,0,22.82,0
N_Italy:HGDP01153,5.85,0,0.67,0,45.37,20.75,0,0,7.09,0,20.27,0
N_Italy:HGDP01154,5.34,0.01,2.36,0.16,38.83,27.63,0,0,6.57,0.26,18.83,0
N_Italy:HGDP01155,4.43,0,1.13,0.93,43.74,20.72,0,0,5.12,0,23.93,0
N_Italy:HGDP01156,6.07,0.04,0.66,0.29,46.21,19.12,0,0,5.77,0,21.84,0
N_Italy:HGDP01157,3.67,0,0.67,0.26,42.48,24.87,0,0,5.41,0,22.65,0
N_Italy:HGDP01171,6.11,0,0.72,0,44.48,21.21,0.88,0,5.95,0,20.65,0
N_Italy:HGDP01172,5.42,0,2.99,0,41.74,22.09,0,0,5.41,0,22.35,0
N_Italy:HGDP01173,4.4,0,1.23,0.45,42.09,24.6,0,0,6.61,0,20.62,0
N_Italy:HGDP01174,5.57,0,0.8,0,43.43,21.14,0,0,7.33,0,21.74,0
N_Italy:HGDP01177,1.68,0,0,0,43.52,23,0,0,5.53,0,26.27,0
Sardinian_HGDP00672,0,0,2.38,0,68.78,0,0.4,0,5.6,0.35,22.48,0
Sardinian_HGDP00673,0,0.67,4.21,0,66.59,1.45,0,0,8.8,0,18.28,0
Sardinian_HGDP00674,0,0.34,2.58,0,75.2,0,0,0,3.23,0,18.65,0
Sardinian_HGDP01062,0,0,4.28,0.67,67.81,0,0,0,5.28,0,21.96,0
Sardinian_HGDP01063,0,0,2.92,0,68.99,0.61,0.71,0,4.86,0,21.91,0
Sardinian_HGDP01064,0,0,1.43,0,75.32,0,0,0,6.89,0,16.37,0
Sardinian_HGDP01065,0,0,4.65,0,73.34,0,0.63,0,4.57,0,16.8,0
Sardinian_HGDP01066,0,0,5.38,0,60.18,5.06,0,0,8.01,0,21.37,0
Sardinian_HGDP01067,0,0,0.9,0,69.59,0,0.67,0,5.2,0.03,23.61,0
Sardinian_HGDP01068,0,0,1.98,0,68.12,0,0,0,7.02,0,22.88,0
Sardinian_HGDP01069,0,0.05,1.03,0,75.62,0,0.12,0,3.92,0.23,19.04,0
Sardinian_HGDP01070,0,0,2.7,0,71.07,0,0.9,0,7.03,0,18.3,0
Sardinian_HGDP01071,0,0.18,6.22,0,65.96,0.79,1.16,0,6.47,0,19.21,0
Sardinian_HGDP01072,0,0,1.41,0,67.93,0,0.25,0,6.03,0,24.37,0
Sardinian_HGDP01073,0,0,5.55,0,59.07,5.93,0,0,6.46,0,22.92,0.07
Sardinian_HGDP01074,0,0.35,2.19,0,68.39,0,0,0,6.31,0,22.76,0
Sardinian_HGDP01075,0,0,1.98,0,60.06,6.11,0,0,11.19,0,20.67,0
Sardinian_HGDP01076,0,0,3.75,0,69.38,0,0.39,0,5.13,0,21.35,0
Sardinian_HGDP01077,0,0,2.98,0,67.07,1.72,0.55,0,4.43,0,23.25,0
Sardinian_HGDP01078,0.33,0,3.43,0,58.64,7.58,0,0,8.23,0,21.79,0
Sardinian_HGDP01079,0,0.12,1.58,0.69,71.69,0,0,0,4.72,0,21.19,0
TSI30,5.01,0.00,0.80,0.00,38.78,19.34,0.10,0.00,7.31,0.00,28.66,0.00
Tuscan:HGDP01161,2.01,0,0,0,39.04,18.95,0.52,0,8.95,0,30.54,0
Tuscan:HGDP01162,6.23,0,0,0,37.95,18.65,1.01,0.58,6.77,0,28.82,0
Tuscan:HGDP01163,7.23,0,1.78,0,36.8,19.55,0.48,0,6.86,0,27.29,0
Tuscan:HGDP01164,5.9,0,1.18,0,35.8,20.99,0,0.21,8.73,0,27.2,0
Tuscan:HGDP01166,3.69,0,0,0,37.8,19.51,0,0,6.56,0.76,31.69,0
Tuscan:HGDP01167,6.76,0,2.8,0,36.61,18.41,0.64,0,7.37,1.13,26.28,0
Tuscan:HGDP01168,3.02,0,0,0,39.05,18.74,0,0,7.24,0.84,30.87,0.25
Tuscan:HGDP01169,4.79,0.11,0,0,38.06,16.65,0,0,9.1,0.47,30.82,0
ITS2,10.04,0,1.14,0,27.18,15.93,0.93,0,11.33,0.26,33.19,0
ITS4,8.05,0,5.16,0,26.62,12.04,0,0,11.74,0.62,35.77,0
ITS5,5.86,1.35,2.20,0,30.35,16.61,0.65,0.06,11.71,0.58,30.45,0.19
ITS7,9.63,0,2.78,0.45,28.77,16.43,0,0.89,12.03,0,29.02,0
Trapani:TP05_LazaridisNat2014,7.76,0,7.31,0,29.40,11.85,0,0,9.38,1.31,32.10,0.89
Trapani:TP07_LazaridisNat2014,8.32,0.77,5.64,0,26.41,12.48,1.43,2.69,11.62,0,30.64,0
Siracusa:SR60_LazaridisNat2014,5.07,0,5.64,0,27.22,15.93,0,0.20,11.48,0,33.31,1.15
Siracusa:SR64_LazaridisNat2014,7.97,0,3.45,0,29.75,13.44,0,2.33,12.10,0,30.48,0.48
C-Sicily:50,6.22,0.50,3.62,0,27.78,14.29,0,0.96,12.97,0.12,32.19,1.35
E-Sicily:18,4.57,0,4.55,0,28.22,14.85,0.37,0,15.10,0.38,31.41,0.56
W-Sicily:1,7.27,0,4.47,0,28.58,13.24,0,1.03,10.76,0,34.42,0.23
W-Sicily:3,6.69,0.09,4.53,0,28.83,12.64,0,0.47,12.19,0.18,34.27,0.12
W-Sicily:5a,8.76,0,3.46,0.89,26.50,13.84,0,1.77,11.65,0.13,33.00,0
W-Sicily:9,7.47,0.24,4.26,0,28.88,13.07,0,0.77,14.72,0,30.48,0.10
W-Sicily:21,7.06,0,4.17,0.98,27.98,11.07,0.07,2.67,11.80,0,33.88,0.32
Ag-Sicily:5,8.11,0,4.73,0,29.88,12.05,0,0.88,11.66,0,32.68,0
Ag-Sicily:8,7.44,0.30,5.18,0.40,27.65,13.74,0.05,0.70,12.31,0,31.71,0.52
Abruzzo:Alp090,6.69,0,3.58,0,30.19,16.26,0.10,0,11.63,0,31.57,0
Abruzzo:Alp140,8.98,0,3.12,0,28.13,17.65,0,0.31,11.18,0,30.64,0
Abruzzo:ALP161,6.41,0,1.44,0,30.32,19.51,0,0.22,10.75,0.24,31.01,0.11
Abruzzo:Alp162,7.51,0,0.94,0.19,28.60,17.33,1.26,0,13.22,0,30.60,0.34
Abruzzo:ALP205,6.36,0.17,2.26,0,27.71,15.44,0,0.55,12.57,0,34.86,0.07
Abruzzo:Alp380,8.30,0,1.69,0,30.67,14.58,0.47,0.06,12.53,0,31.44,0.27
Abruzzo:Alp503,9.66,0,2.68,0.05,29.99,14.21,0,0.19,10.83,0,32.39,0
Abruzzo:Alp616,7.89,0,1.28,0,29.09,16.96,0,0.71,10.92,0,33.15,0
Albanian:AL9,5.26,0,2.47,0.71,29.56,24.40,0,0.08,7.74,0,27.78,1.99
Albanian:AL12,4.45,0.91,0.08,0,33.95,23.40,0,0,7.39,0.02,29.81,0
Albanian:AL17,5.38,0,1.12,0,30.35,22.13,0.88,0,9.59,0,30.54,0
Albanian:AL29,4.54,1.26,2.31,0.12,29.18,21.93,0,0.27,9.86,0,30.53,0
Albanian:AL82,5.30,0.23,0.73,0.46,27.08,27.71,0.23,0.14,7.14,0.14,30.84,0
Albanian:AL98,6.43,1.04,1.58,0,26.80,22.39,0.29,0,8.69,0.21,31.63,0.94
Aosta-Valley:ALP225_Aosta-Valley,6.87,0.27,1.13,0,37.44,30.93,0.24,0,3.30,0,19.83,0
Aosta-Valley:ALP227_Aosta-Valley,5.37,0.04,0.99,0,38.11,32.94,0,0.11,3.91,0,18.53,0
Apulia:ALP379,5.72,0,3.90,0,28.18,15.53,0.67,0,11.69,0.17,34.13,0.01
Apulia:ALP583,8.10,0,3.61,0,27.70,15.00,0.82,0.30,10.01,0,34.43,0.04
Apulia:cera1,7.91,0,5.44,0,29.16,15.42,0,0,10.25,0,31.76,0.05
Apulia:cera2,7.80,0,2.79,0,30.50,15.34,0,0,10.15,0,33.37,0.05
Apulia:cera8,6.06,0,3.14,0.70,29.98,15.74,0,0.10,10.47,0.14,33.35,0.32
Apulia:cera9,5.36,0,3.54,0,31.06,16.26,0.36,0,10.87,0,32.56,0
Apulia:GS32,7.03,0.70,2.10,0,29.17,14.00,0.41,0.25,10.95,0,35.38,0
Apulia:GS34,6.15,0.62,2.80,0,28.01,16.49,0,0.12,13.62,0.13,32.06,0
Apulia:GS47,5.92,0,2.56,0,27.84,14.32,0,0.27,12.35,0.63,36.11,0
Apulia:Pu2,5.84,0,2.93,0,26.59,17.67,0,0.71,12.28,0,33.99,0
Apulia:Pu3,6.03,0,1.87,0,26.47,14.41,0,0.09,13.66,0,37.47,0
Apulia:Pu7,7.79,0,3.12,0,27.68,12.85,0,0.19,11.83,0,36.54,0
Apulia:Pu8,6.95,0,6.23,0.02,25.75,11.41,0,0.45,14.01,0.76,34.43,0
Apulia:Pu45,7.53,0.05,2.22,0.39,29.68,15.35,0,0.40,10.10,0,34.28,0
Basilicata:PG16,7.16,0.47,4.11,0.25,27.15,12.87,0.34,0.60,11.52,0.36,35.16,0
Basilicata:PG17,8.95,0,1.39,0,29.77,14.55,0,0,12.92,0,32.25,0.16
Basilicata:PG18,6.66,0,2.84,0.02,27.29,16.11,0,0,13.23,0.74,33.04,0.06
Basilicata:PG19,6.05,0,2.34,0,28.94,15.65,0,1.07,13.30,0,32.65,0
Basilicata:PG20,6.11,0,3.11,0,27.89,14.45,0.06,0,12.27,0,36.11,0
Basilicata:PG21,7.28,0,3.97,0,26.27,17.49,1.27,0.28,12.37,0.28,30.79,0
Basilicata:PG22,7.19,0,3.44,0,25.84,16.55,0,0,9.57,0,37.42,0
Basilicata:PG24,7.33,0.09,4.22,1.09,28.61,14.27,0,0.83,12.06,0,31.50,0
Basilicata:PG25,6.69,0.27,2.65,0.38,28.09,14.21,0.26,0.40,12.13,0.46,34.45,0
Calabria:ALP582,6.25,0,3.73,0.03,27.11,10.05,0.99,0,13.80,1.01,36.24,0.79
Calabria:ALP596,6.33,0,3.91,0,27.04,13.26,0,0.64,13.48,0,35.33,0
Campania:NaN43TC,5.55,0,3.35,0.40,30.13,14.02,0,0.50,12.39,0,33.66,0
Campania:NaN46TC,6.39,0,2.56,0,29.12,13.31,0.46,0,14.30,0,33.51,0.34
Campania:NaN58AC,10.21,0.49,3.75,0,28.63,12.20,0.90,0.04,12.10,0.03,31.66,0
Campania:NaN65DFG,8.00,0,4.30,0.03,27.55,10.62,0.47,0.12,13.44,0.51,34.95,0
Campania:NaN77FAM,6.20,0,3.00,0.36,26.45,12.15,0.43,0.86,13.24,0.25,37.04,0
Campania:NaN119AMR,6.33,0,3.12,0,27.98,15.23,0,0.79,13.71,0.40,32.44,0
Campania:NaN128LA,7.42,0,3.69,0,29.35,12.81,0,0,12.42,0,34.31,0
Campania:NaN195ST,7.21,0,4.57,0.68,30.71,10.79,0,0.07,10.77,0.16,34.89,0.15
Campania:NaN207MM,7.08,0,3.16,0,26.85,14.76,0,0,14.32,0,33.60,0.22
Campania:NaN212CR,6.82,0,2.61,0,30.35,14.95,0.28,0.35,12.19,0,32.45,0
Campania:NaN238DM,7.03,0,1.59,0,29.82,15.65,0,0,11.91,0.14,33.86,0
Campania:NaN275IS,7.93,0.39,3.73,0,25.40,11.31,0,0.18,14.81,0,36.08,0.17
Campania:NaN289RM,6.45,0,2.51,1.17,28.02,14.99,0,0.55,10.85,0,35.45,0
Campania:NaN293SF,8.28,0.11,1.74,0,29.38,13.62,0.42,0,12.80,0,33.37,0.28
Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:ALP081,4.34,0.84,2.33,0,36.22,29.46,0.26,0.04,5.34,0,21.18,0
Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:ALP093,6.43,0.41,0.05,0,33.92,32.71,0,0.07,5.38,0,21.03,0
Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:ALP188,4.99,0.74,0.01,0,26.21,47.57,0,0,3.72,0.76,16.00,0
Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:ALP220,5.39,0,0,0.17,34.02,36.20,0,0,6.01,0,18.14,0.05
Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:ALP233,4.08,0,0,0,34.26,30.43,0.52,0,6.58,0.50,23.63,0
Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:ALP235,5.64,0.57,1.23,0.01,35.63,28.80,0.84,0,5.51,0,21.76,0
Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:ALP346,6.20,0.81,0.77,0,34.42,29.93,0,0,6.17,0.18,21.52,0
Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:ALP354,5.56,0.50,0.39,0,37.04,29.93,0,0,6.12,0,20.32,0.14
Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:ALP259,3.03,0,1.50,0,39.87,28.48,0,0,5.82,0,21.30,0
Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:ALP280,5.74,0,0.56,0,37.35,28.82,0.30,0,4.85,0,22.40,0
Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:ALP435,5.42,0.70,0.01,0,31.91,35.91,0,0.24,6.52,0,19.29,0
Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:ALP506,3.59,0.13,0.92,0,36.19,30.55,0,0,5.31,0.19,23.12,0
Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:KF1800761,4.15,0.03,1.60,0.62,35.36,29.80,0,0.10,6.99,0,21.35,0
Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:KF1803129,3.70,0,1.39,0,35.87,31.44,0,0,5.88,0.31,21.41,0
Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:KF2700922,4.76,0.29,0.58,0.30,32.64,33.31,0.22,0,6.10,0,21.79,0.02
Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:KF2700960,6.04,0.50,1.49,0,35.21,30.23,0,0,6.36,0.30,19.88,0
Lazio:NOR24,7.94,0,1.16,0,33.01,15.72,0,0.08,10.15,0,31.94,0
Lazio:NOR28,8.17,0.11,2.62,0.22,31.46,15.60,0,0,11.20,0,30.62,0
Lazio:PG28,4.14,0,2.92,0,34.41,18.64,0,0,11.40,0,28.49,0
Lazio:PG30,6.88,0,2.01,0,32.07,18.84,0,0.19,11.81,0.04,28.16,0
Liguria:ALP099,5.13,0,2.43,0,36.41,24.40,0.65,0.05,6.88,0.51,23.32,0.22
Lombrardy:ALP288,6.04,0.79,1.67,0,36.54,24.68,0,0.23,7.79,0,22.27,0
Marche:MarABG010D,6.05,0,3.02,0.18,32.69,19.66,0.12,0.25,10.45,0,27.57,0
Marche:MarABI020D,7.25,0,3.21,0,33.85,17.74,0,0.10,8.68,0,28.86,0.32
Marche:MarABN020D,7.08,0.73,1.75,0.22,31.78,18.77,0,0,10.49,0,29.18,0
Marche:MarABP050D,7.43,0,2.35,0,32.72,17.90,0,0.21,9.80,0.20,29.41,0
Marche:MarABQ080D,6.21,0.17,1.89,0,32.81,19.04,0,0,10.96,0.12,28.79,0
Marche:MarABU050D,7.29,0,1.62,0,33.47,21.39,0,0,9.14,1.17,25.92,0
Marche:MarABY030D,6.75,0,3.69,0,29.95,18.59,0,0.23,11.27,0,29.52,0
Marche:MarACO100D,6.86,0,2.00,0,30.72,17.68,0,0,12.10,0.08,30.56,0
Marche:MarACV100D,7.26,0,1.62,0,31.47,21.05,0.39,0,10.41,0.48,27.31,0
Marche:MarACW030D,6.82,0,3.04,0,33.76,20.81,0,0,8.63,0,26.94,0
Marche:MarACW080D,9.16,0.87,0.94,0,31.17,19.68,0,0,9.61,0,28.58,0
Marche:MarACY030D,6.26,0,2.36,0.35,31.64,18.52,0.43,0,10.01,0,30.43,0
Marche:MarADC050D,4.77,0,1.93,0,33.54,20.62,0.11,0,7.86,0,31.17,0
Marche:MarADG030D,6.69,0,2.77,0,31.83,21.00,0.02,0,10.04,0.11,27.55,0
Molise:PG26_Molise,7.76,0,2.20,0,29.91,16.67,0,0.57,10.84,0,32.01,0.04
Molise:PG27,6.36,0.05,1.15,0.55,29.66,17.90,0,0,10.92,0.28,32.78,0.33
Trentino-Alto-Adige:ALP070,5.23,0.08,0.80,0,38.53,31.31,0,0,5.23,0.41,18.42,0
Trentino-Alto-Adige:ALP071,4.72,0,0.88,0,37.95,33.21,0,0,4.51,0.47,18.18,0.09
Trentino-Alto-Adige:ALP114,5.13,0.56,1.16,0,38.67,21.62,0,0,7.86,0,25,0
Trentino-Alto-Adige:ALP200,5.96,0,0.65,0,35.41,26.93,0.24,0,7.64,0.25,22.93,0
Trentino-Alto-Adige:ALP395,4.20,0,0.07,0,38.17,29.09,0.83,0,5.00,0,22.64,0
Trentino-Alto-Adige:ALP414,4.90,1.04,0.99,0,29.11,46.33,0.19,0,3.54,0,13.91,0
Trentino-Alto-Adige:ALP420,5.76,0,0.48,0,39.10,28.16,0.12,0,6.97,0.13,19.29,0
Tuscany:MURLO114,5.80,0,3.27,0,34.81,20.54,1.23,0,8.47,0.02,25.86,0
Tuscany:VO59,7.52,0,0.82,0.28,35.01,21.98,0,0,9.50,0,24.88,0
Tuscany:VO65,3.64,0,2.60,0.17,35.94,21.03,0,0.20,8.37,0,28.06,0
Tuscany:VO109,3.75,0.22,2.79,0,32.67,21.45,0.79,0,10.67,0,27.56,0.09
Umbria:PG03,5.94,0,2.12,0,32.67,17.12,0.56,0.20,11.11,0.02,30.25,0
Umbria:PG04,6.34,0.25,2.53,0,30.64,20.66,0,0,9.10,0,30.47,0
Umbria:PG06,8.95,0.13,1.08,0.52,30.94,17.60,0.02,0,8.80,0,31.89,0.06
Umbria:PG07,7.81,0.34,3.48,0,32.31,17.63,0,0,10.47,0,27.96,0
Umbria:PG08,5.00,0,2.37,0.43,35.24,21.61,0.48,0,7.69,0.03,27.15,0
Umbria:PG11,7.93,0.01,2.36,0,33.05,19.77,0,0,8.56,0,28.32,0
Umbria:PG12,8.62,0.02,1.77,0.07,34.90,20.05,0,0,7.63,0.04,26.90,0
Umbria:PG15,7.94,0,2.72,0,32.52,16.83,0.67,0,10.33,0,28.99,0
Veneto:ALP022,6.59,0,0.49,0,36.53,27.87,0,0,7.34,0,21.18,0
Veneto:ALP040,5.15,0,1.04,0,41.60,25.12,0,0,3.85,0,23.24,0
Veneto:Alp100,4.58,0.41,0.87,0.93,39.09,28.70,0,0,7.01,0.28,18.13,0
Veneto:ALP116,5.45,0.19,2.34,0,36.99,24.61,0,0,7.69,0,22.73,0
Veneto:ALP209,4.85,0,2.14,0,34.32,25.27,0,0,7.89,0,25.49,0.04
Veneto:ALP249,5.45,0,2.23,0,35.92,27.84,0.14,0,5.44,0,22.98,0
Veneto:ALP250,4.19,0.15,0.96,0.11,37.49,30.40,0.47,0,6.61,0.02,19.60,0
Veneto:ALP273,4.14,0.12,0.71,0,35.42,29.00,0.35,0,7.02,0,23.07,0.16
Veneto:ALP322,3.54,0,1.12,0,35.56,30.22,0.15,0,5.64,0,23.77,0
Veneto:ALP378,5.59,0.04,0.53,0,35.23,29.58,0.40,0,4.93,0,23.71,0
Veneto:Alp401,5.76,0,0.27,0.72,39.59,27.28,0,0,5.84,0,20.49,0.04
Veneto:KF1800751,4.56,0,0.81,0,38.52,26.88,0,0.05,7.07,0,22.11,0
Veneto:KF1800772,5.25,0,1.04,0,38.57,25.21,0.67,0,5.09,0,24.17,0
Veneto:KF1803105,4.62,0,1.32,0.04,37.25,29.44,0,0.07,5.73,0,21.53,0
Veneto:KF1803109,4.97,0.48,2.18,0,36.60,25.47,0,0,8.09,0,22.22,0
Veneto:KF1803151,7.23,0,0,1.06,36.73,29.47,0.05,0,6.47,0,18.99,0
```

----------


## Jovialis

This would be an interesting project. We should also include other official academic samples from other ethnicities in Dodecad K12b format.

----------


## Jovialis

HGDP North Italian and Tuscan samples are notably to the "west" of the other samples that represent those regions.

I threw in the Dodecad TSI30 sample as well.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> This would be an interesting project. We should also include other official academic samples from other ethnicities in Dodecad K12b format.


Salento also analyzed other academic samples (a big thank to him). The set from Piedmont (which are most likely those from Val Borbera, in the southeastern end of Piedmont, the Piedmontese closest genetically to the Western Emilians), then there are other Tuscans (which will be the usual ones from Volterra, Murlo and Casentino), there is a set from Corsica, one from Portugal and one from French Provence. There are outliers here and there because some are likely not native or not completely native. To the more obvious ones I have added an _o that stands for outliers; these are not clearly native (one from Piedmont that ends with Calabria, and four from Corsica who end up with Portugal, French Provence and Bergamo HGDP). 



```
Piedmont:ItalyPiedmont43,6.32,0.08,2.5,0,35.55,19.88,0,0,6.57,0,28.97,0.13
Piedmont_o:ItalyPiedmont52,9.09,0,3.54,0,27.05,12.21,0,0,12.72,0,35.36,0.05
Piedmont:ItalyPiedmont63,5.97,0,3.23,0,36.24,24.72,0,0,7.02,1.33,21.48,0
Piedmont:ItalyPiedmont98,3.35,0.27,1.49,0,38.12,24.53,0,0,7.46,0,24.73,0.06
Piedmont:ItalyPiedmont119,5.5,0,0.2,0,38.44,23.31,0.47,0,7.95,0,24.08,0.05
Piedmont:ItalyPiedmont127,7.64,0,1.6,0,38.18,26.89,0.74,0,5.46,0,19.27,0.22
Piedmont:ItalyPiedmont136,5.02,0,2.13,0,34.76,23.49,0,0,8.51,0.47,25.61,0
Piedmont:ItalyPiedmont145,7.61,0,2.05,0,35.25,20.41,0.32,0.65,8.46,0,25.25,0
Piedmont:ItalyPiedmont149,6.42,0,0.73,0.14,38.04,22.44,0,0,7.73,0,24.5,0
Piedmont:Piedmont61,3.32,0,0.92,0.83,36.11,27.44,0,0,6.42,0,24.96,0
Piedmont:Piedmont154,5.64,0.2,2.13,0.2,30.39,24.58,0.42,0.08,9.22,0,26.88,0.27
Tuscany:Tuscany27,4.82,0,3.75,0,35.18,21.7,0.36,0.01,6.73,0,27.46,0
Tuscany:Tuscany38,5.91,0,2.51,0,35.32,21.18,0,0,9.45,0.45,25.18,0
Tuscany:Tuscany54,7.01,0,2.21,0,34.19,20.9,0,0.17,7.67,0,27.86,0
Tuscany:Tuscany74,5.69,0,1.45,0,33.43,21.51,0.73,0,8.32,0.24,27.29,1.34
Tuscany:Tuscany93,7.24,1.11,2.38,0,35.07,20.46,0,0.12,9.54,0,24.09,0
Tuscany:Tuscany98,5.92,0,2.49,0,37.13,21.1,0.94,0,5.93,0,26.48,0 
Tuscany:Tuscany65,3.31,0,2.27,0.11,36.17,21.11,0.03,0.45,8.96,0,27.59,0
Corsica:corsica1308,2.91,0,3.3,0,38.43,18.67,0,0,11.53,0,25.17,0
Corsica:Corsica03708,3.29,0,2.86,0,39,16.65,0.42,0.27,10.26,0.1,27.14,0
Corsica_o:corsica11908,5.87,0,2.35,0.04,38.2,27.87,0,0.24,6.23,0.3,18.9,0
Corsica_o:Corsica14708,4.57,0,2.49,0,41.09,22.6,0,0.14,6.52,0.11,22.48,0
Corsica:Corsica19508,2.99,0,3.78,0.07,39.5,19.33,0.59,0,9.88,0,23.85,0
Corsica:Corsica24508,4.81,0.53,1.89,0.61,39.23,19.24,0.38,0,9.28,0,24.02,0
Corsica:corsica29008,4.87,0,2.06,0,39.36,16.85,0.12,0.08,9.32,0,27.16,0.17
Corsica:Corsica29708,5.82,0,3.09,0,40.53,17.8,0,0,8.38,0,24.38,0
Corsica_o:CorsicaS00708,3.4,0.24,2.51,0,44.93,24.14,1.17,0,6.23,0,17.38,0
Corsica:CorsicaS03308,3.67,0,1.51,0.38,38.84,19.16,0.13,0,9.14,0,26.96,0.2
Corsica:CorsicaS04208,4.98,0,2.01,0,38.89,20.48,0,0,7.2,0.26,26.19,0
Corsica:CorsicaS10208,2.74,0,2.53,0.63,42.75,16.41,0,0,7.73,0,27.22,0
Corsica_o:CorsicaS13308,7.37,0.22,1.36,0.25,38.43,38.49,0,0.3,0.94,0,12.65,0
Corsica:CorsicaS13808,1.28,0,2.72,0.61,37.07,20.16,0.01,0,7.78,1.21,27.3,1.84
Corsica:CorsicaS15608,2.46,0,3.23,0,38.15,18.09,0,0,8.66,0,24.56,4.85
Corsica:CorsicaS29908,4.78,0,3.8,0.2,37.65,18.75,0,0.13,7.61,0,27.08,0
Portugal:Portugal1,5.41,0.5,5.67,0,43.55,25.18,1.21,0.91,4.74,0,12.03,0.79
Portugal:Portugal2,5.4,0,7.5,0,38.67,23.2,0,0.97,6.53,1.17,15.67,0.9
Portugal:Portugal3,4.01,0,6.46,0.79,39.78,24.55,0.17,1.02,6.86,0,16.09,0.26
Portugal:Portugal6,5.74,0,7.35,0,43.87,26.24,0,0.64,5.19,0.12,10.81,0.04
Portugal:Portugal7,5.52,0,5.04,0.11,40.96,25.38,0,1.89,7.59,0,13.5,0
Portugal:Portugal9,4.14,0,4.79,0,42.71,25.35,2.15,1.94,5.72,0,13.1,0.09
Portugal:Portugal:Portugal10,4.93,0.46,6.42,0,40.3,25.78,0,0.17,7.42,0,13.84,0.67
Portugal:Portugal11,6.46,0.27,5.76,0.07,40.11,26.43,0.43,0.67,7.91,0,11.19,0.69
Portugal:Portugal12,4.44,0,5.39,0,40.08,25.22,0,0.48,6.49,0.66,16.18,1.05
Portugal:Portugal13,7.01,0,5.76,0,42.81,24.46,0.24,0.49,5.13,0,13.69,0.41
French_Provence:provance2508,7.26,0,1.78,0,38.31,29.71,0.33,0.1,5.17,0,17.33,0
French_Provence:provance2708,7.31,0,2.41,0,37.55,24.46,0,0.34,8.19,0,19.64,0.11
French_Provence:provance4109,6.83,0,2.75,0.62,42.38,29.65,0,0,4.95,0,12.82,0
French_Provence:provance4409,7.03,0.52,0.82,0,33.84,37.78,0.32,0,3.48,0,15.4,0.81
French_Provence:provance4509,6.92,0,1.79,0,41.48,32.14,0,0,4.23,0,13.42,0
```

The samples all together. 



```
N_Italy_HGDP:HGDP01147,3.37,0,0.67,0,41.17,27.3,0,0,4.17,0.07,23.25,0
N_Italy_HGDP:HGDP01151,5.45,1.55,0,0,37.13,28.15,0,0,1.28,0,26.44,0
N_Italy_HGDP:HGDP01152,3.41,0,1.18,0,41.02,24.23,0.14,0,7.19,0,22.82,0
N_Italy_HGDP:HGDP01153,5.85,0,0.67,0,45.37,20.75,0,0,7.09,0,20.27,0
N_Italy_HGDP:HGDP01154,5.34,0.01,2.36,0.16,38.83,27.63,0,0,6.57,0.26,18.83,0
N_Italy_HGDP:HGDP01155,4.43,0,1.13,0.93,43.74,20.72,0,0,5.12,0,23.93,0
N_Italy_HGDP:HGDP01156,6.07,0.04,0.66,0.29,46.21,19.12,0,0,5.77,0,21.84,0
N_Italy_HGDP:HGDP01157,3.67,0,0.67,0.26,42.48,24.87,0,0,5.41,0,22.65,0
N_Italy_HGDP:HGDP01171,6.11,0,0.72,0,44.48,21.21,0.88,0,5.95,0,20.65,0
N_Italy_HGDP:HGDP01172,5.42,0,2.99,0,41.74,22.09,0,0,5.41,0,22.35,0
N_Italy_HGDP:HGDP01173,4.4,0,1.23,0.45,42.09,24.6,0,0,6.61,0,20.62,0
N_Italy_HGDP:HGDP01174,5.57,0,0.8,0,43.43,21.14,0,0,7.33,0,21.74,0
N_Italy_HGDP:HGDP01177,1.68,0,0,0,43.52,23,0,0,5.53,0,26.27,0
Sardinia_HGDP:Sardinian_HGDP00665,0,0,1.7,0,67.49,0,0.41,0,6.47,0.38,23.55,0
Sardinia_HGDP:Sardinian_HGDP00666,0,0,1.92,0,69.63,0,0,0,4.06,0,24.39,0
Sardinia_HGDP:Sardinian_HGDP00667,0.27,0,3.17,0.06,66.6,4.42,0,0,5.89,0,19.59,0
Sardinia_HGDP:Sardinian_HGDP00668,0,0.43,2.6,0,70.27,0,0,0,6.61,0,20.08,0
Sardinia_HGDP:Sardinian_HGDP00669,0,0,1.63,0.1,69.76,2.42,0.53,0,6.98,0,18.59,0
Sardinia_HGDP:Sardinian_HGDP00670,0,0.07,2.78,0,71.33,0,0,0,6.09,0,19.74,0
Sardinia_HGDP:Sardinian_HGDP00671,0,0,0.46,0,72.96,1.27,0.01,0.16,5.46,0,19.67,0
Sardinia_HGDP:Sardinian_HGDP00672,0,0,2.38,0,68.78,0,0.4,0,5.6,0.35,22.48,0
Sardinia_HGDP:Sardinian_HGDP00673,0,0.67,4.21,0,66.59,1.45,0,0,8.8,0,18.28,0
Sardinia_HGDP:Sardinian_HGDP00674,0,0.34,2.58,0,75.2,0,0,0,3.23,0,18.65,0
Sardinia_HGDP:Sardinian_HGDP01062,0,0,4.28,0.67,67.81,0,0,0,5.28,0,21.96,0
Sardinia_HGDP:Sardinian_HGDP01063,0,0,2.92,0,68.99,0.61,0.71,0,4.86,0,21.91,0
Sardinia_HGDP:Sardinian_HGDP01064,0,0,1.43,0,75.32,0,0,0,6.89,0,16.37,0
Sardinia_HGDP:Sardinian_HGDP01065,0,0,4.65,0,73.34,0,0.63,0,4.57,0,16.8,0
Sardinia_HGDP:Sardinian_HGDP01066,0,0,5.38,0,60.18,5.06,0,0,8.01,0,21.37,0
Sardinia_HGDP:Sardinian_HGDP01067,0,0,0.9,0,69.59,0,0.67,0,5.2,0.03,23.61,0
Sardinia_HGDP:Sardinian_HGDP01068,0,0,1.98,0,68.12,0,0,0,7.02,0,22.88,0
Sardinia_HGDP:Sardinian_HGDP01069,0,0.05,1.03,0,75.62,0,0.12,0,3.92,0.23,19.04,0
Sardinia_HGDP:Sardinian_HGDP01070,0,0,2.7,0,71.07,0,0.9,0,7.03,0,18.3,0
Sardinia_HGDP:Sardinian_HGDP01071,0,0.18,6.22,0,65.96,0.79,1.16,0,6.47,0,19.21,0
Sardinia_HGDP:Sardinian_HGDP01072,0,0,1.41,0,67.93,0,0.25,0,6.03,0,24.37,0
Sardinia_HGDP:Sardinian_HGDP01073,0,0,5.55,0,59.07,5.93,0,0,6.46,0,22.92,0.07
Sardinia_HGDP:Sardinian_HGDP01074,0,0.35,2.19,0,68.39,0,0,0,6.31,0,22.76,0
Sardinia_HGDP:Sardinian_HGDP01075,0,0,1.98,0,60.06,6.11,0,0,11.19,0,20.67,0
Sardinia_HGDP:Sardinian_HGDP01076,0,0,3.75,0,69.38,0,0.39,0,5.13,0,21.35,0
Sardinia_HGDP:Sardinian_HGDP01077,0,0,2.98,0,67.07,1.72,0.55,0,4.43,0,23.25,0
Sardinia_HGDP:Sardinian_HGDP01078,0.33,0,3.43,0,58.64,7.58,0,0,8.23,0,21.79,0
Sardinia_HGDP:Sardinian_HGDP01079,0,0.12,1.58,0.69,71.69,0,0,0,4.72,0,21.19,0
TSI30,5.01,0.00,0.80,0.00,38.78,19.34,0.10,0.00,7.31,0.00,28.66,0.00
Tuscan_HGDP:HGDP01161,2.01,0,0,0,39.04,18.95,0.52,0,8.95,0,30.54,0
Tuscan_HGDP:HGDP01162,6.23,0,0,0,37.95,18.65,1.01,0.58,6.77,0,28.82,0
Tuscan_HGDP:HGDP01163,7.23,0,1.78,0,36.8,19.55,0.48,0,6.86,0,27.29,0
Tuscan_HGDP:HGDP01164,5.9,0,1.18,0,35.8,20.99,0,0.21,8.73,0,27.2,0
Tuscan_HGDP:HGDP01166,3.69,0,0,0,37.8,19.51,0,0,6.56,0.76,31.69,0
Tuscan_HGDP:HGDP01167,6.76,0,2.8,0,36.61,18.41,0.64,0,7.37,1.13,26.28,0
Tuscan_HGDP:HGDP01168,3.02,0,0,0,39.05,18.74,0,0,7.24,0.84,30.87,0.25
Tuscan_HGDP:HGDP01169,4.79,0.11,0,0,38.06,16.65,0,0,9.1,0.47,30.82,0
TSI30,5.01,0.00,0.80,0.00,38.78,19.34,0.10,0.00,7.31,0.00,28.66,0.00
ITS2,10.04,0,1.14,0,27.18,15.93,0.93,0,11.33,0.26,33.19,0
ITS4,8.05,0,5.16,0,26.62,12.04,0,0,11.74,0.62,35.77,0
ITS5,5.86,1.35,2.20,0,30.35,16.61,0.65,0.06,11.71,0.58,30.45,0.19
ITS7,9.63,0,2.78,0.45,28.77,16.43,0,0.89,12.03,0,29.02,0
Trapani:TP05_LazaridisNat2014,7.76,0,7.31,0,29.40,11.85,0,0,9.38,1.31,32.10,0.89
Trapani:TP07_LazaridisNat2014,8.32,0.77,5.64,0,26.41,12.48,1.43,2.69,11.62,0,30.64,0
Siracusa:SR60_LazaridisNat2014,5.07,0,5.64,0,27.22,15.93,0,0.20,11.48,0,33.31,1.15
Siracusa:SR64_LazaridisNat2014,7.97,0,3.45,0,29.75,13.44,0,2.33,12.10,0,30.48,0.48
C-Sicily:50,6.22,0.50,3.62,0,27.78,14.29,0,0.96,12.97,0.12,32.19,1.35
E-Sicily:18,4.57,0,4.55,0,28.22,14.85,0.37,0,15.10,0.38,31.41,0.56
W-Sicily:1,7.27,0,4.47,0,28.58,13.24,0,1.03,10.76,0,34.42,0.23
W-Sicily:3,6.69,0.09,4.53,0,28.83,12.64,0,0.47,12.19,0.18,34.27,0.12
W-Sicily:5a,8.76,0,3.46,0.89,26.50,13.84,0,1.77,11.65,0.13,33.00,0
W-Sicily:9,7.47,0.24,4.26,0,28.88,13.07,0,0.77,14.72,0,30.48,0.10
W-Sicily:21,7.06,0,4.17,0.98,27.98,11.07,0.07,2.67,11.80,0,33.88,0.32
Ag-Sicily:5,8.11,0,4.73,0,29.88,12.05,0,0.88,11.66,0,32.68,0
Ag-Sicily:8,7.44,0.30,5.18,0.40,27.65,13.74,0.05,0.70,12.31,0,31.71,0.52
Abruzzo:Alp090,6.69,0,3.58,0,30.19,16.26,0.10,0,11.63,0,31.57,0
Abruzzo:Alp140,8.98,0,3.12,0,28.13,17.65,0,0.31,11.18,0,30.64,0
Abruzzo:ALP161,6.41,0,1.44,0,30.32,19.51,0,0.22,10.75,0.24,31.01,0.11
Abruzzo:Alp162,7.51,0,0.94,0.19,28.60,17.33,1.26,0,13.22,0,30.60,0.34
Abruzzo:ALP205,6.36,0.17,2.26,0,27.71,15.44,0,0.55,12.57,0,34.86,0.07
Abruzzo:Alp380,8.30,0,1.69,0,30.67,14.58,0.47,0.06,12.53,0,31.44,0.27
Abruzzo:Alp503,9.66,0,2.68,0.05,29.99,14.21,0,0.19,10.83,0,32.39,0
Abruzzo:Alp616,7.89,0,1.28,0,29.09,16.96,0,0.71,10.92,0,33.15,0
Albanian:AL9,5.26,0,2.47,0.71,29.56,24.40,0,0.08,7.74,0,27.78,1.99
Albanian:AL12,4.45,0.91,0.08,0,33.95,23.40,0,0,7.39,0.02,29.81,0
Albanian:AL17,5.38,0,1.12,0,30.35,22.13,0.88,0,9.59,0,30.54,0
Albanian:AL29,4.54,1.26,2.31,0.12,29.18,21.93,0,0.27,9.86,0,30.53,0
Albanian:AL82,5.30,0.23,0.73,0.46,27.08,27.71,0.23,0.14,7.14,0.14,30.84,0
Albanian:AL98,6.43,1.04,1.58,0,26.80,22.39,0.29,0,8.69,0.21,31.63,0.94
Aosta-Valley:ALP225_Aosta-Valley,6.87,0.27,1.13,0,37.44,30.93,0.24,0,3.30,0,19.83,0
Aosta-Valley:ALP227_Aosta-Valley,5.37,0.04,0.99,0,38.11,32.94,0,0.11,3.91,0,18.53,0
Apulia:ALP379,5.72,0,3.90,0,28.18,15.53,0.67,0,11.69,0.17,34.13,0.01
Apulia:ALP583,8.10,0,3.61,0,27.70,15.00,0.82,0.30,10.01,0,34.43,0.04
Apulia:cera1,7.91,0,5.44,0,29.16,15.42,0,0,10.25,0,31.76,0.05
Apulia:cera2,7.80,0,2.79,0,30.50,15.34,0,0,10.15,0,33.37,0.05
Apulia:cera8,6.06,0,3.14,0.70,29.98,15.74,0,0.10,10.47,0.14,33.35,0.32
Apulia:cera9,5.36,0,3.54,0,31.06,16.26,0.36,0,10.87,0,32.56,0
Apulia:GS32,7.03,0.70,2.10,0,29.17,14.00,0.41,0.25,10.95,0,35.38,0
Apulia:GS34,6.15,0.62,2.80,0,28.01,16.49,0,0.12,13.62,0.13,32.06,0
Apulia:GS47,5.92,0,2.56,0,27.84,14.32,0,0.27,12.35,0.63,36.11,0
Apulia:Pu2,5.84,0,2.93,0,26.59,17.67,0,0.71,12.28,0,33.99,0
Apulia:Pu3,6.03,0,1.87,0,26.47,14.41,0,0.09,13.66,0,37.47,0
Apulia:Pu7,7.79,0,3.12,0,27.68,12.85,0,0.19,11.83,0,36.54,0
Apulia:Pu8,6.95,0,6.23,0.02,25.75,11.41,0,0.45,14.01,0.76,34.43,0
Apulia:Pu45,7.53,0.05,2.22,0.39,29.68,15.35,0,0.40,10.10,0,34.28,0
Basilicata:PG16,7.16,0.47,4.11,0.25,27.15,12.87,0.34,0.60,11.52,0.36,35.16,0
Basilicata:PG17,8.95,0,1.39,0,29.77,14.55,0,0,12.92,0,32.25,0.16
Basilicata:PG18,6.66,0,2.84,0.02,27.29,16.11,0,0,13.23,0.74,33.04,0.06
Basilicata:PG19,6.05,0,2.34,0,28.94,15.65,0,1.07,13.30,0,32.65,0
Basilicata:PG20,6.11,0,3.11,0,27.89,14.45,0.06,0,12.27,0,36.11,0
Basilicata:PG21,7.28,0,3.97,0,26.27,17.49,1.27,0.28,12.37,0.28,30.79,0
Basilicata:PG22,7.19,0,3.44,0,25.84,16.55,0,0,9.57,0,37.42,0
Basilicata:PG24,7.33,0.09,4.22,1.09,28.61,14.27,0,0.83,12.06,0,31.50,0
Basilicata:PG25,6.69,0.27,2.65,0.38,28.09,14.21,0.26,0.40,12.13,0.46,34.45,0
Calabria:ALP582,6.25,0,3.73,0.03,27.11,10.05,0.99,0,13.80,1.01,36.24,0.79
Calabria:ALP596,6.33,0,3.91,0,27.04,13.26,0,0.64,13.48,0,35.33,0
Campania:NaN43TC,5.55,0,3.35,0.40,30.13,14.02,0,0.50,12.39,0,33.66,0
Campania:NaN46TC,6.39,0,2.56,0,29.12,13.31,0.46,0,14.30,0,33.51,0.34
Campania:NaN58AC,10.21,0.49,3.75,0,28.63,12.20,0.90,0.04,12.10,0.03,31.66,0
Campania:NaN65DFG,8.00,0,4.30,0.03,27.55,10.62,0.47,0.12,13.44,0.51,34.95,0
Campania:NaN77FAM,6.20,0,3.00,0.36,26.45,12.15,0.43,0.86,13.24,0.25,37.04,0
Campania:NaN119AMR,6.33,0,3.12,0,27.98,15.23,0,0.79,13.71,0.40,32.44,0
Campania:NaN128LA,7.42,0,3.69,0,29.35,12.81,0,0,12.42,0,34.31,0
Campania:NaN195ST,7.21,0,4.57,0.68,30.71,10.79,0,0.07,10.77,0.16,34.89,0.15
Campania:NaN207MM,7.08,0,3.16,0,26.85,14.76,0,0,14.32,0,33.60,0.22
Campania:NaN212CR,6.82,0,2.61,0,30.35,14.95,0.28,0.35,12.19,0,32.45,0
Campania:NaN238DM,7.03,0,1.59,0,29.82,15.65,0,0,11.91,0.14,33.86,0
Campania:NaN275IS,7.93,0.39,3.73,0,25.40,11.31,0,0.18,14.81,0,36.08,0.17
Campania:NaN289RM,6.45,0,2.51,1.17,28.02,14.99,0,0.55,10.85,0,35.45,0
Campania:NaN293SF,8.28,0.11,1.74,0,29.38,13.62,0.42,0,12.80,0,33.37,0.28
Corsica:corsica1308,2.91,0,3.3,0,38.43,18.67,0,0,11.53,0,25.17,0
Corsica:Corsica03708,3.29,0,2.86,0,39,16.65,0.42,0.27,10.26,0.1,27.14,0
Corsica_o:corsica11908,5.87,0,2.35,0.04,38.2,27.87,0,0.24,6.23,0.3,18.9,0
Corsica_o:Corsica14708,4.57,0,2.49,0,41.09,22.6,0,0.14,6.52,0.11,22.48,0
Corsica:Corsica19508,2.99,0,3.78,0.07,39.5,19.33,0.59,0,9.88,0,23.85,0
Corsica:Corsica24508,4.81,0.53,1.89,0.61,39.23,19.24,0.38,0,9.28,0,24.02,0
Corsica:corsica29008,4.87,0,2.06,0,39.36,16.85,0.12,0.08,9.32,0,27.16,0.17
Corsica:Corsica29708,5.82,0,3.09,0,40.53,17.8,0,0,8.38,0,24.38,0
Corsica_o:CorsicaS00708,3.4,0.24,2.51,0,44.93,24.14,1.17,0,6.23,0,17.38,0
Corsica:CorsicaS03308,3.67,0,1.51,0.38,38.84,19.16,0.13,0,9.14,0,26.96,0.2
Corsica:CorsicaS04208,4.98,0,2.01,0,38.89,20.48,0,0,7.2,0.26,26.19,0
Corsica:CorsicaS10208,2.74,0,2.53,0.63,42.75,16.41,0,0,7.73,0,27.22,0
Corsica_o:CorsicaS13308,7.37,0.22,1.36,0.25,38.43,38.49,0,0.3,0.94,0,12.65,0
Corsica:CorsicaS13808,1.28,0,2.72,0.61,37.07,20.16,0.01,0,7.78,1.21,27.3,1.84
Corsica:CorsicaS15608,2.46,0,3.23,0,38.15,18.09,0,0,8.66,0,24.56,4.85
Corsica:CorsicaS29908,4.78,0,3.8,0.2,37.65,18.75,0,0.13,7.61,0,27.08,0
Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:ALP081,4.34,0.84,2.33,0,36.22,29.46,0.26,0.04,5.34,0,21.18,0
Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:ALP093,6.43,0.41,0.05,0,33.92,32.71,0,0.07,5.38,0,21.03,0
Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:ALP188,4.99,0.74,0.01,0,26.21,47.57,0,0,3.72,0.76,16.00,0
Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:ALP220,5.39,0,0,0.17,34.02,36.20,0,0,6.01,0,18.14,0.05
Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:ALP233,4.08,0,0,0,34.26,30.43,0.52,0,6.58,0.50,23.63,0
Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:ALP235,5.64,0.57,1.23,0.01,35.63,28.80,0.84,0,5.51,0,21.76,0
Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:ALP346,6.20,0.81,0.77,0,34.42,29.93,0,0,6.17,0.18,21.52,0
Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:ALP354,5.56,0.50,0.39,0,37.04,29.93,0,0,6.12,0,20.32,0.14
Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:ALP259,3.03,0,1.50,0,39.87,28.48,0,0,5.82,0,21.30,0
Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:ALP280,5.74,0,0.56,0,37.35,28.82,0.30,0,4.85,0,22.40,0
Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:ALP435,5.42,0.70,0.01,0,31.91,35.91,0,0.24,6.52,0,19.29,0
Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:ALP506,3.59,0.13,0.92,0,36.19,30.55,0,0,5.31,0.19,23.12,0
Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:KF1800761,4.15,0.03,1.60,0.62,35.36,29.80,0,0.10,6.99,0,21.35,0
Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:KF1803129,3.70,0,1.39,0,35.87,31.44,0,0,5.88,0.31,21.41,0
Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:KF2700922,4.76,0.29,0.58,0.30,32.64,33.31,0.22,0,6.10,0,21.79,0.02
Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:KF2700960,6.04,0.50,1.49,0,35.21,30.23,0,0,6.36,0.30,19.88,0
Lazio:NOR24,7.94,0,1.16,0,33.01,15.72,0,0.08,10.15,0,31.94,0
Lazio:NOR28,8.17,0.11,2.62,0.22,31.46,15.60,0,0,11.20,0,30.62,0
Lazio:PG28,4.14,0,2.92,0,34.41,18.64,0,0,11.40,0,28.49,0
Lazio:PG30,6.88,0,2.01,0,32.07,18.84,0,0.19,11.81,0.04,28.16,0
Liguria:ALP099,5.13,0,2.43,0,36.41,24.40,0.65,0.05,6.88,0.51,23.32,0.22
Lombardy:ALP288,6.04,0.79,1.67,0,36.54,24.68,0,0.23,7.79,0,22.27,0
Lombardy:BGD28_Lombardy,6.14,0,1.99,0.13,40.22,23.5,0,0,6.74,0.27,21.03,0
Lombardy:BGD31_Lombardy,3.7,0,2.07,0,40.09,22.45,0,0,6.06,0.64,24.99,0
Lombardy:BGD103_Lombardy,3.81,0.41,0,0,38.8,25.35,0.64,0,7.31,0,23.67,0
Lombardy:BGD301_Lombardy,4.99,0,1.58,0,41.82,21.45,0,0,6.79,0.49,22.9,0
Marche:MarABG010D,6.05,0,3.02,0.18,32.69,19.66,0.12,0.25,10.45,0,27.57,0
Marche:MarABI020D,7.25,0,3.21,0,33.85,17.74,0,0.10,8.68,0,28.86,0.32
Marche:MarABN020D,7.08,0.73,1.75,0.22,31.78,18.77,0,0,10.49,0,29.18,0
Marche:MarABP050D,7.43,0,2.35,0,32.72,17.90,0,0.21,9.80,0.20,29.41,0
Marche:MarABQ080D,6.21,0.17,1.89,0,32.81,19.04,0,0,10.96,0.12,28.79,0
Marche:MarABU050D,7.29,0,1.62,0,33.47,21.39,0,0,9.14,1.17,25.92,0
Marche:MarABY030D,6.75,0,3.69,0,29.95,18.59,0,0.23,11.27,0,29.52,0
Marche:MarACO100D,6.86,0,2.00,0,30.72,17.68,0,0,12.10,0.08,30.56,0
Marche:MarACV100D,7.26,0,1.62,0,31.47,21.05,0.39,0,10.41,0.48,27.31,0
Marche:MarACW030D,6.82,0,3.04,0,33.76,20.81,0,0,8.63,0,26.94,0
Marche:MarACW080D,9.16,0.87,0.94,0,31.17,19.68,0,0,9.61,0,28.58,0
Marche:MarACY030D,6.26,0,2.36,0.35,31.64,18.52,0.43,0,10.01,0,30.43,0
Marche:MarADC050D,4.77,0,1.93,0,33.54,20.62,0.11,0,7.86,0,31.17,0
Marche:MarADG030D,6.69,0,2.77,0,31.83,21.00,0.02,0,10.04,0.11,27.55,0
Molise:PG26_Molise,7.76,0,2.20,0,29.91,16.67,0,0.57,10.84,0,32.01,0.04
Molise:PG27,6.36,0.05,1.15,0.55,29.66,17.90,0,0,10.92,0.28,32.78,0.33
Piedmont:ItalyPiedmont43,6.32,0.08,2.5,0,35.55,19.88,0,0,6.57,0,28.97,0.13
Piedmont_o:ItalyPiedmont52,9.09,0,3.54,0,27.05,12.21,0,0,12.72,0,35.36,0.05
Piedmont:ItalyPiedmont63,5.97,0,3.23,0,36.24,24.72,0,0,7.02,1.33,21.48,0
Piedmont:ItalyPiedmont98,3.35,0.27,1.49,0,38.12,24.53,0,0,7.46,0,24.73,0.06
Piedmont:ItalyPiedmont119,5.5,0,0.2,0,38.44,23.31,0.47,0,7.95,0,24.08,0.05
Piedmont:ItalyPiedmont127,7.64,0,1.6,0,38.18,26.89,0.74,0,5.46,0,19.27,0.22
Piedmont:ItalyPiedmont136,5.02,0,2.13,0,34.76,23.49,0,0,8.51,0.47,25.61,0
Piedmont:ItalyPiedmont145,7.61,0,2.05,0,35.25,20.41,0.32,0.65,8.46,0,25.25,0
Piedmont:ItalyPiedmont149,6.42,0,0.73,0.14,38.04,22.44,0,0,7.73,0,24.5,0
Piedmont:Piedmont61,3.32,0,0.92,0.83,36.11,27.44,0,0,6.42,0,24.96,0
Piedmont:Piedmont154,5.64,0.2,2.13,0.2,30.39,24.58,0.42,0.08,9.22,0,26.88,0.27
Trentino-Alto-Adige:ALP070,5.23,0.08,0.80,0,38.53,31.31,0,0,5.23,0.41,18.42,0
Trentino-Alto-Adige:ALP071,4.72,0,0.88,0,37.95,33.21,0,0,4.51,0.47,18.18,0.09
Trentino-Alto-Adige:ALP114,5.13,0.56,1.16,0,38.67,21.62,0,0,7.86,0,25,0
Trentino-Alto-Adige:ALP200,5.96,0,0.65,0,35.41,26.93,0.24,0,7.64,0.25,22.93,0
Trentino-Alto-Adige:ALP395,4.20,0,0.07,0,38.17,29.09,0.83,0,5.00,0,22.64,0
Trentino-Alto-Adige:ALP414,4.90,1.04,0.99,0,29.11,46.33,0.19,0,3.54,0,13.91,0
Trentino-Alto-Adige:ALP420,5.76,0,0.48,0,39.10,28.16,0.12,0,6.97,0.13,19.29,0
Tuscany:MURLO114,5.80,0,3.27,0,34.81,20.54,1.23,0,8.47,0.02,25.86,0
Tuscany:VO59,7.52,0,0.82,0.28,35.01,21.98,0,0,9.50,0,24.88,0
Tuscany:VO65,3.64,0,2.60,0.17,35.94,21.03,0,0.20,8.37,0,28.06,0
Tuscany:VO109,3.75,0.22,2.79,0,32.67,21.45,0.79,0,10.67,0,27.56,0.09
Tuscany:Tuscany27,4.82,0,3.75,0,35.18,21.7,0.36,0.01,6.73,0,27.46,0
Tuscany:Tuscany38,5.91,0,2.51,0,35.32,21.18,0,0,9.45,0.45,25.18,0
Tuscany:Tuscany54,7.01,0,2.21,0,34.19,20.9,0,0.17,7.67,0,27.86,0
Tuscany:Tuscany74,5.69,0,1.45,0,33.43,21.51,0.73,0,8.32,0.24,27.29,1.34
Tuscany:Tuscany93,7.24,1.11,2.38,0,35.07,20.46,0,0.12,9.54,0,24.09,0
Tuscany:Tuscany98,5.92,0,2.49,0,37.13,21.1,0.94,0,5.93,0,26.48,0
Tuscany:Tuscany65,3.31,0,2.27,0.11,36.17,21.11,0.03,0.45,8.96,0,27.59,0
Umbria:PG03,5.94,0,2.12,0,32.67,17.12,0.56,0.20,11.11,0.02,30.25,0
Umbria:PG04,6.34,0.25,2.53,0,30.64,20.66,0,0,9.10,0,30.47,0
Umbria:PG06,8.95,0.13,1.08,0.52,30.94,17.60,0.02,0,8.80,0,31.89,0.06
Umbria:PG07,7.81,0.34,3.48,0,32.31,17.63,0,0,10.47,0,27.96,0
Umbria:PG08,5.00,0,2.37,0.43,35.24,21.61,0.48,0,7.69,0.03,27.15,0
Umbria:PG11,7.93,0.01,2.36,0,33.05,19.77,0,0,8.56,0,28.32,0
Umbria:PG12,8.62,0.02,1.77,0.07,34.90,20.05,0,0,7.63,0.04,26.90,0
Umbria:PG15,7.94,0,2.72,0,32.52,16.83,0.67,0,10.33,0,28.99,0
Veneto:ALP022,6.59,0,0.49,0,36.53,27.87,0,0,7.34,0,21.18,0
Veneto:ALP040,5.15,0,1.04,0,41.60,25.12,0,0,3.85,0,23.24,0
Veneto:Alp100,4.58,0.41,0.87,0.93,39.09,28.70,0,0,7.01,0.28,18.13,0
Veneto:ALP116,5.45,0.19,2.34,0,36.99,24.61,0,0,7.69,0,22.73,0
Veneto:ALP209,4.85,0,2.14,0,34.32,25.27,0,0,7.89,0,25.49,0.04
Veneto:ALP249,5.45,0,2.23,0,35.92,27.84,0.14,0,5.44,0,22.98,0
Veneto:ALP250,4.19,0.15,0.96,0.11,37.49,30.40,0.47,0,6.61,0.02,19.60,0
Veneto:ALP273,4.14,0.12,0.71,0,35.42,29.00,0.35,0,7.02,0,23.07,0.16
Veneto:ALP322,3.54,0,1.12,0,35.56,30.22,0.15,0,5.64,0,23.77,0
Veneto:ALP378,5.59,0.04,0.53,0,35.23,29.58,0.40,0,4.93,0,23.71,0
Veneto:Alp401,5.76,0,0.27,0.72,39.59,27.28,0,0,5.84,0,20.49,0.04
Veneto:KF1800751,4.56,0,0.81,0,38.52,26.88,0,0.05,7.07,0,22.11,0
Veneto:KF1800772,5.25,0,1.04,0,38.57,25.21,0.67,0,5.09,0,24.17,0
Veneto:KF1803105,4.62,0,1.32,0.04,37.25,29.44,0,0.07,5.73,0,21.53,0
Veneto:KF1803109,4.97,0.48,2.18,0,36.60,25.47,0,0,8.09,0,22.22,0
Veneto:KF1803151,7.23,0,0,1.06,36.73,29.47,0.05,0,6.47,0,18.99,0
Portugal:Portugal1,5.41,0.5,5.67,0,43.55,25.18,1.21,0.91,4.74,0,12.03,0.79
Portugal:Portugal2,5.4,0,7.5,0,38.67,23.2,0,0.97,6.53,1.17,15.67,0.9
Portugal:Portugal3,4.01,0,6.46,0.79,39.78,24.55,0.17,1.02,6.86,0,16.09,0.26
Portugal:Portugal6,5.74,0,7.35,0,43.87,26.24,0,0.64,5.19,0.12,10.81,0.04
Portugal:Portugal7,5.52,0,5.04,0.11,40.96,25.38,0,1.89,7.59,0,13.5,0
Portugal:Portugal9,4.14,0,4.79,0,42.71,25.35,2.15,1.94,5.72,0,13.1,0.09
Portugal:Portugal10,4.93,0.46,6.42,0,40.3,25.78,0,0.17,7.42,0,13.84,0.67
Portugal:Portugal11,6.46,0.27,5.76,0.07,40.11,26.43,0.43,0.67,7.91,0,11.19,0.69
Portugal:Portugal12,4.44,0,5.39,0,40.08,25.22,0,0.48,6.49,0.66,16.18,1.05
Portugal:Portugal13,7.01,0,5.76,0,42.81,24.46,0.24,0.49,5.13,0,13.69,0.41
French_Provence:provance2508,7.26,0,1.78,0,38.31,29.71,0.33,0.1,5.17,0,17.33,0
French_Provence:provance2708,7.31,0,2.41,0,37.55,24.46,0,0.34,8.19,0,19.64,0.11
French_Provence:provance4109,6.83,0,2.75,0.62,42.38,29.65,0,0,4.95,0,12.82,0
French_Provence:provance4409,7.03,0.52,0.82,0,33.84,37.78,0.32,0,3.48,0,15.4,0.81
French_Provence:provance4509,6.92,0,1.79,0,41.48,32.14,0,0,4.23,0,13.42,0
```

----------


## Palermo Trapani

> This would be an interesting project. We should also include other official academic samples from other ethnicities in Dodecad K12b format.


Jovialis, good idea, I have been putting together something similar for the Ancient Italian samples (I just have them all copied in a word sheet as text file which I an easily cut and paste in Vahaduo calculator). I don't have them all, as some samples from studies it seems are not able to be reliably estimated using Dodecad12B type calculators, etc (the Recent Sicilian Mesolithic/Neolithic study, Yu et al 2022).

Here is what I have so far (might need to be independently verified)

Posth et al 2021, “The origin and legacy ofthe Etruscans through a 2000-year archeogenomic time transect”. [82 ancient DNA samples]

Antonio et al. 2019 “Ancient Rome: A genetic crossroads of Europe and the Mediterranean”. [127 Ancient Romans]

Fernandes et al. 2020 “The spread of steppe and Iranian-related ancestry in the islands of the western Mediterranean”. [N=18 Ancient Sicilians; N=34 Ancient Sardinians]

Aneli et al 2022 “The genetic origin of Daunians and the Pan-Mediterranean southern Italian Iron Age context” [N=16 Ancient Apulians-Danuians]

Saupe et al 2021 “Ancient genomes reveal structural shifts after the arrival of Steppe-related ancestry in the Italian Peninsula” [N=19 of 21 Ancient Northern and Central Italians from Bronze Age, BRC_001 and 030 not included]

Fu et al. 2016 “The Genetic History of Ice Age Europe” [N=5 Western European HG from Italy]

Olade et al 2018 “ The Beaker phenomenon and the genomic transformation of northwest Europe” [N=4, 3 Northern Italian and 1 Sicilian Bell Beakers]

Margaryan et al 2020. “Population genomics of the Viking world” [N=5 Viking/Normans in Medieval Foggia_Puglia]

Sikora et al. 2014 “Population Genomic Analysis of Ancient and Modern Genomes Yields New Insights into the Genetic Ancestry of the Tyrolean Iceman and the Genetic Structure of Europe”
[N=1; Otzi the Iceman K12 coordinates were estimated on GEDMATCH using Kit Number UT4561244]

Catalano et al 2020 “Late Upper Palaeolithic hunter-gatherers in the Central Mediterranean: New archaeological and genetic data from the Late Epigravettian burial Oriente C (Favignana, Sicily)”
[1 Sicilian WHG; K12 Coordinates were estimated on GEDMATCH using Kit # EM6278906]

Amorim et al. 2018 “Understanding 6th-century barbarian social organization and migration through paleogenomics” [N=24, 6th Century Collegno, Turin Northern Italy, Longobard]

Scorrano et al 2022. “Bioarchaeological and palaeogenomic portrait of two Pompeians that died during the eruption ofVesuvius in 79 AD”
[N=1, Imperial Age Pompian]

Total 337 Ancient Italian Samples

Yu et al 2022 "Genomic and dietary discontinuities during the Mesolithic and Neolithic in Sicily" has 19 ancient Samples, but I think those did not have enough SNPS to reliably run Dodecad12B

Moots et al 2022 (pre-Print) "A Genetic History of Continuity and Mobility in the Iron Age Central" has 3 Iron Age Sardinians and 15 Iron Age Central Italian samples.

So that's 37 more potential ancient samples to add to the 337.
Mediterranean

There may be some others.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> HGDP North Italian and Tuscan samples are notably to the "west" of the other samples that represent those regions.
> 
> I threw in the Dodecad TSI30 sample as well.



With the exception of O_Italian_D it is a trend that all averages calculated by Diekenes have with respect to other samples from the same regions.

----------


## Duarte

Nice Salento, Pax and Jovialis.

It would be interesting to see modern samples from Portugal and also from Spain from scientific papers, far beyond the traditional ones classified as IBS (Iberian Population of Spain - extracted from 1000 genomes or HGDP, I don’t know well).

My 2 way admixture

Distance to:
Duarte

4.60076850
15.60% Corsica:CorsicaS15608 + 84.40% Portugal:Portugal1

4.82129406
7.80% Trapani:TP05_LazaridisNat2014 + 92.20% Portugal:Portugal1

4.86711957
6.80% W-Sicily:21 + 93.20% Portugal:Portugal1

4.87056010
70.40% Portugal:Portugal1 + 29.60% Portugal:Portugal2

4.90901703
6.60% Campania:NaN195ST + 93.40% Portugal:Portugal1

4.91149804
6.80% Trapani:TP07_LazaridisNat2014 + 93.20% Portugal:Portugal1

4.91839320
7.40% Siracusa:SR64_LazaridisNat2014 + 92.60% Portugal:Portugal1

4.92740166
6.80% C-Sicily:50 + 93.20% Portugal:Portugal1

4.92811240
6.80% Ag-Sicily:8 + 93.20% Portugal:Portugal1

4.92853651
6.40% W-Sicily:5a + 93.60% Portugal:Portugal1

4.92910917
6.40% W-Sicily:1 + 93.60% Portugal:Portugal1

4.93646529
6.60% Ag-Sicily:5 + 93.40% Portugal:Portugal1

4.94175361
6.60% Siracusa:SR60_LazaridisNat2014 + 93.40% Portugal:Portugal1

4.94177753
5.60% Calabria:ALP582 + 94.40% Portugal:Portugal1

4.94491066
5.80% ITS4 + 94.20% Portugal:Portugal1

4.95162790
6.80% Basilicata:PG24 + 93.20% Portugal:Portugal1

4.95355058
6.00% Basilicata:PG16 + 94.00% Portugal:Portugal1

4.95958793
5.60% Apulia:Pu8 + 94.40% Portugal:Portugal1

4.96127189
6.20% W-Sicily:3 + 93.80% Portugal:Portugal1

4.96228047
7.00% Apulia:cera1 + 93.00% Portugal:Portugal1

4.96344921
5.60% Campania:NaN65DFG + 94.40% Portugal:Portugal1

4.96525743
6.40% Campania:NaN58AC + 93.60% Portugal:Portugal1

4.96952865
10.00% Corsica:CorsicaS13808 + 90.00% Portugal:Portugal1

4.97088342
5.60% Piedmont_o:ItalyPiedmont52 + 94.40% Portugal:Portugal1

4.97220453
6.00% Campania:NaN289RM + 94.00% Portugal:Portugal1

----------


## Pax Augusta

> Nice Salento, Pax and Jovialis.
> 
> It would be interesting to see modern samples from Portugal and also from Spain from scientific papers, far beyond the traditional ones classified as IBS (Iberian Population of Spain - extracted from 1000 genomes or HGDP, I don’t know well).


Duarte, Salento also made modern samples of Portuguese people, you can find them in here.



```
N_Italy_HGDP:HGDP01147,3.37,0,0.67,0,41.17,27.3,0,0,4.17,0.07,23.25,0
N_Italy_HGDP:HGDP01151,5.45,1.55,0,0,37.13,28.15,0,0,1.28,0,26.44,0
N_Italy_HGDP:HGDP01152,3.41,0,1.18,0,41.02,24.23,0.14,0,7.19,0,22.82,0
N_Italy_HGDP:HGDP01153,5.85,0,0.67,0,45.37,20.75,0,0,7.09,0,20.27,0
N_Italy_HGDP:HGDP01154,5.34,0.01,2.36,0.16,38.83,27.63,0,0,6.57,0.26,18.83,0
N_Italy_HGDP:HGDP01155,4.43,0,1.13,0.93,43.74,20.72,0,0,5.12,0,23.93,0
N_Italy_HGDP:HGDP01156,6.07,0.04,0.66,0.29,46.21,19.12,0,0,5.77,0,21.84,0
N_Italy_HGDP:HGDP01157,3.67,0,0.67,0.26,42.48,24.87,0,0,5.41,0,22.65,0
N_Italy_HGDP:HGDP01171,6.11,0,0.72,0,44.48,21.21,0.88,0,5.95,0,20.65,0
N_Italy_HGDP:HGDP01172,5.42,0,2.99,0,41.74,22.09,0,0,5.41,0,22.35,0
N_Italy_HGDP:HGDP01173,4.4,0,1.23,0.45,42.09,24.6,0,0,6.61,0,20.62,0
N_Italy_HGDP:HGDP01174,5.57,0,0.8,0,43.43,21.14,0,0,7.33,0,21.74,0
N_Italy_HGDP:HGDP01177,1.68,0,0,0,43.52,23,0,0,5.53,0,26.27,0
Sardinian_HGDP00665,0,0,1.7,0,67.49,0,0.41,0,6.47,0.38,23.55,0
Sardinian_HGDP00666,0,0,1.92,0,69.63,0,0,0,4.06,0,24.39,0
Sardinian_HGDP00667,0.27,0,3.17,0.06,66.6,4.42,0,0,5.89,0,19.59,0
Sardinian_HGDP00668,0,0.43,2.6,0,70.27,0,0,0,6.61,0,20.08,0
Sardinian_HGDP00669,0,0,1.63,0.1,69.76,2.42,0.53,0,6.98,0,18.59,0
Sardinian_HGDP00670,0,0.07,2.78,0,71.33,0,0,0,6.09,0,19.74,0
Sardinian_HGDP00671,0,0,0.46,0,72.96,1.27,0.01,0.16,5.46,0,19.67,0
Sardinian_HGDP00672,0,0,2.38,0,68.78,0,0.4,0,5.6,0.35,22.48,0
Sardinian_HGDP00673,0,0.67,4.21,0,66.59,1.45,0,0,8.8,0,18.28,0
Sardinian_HGDP00674,0,0.34,2.58,0,75.2,0,0,0,3.23,0,18.65,0
Sardinian_HGDP01062,0,0,4.28,0.67,67.81,0,0,0,5.28,0,21.96,0
Sardinian_HGDP01063,0,0,2.92,0,68.99,0.61,0.71,0,4.86,0,21.91,0
Sardinian_HGDP01064,0,0,1.43,0,75.32,0,0,0,6.89,0,16.37,0
Sardinian_HGDP01065,0,0,4.65,0,73.34,0,0.63,0,4.57,0,16.8,0
Sardinian_HGDP01066,0,0,5.38,0,60.18,5.06,0,0,8.01,0,21.37,0
Sardinian_HGDP01067,0,0,0.9,0,69.59,0,0.67,0,5.2,0.03,23.61,0
Sardinian_HGDP01068,0,0,1.98,0,68.12,0,0,0,7.02,0,22.88,0
Sardinian_HGDP01069,0,0.05,1.03,0,75.62,0,0.12,0,3.92,0.23,19.04,0
Sardinian_HGDP01070,0,0,2.7,0,71.07,0,0.9,0,7.03,0,18.3,0
Sardinian_HGDP01071,0,0.18,6.22,0,65.96,0.79,1.16,0,6.47,0,19.21,0
Sardinian_HGDP01072,0,0,1.41,0,67.93,0,0.25,0,6.03,0,24.37,0
Sardinian_HGDP01073,0,0,5.55,0,59.07,5.93,0,0,6.46,0,22.92,0.07
Sardinian_HGDP01074,0,0.35,2.19,0,68.39,0,0,0,6.31,0,22.76,0
Sardinian_HGDP01075,0,0,1.98,0,60.06,6.11,0,0,11.19,0,20.67,0
Sardinian_HGDP01076,0,0,3.75,0,69.38,0,0.39,0,5.13,0,21.35,0
Sardinian_HGDP01077,0,0,2.98,0,67.07,1.72,0.55,0,4.43,0,23.25,0
Sardinian_HGDP01078,0.33,0,3.43,0,58.64,7.58,0,0,8.23,0,21.79,0
Sardinian_HGDP01079,0,0.12,1.58,0.69,71.69,0,0,0,4.72,0,21.19,0
TSI30,5.01,0.00,0.80,0.00,38.78,19.34,0.10,0.00,7.31,0.00,28.66,0.00
Tuscan_HGDP:HGDP01161,2.01,0,0,0,39.04,18.95,0.52,0,8.95,0,30.54,0
Tuscan_HGDP:HGDP01162,6.23,0,0,0,37.95,18.65,1.01,0.58,6.77,0,28.82,0
Tuscan_HGDP:HGDP01163,7.23,0,1.78,0,36.8,19.55,0.48,0,6.86,0,27.29,0
Tuscan_HGDP:HGDP01164,5.9,0,1.18,0,35.8,20.99,0,0.21,8.73,0,27.2,0
Tuscan_HGDP:HGDP01166,3.69,0,0,0,37.8,19.51,0,0,6.56,0.76,31.69,0
Tuscan_HGDP:HGDP01167,6.76,0,2.8,0,36.61,18.41,0.64,0,7.37,1.13,26.28,0
Tuscan_HGDP:HGDP01168,3.02,0,0,0,39.05,18.74,0,0,7.24,0.84,30.87,0.25
Tuscan_HGDP:HGDP01169,4.79,0.11,0,0,38.06,16.65,0,0,9.1,0.47,30.82,0
ITS2,10.04,0,1.14,0,27.18,15.93,0.93,0,11.33,0.26,33.19,0
ITS4,8.05,0,5.16,0,26.62,12.04,0,0,11.74,0.62,35.77,0
ITS5,5.86,1.35,2.20,0,30.35,16.61,0.65,0.06,11.71,0.58,30.45,0.19
ITS7,9.63,0,2.78,0.45,28.77,16.43,0,0.89,12.03,0,29.02,0
Trapani:TP05_LazaridisNat2014,7.76,0,7.31,0,29.40,11.85,0,0,9.38,1.31,32.10,0.89
Trapani:TP07_LazaridisNat2014,8.32,0.77,5.64,0,26.41,12.48,1.43,2.69,11.62,0,30.64,0
Siracusa:SR60_LazaridisNat2014,5.07,0,5.64,0,27.22,15.93,0,0.20,11.48,0,33.31,1.15
Siracusa:SR64_LazaridisNat2014,7.97,0,3.45,0,29.75,13.44,0,2.33,12.10,0,30.48,0.48
C-Sicily:50,6.22,0.50,3.62,0,27.78,14.29,0,0.96,12.97,0.12,32.19,1.35
E-Sicily:18,4.57,0,4.55,0,28.22,14.85,0.37,0,15.10,0.38,31.41,0.56
W-Sicily:1,7.27,0,4.47,0,28.58,13.24,0,1.03,10.76,0,34.42,0.23
W-Sicily:3,6.69,0.09,4.53,0,28.83,12.64,0,0.47,12.19,0.18,34.27,0.12
W-Sicily:5a,8.76,0,3.46,0.89,26.50,13.84,0,1.77,11.65,0.13,33.00,0
W-Sicily:9,7.47,0.24,4.26,0,28.88,13.07,0,0.77,14.72,0,30.48,0.10
W-Sicily:21,7.06,0,4.17,0.98,27.98,11.07,0.07,2.67,11.80,0,33.88,0.32
Ag-Sicily:5,8.11,0,4.73,0,29.88,12.05,0,0.88,11.66,0,32.68,0
Ag-Sicily:8,7.44,0.30,5.18,0.40,27.65,13.74,0.05,0.70,12.31,0,31.71,0.52
Abruzzo:Alp090,6.69,0,3.58,0,30.19,16.26,0.10,0,11.63,0,31.57,0
Abruzzo:Alp140,8.98,0,3.12,0,28.13,17.65,0,0.31,11.18,0,30.64,0
Abruzzo:ALP161,6.41,0,1.44,0,30.32,19.51,0,0.22,10.75,0.24,31.01,0.11
Abruzzo:Alp162,7.51,0,0.94,0.19,28.60,17.33,1.26,0,13.22,0,30.60,0.34
Abruzzo:ALP205,6.36,0.17,2.26,0,27.71,15.44,0,0.55,12.57,0,34.86,0.07
Abruzzo:Alp380,8.30,0,1.69,0,30.67,14.58,0.47,0.06,12.53,0,31.44,0.27
Abruzzo:Alp503,9.66,0,2.68,0.05,29.99,14.21,0,0.19,10.83,0,32.39,0
Abruzzo:Alp616,7.89,0,1.28,0,29.09,16.96,0,0.71,10.92,0,33.15,0
Albanian:AL9,5.26,0,2.47,0.71,29.56,24.40,0,0.08,7.74,0,27.78,1.99
Albanian:AL12,4.45,0.91,0.08,0,33.95,23.40,0,0,7.39,0.02,29.81,0
Albanian:AL17,5.38,0,1.12,0,30.35,22.13,0.88,0,9.59,0,30.54,0
Albanian:AL29,4.54,1.26,2.31,0.12,29.18,21.93,0,0.27,9.86,0,30.53,0
Albanian:AL82,5.30,0.23,0.73,0.46,27.08,27.71,0.23,0.14,7.14,0.14,30.84,0
Albanian:AL98,6.43,1.04,1.58,0,26.80,22.39,0.29,0,8.69,0.21,31.63,0.94
Aosta-Valley:ALP225_Aosta-Valley,6.87,0.27,1.13,0,37.44,30.93,0.24,0,3.30,0,19.83,0
Aosta-Valley:ALP227_Aosta-Valley,5.37,0.04,0.99,0,38.11,32.94,0,0.11,3.91,0,18.53,0
Apulia:ALP379,5.72,0,3.90,0,28.18,15.53,0.67,0,11.69,0.17,34.13,0.01
Apulia:ALP583,8.10,0,3.61,0,27.70,15.00,0.82,0.30,10.01,0,34.43,0.04
Apulia:cera1,7.91,0,5.44,0,29.16,15.42,0,0,10.25,0,31.76,0.05
Apulia:cera2,7.80,0,2.79,0,30.50,15.34,0,0,10.15,0,33.37,0.05
Apulia:cera8,6.06,0,3.14,0.70,29.98,15.74,0,0.10,10.47,0.14,33.35,0.32
Apulia:cera9,5.36,0,3.54,0,31.06,16.26,0.36,0,10.87,0,32.56,0
Apulia:GS32,7.03,0.70,2.10,0,29.17,14.00,0.41,0.25,10.95,0,35.38,0
Apulia:GS34,6.15,0.62,2.80,0,28.01,16.49,0,0.12,13.62,0.13,32.06,0
Apulia:GS47,5.92,0,2.56,0,27.84,14.32,0,0.27,12.35,0.63,36.11,0
Apulia:Pu2,5.84,0,2.93,0,26.59,17.67,0,0.71,12.28,0,33.99,0
Apulia:Pu3,6.03,0,1.87,0,26.47,14.41,0,0.09,13.66,0,37.47,0
Apulia:Pu7,7.79,0,3.12,0,27.68,12.85,0,0.19,11.83,0,36.54,0
Apulia:Pu8,6.95,0,6.23,0.02,25.75,11.41,0,0.45,14.01,0.76,34.43,0
Apulia:Pu45,7.53,0.05,2.22,0.39,29.68,15.35,0,0.40,10.10,0,34.28,0
Basilicata:PG16,7.16,0.47,4.11,0.25,27.15,12.87,0.34,0.60,11.52,0.36,35.16,0
Basilicata:PG17,8.95,0,1.39,0,29.77,14.55,0,0,12.92,0,32.25,0.16
Basilicata:PG18,6.66,0,2.84,0.02,27.29,16.11,0,0,13.23,0.74,33.04,0.06
Basilicata:PG19,6.05,0,2.34,0,28.94,15.65,0,1.07,13.30,0,32.65,0
Basilicata:PG20,6.11,0,3.11,0,27.89,14.45,0.06,0,12.27,0,36.11,0
Basilicata:PG21,7.28,0,3.97,0,26.27,17.49,1.27,0.28,12.37,0.28,30.79,0
Basilicata:PG22,7.19,0,3.44,0,25.84,16.55,0,0,9.57,0,37.42,0
Basilicata:PG24,7.33,0.09,4.22,1.09,28.61,14.27,0,0.83,12.06,0,31.50,0
Basilicata:PG25,6.69,0.27,2.65,0.38,28.09,14.21,0.26,0.40,12.13,0.46,34.45,0
Calabria:ALP582,6.25,0,3.73,0.03,27.11,10.05,0.99,0,13.80,1.01,36.24,0.79
Calabria:ALP596,6.33,0,3.91,0,27.04,13.26,0,0.64,13.48,0,35.33,0
Campania:NaN43TC,5.55,0,3.35,0.40,30.13,14.02,0,0.50,12.39,0,33.66,0
Campania:NaN46TC,6.39,0,2.56,0,29.12,13.31,0.46,0,14.30,0,33.51,0.34
Campania:NaN58AC,10.21,0.49,3.75,0,28.63,12.20,0.90,0.04,12.10,0.03,31.66,0
Campania:NaN65DFG,8.00,0,4.30,0.03,27.55,10.62,0.47,0.12,13.44,0.51,34.95,0
Campania:NaN77FAM,6.20,0,3.00,0.36,26.45,12.15,0.43,0.86,13.24,0.25,37.04,0
Campania:NaN119AMR,6.33,0,3.12,0,27.98,15.23,0,0.79,13.71,0.40,32.44,0
Campania:NaN128LA,7.42,0,3.69,0,29.35,12.81,0,0,12.42,0,34.31,0
Campania:NaN195ST,7.21,0,4.57,0.68,30.71,10.79,0,0.07,10.77,0.16,34.89,0.15
Campania:NaN207MM,7.08,0,3.16,0,26.85,14.76,0,0,14.32,0,33.60,0.22
Campania:NaN212CR,6.82,0,2.61,0,30.35,14.95,0.28,0.35,12.19,0,32.45,0
Campania:NaN238DM,7.03,0,1.59,0,29.82,15.65,0,0,11.91,0.14,33.86,0
Campania:NaN275IS,7.93,0.39,3.73,0,25.40,11.31,0,0.18,14.81,0,36.08,0.17
Campania:NaN289RM,6.45,0,2.51,1.17,28.02,14.99,0,0.55,10.85,0,35.45,0
Campania:NaN293SF,8.28,0.11,1.74,0,29.38,13.62,0.42,0,12.80,0,33.37,0.28
Corsica:corsica1308,2.91,0,3.3,0,38.43,18.67,0,0,11.53,0,25.17,0
Corsica:Corsica03708,3.29,0,2.86,0,39,16.65,0.42,0.27,10.26,0.1,27.14,0
Corsica_o:corsica11908,5.87,0,2.35,0.04,38.2,27.87,0,0.24,6.23,0.3,18.9,0
Corsica_o:Corsica14708,4.57,0,2.49,0,41.09,22.6,0,0.14,6.52,0.11,22.48,0
Corsica:Corsica19508,2.99,0,3.78,0.07,39.5,19.33,0.59,0,9.88,0,23.85,0
Corsica:Corsica24508,4.81,0.53,1.89,0.61,39.23,19.24,0.38,0,9.28,0,24.02,0
Corsica:corsica29008,4.87,0,2.06,0,39.36,16.85,0.12,0.08,9.32,0,27.16,0.17
Corsica:Corsica29708,5.82,0,3.09,0,40.53,17.8,0,0,8.38,0,24.38,0
Corsica_o:CorsicaS00708,3.4,0.24,2.51,0,44.93,24.14,1.17,0,6.23,0,17.38,0
Corsica:CorsicaS03308,3.67,0,1.51,0.38,38.84,19.16,0.13,0,9.14,0,26.96,0.2
Corsica:CorsicaS04208,4.98,0,2.01,0,38.89,20.48,0,0,7.2,0.26,26.19,0
Corsica:CorsicaS10208,2.74,0,2.53,0.63,42.75,16.41,0,0,7.73,0,27.22,0
Corsica_o:CorsicaS13308,7.37,0.22,1.36,0.25,38.43,38.49,0,0.3,0.94,0,12.65,0
Corsica:CorsicaS13808,1.28,0,2.72,0.61,37.07,20.16,0.01,0,7.78,1.21,27.3,1.84
Corsica:CorsicaS15608,2.46,0,3.23,0,38.15,18.09,0,0,8.66,0,24.56,4.85
Corsica:CorsicaS29908,4.78,0,3.8,0.2,37.65,18.75,0,0.13,7.61,0,27.08,0
Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:ALP081,4.34,0.84,2.33,0,36.22,29.46,0.26,0.04,5.34,0,21.18,0
Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:ALP093,6.43,0.41,0.05,0,33.92,32.71,0,0.07,5.38,0,21.03,0
Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:ALP188,4.99,0.74,0.01,0,26.21,47.57,0,0,3.72,0.76,16.00,0
Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:ALP220,5.39,0,0,0.17,34.02,36.20,0,0,6.01,0,18.14,0.05
Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:ALP233,4.08,0,0,0,34.26,30.43,0.52,0,6.58,0.50,23.63,0
Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:ALP235,5.64,0.57,1.23,0.01,35.63,28.80,0.84,0,5.51,0,21.76,0
Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:ALP346,6.20,0.81,0.77,0,34.42,29.93,0,0,6.17,0.18,21.52,0
Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:ALP354,5.56,0.50,0.39,0,37.04,29.93,0,0,6.12,0,20.32,0.14
Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:ALP259,3.03,0,1.50,0,39.87,28.48,0,0,5.82,0,21.30,0
Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:ALP280,5.74,0,0.56,0,37.35,28.82,0.30,0,4.85,0,22.40,0
Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:ALP435,5.42,0.70,0.01,0,31.91,35.91,0,0.24,6.52,0,19.29,0
Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:ALP506,3.59,0.13,0.92,0,36.19,30.55,0,0,5.31,0.19,23.12,0
Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:KF1800761,4.15,0.03,1.60,0.62,35.36,29.80,0,0.10,6.99,0,21.35,0
Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:KF1803129,3.70,0,1.39,0,35.87,31.44,0,0,5.88,0.31,21.41,0
Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:KF2700922,4.76,0.29,0.58,0.30,32.64,33.31,0.22,0,6.10,0,21.79,0.02
Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:KF2700960,6.04,0.50,1.49,0,35.21,30.23,0,0,6.36,0.30,19.88,0
Lazio:NOR24,7.94,0,1.16,0,33.01,15.72,0,0.08,10.15,0,31.94,0
Lazio:NOR28,8.17,0.11,2.62,0.22,31.46,15.60,0,0,11.20,0,30.62,0
Lazio:PG28,4.14,0,2.92,0,34.41,18.64,0,0,11.40,0,28.49,0
Lazio:PG30,6.88,0,2.01,0,32.07,18.84,0,0.19,11.81,0.04,28.16,0
Liguria:ALP099,5.13,0,2.43,0,36.41,24.40,0.65,0.05,6.88,0.51,23.32,0.22
Lombardy:ALP288,6.04,0.79,1.67,0,36.54,24.68,0,0.23,7.79,0,22.27,0
Marche:MarABG010D,6.05,0,3.02,0.18,32.69,19.66,0.12,0.25,10.45,0,27.57,0
Marche:MarABI020D,7.25,0,3.21,0,33.85,17.74,0,0.10,8.68,0,28.86,0.32
Marche:MarABN020D,7.08,0.73,1.75,0.22,31.78,18.77,0,0,10.49,0,29.18,0
Marche:MarABP050D,7.43,0,2.35,0,32.72,17.90,0,0.21,9.80,0.20,29.41,0
Marche:MarABQ080D,6.21,0.17,1.89,0,32.81,19.04,0,0,10.96,0.12,28.79,0
Marche:MarABU050D,7.29,0,1.62,0,33.47,21.39,0,0,9.14,1.17,25.92,0
Marche:MarABY030D,6.75,0,3.69,0,29.95,18.59,0,0.23,11.27,0,29.52,0
Marche:MarACO100D,6.86,0,2.00,0,30.72,17.68,0,0,12.10,0.08,30.56,0
Marche:MarACV100D,7.26,0,1.62,0,31.47,21.05,0.39,0,10.41,0.48,27.31,0
Marche:MarACW030D,6.82,0,3.04,0,33.76,20.81,0,0,8.63,0,26.94,0
Marche:MarACW080D,9.16,0.87,0.94,0,31.17,19.68,0,0,9.61,0,28.58,0
Marche:MarACY030D,6.26,0,2.36,0.35,31.64,18.52,0.43,0,10.01,0,30.43,0
Marche:MarADC050D,4.77,0,1.93,0,33.54,20.62,0.11,0,7.86,0,31.17,0
Marche:MarADG030D,6.69,0,2.77,0,31.83,21.00,0.02,0,10.04,0.11,27.55,0
Molise:PG26_Molise,7.76,0,2.20,0,29.91,16.67,0,0.57,10.84,0,32.01,0.04
Molise:PG27,6.36,0.05,1.15,0.55,29.66,17.90,0,0,10.92,0.28,32.78,0.33
Piedmont:ItalyPiedmont43,6.32,0.08,2.5,0,35.55,19.88,0,0,6.57,0,28.97,0.13
Piedmont_o:ItalyPiedmont52,9.09,0,3.54,0,27.05,12.21,0,0,12.72,0,35.36,0.05
Piedmont:ItalyPiedmont63,5.97,0,3.23,0,36.24,24.72,0,0,7.02,1.33,21.48,0
Piedmont:ItalyPiedmont98,3.35,0.27,1.49,0,38.12,24.53,0,0,7.46,0,24.73,0.06
Piedmont:ItalyPiedmont119,5.5,0,0.2,0,38.44,23.31,0.47,0,7.95,0,24.08,0.05
Piedmont:ItalyPiedmont127,7.64,0,1.6,0,38.18,26.89,0.74,0,5.46,0,19.27,0.22
Piedmont:ItalyPiedmont136,5.02,0,2.13,0,34.76,23.49,0,0,8.51,0.47,25.61,0
Piedmont:ItalyPiedmont145,7.61,0,2.05,0,35.25,20.41,0.32,0.65,8.46,0,25.25,0
Piedmont:ItalyPiedmont149,6.42,0,0.73,0.14,38.04,22.44,0,0,7.73,0,24.5,0
Piedmont:Piedmont61,3.32,0,0.92,0.83,36.11,27.44,0,0,6.42,0,24.96,0
Piedmont:Piedmont154,5.64,0.2,2.13,0.2,30.39,24.58,0.42,0.08,9.22,0,26.88,0.27
Trentino-Alto-Adige:ALP070,5.23,0.08,0.80,0,38.53,31.31,0,0,5.23,0.41,18.42,0
Trentino-Alto-Adige:ALP071,4.72,0,0.88,0,37.95,33.21,0,0,4.51,0.47,18.18,0.09
Trentino-Alto-Adige:ALP114,5.13,0.56,1.16,0,38.67,21.62,0,0,7.86,0,25,0
Trentino-Alto-Adige:ALP200,5.96,0,0.65,0,35.41,26.93,0.24,0,7.64,0.25,22.93,0
Trentino-Alto-Adige:ALP395,4.20,0,0.07,0,38.17,29.09,0.83,0,5.00,0,22.64,0
Trentino-Alto-Adige:ALP414,4.90,1.04,0.99,0,29.11,46.33,0.19,0,3.54,0,13.91,0
Trentino-Alto-Adige:ALP420,5.76,0,0.48,0,39.10,28.16,0.12,0,6.97,0.13,19.29,0
Tuscany:MURLO114,5.80,0,3.27,0,34.81,20.54,1.23,0,8.47,0.02,25.86,0
Tuscany:VO59,7.52,0,0.82,0.28,35.01,21.98,0,0,9.50,0,24.88,0
Tuscany:VO65,3.64,0,2.60,0.17,35.94,21.03,0,0.20,8.37,0,28.06,0
Tuscany:VO109,3.75,0.22,2.79,0,32.67,21.45,0.79,0,10.67,0,27.56,0.09
Tuscany:Tuscany27,4.82,0,3.75,0,35.18,21.7,0.36,0.01,6.73,0,27.46,0
Tuscany:Tuscany38,5.91,0,2.51,0,35.32,21.18,0,0,9.45,0.45,25.18,0
Tuscany:Tuscany54,7.01,0,2.21,0,34.19,20.9,0,0.17,7.67,0,27.86,0
Tuscany:Tuscany74,5.69,0,1.45,0,33.43,21.51,0.73,0,8.32,0.24,27.29,1.34
Tuscany:Tuscany93,7.24,1.11,2.38,0,35.07,20.46,0,0.12,9.54,0,24.09,0
Tuscany:Tuscany98,5.92,0,2.49,0,37.13,21.1,0.94,0,5.93,0,26.48,0 
Tuscany:Tuscany65,3.31,0,2.27,0.11,36.17,21.11,0.03,0.45,8.96,0,27.59,0
Umbria:PG03,5.94,0,2.12,0,32.67,17.12,0.56,0.20,11.11,0.02,30.25,0
Umbria:PG04,6.34,0.25,2.53,0,30.64,20.66,0,0,9.10,0,30.47,0
Umbria:PG06,8.95,0.13,1.08,0.52,30.94,17.60,0.02,0,8.80,0,31.89,0.06
Umbria:PG07,7.81,0.34,3.48,0,32.31,17.63,0,0,10.47,0,27.96,0
Umbria:PG08,5.00,0,2.37,0.43,35.24,21.61,0.48,0,7.69,0.03,27.15,0
Umbria:PG11,7.93,0.01,2.36,0,33.05,19.77,0,0,8.56,0,28.32,0
Umbria:PG12,8.62,0.02,1.77,0.07,34.90,20.05,0,0,7.63,0.04,26.90,0
Umbria:PG15,7.94,0,2.72,0,32.52,16.83,0.67,0,10.33,0,28.99,0
Veneto:ALP022,6.59,0,0.49,0,36.53,27.87,0,0,7.34,0,21.18,0
Veneto:ALP040,5.15,0,1.04,0,41.60,25.12,0,0,3.85,0,23.24,0
Veneto:Alp100,4.58,0.41,0.87,0.93,39.09,28.70,0,0,7.01,0.28,18.13,0
Veneto:ALP116,5.45,0.19,2.34,0,36.99,24.61,0,0,7.69,0,22.73,0
Veneto:ALP209,4.85,0,2.14,0,34.32,25.27,0,0,7.89,0,25.49,0.04
Veneto:ALP249,5.45,0,2.23,0,35.92,27.84,0.14,0,5.44,0,22.98,0
Veneto:ALP250,4.19,0.15,0.96,0.11,37.49,30.40,0.47,0,6.61,0.02,19.60,0
Veneto:ALP273,4.14,0.12,0.71,0,35.42,29.00,0.35,0,7.02,0,23.07,0.16
Veneto:ALP322,3.54,0,1.12,0,35.56,30.22,0.15,0,5.64,0,23.77,0
Veneto:ALP378,5.59,0.04,0.53,0,35.23,29.58,0.40,0,4.93,0,23.71,0
Veneto:Alp401,5.76,0,0.27,0.72,39.59,27.28,0,0,5.84,0,20.49,0.04
Veneto:KF1800751,4.56,0,0.81,0,38.52,26.88,0,0.05,7.07,0,22.11,0
Veneto:KF1800772,5.25,0,1.04,0,38.57,25.21,0.67,0,5.09,0,24.17,0
Veneto:KF1803105,4.62,0,1.32,0.04,37.25,29.44,0,0.07,5.73,0,21.53,0
Veneto:KF1803109,4.97,0.48,2.18,0,36.60,25.47,0,0,8.09,0,22.22,0
Veneto:KF1803151,7.23,0,0,1.06,36.73,29.47,0.05,0,6.47,0,18.99,0
Portugal:Portugal1,5.41,0.5,5.67,0,43.55,25.18,1.21,0.91,4.74,0,12.03,0.79
Portugal:Portugal2,5.4,0,7.5,0,38.67,23.2,0,0.97,6.53,1.17,15.67,0.9
Portugal:Portugal3,4.01,0,6.46,0.79,39.78,24.55,0.17,1.02,6.86,0,16.09,0.26
Portugal:Portugal6,5.74,0,7.35,0,43.87,26.24,0,0.64,5.19,0.12,10.81,0.04
Portugal:Portugal7,5.52,0,5.04,0.11,40.96,25.38,0,1.89,7.59,0,13.5,0
Portugal:Portugal9,4.14,0,4.79,0,42.71,25.35,2.15,1.94,5.72,0,13.1,0.09
Portugal:Portugal10,4.93,0.46,6.42,0,40.3,25.78,0,0.17,7.42,0,13.84,0.67
Portugal:Portugal11,6.46,0.27,5.76,0.07,40.11,26.43,0.43,0.67,7.91,0,11.19,0.69
Portugal:Portugal12,4.44,0,5.39,0,40.08,25.22,0,0.48,6.49,0.66,16.18,1.05
Portugal:Portugal13,7.01,0,5.76,0,42.81,24.46,0.24,0.49,5.13,0,13.69,0.41
French_Provence:provance2508,7.26,0,1.78,0,38.31,29.71,0.33,0.1,5.17,0,17.33,0
French_Provence:provance2708,7.31,0,2.41,0,37.55,24.46,0,0.34,8.19,0,19.64,0.11
French_Provence:provance4109,6.83,0,2.75,0.62,42.38,29.65,0,0,4.95,0,12.82,0
French_Provence:provance4409,7.03,0.52,0.82,0,33.84,37.78,0.32,0,3.48,0,15.4,0.81
French_Provence:provance4509,6.92,0,1.79,0,41.48,32.14,0,0,4.23,0,13.42,0
```

----------


## Dibran

> Here are all of the samples Salento posted, combined with the HGDP samples of Northern Italy, Sardinia, and Tuscany for Dodecad K12b.
> 
> Let's allocate more official academic Italian samples from other studies.
> 
> 
> 
> ```
> Sardinian_HGDP00665,0,0,1.7,0,67.49,0,0.41,0,6.47,0.38,23.55,0
> Sardinian_HGDP00666,0,0,1.92,0,69.63,0,0,0,4.06,0,24.39,0
> ...



Nice!! This is what myself, mother, father, and Kosovar friend(from Podujeva) get. Wasn't sure how to do two-way runs. The vahaduo source engine im using doesn't have that feature.

*Me:*




*Mother:
*



*Father:*




*Albanian_Kosova_Podujeva:*

----------


## Duarte

Thank you Pax



```
Portugal:Portugal1,5.41,0.5,5.67,0,43.55,25.18,1.21,0.91,4.74,0,12.03,0.79
Portugal:Portugal2,5.4,0,7.5,0,38.67,23.2,0,0.97,6.53,1.17,15.67,0.9
Portugal:Portugal3,4.01,0,6.46,0.79,39.78,24.55,0.17,1.02,6.86,0,16.09,0.26
Portugal:Portugal6,5.74,0,7.35,0,43.87,26.24,0,0.64,5.19,0.12,10.81,0.04
Portugal:Portugal7,5.52,0,5.04,0.11,40.96,25.38,0,1.89,7.59,0,13.5,0
Portugal:Portugal9,4.14,0,4.79,0,42.71,25.35,2.15,1.94,5.72,0,13.1,0.09
Portugal:Portugal:Portugal10,4.93,0.46,6.42,0,40.3,25.78,0,0.17,7.42,0,13.84,0.67
Portugal:Portugal11,6.46,0.27,5.76,0.07,40.11,26.43,0.43,0.67,7.91,0,11.19,0.69
Portugal:Portugal12,4.44,0,5.39,0,40.08,25.22,0,0.48,6.49,0.66,16.18,1.05
Portugal:Portugal13,7.01,0,5.76,0,42.81,24.46,0.24,0.49,5.13,0,13.69,0.41
```

Distance to:
Duarte

4.87056010
70.40% Portugal:Portugal1 + 29.60% Portugal:Portugal2

5.11094081
76.20% Portugal:Portugal1 + 23.80% Portugal:Portugal12

5.13962549
79.40% Portugal:Portugal1 + 20.60% Portugal:Portugal3

5.17435914
58.80% Portugal:Portugal1 + 41.20% Portugal:Portugal13

5.28630075
91.20% Portugal:Portugal1 + 8.80% Portugal:Portugal:Portugal10

5.30282975
97.20% Portugal:Portugal1 + 2.80% Portugal:Portugal7

5.31860057
20.00% Portugal:Portugal2 + 80.00% Portugal:Portugal13

5.39790822
13.40% Portugal:Portugal12 + 86.60% Portugal:Portugal13

5.40050933
15.60% Portugal:Portugal9 + 84.40% Portugal:Portugal13

5.40770562
10.60% Portugal:Portugal3 + 89.40% Portugal:Portugal13

5.66870946
48.80% Portugal:Portugal2 + 51.20% Portugal:Portugal6

5.77748865
41.20% Portugal:Portugal2 + 58.80% Portugal:Portugal9

5.82321617
49.60% Portugal:Portugal6 + 50.40% Portugal:Portugal12

5.98115870
45.80% Portugal:Portugal3 + 54.20% Portugal:Portugal6

6.09840815
61.60% Portugal:Portugal9 + 38.40% Portugal:Portugal12

6.15750071
36.20% Portugal:Portugal6 + 63.80% Portugal:Portugal9

6.19788165
30.20% Portugal:Portugal3 + 69.80% Portugal:Portugal9

6.21633800
66.80% Portugal:Portugal9 + 33.20% Portugal:Portugal:Portugal10

6.30604879
79.40% Portugal:Portugal9 + 20.60% Portugal:Portugal11

6.33622010
24.60% Portugal:Portugal7 + 75.40% Portugal:Portugal9

6.34257175
50.80% Portugal:Portugal6 + 49.20% Portugal:Portugal7

6.34822311
51.20% Portugal:Portugal6 + 48.80% Portugal:Portugal:Portugal10

6.48549706
47.80% Portugal:Portugal2 + 52.20% Portugal:Portugal7

6.51984418
60.40% Portugal:Portugal2 + 39.60% Portugal:Portugal11

6.54989064
34.60% Portugal:Portugal11 + 65.40% Portugal:Portugal12

----------


## Pax Augusta

> Nice!! This is what myself, mother, father, and Kosovar friend(from Podujeva) get. Wasn't sure how to do two-way runs. The vahaduo source engine im using doesn't have that feature.



Dibran, try also #879, there are more samples

----------


## enter_tain

> A lot of Northern Albanians are closer to Northern/Central Italians than Southern Italians, such as myself. Apulia is the closest southern population to me, other South Italian groups, not as much. This is my Eurogenes K36 similarity map, I haven't done G25 yet but I will soon to compare the differences with K36.
> 
> 
> Attachment 13321
> 
> Not sure why the file size decreased when I uploaded this screenshot, made it blurry
> 
> Venice: 77
> Lombardy: 74
> ...


Why would this be the case? Northern Albania was more isolated during the migration age. The south should have higher Slavic/Gothic admixture. There is higher R1a and I2. I1 is more pocketed (Dibra has high % IIRC), but places like Vlore have like 15% I1 if I'm not mistaken.

----------


## Dibran

> Dibran, try also #879, there are more samples


Mostly stayed the same for everyone.

Mine changed a bit:


Distances still the same but this is how admixture changed.

Target: Dibran
Distance: 191.4809% / 1.91480877

50.0 Tuscan_HGDP
40.8 Albanian
9.2 Basilicata

----------


## torzio

> 



of course and correct Daunians plot next to north-Italians their origins are with the Iapodes, a illyrian tribe sitting on the modern border of slovenia and croatia

----------


## torzio

Distance to:	Torziok12b
1.83711731	Veneto:ALP022
2.08712721	Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:ALP235
2.80196360	Veneto:ALP249
2.82104591	Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:KF2700960
2.84116173	Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:ALP346
3.05674664	Trentino-Alto-Adige:ALP200
3.09166622	Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:ALP354
3.11242671	Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:ALP280
3.25023076	Veneto:KF1803151
3.28800852	Veneto:KF1803105
3.42483576	Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:ALP081
3.61798286	Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:KF1800761
3.89629311	Veneto:ALP378
3.92330218	Veneto:ALP273
4.13805510	Trentino-Alto-Adige:ALP420
4.16438471	Veneto:KF1803109
4.19916658	Veneto:KF1800751
4.21149617	Lombrardy:ALP288
4.21709616	N_Italy:HGDP01154
4.36495132	Veneto:ALP250
4.37962327	Veneto:Alp401
4.60943597	Aosta-Valley:ALP225_Aosta-Valley
4.63782277	Trentino-Alto-Adige:ALP395
4.66079392	Veneto:ALP116
4.85242208	Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:KF1803129


Target: Torziok12b
Distance: 0.3778% / 0.37777438
30.7	Aosta-Valley
22.2	N_Italy
15.1	Trentino-Alto-Adige
13.2	Campania
11.2	Veneto
4.2	ITS7
3.4	Friuli-Venezia-Giulia

----------


## torzio

my father is more "pure" North east Italian

Distance to:	Ponsan_K12b
2.04137209	Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:KF1800761
2.17639610	Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:KF2700960
2.19034244	Veneto:ALP250
2.25153281	Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:ALP354
2.64340689	Veneto:KF1803105
2.70848666	Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:ALP235
2.73808327	Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:ALP081
2.82092184	Veneto:ALP022
3.14057320	Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:ALP346
3.22077630	Veneto:KF1803151
3.30548030	Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:KF1803129
3.36611052	Veneto:ALP273
3.64498285	Trentino-Alto-Adige:ALP420
3.79529972	N_Italy:HGDP01154
3.86326287	Veneto:Alp100
3.87063302	Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:ALP280
3.98472082	Veneto:ALP249
4.09752364	Trentino-Alto-Adige:ALP200
4.20815874	Veneto:KF1800751
4.22960991	Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:ALP506
4.25717042	Trentino-Alto-Adige:ALP070
4.32677709	Trentino-Alto-Adige:ALP395
4.52066367	Veneto:ALP322
4.58528080	Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:ALP233
4.59798869	Veneto:ALP378


Target: Ponsan_K12b
Distance: 0.5027% / 0.50274063
44.8	Veneto
23.0	Trentino-Alto-Adige
17.9	Abruzzo
8.1	Sardinian_HGDP01071
5.2	Friuli-Venezia-Giulia
0.8	Basilicata
0.2	Trapani

----------


## torzio

@Jovialis

From 2005-2010 Nat Geno did a 5 year study on Venice proper DNA ( that is Venice the its islands ) and took 22 samples ( all samples began with Id..BA) of people that had to have been their for over 250 years. of these 22 a few where part of the "nobility" of Venice and where found to be only 2 types of ydna, G2a and I1 ..............the I1 as per Savli, one of the analysis stated these I1 was mostly from the area of lusatia ( see map )

----------


## Duarte

> Duarte, Salento also made modern samples of Portuguese people, you can find them in here.
> 
> 
> 
> ```
> N_Italy_HGDP:HGDP01147,3.37,0,0.67,0,41.17,27.3,0,0,4.17,0.07,23.25,0
> N_Italy_HGDP:HGDP01151,5.45,1.55,0,0,37.13,28.15,0,0,1.28,0,26.44,0
> N_Italy_HGDP:HGDP01152,3.41,0,1.18,0,41.02,24.23,0.14,0,7.19,0,22.82,0
> N_Italy_HGDP:HGDP01153,5.85,0,0.67,0,45.37,20.75,0,0,7.09,0,20.27,0
> ...


Nice Pax. To the data tabulated by you above, I added the K12b coordinates for the existing Iberian samples in 1000 Genomes. My overall result was as follows:



```
Andalucia_1000Genomes,7.19,0.00,5.09,0.00,52.55,18.08,0.00,0.60,3.20,0.10,12.89,0.30
Aragon_1000Genomes,6.31,0.10,3.40,0.00,56.16,21.82,0.40,0.00,3.00,0.00,8.81,0.00
Baleares_1000Genomes,5.50,0.00,3.70,0.00,49.40,22.50,0.20,0.00,4.40,0.00,14.20,0.10
Canarias_1000Genomes,5.00,0.30,11.80,0.60,46.70,17.60,0.10,2.80,3.70,0.00,11.20,0.20
Cantabria_1000Genomes,5.70,0.10,3.10,0.00,54.80,23.50,0.30,0.30,3.00,0.00,8.90,0.30
Castilla_La_Mancha_1000Genomes,6.80,0.40,3.50,0.00,54.30,21.10,0.00,0.60,4.50,0.00,8.80,0.00
Castilla_Y_Leon_1000Genomes,5.40,0.00,6.10,0.00,51.20,22.30,0.40,0.60,4.00,0.00,10.00,0.00
Cataluna_1000Genomes,7.30,0.00,2.40,0.00,52.10,25.20,0.30,0.00,3.50,0.00,9.20,0.00
Extremadura_1000Genomes,6.91,0.00,6.01,0.00,48.25,22.12,0.30,1.00,4.30,0.00,10.71,0.40
Galicia_1000Genomes,5.09,0.00,5.00,0.00,48.25,23.38,0.70,0.90,5.39,0.00,11.09,0.20
Murcia_1000Genomes,5.50,0.00,6.00,0.00,50.60,19.60,0.00,0.20,5.90,0.60,11.20,0.40
Pais_Vasco_1000Genomes,9.10,0.00,0.00,0.00,67.30,22.40,0.00,0.00,1.20,0.00,0.00,0.00
Valencia_1000Genomes,6.81,0.00,3.00,0.00,55.46,22.22,0.00,0.00,2.40,0.00,9.91,0.20
```

Target: Duarte
Distance: 4.0920% / 4.09196187

45.5
Canarias_1000Genomes



27.1
French_Provence-Provance4409



20.3
Corsica:CorsicaS15608



7.1
Pais_Vasco_1000Genomes





Target: Duarte
Distance: 4.5977% / 4.59773447 | R2P

81.9
Portugal:Portugal1



14.5
Corsica:CorsicaS15608



3.6
Portugal:Portugal2





Target: Duarte
Distance: 4.5977% / 4.59773447 | R2P

85.5
Portugal



14.5
Corsica





Distance to:
Duarte

4.60076850
15.60% Corsica:CorsicaS15608 + 84.40% Portugal:Portugal1

4.82129406
7.80% Trapani:TP05_LazaridisNat2014 + 92.20% Portugal:Portugal1

4.86711957
6.80% W-Sicily:21 + 93.20% Portugal:Portugal1

4.87056010
70.40% Portugal:Portugal1 + 29.60% Portugal:Portugal2

4.90901703
6.60% Campania:NaN195ST + 93.40% Portugal:Portugal1

4.91149804
6.80% Trapani:TP07_LazaridisNat2014 + 93.20% Portugal:Portugal1

4.91839320
7.40% Siracusa:SR64_LazaridisNat2014 + 92.60% Portugal:Portugal1

4.92740166
6.80% C-Sicily:50 + 93.20% Portugal:Portugal1

4.92811240
6.80% Ag-Sicily:8 + 93.20% Portugal:Portugal1

4.92853651
6.40% W-Sicily:5a + 93.60% Portugal:Portugal1

4.92910917
6.40% W-Sicily:1 + 93.60% Portugal:Portugal1

4.93646529
6.60% Ag-Sicily:5 + 93.40% Portugal:Portugal1

4.94175361
6.60% Siracusa:SR60_LazaridisNat2014 + 93.40% Portugal:Portugal1

4.94177753
5.60% Calabria:ALP582 + 94.40% Portugal:Portugal1

4.94491066
5.80% ITS4 + 94.20% Portugal:Portugal1

4.95162790
6.80% Basilicata:PG24 + 93.20% Portugal:Portugal1

4.95355058
6.00% Basilicata:PG16 + 94.00% Portugal:Portugal1

4.95958793
5.60% Apulia:Pu8 + 94.40% Portugal:Portugal1

4.96127189
6.20% W-Sicily:3 + 93.80% Portugal:Portugal1

4.96228047
7.00% Apulia:cera1 + 93.00% Portugal:Portugal1

4.96344921
5.60% Campania:NaN65DFG + 94.40% Portugal:Portugal1

4.96525743
6.40% Campania:NaN58AC + 93.60% Portugal:Portugal1

4.96952865
10.00% Corsica:CorsicaS13808 + 90.00% Portugal:Portugal1

4.97088342
5.60% Piedmont_o:ItalyPiedmont52 + 94.40% Portugal:Portugal1

4.97220453
6.00% Campania:NaN289RM + 94.00% Portugal:Portugal1

----------


## lockdownboredom

> Duarte, Salento also made modern samples of Portuguese people, you can find them in here.
> 
> 
> 
> ```
> Portugal:Portugal13,7.01,0,5.76,0,42.81,24.46,0.24,0.49,5.13,0,13.69,0.41
> French_Provence:provance2508,7.26,0,1.78,0,38.31,29.71,0.33,0.1,5.17,0,17.33,0
> French_Provence:provance2708,7.31,0,2.41,0,37.55,24.46,0,0.34,8.19,0,19.64,0.11
> French_Provence:provance4109,6.83,0,2.75,0.62,42.38,29.65,0,0,4.95,0,12.82,0
> ...


These are Dodecad K12B results, right?

My result as an Epirote


Distance to:
LB

2.33353809
Piedmont:Piedmont154

3.24080237
Albanian:AL9

4.99245431
Albanian:AL17

5.23295328
Marche:MarACV100D

5.32491314
Albanian:AL82

5.33348854
Veneto:ALP209

5.37910773
Marche:MarADG030D

5.62443775
Tuscany:Tuscany74

5.71213620
Albanian:AL29

5.77704076
Albanian:AL12

5.83840732
Umbria:PG04

5.84276476
Marche:MarABU050D

5.94726828
Piedmont:ItalyPiedmont136

6.18309793
Albanian:AL98

6.26989633
Tuscany:Tuscany54

6.27323680
Marche:MarACW030D

6.52907344
Tuscany:VO109

6.57629075
Marche:MarACW080D

6.64724755
Umbria:PG11

6.86929400
Tuscany:VO59

6.92956709
Umbria:PG08

7.06613048
Marche:MarABG010D

7.30898762
Marche:MarADC050D

7.31700759
Tuscany:Tuscany27

7.34222037
Abruzzo:ALP161





Target: LB
Distance: 14.4744% / 0.14474429

44.2
Basilicata



38.8
Friuli-Venezia-Giulia



7.0
Lazio



3.8
Albanian



2.8
Trentino-Alto-Adige



2.8
Umbria



0.6
Corsica_o

----------


## lockdownboredom

LB,7.01,0.14,1.36,0,30.07,25.51,0,0,8.21,0,27.71,0
LBCousin,6.41,0,2.14,0,28.26,26.24,0,0,7.78,0,29.1 6,0

Distant cousins result, also an Epirote.

Distance to:
LBCousin

3.21902159
Albanian:AL82

3.58937320
Albanian:AL9

3.93614024
Piedmont:Piedmont154

5.12742625
Albanian:AL98

5.41446212
Albanian:AL17

5.55216174
Albanian:AL29

6.36229518
Umbria:PG04

6.95629212
Marche:MarADG030D

6.99678498
Marche:MarACV100D

7.06611633
Albanian:AL12

7.31988388
Veneto:ALP209

7.50139320
Tuscany:Tuscany74

7.84110962
Tuscany:VO109

7.89860747
Abruzzo:ALP161

8.05893293
Marche:MarACW080D

8.06851907
Piedmont:ItalyPiedmont136

8.08872672
Marche:MarABU050D

8.11026510
Tuscany:Tuscany54

8.13972358
Marche:MarADC050D

8.14640411
Marche:MarACW030D

8.27513746
Umbria:PG11

8.57855466
Marche:MarABG010D

8.73265710
Marche:MarABY030D

8.75572384
Umbria:PG08

8.75888692
Marche:MarABN020D





Target: LBCousin
Distance: 18.8508% / 0.18850794

58.0
Basilicata



36.0
Friuli-Venezia-Giulia



3.6
Trentino-Alto-Adige



1.6
Veneto



0.4
Albanian



0.2
Apulia



0.2
Marche

----------


## Illyria

> Why would this be the case? Northern Albania was more isolated during the migration age. The south should have higher Slavic/Gothic admixture. There is higher R1a and I2. I1 is more pocketed (Dibra has high % IIRC), but places like Vlore have like 15% I1 if I'm not mistaken.


Not sure, maybe medieval slavic admixture with montenegrins, or maybe older, the ancient Balkans did have trade with Baltic groups, amber, women, etc, around Pannonia and the Danube IIRC

The Proto-Illyrian samples plot more northern and western than Albanians, I'm not exactly sure if they had a lot Atlantic and Baltic admix, but that would definitely make someone plot more northern, so maybe they did, but I'm not sure. Then of course by the time they settled more south into the Balkans, they assimilated more Southern plotting groups, which gave the modern admix of Albanians today.

I'm new to the admix stuff as far as all the new programs (I've only done Eurogenes and other Gedmatch calculators years ago), but I have noticed that especially Malesores from Northern Albania & MNE, and sometimes Kosovars, have_ slightly_ higher Baltic and Atlantic than other Albanians. I researched it years ago, reading multiple threads on Albanian samples from specific regions and seeing how they differ in admixture. Threads from here, anthrogenica, and theapricity

It is true that Malsi has the least foreign haplogroups (i2,R1a,i1, etc) in all of Albania, yet slightly higher Baltic and Atlantic, even though Slavic admixture is rare. It is kind of odd, but I'm assuming since Malsi is the most J2b2 heavy region, maybe this heightened Baltic and Atlantic was "kept" more so here than elsewhere from Early Illyrians. Maybe also from medieval slavic admixture, but who knows the extent to which that happened 700 years ago. I would assume that happened more for royal families, and not much for the majority of Malsi. I myself got 0% Slavic, 4% Irish, 96% Greek/Italian/Balkan, on FTDNA. I've also heard that 23andme and MyAncestryDNA might be better than FTDNA for admixture, I might get another test to see if it detects any Slavic admix

Also despite Southern Albania having more foreign haplogroups, they do plot more Southern than Northern Albanians. Slightly less Atlantic and Baltic, slightly more Med. By no means is there a huge difference though, Albanians do form a decently tight cluster.

Here's an old Eurogenes K15 PCA map of Albanian members from theapricity, the extreme North plots more North West, the extreme South plots more South East. 

Attachment 13325

I plot to the right of Fustan, and just above IceT. All of my known ancestry is from Malsi. I remember that Ylla, Leapfrogger, and Era, were Southern Albanians, they plot more South East. In the middle of the cluster, is usually where Central-Gheg, Central-Tosk Albanians plot. So, it's like the core of Arber are in the middle, the extreme northerners are more North West, and the extreme southerners are more South East

----------


## Dibran

> Not sure, maybe medieval slavic admixture with montenegrins, or maybe older, the ancient Balkans did have trade with Baltic groups, amber, women, etc, around Pannonia and the Danube IIRC
> The Proto-Illyrian samples plot more northern and western than Albanians, I'm not exactly sure if they had a lot Atlantic and Baltic admix, but that would definitely make someone plot more northern, so maybe they did, but I'm not sure. Then of course by the time they settled more south into the Balkans, they assimilated more Southern plotting groups, which gave the modern admix of Albanians today.
> I'm new to the admix stuff as far as all the new programs (I've only done Eurogenes and other Gedmatch calculators years ago), but I have noticed that especially Malesores from Northern Albania & MNE, and sometimes Kosovars, have_ slightly_ higher Baltic and Atlantic than other Albanians. I researched it years ago, reading multiple threads on Albanian samples from specific regions and seeing how they differ in admixture. Threads from here, anthrogenica, and theapricity
> It is true that Malsi has the least foreign haplogroups (i2,R1a,i1, etc) in all of Albania, yet slightly higher Baltic and Atlantic, even though Slavic admixture is rare. It is kind of odd, but I'm assuming since Malsi is the most J2b2 heavy region, maybe this heightened Baltic and Atlantic was "kept" more so here than elsewhere from Early Illyrians. Maybe also from medieval slavic admixture, but who knows the extent to which that happened 700 years ago. I would assume that happened more for royal families, and not much for the majority of Malsi. I myself got 0% Slavic, 4% Irish, 96% Greek/Italian/Balkan, on FTDNA. I've also heard that 23andme and MyAncestryDNA might be better than FTDNA for admixture, I might get another test to see if it detects any Slavic admix
> Also despite Southern Albania having more foreign haplogroups, they do plot more Southern than Northern Albanians. Slightly less Atlantic and Baltic, slightly more Med. By no means is there a huge difference though, Albanians do form a decently tight cluster.
> Here's an old Eurogenes K15 PCA map of Albanian members from theapricity, the extreme North plots more North West, the extreme South plots more South East. 
> Attachment 13325
> I plot to the right of Fustan, and just above IceT. All of my known ancestry is from Malsi. I remember that Ylla, Leapfrogger, and Era, were Southern Albanians, they plot more South East. In the middle of the cluster, is usually where Central-Gheg, Central-Tosk Albanians plot. So, it's like the core of Arber are in the middle, the extreme northerners are more North West, and the extreme southerners are more South East


I plot right to the south west if Ylla. A bit mire Tuscan shifted. My father just south east of Ylla. That's a old PCA though.

There's also too few Albanian samples. My mother for instance is paternally from Malzi, Kukues and maternally from Shkoder highlands through her mother and they plot just as south. 

Im going to see if I can find some pca models from ph2ter. My father is from Okshtun, Diber on all sides for a few generations and he's very Southern shifted. We each get a chunk of Sardinian in top of Albanian, something Italian like l, and Slavic or Baltic like.

----------


## italouruguayan

My results...

Distance to:	italouruguayan

14.56452883	Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:ALP346
14.61209088	Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:KF2700960
14.75188801	Piedmont:ItalyPiedmont63
15.11099600	Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:ALP235
15.23157904	Piedmont:Piedmont154
15.33053489	Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:KF1800761
15.36169262	Albanian:AL9
15.36592984	Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:ALP081
15.46325968	Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:KF2700922
15.47954780	Trentino-Alto-Adige:ALP200
15.49061006	Lombardy:ALP288
15.64385502	Veneto:KF1803109
15.64774425	Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:ALP093
15.74394804	Veneto:KF1803151
15.76775190	French_Provence :Poh: rovance2708
15.79570511	Veneto:ALP249
15.81454078	Veneto:ALP022
15.81561570	Liguria:ALP099
15.94113547	Veneto:ALP273
15.97190346	Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:ALP233
15.98958724	Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:ALP435
16.01970974	Veneto:ALP209
16.05811010	Corsica_o:corsica11908
16.13327927	Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:ALP354
16.17407493	Veneto:ALP116
16.18429177	Piedmont:ItalyPiedmont127
16.19045398	Portugal:Portugal2
16.21393228	Tuscany:Tuscany93

----------


## Illyria

> I plot right to the south west if Ylla. A bit mire Tuscan shifted. My father just south east of Ylla. That's a old PCA though.
> There's also too few Albanian samples. My mother for instance is paternally from Malzi, Kukues and maternally from Shkoder highlands through her mother and they plot just as south. 
> Im going to see if I can find some pca models from ph2ter. My father is from Okshtun, Diber on all sides for a few generations and he's very Southern shifted. We each get a chunk of Sardinian in top of Albanian, something Italian like l, and Slavic or Baltic like.


Wow that's very southern plotting for a Northerner. I don't think it's all too common

----------


## Pax Augusta

> I plot to the right of Fustan, and just above IceT. All of my known ancestry is from Malsi. I remember that Ylla, Leapfrogger, and Era, were Southern Albanians, they plot more South East. In the middle of the cluster, is usually where Central-Gheg, Central-Tosk Albanians plot. So, it's like the core of Arber are in the middle, the extreme northerners are more North West, and the extreme southerners are more South East


With private results in each ethnicity you can find individuals who are further north than their corresponding dot in Tolan's tool, including to the west, northern Italians and Tuscans, and to the east, Bulgarians, Romanians, Greeks, and so on. So just as the Albanians have a larger cluster, this applies to everyone else.

The other problem is Tolan's is not a true PCA. In a PCA all the samples interact. If you insert new samples they end up affecting the position of the existing ones as well, in Tolan's tool they don't, they stay put.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> These are Dodecad K12B results, right?
> 
> My result as an Epirote
> 
> 
> Distance to:
> LB
> 
> 2.33353809
> ...



yes, that's right. Some are outlying (Piedmont154 might be one of them), try doing a PCA, it is more informative. 

https://vahaduo.github.io/custompca/

----------


## Jovialis

> With private results in each ethnicity you can find individuals who are further north than their corresponding dot in Tolan's tool, including to the west, northern Italians and Tuscans, and to the east, Bulgarians, Romanians, Greeks, and so on. So just as the Albanians have a larger cluster, this applies to everyone else.
> The other problem is Tolan's is not a true PCA. In a PCA all the samples interact. If you insert new samples they end up affecting the position of the existing ones as well, in Tolan's tool they don't, they stay put.


Yeah, thank you for mentioning that, because I thought the plotting looked off too. Albanians are usually within the range that are shown in the academic samples processed by Salento. Also the part about all samples interacting is true, one could observe this by putting in samples peice meal in a Vahaduo PCA, and see it happen.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> Yeah, thank you for mentioning that, because I thought the plotting looked off too. Albanians are usually within the range that are shown in the academic samples processed by Salento. Also the part about all samples interacting is true, one could observe this by putting in samples peice meal in a Vahaduo PCA, and see it happen.


I generally don't fully believe in academic samples either, for so many reasons, we use them as a reference to avoid anarchy, and I also have no trouble believing that there are Albanians further north than their academic samples (by the way, Tolan's tool is based on K15 Eurogenes averages, which in turn are based only on some individuals from the academic samples, not on all those released from a specific ethnicity or subethnicity or regional average), however it was worth mentioning that Tolan's is not a PCA, and that the very thing of putting individuals further north than one's hypothetical academic average can also be done with other ethnicities or subethnicities. As you say, in any case we still have to go through a real PCA.

----------


## Jovialis

Academic samples may not be perfect, but I trust them far more than user submissions. Guess the ethnicity threads are a good example of how people can be fraudulent.

Not to imply the Albanian submissions are, just speaking generally.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> Academic samples may not be perfect, but I trust them far more than user submissions. Guess the ethnicity threads are a good example of how people can be fraudulent.
> Not to imply the Albanian submissions are, just speaking generally.


Absolutely agree.

----------


## Pax Augusta

Additional academic samples of modern individuals were added, the values are from Dodecad K12b. Many thanks to the tireless Salento, others thanks to a contact of mine. There is a new set of Albanians, almost all sample sets of modern Greeks, and much more. To the most obvious cases of outliers, those that stray too far from their reference cluster, I have added a _o, because these are really unlikely to be completely native. Then there are certainly others that may not be very accurate but do not stray too far from the reference cluster and do not affect the results of the others too much. The whole Greece_Macedonia set is rather odd. Some individuals of this set look like Greeks from Pontus, others look too close to Bulgarians and Romanians to be just Greeks. 





```
N_Italy_HGDP:HGDP01147,3.37,0,0.67,0,41.17,27.3,0,0,4.17,0.07,23.25,0
N_Italy_HGDP:HGDP01151,5.45,1.55,0,0,37.13,28.15,0,0,1.28,0,26.44,0
N_Italy_HGDP:HGDP01152,3.41,0,1.18,0,41.02,24.23,0.14,0,7.19,0,22.82,0
N_Italy_HGDP:HGDP01153,5.85,0,0.67,0,45.37,20.75,0,0,7.09,0,20.27,0
N_Italy_HGDP:HGDP01154,5.34,0.01,2.36,0.16,38.83,27.63,0,0,6.57,0.26,18.83,0
N_Italy_HGDP:HGDP01155,4.43,0,1.13,0.93,43.74,20.72,0,0,5.12,0,23.93,0
N_Italy_HGDP:HGDP01156,6.07,0.04,0.66,0.29,46.21,19.12,0,0,5.77,0,21.84,0
N_Italy_HGDP:HGDP01157,3.67,0,0.67,0.26,42.48,24.87,0,0,5.41,0,22.65,0
N_Italy_HGDP:HGDP01171,6.11,0,0.72,0,44.48,21.21,0.88,0,5.95,0,20.65,0
N_Italy_HGDP:HGDP01172,5.42,0,2.99,0,41.74,22.09,0,0,5.41,0,22.35,0
N_Italy_HGDP:HGDP01173,4.4,0,1.23,0.45,42.09,24.6,0,0,6.61,0,20.62,0
N_Italy_HGDP:HGDP01174,5.57,0,0.8,0,43.43,21.14,0,0,7.33,0,21.74,0
N_Italy_HGDP:HGDP01177,1.68,0,0,0,43.52,23,0,0,5.53,0,26.27,0
Sardinia_HGDP:Sardinian_HGDP00665,0,0,1.7,0,67.49,0,0.41,0,6.47,0.38,23.55,0
Sardinia_HGDP:Sardinian_HGDP00666,0,0,1.92,0,69.63,0,0,0,4.06,0,24.39,0
Sardinia_HGDP:Sardinian_HGDP00667,0.27,0,3.17,0.06,66.6,4.42,0,0,5.89,0,19.59,0
Sardinia_HGDP:Sardinian_HGDP00668,0,0.43,2.6,0,70.27,0,0,0,6.61,0,20.08,0
Sardinia_HGDP:Sardinian_HGDP00669,0,0,1.63,0.1,69.76,2.42,0.53,0,6.98,0,18.59,0
Sardinia_HGDP:Sardinian_HGDP00670,0,0.07,2.78,0,71.33,0,0,0,6.09,0,19.74,0
Sardinia_HGDP:Sardinian_HGDP00671,0,0,0.46,0,72.96,1.27,0.01,0.16,5.46,0,19.67,0
Sardinia_HGDP:Sardinian_HGDP00672,0,0,2.38,0,68.78,0,0.4,0,5.6,0.35,22.48,0
Sardinia_HGDP:Sardinian_HGDP00673,0,0.67,4.21,0,66.59,1.45,0,0,8.8,0,18.28,0
Sardinia_HGDP:Sardinian_HGDP00674,0,0.34,2.58,0,75.2,0,0,0,3.23,0,18.65,0
Sardinia_HGDP:Sardinian_HGDP01062,0,0,4.28,0.67,67.81,0,0,0,5.28,0,21.96,0
Sardinia_HGDP:Sardinian_HGDP01063,0,0,2.92,0,68.99,0.61,0.71,0,4.86,0,21.91,0
Sardinia_HGDP:Sardinian_HGDP01064,0,0,1.43,0,75.32,0,0,0,6.89,0,16.37,0
Sardinia_HGDP:Sardinian_HGDP01065,0,0,4.65,0,73.34,0,0.63,0,4.57,0,16.8,0
Sardinia_HGDP:Sardinian_HGDP01066,0,0,5.38,0,60.18,5.06,0,0,8.01,0,21.37,0
Sardinia_HGDP:Sardinian_HGDP01067,0,0,0.9,0,69.59,0,0.67,0,5.2,0.03,23.61,0
Sardinia_HGDP:Sardinian_HGDP01068,0,0,1.98,0,68.12,0,0,0,7.02,0,22.88,0
Sardinia_HGDP:Sardinian_HGDP01069,0,0.05,1.03,0,75.62,0,0.12,0,3.92,0.23,19.04,0
Sardinia_HGDP:Sardinian_HGDP01070,0,0,2.7,0,71.07,0,0.9,0,7.03,0,18.3,0
Sardinia_HGDP:Sardinian_HGDP01071,0,0.18,6.22,0,65.96,0.79,1.16,0,6.47,0,19.21,0
Sardinia_HGDP:Sardinian_HGDP01072,0,0,1.41,0,67.93,0,0.25,0,6.03,0,24.37,0
Sardinia_HGDP:Sardinian_HGDP01073,0,0,5.55,0,59.07,5.93,0,0,6.46,0,22.92,0.07
Sardinia_HGDP:Sardinian_HGDP01074,0,0.35,2.19,0,68.39,0,0,0,6.31,0,22.76,0
Sardinia_HGDP:Sardinian_HGDP01075,0,0,1.98,0,60.06,6.11,0,0,11.19,0,20.67,0
Sardinia_HGDP:Sardinian_HGDP01076,0,0,3.75,0,69.38,0,0.39,0,5.13,0,21.35,0
Sardinia_HGDP:Sardinian_HGDP01077,0,0,2.98,0,67.07,1.72,0.55,0,4.43,0,23.25,0
Sardinia_HGDP:Sardinian_HGDP01078,0.33,0,3.43,0,58.64,7.58,0,0,8.23,0,21.79,0
Sardinia_HGDP:Sardinian_HGDP01079,0,0.12,1.58,0.69,71.69,0,0,0,4.72,0,21.19,0
TSI30,5.01,0.00,0.80,0.00,38.78,19.34,0.10,0.00,7.31,0.00,28.66,0.00
Tuscan_HGDP:HGDP01161,2.01,0,0,0,39.04,18.95,0.52,0,8.95,0,30.54,0
Tuscan_HGDP:HGDP01162,6.23,0,0,0,37.95,18.65,1.01,0.58,6.77,0,28.82,0
Tuscan_HGDP:HGDP01163,7.23,0,1.78,0,36.8,19.55,0.48,0,6.86,0,27.29,0
Tuscan_HGDP:HGDP01164,5.9,0,1.18,0,35.8,20.99,0,0.21,8.73,0,27.2,0
Tuscan_HGDP:HGDP01166,3.69,0,0,0,37.8,19.51,0,0,6.56,0.76,31.69,0
Tuscan_HGDP:HGDP01167,6.76,0,2.8,0,36.61,18.41,0.64,0,7.37,1.13,26.28,0
Tuscan_HGDP:HGDP01168,3.02,0,0,0,39.05,18.74,0,0,7.24,0.84,30.87,0.25
Tuscan_HGDP:HGDP01169,4.79,0.11,0,0,38.06,16.65,0,0,9.1,0.47,30.82,0
ITS:ITS2,10.04,0,1.14,0,27.18,15.93,0.93,0,11.33,0.26,33.19,0
ITS:ITS4,8.05,0,5.16,0,26.62,12.04,0,0,11.74,0.62,35.77,0
ITS:ITS5,5.86,1.35,2.20,0,30.35,16.61,0.65,0.06,11.71,0.58,30.45,0.19
ITS:ITS7,9.63,0,2.78,0.45,28.77,16.43,0,0.89,12.03,0,29.02,0
Trapani:TP05_LazaridisNat2014,7.76,0,7.31,0,29.40,11.85,0,0,9.38,1.31,32.10,0.89
Trapani:TP07_LazaridisNat2014,8.32,0.77,5.64,0,26.41,12.48,1.43,2.69,11.62,0,30.64,0
Siracusa:SR60_LazaridisNat2014,5.07,0,5.64,0,27.22,15.93,0,0.20,11.48,0,33.31,1.15
Siracusa:SR64_LazaridisNat2014,7.97,0,3.45,0,29.75,13.44,0,2.33,12.10,0,30.48,0.48
C-Sicily:50,6.22,0.50,3.62,0,27.78,14.29,0,0.96,12.97,0.12,32.19,1.35
E-Sicily:18,4.57,0,4.55,0,28.22,14.85,0.37,0,15.10,0.38,31.41,0.56
W-Sicily:1,7.27,0,4.47,0,28.58,13.24,0,1.03,10.76,0,34.42,0.23
W-Sicily:3,6.69,0.09,4.53,0,28.83,12.64,0,0.47,12.19,0.18,34.27,0.12
W-Sicily:5a,8.76,0,3.46,0.89,26.50,13.84,0,1.77,11.65,0.13,33.00,0
W-Sicily:9,7.47,0.24,4.26,0,28.88,13.07,0,0.77,14.72,0,30.48,0.10
W-Sicily:21,7.06,0,4.17,0.98,27.98,11.07,0.07,2.67,11.80,0,33.88,0.32
Ag-Sicily:5,8.11,0,4.73,0,29.88,12.05,0,0.88,11.66,0,32.68,0
Ag-Sicily:8,7.44,0.30,5.18,0.40,27.65,13.74,0.05,0.70,12.31,0,31.71,0.52
Abruzzo:Alp090,6.69,0,3.58,0,30.19,16.26,0.10,0,11.63,0,31.57,0
Abruzzo:Alp140,8.98,0,3.12,0,28.13,17.65,0,0.31,11.18,0,30.64,0
Abruzzo:ALP161,6.41,0,1.44,0,30.32,19.51,0,0.22,10.75,0.24,31.01,0.11
Abruzzo:Alp162,7.51,0,0.94,0.19,28.60,17.33,1.26,0,13.22,0,30.60,0.34
Abruzzo:ALP205,6.36,0.17,2.26,0,27.71,15.44,0,0.55,12.57,0,34.86,0.07
Abruzzo:Alp380,8.30,0,1.69,0,30.67,14.58,0.47,0.06,12.53,0,31.44,0.27
Abruzzo:Alp503,9.66,0,2.68,0.05,29.99,14.21,0,0.19,10.83,0,32.39,0
Abruzzo:Alp616,7.89,0,1.28,0,29.09,16.96,0,0.71,10.92,0,33.15,0
Albanian_dg:Albanian1_dg,3.71,0,0.48,0,30.34,21.63,0,0,9.9,0.43,33.51,0
Albanian_Tirana:Albanian_Tirana_ALB230,4.34,1.08,1.29,0,30.29,24.98,1.09,0,7.02,0,29.92,0
Albanian_Tirana:Albanian_Tirana_ALB220,5.6,0,1.72,0,27.93,22.84,0,0,8.45,0,32.52,0.94
Albanian_Tirana:Albanian_Tirana_ALB213,3.85,0,2.24,0,28.36,25.69,1.05,0,8.74,0.7,29.36,0
Albanian_Tirana:Albanian_Tirana_ALB212,3.54,0,0.6,0,30.07,21.81,0,0,9.77,0.48,33.71,0
Albanian_Tirana:Albanian_Tirana_ALB202,7.02,0.68,0,0.58,27.5,26.6,0,0,5.76,0.27,31.48,0.12
Albanian_Tirana:Albanian_Tirana_ALB191,4.9,0,2.11,0,24.67,30.07,0,0,8.17,0.95,29.14,0
Albanian:AL9,5.26,0,2.47,0.71,29.56,24.40,0,0.08,7.74,0,27.78,1.99
Albanian:AL12,4.45,0.91,0.08,0,33.95,23.40,0,0,7.39,0.02,29.81,0
Albanian:AL17,5.38,0,1.12,0,30.35,22.13,0.88,0,9.59,0,30.54,0
Albanian:AL29,4.54,1.26,2.31,0.12,29.18,21.93,0,0.27,9.86,0,30.53,0
Albanian:AL82,5.30,0.23,0.73,0.46,27.08,27.71,0.23,0.14,7.14,0.14,30.84,0
Albanian:AL98,6.43,1.04,1.58,0,26.80,22.39,0.29,0,8.69,0.21,31.63,0.94
Aosta-Valley:ALP225_Aosta-Valley,6.87,0.27,1.13,0,37.44,30.93,0.24,0,3.30,0,19.83,0
Aosta-Valley:ALP227_Aosta-Valley,5.37,0.04,0.99,0,38.11,32.94,0,0.11,3.91,0,18.53,0
Apulia:ALP379,5.72,0,3.90,0,28.18,15.53,0.67,0,11.69,0.17,34.13,0.01
Apulia:ALP583,8.10,0,3.61,0,27.70,15.00,0.82,0.30,10.01,0,34.43,0.04
Apulia:cera1,7.91,0,5.44,0,29.16,15.42,0,0,10.25,0,31.76,0.05
Apulia:cera2,7.80,0,2.79,0,30.50,15.34,0,0,10.15,0,33.37,0.05
Apulia:cera8,6.06,0,3.14,0.70,29.98,15.74,0,0.10,10.47,0.14,33.35,0.32
Apulia:cera9,5.36,0,3.54,0,31.06,16.26,0.36,0,10.87,0,32.56,0
Apulia:GS32,7.03,0.70,2.10,0,29.17,14.00,0.41,0.25,10.95,0,35.38,0
Apulia:GS34,6.15,0.62,2.80,0,28.01,16.49,0,0.12,13.62,0.13,32.06,0
Apulia:GS47,5.92,0,2.56,0,27.84,14.32,0,0.27,12.35,0.63,36.11,0
Apulia:Pu2,5.84,0,2.93,0,26.59,17.67,0,0.71,12.28,0,33.99,0
Apulia:Pu3,6.03,0,1.87,0,26.47,14.41,0,0.09,13.66,0,37.47,0
Apulia:Pu7,7.79,0,3.12,0,27.68,12.85,0,0.19,11.83,0,36.54,0
Apulia:Pu8,6.95,0,6.23,0.02,25.75,11.41,0,0.45,14.01,0.76,34.43,0
Apulia:Pu45,7.53,0.05,2.22,0.39,29.68,15.35,0,0.40,10.10,0,34.28,0
Basilicata:PG16,7.16,0.47,4.11,0.25,27.15,12.87,0.34,0.60,11.52,0.36,35.16,0
Basilicata:PG17,8.95,0,1.39,0,29.77,14.55,0,0,12.92,0,32.25,0.16
Basilicata:PG18,6.66,0,2.84,0.02,27.29,16.11,0,0,13.23,0.74,33.04,0.06
Basilicata:PG19,6.05,0,2.34,0,28.94,15.65,0,1.07,13.30,0,32.65,0
Basilicata:PG20,6.11,0,3.11,0,27.89,14.45,0.06,0,12.27,0,36.11,0
Basilicata:PG21,7.28,0,3.97,0,26.27,17.49,1.27,0.28,12.37,0.28,30.79,0
Basilicata:PG22,7.19,0,3.44,0,25.84,16.55,0,0,9.57,0,37.42,0
Basilicata:PG24,7.33,0.09,4.22,1.09,28.61,14.27,0,0.83,12.06,0,31.50,0
Basilicata:PG25,6.69,0.27,2.65,0.38,28.09,14.21,0.26,0.40,12.13,0.46,34.45,0
Calabria:ALP582,6.25,0,3.73,0.03,27.11,10.05,0.99,0,13.80,1.01,36.24,0.79
Calabria:ALP596,6.33,0,3.91,0,27.04,13.26,0,0.64,13.48,0,35.33,0
Campania:NaN43TC,5.55,0,3.35,0.40,30.13,14.02,0,0.50,12.39,0,33.66,0
Campania:NaN46TC,6.39,0,2.56,0,29.12,13.31,0.46,0,14.30,0,33.51,0.34
Campania:NaN58AC,10.21,0.49,3.75,0,28.63,12.20,0.90,0.04,12.10,0.03,31.66,0
Campania:NaN65DFG,8.00,0,4.30,0.03,27.55,10.62,0.47,0.12,13.44,0.51,34.95,0
Campania:NaN77FAM,6.20,0,3.00,0.36,26.45,12.15,0.43,0.86,13.24,0.25,37.04,0
Campania:NaN119AMR,6.33,0,3.12,0,27.98,15.23,0,0.79,13.71,0.40,32.44,0
Campania:NaN128LA,7.42,0,3.69,0,29.35,12.81,0,0,12.42,0,34.31,0
Campania:NaN195ST,7.21,0,4.57,0.68,30.71,10.79,0,0.07,10.77,0.16,34.89,0.15
Campania:NaN207MM,7.08,0,3.16,0,26.85,14.76,0,0,14.32,0,33.60,0.22
Campania:NaN212CR,6.82,0,2.61,0,30.35,14.95,0.28,0.35,12.19,0,32.45,0
Campania:NaN238DM,7.03,0,1.59,0,29.82,15.65,0,0,11.91,0.14,33.86,0
Campania:NaN275IS,7.93,0.39,3.73,0,25.40,11.31,0,0.18,14.81,0,36.08,0.17
Campania:NaN289RM,6.45,0,2.51,1.17,28.02,14.99,0,0.55,10.85,0,35.45,0
Campania:NaN293SF,8.28,0.11,1.74,0,29.38,13.62,0.42,0,12.80,0,33.37,0.28
Corsica:corsica1308,2.91,0,3.3,0,38.43,18.67,0,0,11.53,0,25.17,0
Corsica:Corsica03708,3.29,0,2.86,0,39,16.65,0.42,0.27,10.26,0.1,27.14,0
Corsica_o:corsica11908,5.87,0,2.35,0.04,38.2,27.87,0,0.24,6.23,0.3,18.9,0
Corsica_o:Corsica14708,4.57,0,2.49,0,41.09,22.6,0,0.14,6.52,0.11,22.48,0
Corsica:Corsica19508,2.99,0,3.78,0.07,39.5,19.33,0.59,0,9.88,0,23.85,0
Corsica:Corsica24508,4.81,0.53,1.89,0.61,39.23,19.24,0.38,0,9.28,0,24.02,0
Corsica:corsica29008,4.87,0,2.06,0,39.36,16.85,0.12,0.08,9.32,0,27.16,0.17
Corsica:Corsica29708,5.82,0,3.09,0,40.53,17.8,0,0,8.38,0,24.38,0
Corsica_o:CorsicaS00708,3.4,0.24,2.51,0,44.93,24.14,1.17,0,6.23,0,17.38,0
Corsica:CorsicaS03308,3.67,0,1.51,0.38,38.84,19.16,0.13,0,9.14,0,26.96,0.2
Corsica:CorsicaS04208,4.98,0,2.01,0,38.89,20.48,0,0,7.2,0.26,26.19,0
Corsica:CorsicaS10208,2.74,0,2.53,0.63,42.75,16.41,0,0,7.73,0,27.22,0
Corsica_o:CorsicaS13308,7.37,0.22,1.36,0.25,38.43,38.49,0,0.3,0.94,0,12.65,0
Corsica:CorsicaS13808,1.28,0,2.72,0.61,37.07,20.16,0.01,0,7.78,1.21,27.3,1.84
Corsica:CorsicaS15608,2.46,0,3.23,0,38.15,18.09,0,0,8.66,0,24.56,4.85
Corsica:CorsicaS29908,4.78,0,3.8,0.2,37.65,18.75,0,0.13,7.61,0,27.08,0
Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:ALP081,4.34,0.84,2.33,0,36.22,29.46,0.26,0.04,5.34,0,21.18,0
Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:ALP093,6.43,0.41,0.05,0,33.92,32.71,0,0.07,5.38,0,21.03,0
Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:ALP188,4.99,0.74,0.01,0,26.21,47.57,0,0,3.72,0.76,16.00,0
Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:ALP220,5.39,0,0,0.17,34.02,36.20,0,0,6.01,0,18.14,0.05
Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:ALP233,4.08,0,0,0,34.26,30.43,0.52,0,6.58,0.50,23.63,0
Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:ALP235,5.64,0.57,1.23,0.01,35.63,28.80,0.84,0,5.51,0,21.76,0
Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:ALP346,6.20,0.81,0.77,0,34.42,29.93,0,0,6.17,0.18,21.52,0
Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:ALP354,5.56,0.50,0.39,0,37.04,29.93,0,0,6.12,0,20.32,0.14
Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:ALP259,3.03,0,1.50,0,39.87,28.48,0,0,5.82,0,21.30,0
Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:ALP280,5.74,0,0.56,0,37.35,28.82,0.30,0,4.85,0,22.40,0
Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:ALP435,5.42,0.70,0.01,0,31.91,35.91,0,0.24,6.52,0,19.29,0
Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:ALP506,3.59,0.13,0.92,0,36.19,30.55,0,0,5.31,0.19,23.12,0
Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:KF1800761,4.15,0.03,1.60,0.62,35.36,29.80,0,0.10,6.99,0,21.35,0
Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:KF1803129,3.70,0,1.39,0,35.87,31.44,0,0,5.88,0.31,21.41,0
Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:KF2700922,4.76,0.29,0.58,0.30,32.64,33.31,0.22,0,6.10,0,21.79,0.02
Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:KF2700960,6.04,0.50,1.49,0,35.21,30.23,0,0,6.36,0.30,19.88,0
Lazio:NOR24,7.94,0,1.16,0,33.01,15.72,0,0.08,10.15,0,31.94,0
Lazio:NOR28,8.17,0.11,2.62,0.22,31.46,15.60,0,0,11.20,0,30.62,0
Lazio:PG28,4.14,0,2.92,0,34.41,18.64,0,0,11.40,0,28.49,0
Lazio:PG30,6.88,0,2.01,0,32.07,18.84,0,0.19,11.81,0.04,28.16,0
Liguria:ALP099,5.13,0,2.43,0,36.41,24.40,0.65,0.05,6.88,0.51,23.32,0.22
Lombardy:ALP288,6.04,0.79,1.67,0,36.54,24.68,0,0.23,7.79,0,22.27,0
Lombardy:BGD28_Lombardy,6.14,0,1.99,0.13,40.22,23.5,0,0,6.74,0.27,21.03,0
Lombardy:BGD31_Lombardy,3.7,0,2.07,0,40.09,22.45,0,0,6.06,0.64,24.99,0
Lombardy:BGD103_Lombardy,3.81,0.41,0,0,38.8,25.35,0.64,0,7.31,0,23.67,0
Lombardy:BGD301_Lombardy,4.99,0,1.58,0,41.82,21.45,0,0,6.79,0.49,22.9,0
Marche:MarABG010D,6.05,0,3.02,0.18,32.69,19.66,0.12,0.25,10.45,0,27.57,0
Marche:MarABI020D,7.25,0,3.21,0,33.85,17.74,0,0.10,8.68,0,28.86,0.32
Marche:MarABN020D,7.08,0.73,1.75,0.22,31.78,18.77,0,0,10.49,0,29.18,0
Marche:MarABP050D,7.43,0,2.35,0,32.72,17.90,0,0.21,9.80,0.20,29.41,0
Marche:MarABQ080D,6.21,0.17,1.89,0,32.81,19.04,0,0,10.96,0.12,28.79,0
Marche:MarABU050D,7.29,0,1.62,0,33.47,21.39,0,0,9.14,1.17,25.92,0
Marche:MarABY030D,6.75,0,3.69,0,29.95,18.59,0,0.23,11.27,0,29.52,0
Marche:MarACO100D,6.86,0,2.00,0,30.72,17.68,0,0,12.10,0.08,30.56,0
Marche:MarACV100D,7.26,0,1.62,0,31.47,21.05,0.39,0,10.41,0.48,27.31,0
Marche:MarACW030D,6.82,0,3.04,0,33.76,20.81,0,0,8.63,0,26.94,0
Marche:MarACW080D,9.16,0.87,0.94,0,31.17,19.68,0,0,9.61,0,28.58,0
Marche:MarACY030D,6.26,0,2.36,0.35,31.64,18.52,0.43,0,10.01,0,30.43,0
Marche:MarADC050D,4.77,0,1.93,0,33.54,20.62,0.11,0,7.86,0,31.17,0
Marche:MarADG030D,6.69,0,2.77,0,31.83,21.00,0.02,0,10.04,0.11,27.55,0
Molise:PG26_Molise,7.76,0,2.20,0,29.91,16.67,0,0.57,10.84,0,32.01,0.04
Molise:PG27,6.36,0.05,1.15,0.55,29.66,17.90,0,0,10.92,0.28,32.78,0.33
Piedmont:ItalyPiedmont43,6.32,0.08,2.5,0,35.55,19.88,0,0,6.57,0,28.97,0.13
Piedmont_o:ItalyPiedmont52,9.09,0,3.54,0,27.05,12.21,0,0,12.72,0,35.36,0.05
Piedmont:ItalyPiedmont63,5.97,0,3.23,0,36.24,24.72,0,0,7.02,1.33,21.48,0
Piedmont:ItalyPiedmont98,3.35,0.27,1.49,0,38.12,24.53,0,0,7.46,0,24.73,0.06
Piedmont:ItalyPiedmont119,5.5,0,0.2,0,38.44,23.31,0.47,0,7.95,0,24.08,0.05
Piedmont:ItalyPiedmont127,7.64,0,1.6,0,38.18,26.89,0.74,0,5.46,0,19.27,0.22
Piedmont:ItalyPiedmont136,5.02,0,2.13,0,34.76,23.49,0,0,8.51,0.47,25.61,0
Piedmont:ItalyPiedmont145,7.61,0,2.05,0,35.25,20.41,0.32,0.65,8.46,0,25.25,0
Piedmont:ItalyPiedmont149,6.42,0,0.73,0.14,38.04,22.44,0,0,7.73,0,24.5,0
Piedmont:Piedmont61,3.32,0,0.92,0.83,36.11,27.44,0,0,6.42,0,24.96,0
Piedmont:Piedmont154,5.64,0.2,2.13,0.2,30.39,24.58,0.42,0.08,9.22,0,26.88,0.27
Trentino-Alto-Adige:ALP070,5.23,0.08,0.80,0,38.53,31.31,0,0,5.23,0.41,18.42,0
Trentino-Alto-Adige:ALP071,4.72,0,0.88,0,37.95,33.21,0,0,4.51,0.47,18.18,0.09
Trentino-Alto-Adige:ALP114,5.13,0.56,1.16,0,38.67,21.62,0,0,7.86,0,25,0
Trentino-Alto-Adige:ALP200,5.96,0,0.65,0,35.41,26.93,0.24,0,7.64,0.25,22.93,0
Trentino-Alto-Adige:ALP395,4.20,0,0.07,0,38.17,29.09,0.83,0,5.00,0,22.64,0
Trentino-Alto-Adige:ALP414,4.90,1.04,0.99,0,29.11,46.33,0.19,0,3.54,0,13.91,0
Trentino-Alto-Adige:ALP420,5.76,0,0.48,0,39.10,28.16,0.12,0,6.97,0.13,19.29,0
Tuscany:MURLO114,5.80,0,3.27,0,34.81,20.54,1.23,0,8.47,0.02,25.86,0
Tuscany:VO59,7.52,0,0.82,0.28,35.01,21.98,0,0,9.50,0,24.88,0
Tuscany:VO65,3.64,0,2.60,0.17,35.94,21.03,0,0.20,8.37,0,28.06,0
Tuscany:VO109,3.75,0.22,2.79,0,32.67,21.45,0.79,0,10.67,0,27.56,0.09
Tuscany:Tuscany27,4.82,0,3.75,0,35.18,21.7,0.36,0.01,6.73,0,27.46,0
Tuscany:Tuscany38,5.91,0,2.51,0,35.32,21.18,0,0,9.45,0.45,25.18,0
Tuscany:Tuscany54,7.01,0,2.21,0,34.19,20.9,0,0.17,7.67,0,27.86,0
Tuscany:Tuscany74,5.69,0,1.45,0,33.43,21.51,0.73,0,8.32,0.24,27.29,1.34
Tuscany:Tuscany93,7.24,1.11,2.38,0,35.07,20.46,0,0.12,9.54,0,24.09,0
Tuscany:Tuscany98,5.92,0,2.49,0,37.13,21.1,0.94,0,5.93,0,26.48,0
Tuscany:Tuscany65,3.31,0,2.27,0.11,36.17,21.11,0.03,0.45,8.96,0,27.59,0
Umbria:PG03,5.94,0,2.12,0,32.67,17.12,0.56,0.20,11.11,0.02,30.25,0
Umbria:PG04,6.34,0.25,2.53,0,30.64,20.66,0,0,9.10,0,30.47,0
Umbria:PG06,8.95,0.13,1.08,0.52,30.94,17.60,0.02,0,8.80,0,31.89,0.06
Umbria:PG07,7.81,0.34,3.48,0,32.31,17.63,0,0,10.47,0,27.96,0
Umbria:PG08,5.00,0,2.37,0.43,35.24,21.61,0.48,0,7.69,0.03,27.15,0
Umbria:PG11,7.93,0.01,2.36,0,33.05,19.77,0,0,8.56,0,28.32,0
Umbria:PG12,8.62,0.02,1.77,0.07,34.90,20.05,0,0,7.63,0.04,26.90,0
Umbria:PG15,7.94,0,2.72,0,32.52,16.83,0.67,0,10.33,0,28.99,0
Veneto:ALP022,6.59,0,0.49,0,36.53,27.87,0,0,7.34,0,21.18,0
Veneto:ALP040,5.15,0,1.04,0,41.60,25.12,0,0,3.85,0,23.24,0
Veneto:Alp100,4.58,0.41,0.87,0.93,39.09,28.70,0,0,7.01,0.28,18.13,0
Veneto:ALP116,5.45,0.19,2.34,0,36.99,24.61,0,0,7.69,0,22.73,0
Veneto:ALP209,4.85,0,2.14,0,34.32,25.27,0,0,7.89,0,25.49,0.04
Veneto:ALP249,5.45,0,2.23,0,35.92,27.84,0.14,0,5.44,0,22.98,0
Veneto:ALP250,4.19,0.15,0.96,0.11,37.49,30.40,0.47,0,6.61,0.02,19.60,0
Veneto:ALP273,4.14,0.12,0.71,0,35.42,29.00,0.35,0,7.02,0,23.07,0.16
Veneto:ALP322,3.54,0,1.12,0,35.56,30.22,0.15,0,5.64,0,23.77,0
Veneto:ALP378,5.59,0.04,0.53,0,35.23,29.58,0.40,0,4.93,0,23.71,0
Veneto:Alp401,5.76,0,0.27,0.72,39.59,27.28,0,0,5.84,0,20.49,0.04
Veneto:KF1800751,4.56,0,0.81,0,38.52,26.88,0,0.05,7.07,0,22.11,0
Veneto:KF1800772,5.25,0,1.04,0,38.57,25.21,0.67,0,5.09,0,24.17,0
Veneto:KF1803105,4.62,0,1.32,0.04,37.25,29.44,0,0.07,5.73,0,21.53,0
Veneto:KF1803109,4.97,0.48,2.18,0,36.60,25.47,0,0,8.09,0,22.22,0
Veneto:KF1803151,7.23,0,0,1.06,36.73,29.47,0.05,0,6.47,0,18.99,0
Portugal:Portugal1,5.41,0.5,5.67,0,43.55,25.18,1.21,0.91,4.74,0,12.03,0.79
Portugal:Portugal2,5.4,0,7.5,0,38.67,23.2,0,0.97,6.53,1.17,15.67,0.9
Portugal:Portugal3,4.01,0,6.46,0.79,39.78,24.55,0.17,1.02,6.86,0,16.09,0.26
Portugal:Portugal6,5.74,0,7.35,0,43.87,26.24,0,0.64,5.19,0.12,10.81,0.04
Portugal:Portugal7,5.52,0,5.04,0.11,40.96,25.38,0,1.89,7.59,0,13.5,0
Portugal:Portugal9,4.14,0,4.79,0,42.71,25.35,2.15,1.94,5.72,0,13.1,0.09
Portugal:Portugal10,4.93,0.46,6.42,0,40.3,25.78,0,0.17,7.42,0,13.84,0.67
Portugal:Portugal11,6.46,0.27,5.76,0.07,40.11,26.43,0.43,0.67,7.91,0,11.19,0.69
Portugal:Portugal12,4.44,0,5.39,0,40.08,25.22,0,0.48,6.49,0.66,16.18,1.05
Portugal:Portugal13,7.01,0,5.76,0,42.81,24.46,0.24,0.49,5.13,0,13.69,0.41
French_Provence:provance2508,7.26,0,1.78,0,38.31,29.71,0.33,0.1,5.17,0,17.33,0
French_Provence:provance2708,7.31,0,2.41,0,37.55,24.46,0,0.34,8.19,0,19.64,0.11
French_Provence:provance4109,6.83,0,2.75,0.62,42.38,29.65,0,0,4.95,0,12.82,0
French_Provence:provance4409,7.03,0.52,0.82,0,33.84,37.78,0.32,0,3.48,0,15.4,0.81
French_Provence:provance4509,6.92,0,1.79,0,41.48,32.14,0,0,4.23,0,13.42,0
GermanyB:GermanB1,7.51,0.66,1.02,0.22,29.63,50.72,0,0.08,0,0,10.16,0
GermanyB:GermanB2,6.42,0.91,1.53,0.34,28.85,52.25,0,0,0.96,0,8.74,0
GermanyB:GermanB3,1.78,0.24,0,0,35.58,44.12,0,0,4.28,0,13.99,0
GermanyB:GermanB4,7.86,0,0.61,0.62,38.38,38.8,0,0,1.03,0,12.7,0
GermanyB:GermanB5,5.38,0.59,0,0,36.81,40.09,0.03,0,4.02,0,13.09,0
GermanyB:GermanB6,10.02,0.3,0.48,0,38.9,39.08,1.43,0,2.69,0,6.66,0.43
GermanyB:GermanB7,6.26,0,0.09,0.1,32.48,44.74,0,0,2.37,0,13.97,0
GermanyB:GermanB8,6.22,0.35,0.3,0,30.51,43.69,0.19,0.2,3.14,0,15.4,0
GermanyB:GermanB9,8.86,0,3.18,0,34.82,47.38,0,0,0,0.3,5.46,0
GermanyB:GermanB10,9.2,1.4,1.31,0,35.46,42.04,0,0,0.29,0.36,9.94,0
GermanyB:GermanB11,5.5,0,2.67,0,34.89,40.17,0,0.01,0.59,0,16.16,0
GermanyB:GermanB12,9.87,2.1,0,0,32.78,37.82,0,0,0,0,17.43,0
GermanyB:GermanB13,6.73,0.47,0,0,31.75,46.38,0,0,2.67,0.2,11.79,0
GermanyB:GermanB14,7.92,0,4.23,0,33.07,39.08,0.1,0.17,2.08,0,13.35,0
GermanyB:GermanB15,6.7,0,0,1.12,34.2,44.57,0,0,1.64,0.02,11.39,0.38
GermanyB:GermanB16,6.42,0,0,0,35.17,39.62,0,0.36,3.3,1.56,13.56,0
GermanyB:GermanB17,5.3,0,0.82,0,36.81,44.53,1.4,0,3.42,0,7.72,0
GermanyB:GermanB18,5.58,1.45,1.42,0.42,31.01,32.91,0.26,1.86,5.14,0,19.94,0
GermanyB:GermanB19,8.7,0,0,0,33.88,39.18,0.16,0,1.86,0,15.21,1.01
GermanyB:GermanB20,5.23,0,0.23,0,33.19,44.36,0,0.06,3.12,0,13.81,0
GermanyB:GermanB21,6.01,0.91,0,0,33.02,39.87,0,0,4.91,0.38,14.62,0.28
GermanyB:GermanB22,5.18,0.16,0.12,0,25.09,55.11,0,0,1.43,1.17,11.74,0
Germany:German1,7.74,0.23,0.19,0,33.71,44.36,0,0,4.45,0,9,0.33
Germany:German2,5.18,0,0,0,33.13,49.5,0.32,0.73,1.5,0,9.64,0
Germany:German3,9.86,0,0,0,35.84,50.53,1.04,0.47,0,0,2.26,0
Germany:German4,5.75,1.21,2.13,0,32.74,45.3,0,0.19,0.75,0,11.61,0.31
Germany:German5,4.02,0,2.04,1.21,28.13,52.67,0,0,0.53,0,11.39,0
Germany:German6,7.29,0.41,0,0,31.69,52.83,0,0,0.52,0,7.25,0.01
Germany:German7,8.06,0,0.68,0,31.51,48.86,0.59,0,0.07,0,10.24,0
Germany:German8,6.46,0.2,0,0,28.55,53.05,0,0,0.96,0,10.03,0.75
Germany:German9,4.93,0.72,0,0,31.12,50.75,0,0,2.96,0,9.52,0
Germany:German10,8.01,0,0.44,0,35.39,43.85,0.5,0.65,0.09,0,11.07,0
Germany:German11,10.1,0.3,0,0.67,34.25,46.1,1.75,0,0.53,0,6.18,0.11
Germany:German12,6.32,0.11,0,0.04,31.18,52.18,0.75,0,1.92,0,6.46,1.04
Germany:German13,6.51,0.14,0,0.63,30,51.51,0,0,4.68,0,6.05,0.48
Germany:German14,6.69,0.71,0,0.66,32.25,48.93,0,0,1.73,0,9.02,0
Germany:German15,8.2,0.64,0.59,0.34,29.28,51.53,0,0,0.71,0,8.69,0
Germany:German16,8.19,0,0,0,33.73,50.49,0,0,0,0,7.35,0.23
Germany:German17,9.67,0,0.41,0,37.09,46,0.62,0.12,0.51,0,5.59,0
Germany:German18,6.6,1.1,1.85,0,30.4,46.51,0,0,3.79,0,9.37,0.39
Germany:German19,8.16,1,1.02,0,31.56,46.76,1.31,0,0,0,10.2,0
Germany:German20,7.37,1.08,1.21,0,26.83,52.61,0,0,2.54,0,8.35,0
Germany:German21,6.25,0.1,0.63,0.02,33.72,48.26,0.35,0.15,3.01,0,7.5,0
Germany:German22,7.21,0,1.36,0,31.71,45.96,0,0,1.59,0,12.16,0
Germany:German23,6.96,1.21,0,0.58,32.21,46.01,1.07,0,2.68,0,9.27,0
Germany:German24,7.92,0.59,0,0,37.26,40.99,0.44,0,1.82,0.42,10.57,0
Germany:German25,8.97,0.73,0,0,35.29,46.18,0.2,1,1.78,0,5.85,0
Germany:German26,5.79,0.98,0,0.27,30.05,48.41,0,0,0,0,13.37,1.13
Germany:German27,5.91,0.52,0,0,35.53,50.17,0,0.25,0,0,7.63,0
Germany:German28,3.71,0,0.54,0,32.9,48.87,0,0,2.06,0,11.92,0
Germany:German29,4.99,0,0,0,32.52,42.19,0.94,0.45,2.57,0,16.34,0
Germany:German30,7.31,0,0,0,30.85,52.38,0,0,2.18,0,7.26,0
Latvia:latvian22J5,1.54,0.23,0,0,17.58,70.41,2.13,0,0,0,8.10,0
Latvia:latvian54A2,3.08,1.25,0,0.05,19.37,71.45,0.49,0,0,0,4.31,0
Latvia:latvian54F2,3.94,0.88,0,1.05,21.44,66.33,0,0,0,0,6.35,0
Latvia:latvian54H7,4.11,2.04,0,0,16.46,70.92,0,0,1.59,0,4.87,0
Latvia:latvian58C6,4.00,0.17,0.43,0,21.32,66.71,0.97,0,0,0,6.39,0
Latvia:latvian58C8,0,1.84,0.69,0,20.64,66.20,0,0,2.27,0,8.35,0
Russia_Pinega:RusPinega1,2.96,10.41,0,0,16.96,61.07,0.72,0,1.66,1.06,5.15,0
Russia_Pinega:RusPinega9,4.24,9.50,0,0,17.18,60.87,1.90,0,1.02,1.79,3.50,0
Russia_Pinega:RusPinega17,5.52,9.10,0,0.47,17.11,61.52,0,0,0,1.34,4.93,0
Russia_Pinega:RusPinega20,3.47,11.53,0,0.23,16.38,60.47,0.32,0,0,0.90,6.70,0
Belarus:belarusian23vp,3.97,1.75,0,0,19.92,57.88,1.86,0,1.79,0.18,12.66,0
Belarus:belarusian29zp,2.60,1.16,0.25,0,22.48,57.42,0,0,2.03,0,14.05,0
Belarus:belarusian32zp,3.04,0.97,0,0,22.64,58.18,1.46,0,1.87,0,11.84,0
Belarus:belarusian45vp,4.41,1.42,0.15,0.55,22.05,56.93,0,0.45,0.66,0,12.85,0.53
Belarus:belarusian47zp,4.22,1.26,0,0.79,24.54,55.89,0.80,0,1.13,0.01,11.37,0
Belarus:belarusian50vp,3.72,1.49,0,0,21.45,56.63,1.60,0,2.90,0,12.19,0.02
Belarus:belarusian52vp,1.90,0.57,0,0,23.11,59.60,0,0.01,2.37,0,12.45,0
Belarus:belarusian54zp,4.31,1.55,0,0,23.30,60.06,1.22,0,0.37,0,9.13,0.06
Slovakia:Slovakia77,2.52,1.08,0,0.61,25.93,52.29,0.83,0.45,2.58,0.37,13.34,0
Slovakia:Slovakia85,6.74,0.56,0.26,0,27.77,51.63,0.79,0,2.02,0,10.23,0
Slovakia:Slovakia94,4.77,1.21,0.04,0.20,25.84,52.09,0.41,0,3.33,0,12.11,0
Slovakia:Slovakia96,3.35,0.58,0,0,26.51,50.08,0.68,0,4.04,0.56,14.20,0
Slovakia:Slovakia118,4.75,0,0,0,27.47,53.38,1.08,0,0,0.63,12.58,0.11
Slovakia:Slovakia150,3.90,0.85,0.64,0.59,26.27,47.21,0,0,3.79,0.46,16.30,0
Slovakia:Slovakia218,5.21,1.08,0.21,0,25.67,48.67,1.07,0,3.66,0.93,13.49,0
Slovakia:Slovakia222,6.04,0.39,0.57,0,26.40,50.67,0.94,0,1.71,0.28,13.02,0
Slovakia:Slovakia233,5.46,1.77,0.16,0.78,26.80,48.10,0.04,0,3.64,0,13.26,0
Slovakia:Slovakia235,6.04,0.68,0,0.29,27.43,47.06,1.56,0,2.55,0,14.39,0
Slovakia:Slovakia256,5.60,1.16,0,0,29.11,51.99,0,0,1.01,0,11.12,0
Slovakia:Slovakia411,5.40,0,0.66,0.40,26.14,51.98,0.60,0,3.21,0,11.61,0
Slovakia:Slovakia425,6.47,0,0.16,0,25.17,51.19,0.06,0.08,2.71,1.00,13.12,0.04
Slovakia:Slovakia429,4.95,0.19,0.01,0.34,28.04,47.90,0.54,0,1.95,0.35,15.73,0
Slovakia:Slovakia474,5.51,0.77,0,0.61,25.07,52.49,0.05,0,3.43,0,12.08,0
Slovenia:Slovenian_8,5.85,0,0,0.08,28.73,43.24,0.07,0,5.00,0,17.04,0
Slovenia:Slovenian_14,5.97,0.87,0,0.70,28.48,45.23,0.26,0,5.08,0,13.40,0
Slovenia:Slovenian90,4.72,0.55,0.62,0,30.56,47.64,0,0,2.81,1.04,12.06,0
Slovenia:Slovenian136,6.66,0.44,0.65,0.22,30.94,41.62,0.15,0.14,3.63,0,15.51,0.05
Slovenia:Slovenian137,4.88,0.82,0,0,26.22,43.33,0.49,0.22,3.29,0.02,20.74,0
Slovenia:Slovenian147,4.49,0.83,0,0,28.05,49.08,0,0,2.85,0.17,14.53,0
Slovenia:Slovenian172,3.45,0.38,0.65,0.38,26.05,46.06,0,0,1.93,0,21.10,0
Slovenia:Slovenian184,2.75,0,0.40,0,28.05,51.15,0,0,2.56,0,15.00,0.08
Slovenia:Slovenian188,3.68,0,0.63,0,29.55,46.72,1.20,0,2.54,0,15.68,0
Slovenia:Slovenian237,5.04,0.68,0,0,32.71,43.60,0,0,2.08,0,15.89,0
Slovenia:Slovenian241,6.24,0.82,0.17,0.52,28.85,42.02,0.24,0,3.60,0,17.54,0
Slovenia:Slovenian271,4.93,0,0,0.41,31.52,46.80,0.41,0,2.42,0,13.50,0
Slovenia:Slovenian275,5.10,0.04,0.06,1.00,25.74,47.90,0.14,0,3.04,0,16.99,0
Slovenia:Slovenian299,2.60,0.28,0,0.20,27.91,47.31,0.28,0.57,2.06,0,18.79,0
Slovenia:Slovenian321,6.18,0,0,0.18,28.06,46.92,0.06,0,2.80,0.68,15.12,0
Hungary:hungary1,4.47,2.27,0,0.18,26.92,46.61,1.44,0,2.61,0.45,14.87,0.18
Hungary:hungary2,3.61,0.7,0,1.3,24.61,49.7,0,0,2.06,0,18.02,0
Hungary:hungary3,6.51,0.64,1.79,0,27.39,44.23,0.65,0,3.31,0,15.48,0
Hungary:hungary4,4.23,0.62,0,0,25.15,48.87,0,0,3.3,1.01,16.82,0
Hungary:hungary5,2.32,0,0,0,24.5,55.75,0,0,1.09,0.73,15.61,0
Hungary:hungary6,3.59,0.57,0,0.51,26.9,45.62,0.17,0,5.03,0,17.61,0
Hungary:hungary7,3.45,0.75,0,1.23,25.68,49.37,0.16,0.05,2.79,0,16.5,0
Hungary:hungary8,3.14,1.18,1.59,0,26.24,47.64,0,0,2.3,0,17.9,0
Hungary:hungary9,4.74,0.1,0,0,28.08,46.07,0.69,0,3.21,1.23,15.88,0
Hungary:hungary10,3.29,0.42,0,0.63,32.3,42.32,0,0,2.5,0.47,18.06,0
Hungary:hungary11,4.77,0,0.26,0.08,34.47,43.97,0,0,5.09,0.9,10.46,0
Hungary:hungary12,5.32,1.23,0,0,28.89,46.46,0,0,2.29,0.05,15.77,0
Hungary:hungary13,2.59,1.48,0,0,27.07,44.39,0,0,4.1,0.22,20.16,0
Hungary:hungary14,0.35,1.64,1.88,0,24.5,49.82,0.35,0,1.87,1.36,18.2,0.03
Hungary:hungary15,5.41,1.24,0,0,24.92,48.69,1.05,0,3.11,0.59,15,0
Hungary:hungary16,3.84,0.75,0,0.57,25.98,49.79,0,0,3.05,0,16.02,0
Hungary:hungary17,3.37,0.45,1.2,0,30.61,45.98,0,0,1.36,0.97,16.07,0
Hungary:hungary18,0.63,0,0,0,24.34,51.02,1.29,0,4.03,0.64,18.04,0
Hungary:hungary19,4.45,0.85,0,0,25.22,45.9,1.74,0,3.4,0,18.44,0
Hungary:hungary20,6.78,0,0,0,27.91,48.93,0.93,0,3.41,0.01,12.04,0
Lithuania:lithuania1,0.27,0.56,0,0,17.15,74.25,0,0,0.73,0.14,6.9,0
Lithuania:lithuania2,0.23,0,0,0,13.38,78.64,0,0,0.74,0,7,0
Lithuania:lithuania3,0.33,0,0,0,17.28,70.58,0.96,0,1.17,0,9.68,0
Lithuania:lithuania4,0.57,0,0,0,13.9,75.41,0.28,0,0,0,9.84,0
Lithuania:lithuania5,3.58,0.89,0,0,20.38,67.57,1.26,0,0.37,0,5.94,0
Lithuania:lithuania6,0,0,0,1.61,12.94,69.01,0,0,2.75,0,13.69,0
Lithuania:lithuania7,0,0,0,0,13.44,77.85,0.37,0,0.78,0.08,7.48,0
Lithuania:lithuania8,1.47,0.51,0,0,14.19,74.07,0,0,0.44,0,9.32,0
Lithuania:lithuania9,0,0,0,0,13.47,77.71,0,0,0.86,0,7.96,0
Lithuania:lithuania10,0,0,0,0.06,11.79,78.09,0,0,2.02,0,8.03,0
UK_Wales:WalesBK21,8.05,0.25,0,0,39.41,41.61,0.16,0.28,1.21,0,9.03,0
UK_Wales:WalesBK33,9.79,0.9,1.53,0,37.58,42.31,0.77,0,0,0,7.12,0
UK_Wales:WalesBK54,9.84,0,0.46,0,36.77,44.11,0.21,0.13,0.57,0,7.9,0
UK_Wales:WalesBK58,9.52,0.8,0.39,0.87,40.46,40.52,0,0,1.31,0,6.13,0
UK_Wales:WalesBK68,8.82,0,0.83,0,40.62,41.46,0.14,0,0.87,0,7.26,0
UK_Wales:WalesCHF12,7.6,0.48,0,0.18,38.85,43.54,0.3,0,1.16,0,7.89,0
UK_Wales:WalesCHF13,9.46,0,0.41,0,36.91,45.55,0,0.03,0.21,0.06,7.38,0
UK_Wales:WalesCHF15,2.23,2.85,0.53,0.15,19.72,67.6,0.21,0,0.74,0.09,5.88,0
UK_Wales:WalesCHF56,8.87,1.12,0.01,0,40.61,43.04,0,0,0,0,6.35,0
UK_Wales:WalesCHF63,7.97,0.34,0.79,0.01,38.37,43.91,0,0.03,1.88,0,6.69,0
UK_Wales:WalesDR56,8.57,0,0.43,0,38.51,41.23,0.81,0,0.93,0.17,9.27,0.08
UK_Wales:WalesDR68,7.27,0.28,1.4,0,36.77,37.77,0,0.14,4.3,0,12.06,0
UK_Wales:WalesDR84,9.28,0.17,0.04,0,39.53,39.56,0.17,0,1.82,0.18,9.24,0
UK_Wales:WalesDR94,8.51,0,0,0.08,37.81,45.04,0.06,0.28,0.07,0,8.04,0.12
UK_Wales:WalesDR99,9.28,0,0.39,0.37,38.12,42.58,0,0,0.7,0,8.48,0.08
UK_Wales:WalesL40,9.28,0.57,0.62,0,38.11,43.45,0.27,0,2.05,0,5.65,0
UK_Wales:WalesL42,8.25,0,0,0,38.42,43.69,0,0.26,0.41,0,8.97,0
UK_Wales:WalesL44,9.96,0.07,0.66,0.1,39.6,42.82,0,0,0.93,0,5.86,0
UK_Wales:WalesL45,6.74,0.5,2.5,0,30.35,29.65,0,0,7.52,1.13,21.6,0
UK_Wales:WalesL86,11.1,0,0.19,0,37.68,41.98,0,0.26,0.71,0,8.07,0
Romania:Romania1,0,0.41,0.27,0.72,23.96,36.68,1.57,0,7.13,0.1,29.17,0
Romania:Romania2,3.05,0,0,0,22.66,34.39,1.88,0,6.2,2.29,29.53,0
Romania_o:Romania3,9.61,0.12,0.71,1.54,14.05,18.18,21.38,0,6.08,0,28.33,0
Romania:Romania4,2.72,1.44,0,1.62,25.58,34.64,0,0,7.72,0,26.28,0
Romania:Romania5,2.2,1.44,0.54,0.31,21.23,36.86,0.33,0,9.9,0,27.2,0
Romania:Romania6,5.59,0.16,0.96,0,27.02,30.25,1.57,0,5.01,0.88,28.56,0
Romania_o:Romania7,10.13,0,0,1.77,12.69,9.97,25.5,0,7.15,0,32.78,0
Romania:Romania12,1.66,0.12,0,0,22.22,33.88,0,0,5.32,2.26,34.54,0
Spain:Spain1,8.48,0,2.64,0.46,54.61,21.33,0,0.69,2.52,0,9.23,0.04
Spain:Spain2,5.22,1.2,2.7,0,50.53,26.1,0,0,3.47,0,10.78,0
Spain:Spain3,7.03,0,3.27,0,50.73,25.2,0,0,2.9,0,10.88,0
Spain:Spain4,7.28,0.81,1.19,0,48.72,26.82,0,0,2.69,0,12.49,0
Spain:Spain5,4.94,0.21,2.23,0.29,44.81,29.68,0,0,2.68,0,14.61,0.53
Spain:Spain6,5.93,0,2.71,0,49.65,24.8,0,0,4.24,0.97,11.35,0.36
Spain:Spain8,5.27,0,4.11,0,53.77,19.19,1,1.47,3.76,0,11.44,0
Spain:Spain9,6.02,0.49,2.63,0.13,53.81,17.62,0.1,0.15,5.02,0,13.13,0.9
Spain:Spain10,7.14,0,6.52,0,50.5,21.23,1.39,1.47,2.95,0,8.76,0.05
Spain:Spain11,6.38,0,1.96,0,51.28,22.7,0,0,6.78,0,10.3,0.6
Spain:Spain12,5.42,0.42,4.48,0.58,51.84,18.42,0.43,0.94,4.59,0.01,12.76,0.12
Spain:Spain13,8.09,0,4.94,0,51.17,23.45,0,0,3.53,0,8.41,0.42
Turkey:tur2,11.89,4.64,0.38,0,13.46,10.1,2.82,0,7.4,2.64,46.69,0
Turkey:tur20,14.19,4.81,0,0,15.23,4.87,1.73,0.38,9.77,4.76,44.05,0.21
Turkey:tur37,17.32,3.27,0,0.4,9.91,7.42,1.64,0,9.8,3.07,47.17,0
Turkey:tur52,15.34,4.13,0.4,0,12.22,8.96,0,0.65,12.01,6.35,39.96,0
Turkey:tur67,10.25,4.54,0.05,0,11.01,11.76,1.34,0,10.85,2.74,47.46,0
Turkey:tur84,17.79,1.95,0.57,0,9.1,9.9,0,0,10.6,3.51,46.58,0
Turkey:tur110,12.08,4.33,0,0.45,10.92,7.72,0.1,0,11.39,4.71,47.42,0.87
Turkey:tur124,18.15,4.48,0,0,11.68,8.78,0.33,0.97,4.27,5.08,46.25,0
Turkey:tur139,15.81,3.55,0.84,0,8.68,8.2,0.8,0,15.36,1.58,45.19,0
Turkey:tur154,12.54,2.18,1.22,0,9.9,11.6,0,0,11.82,4.8,45.94,0
Turkey:tur170,19.57,2.95,0,0,9.98,8.55,0,2.38,6.68,3.62,46.11,0.15
Turkey:tur182,28.57,1.29,0,0.89,4.95,7.11,1.32,0,12.65,0,43.22,0
Turkey:tur197,11.23,1.23,0.52,0,10.58,9.21,0.91,0,10.63,3.79,51.89,0
Turkey:tur210,11.93,4.85,0.29,0.88,11.93,12.86,3.07,0.14,8.53,1.07,44.04,0.42
Turkey:tur222,12.15,3.28,1.45,0,10.06,11.03,1.25,0,10.49,3.13,47.16,0
Turkey:tur236,20.36,1.88,0.22,0.56,9.96,12.26,0.17,0,10.06,1.85,42.68,0
Turkey:tur262,18.22,3.31,0,0,15.72,6.22,1.01,0,12.51,2.32,40.68,0
Turkey:tur277,16.69,6.84,2.13,2.27,9.29,5.75,1.59,0,13.28,1.11,41.05,0
Turkey:tur306,14.63,6.42,0,0,0,21.2,0.8,0,0,3.38,53.57,0
Greece_NorthEast:GreeceNE8,6.06,1.06,0.23,0,25.47,30.62,0,0,8.12,0,28.44,0
Greece_NorthEast:GreeceNE11,5.53,0.37,0.78,0,27.05,28.83,0.57,0,6.26,0,30.57,0.05
Greece_NorthEast:GreeceNE34,6.36,0,2.82,0,27.36,30.25,0,0,7.9,0,25.31,0
Greece_NorthEast:GreeceNE59,6.59,0.83,1.44,0,25.65,26.93,1.27,0,10.96,0,26.24,0.08
Greece_NorthEast:GreeceNE126,7.01,0.61,0.84,0,29.05,22.73,0.29,0,8.79,0,30.68,0
Greece_NorthEast:GreeceNE144,4.75,1.27,0.74,0,28.42,24.21,0.36,0,8.59,0,31.6,0.06
Greece_NorthEast:GreeceNE162,4.57,0.39,0.83,0.31,31.54,23.63,0.28,0,8.2,0,30.26,0
Greece_NorthEast:GreeceNE209,3.73,0,2.27,0,26.67,22.19,0.26,0,11.14,0.69,33,0.06
Greece_NorthEast:GreeceNE231,7.23,0.16,2.76,0,28.12,19.17,0,0,9.71,0,32.85,0
Greece_NorthEast:GreeceNE252,7.39,0.24,1.23,0,26.45,20.4,0.19,0,10.02,0.48,33.49,0.11
Greece_NorthEast:GreeceNE284,5.91,0.54,0,0,29.59,22.91,0,0,9.71,0,31.33,0
Greece_Macedonia_o:GreeceMaced1,15.71,0,0.86,0,11.36,5.09,0.23,0,13.20,0.42,53.12,0
Greece_Macedonia:GreeceMaced2,6.98,0.23,0.79,0.65,25.71,32.82,0,0,6.71,0,26.11,0
Greece_Macedonia:GreeceMaced3,6.31,0.66,0.53,0,25.07,27.70,0,0,9.12,0.67,29.92,0
Greece_Macedonia:GreeceMaced4,4.99,0,0.80,0,25.65,30.89,0.52,0,9.41,0,27.75,0
Greece_Macedonia_o:GreeceMaced6,9.15,0,1.66,0,20.40,16.23,0,0,14.00,0.32,38.24,0
Greece_Macedonia_o:GreeceMaced7,8.06,0,2.83,0.12,22.96,16.70,0,0.11,12.60,0,36.19,0.44
Greece_Macedonia:GreeceMaced8,7.86,1.73,1.06,0,26.44,30.87,0,0,6.41,0.64,24.98,0
Greek_Thessaloniki:Greek_Thessaloniki_GREEKGRALPOP10,5.91,0.2,1.34,1.08,23.77,24.58,0.56,0.25,10.06,0,32.25,0
Greek_Thessaloniki:Greek_Thessaloniki_GREEKGRALPOP11,5.63,0.22,1.64,0,25.41,25.39,1.02,0.06,7.99,0,32.58,0.06
Greek_Thessaloniki:Greek_Thessaloniki_GREEKGRALPOP12,7.73,0.09,1.31,0,22.25,26.71,0.19,0,8.84,0,32.87,0
Greek_Thessaloniki:Greek_Thessaloniki_GREEKGRALPOP13,7.91,0.43,0.72,0,31.44,22.54,0,0,7.85,0,29,0.1
Greek_Thessaloniki:Greek_Thessaloniki_GREEKGRALPOP14,3.68,0,3.14,0,28.46,23.19,2.04,0,9.34,0,30.15,0
Greek_Thessaloniki:Greek_Thessaloniki_GREEKGRALPOP15,7.1,0,0.81,0,27.82,26.17,0,0,6.78,1.5,29.81,0
Greek_Thessaloniki:Greek_Thessaloniki_GREEKGRALPOP16,3,1.31,2.99,0,25.38,23.55,0,0.07,10.33,0,33.37,0
Greek_Thessaloniki:Greek_Thessaloniki_GREEKGRALPOP17,5.81,0,1.28,0.4,27.12,28.14,0,0.24,9.09,0,27.93,0
Greek_Thessaloniki:Greek_Thessaloniki_GREEKGRALPOP18,4.44,0.59,1.1,0,26.54,25.5,0.19,0,11.15,0,30.5,0
Greek_Thessaloniki:Greek_Thessaloniki_GREEKGRALPOP3,1.15,1.42,3.25,0.29,26.72,26.45,0,0,10.06,0,30.67,0
Greek_Thessaloniki:Greek_Thessaloniki_GREEKGRALPOP4,4.78,0.73,2.02,0,25.87,23.46,0,0,8.66,0,34.42,0.06
Greek_Thessaloniki:Greek_Thessaloniki_GREEKGRALPOP5,2.58,0,0.38,0.84,26.45,25.13,2.14,0,10.16,0,32.14,0.17
Greek_Thessaloniki:Greek_Thessaloniki_GREEKGRALPOP8,7.28,0,1.14,0,28.22,28.15,0,0,7.03,0.46,27.7,0
Greek_Thessaloniki:Greek_Thessaloniki_GREEKGRALPOP9,3.61,0,0,0,28.48,24.38,0.62,0.07,7.92,1,33.92,0
Greece_Thessaly:GreeceThessaly2,6.9,1.34,1.53,0.11,26.39,25.53,0.16,0,8.08,0.08,29.88,0
Greece_Thessaly:GreeceThessaly3,3.71,0.02,0.83,0.01,29.93,26.54,0.01,0,9.97,0.03,28.96,0
Greece_Thessaly:GreeceThessaly4,6.14,0.24,1.99,0,25.36,24.62,0,0,9.86,0.07,31.57,0.14
Greece_Thessaly:GreeceThessaly5,6.88,0.01,1.77,0,29.18,23.02,2.4,0,7.11,0.01,29.62,0
Greece_Thessaly:GreeceThessaly6,5.64,0.45,1.23,0,29.32,28.97,0,0,5.91,0,27.75,0
Greece_Thessaly:GreeceThessaly7,6.05,0.25,0.02,0.05,27.46,24.05,0.64,0,10.79,1.12,29.56,0
Greece_Thessaly:GreeceThessaly8,5.49,0.11,2.3,0.02,29.33,24.5,0.03,0,8.53,0,29.09,0
Greece_Thessaly:GreeceThessaly9,4.85,1.44,2.05,0,27.28,22.79,0,0,11.38,0.01,30.2,0
Greece_Thessaly:GreeceThessaly10,6.25,0,2.96,0.06,25.9,25.82,1.41,0,8.63,0.02,28.95,0
Greece_Thessaly:Greek_Thessaly,5.706,0.389,1.56,0.052,27.831,25.09,0.465,0,8.958,0.134,29.667,0.014
Greek_Athens:Greek_Athens_TLA010,2.8,0.24,1,0,28.15,21.24,0,0,12.36,0.21,34.02,0
Greek_Athens:Greek_Athens_TLA011,4.28,1.31,3.51,1.11,23.42,18.26,0,0,12.21,0,35.91,0
Greek_Athens:Greek_Athens_TLA012,4.43,0.36,2.13,0,26.55,18.17,0.67,0,11.68,0,36,0
Greek_Athens:Greek_Athens_TLA015,4.9,0.93,3.76,0,29.22,20.43,0.47,0,10.23,0.14,28.75,1.16
Greek_Athens:Greek_Athens_TLA017,9.16,0.24,0.75,0.24,28.71,20.1,0,0,9.13,1.58,30.1,0
Greek_Athens:Greek_Athens_TLA018,5.36,0,1.48,0.34,28.6,17.93,0,0,9.78,0,35.54,0.97
Greek_Athens:Greek_Athens_TLA019,3.84,0.68,0.42,0,25.63,23.81,0,0.36,11.23,0,33.98,0
Greek_Athens:Greek_Athens_TLA020,4.74,0,0.18,0,28.35,24.29,0,0.53,11.52,0,30.33,0.06
Greek_Athens:Greek_Athens_TLA021,9.08,0,0,1.62,25.79,17.31,0.51,0,10.02,0,35.66,0
Greek_Athens:Greek_Athens_TLA023,4.43,0.61,2.63,0.17,24.98,24.64,0,0.43,6.7,1.16,34.24,0
Greek_Athens:Greek_Athens_TLA024,5.21,0,2.54,0,27.46,19.21,0,0,9.51,1.18,34.89,0
Greek_Athens:Greek_Athens_TLA025,4.11,0,0.55,0.43,27.48,21.51,0,0.52,11.43,0.35,33.61,0
Greek_Athens:Greek_Athens_TLA027,5.56,0,0.54,0,27.64,21.33,0,0.06,10.85,0.48,32.98,0.56
Greek_Athens:Greek_Athens_TLA028,5.81,0,0.58,0.11,25.83,21.24,0,0.09,11.29,0,34.02,1.01
Greek_Athens:Greek_Athens_TLA029,7.23,1.35,1.86,0,24.9,19.54,0.75,0,9.81,0,34.55,0
Greek_Preveliana_Irakleioy_B_Crete1DG,10.87,0.78,2.75,0,22.32,16.89,0,0.31,12.01,0,34.04,0
Greece_Central:GreeceCentral1,8.37,0.49,1.07,0.01,26.68,21.96,0,0.82,9.37,0.74,30.49,0
Greece_Central:GreeceCentral2,4.71,0.48,1.44,0.36,28.68,21.72,0,0.22,10.58,0.32,31.5,0
Greece_Central:GreeceCentral3,9.42,0.01,2.26,0,24.17,14.08,0.02,0,11.79,0,38.24,0
Greece_Central:GreeceCentral4,7.81,0.38,0.38,0.41,27.51,17.93,0,0.72,10.54,0.03,34.28,0
Greece_Central:GreeceCentral5,4.57,0.85,0.57,0.2,28.37,26.23,0,0,9.91,0.19,29.11,0
Greece_Central:GreeceCentral6,5.31,0,1.33,0,27.7,26.22,0,0,8.89,0,30.54,0
Greece_Central:GreeceCentral7,7.82,0.16,0.07,0,24.68,20.88,0.05,0,9.03,0.68,36.57,0.07
Greece_Central:GreeceCentral8,6.4,0,1.43,0.52,27.89,16.54,0.01,0,11.85,0,35.34,0
Greece_Central:GreeceCentral9,4.64,0.02,1.31,0,29.46,26.52,0,0.35,7.57,0.46,29.68,0
Greece_Central:GreeceCentral10,6.69,0.57,4.05,0.01,24.6,16.55,0,0.17,12.44,0,34.9,0
Greece_Peloponnese:GreecePelop1,4.45,0.85,1.27,0,27.15,25.99,0,0,8.10,0,32.19,0
Greece_Peloponnese:GreecePelop3,4.43,0.26,2.41,0,27.51,24.00,0,0,9.48,0.59,31.32,0
Greece_Peloponnese:GreecePelop4,6.16,0,1.66,0.41,25.45,20.53,0,0,10.27,0.63,34.81,0.09
Greece_Peloponnese:GreecePelop5,6.04,0,2.22,0.17,27.11,22.04,0.56,0,8.05,1.08,32.72,0
Greece_Peloponnese:GreecePelop6,9.28,0,1.12,0.39,21.80,20.92,7.00,0.27,8.61,0,30.61,0
Greece_Peloponnese:GreecePelop7,5.43,0.22,1.39,0,24.58,24.31,0,0.21,11.63,0,32.23,0
Greece_Peloponnese:GreecePelop8,5.52,0,1.22,0.36,27.33,21.20,0,0,12.52,0,31.83,0
Greece_Peloponnese:GreecePelop9,6.06,0,1.94,0,26.80,21.29,0.14,0,11.95,0.19,31.62,0
Greece_Peloponnese:GreecePelop10,6.32,0.38,0.54,0,23.96,24.44,1.16,0.08,11.55,0.03,31.54,0
Greece_F:GreeceF28k,5.7,0.26,2.28,0,26.66,23.65,0,0,9.73,0,31.72,0
Greece_F:GreeceF36k,7.56,0,1.59,0.93,25.46,17.83,0,0.59,10.19,0,35.84,0
Greece_F:GreeceF51k,6.45,0.31,1.52,0,26.4,17.15,0.39,0.13,13.04,0,34.6,0
Greece_F:GreeceF52k,7.86,0,2.37,0,26.6,17.67,0.02,0,9.14,0.66,35.65,0.04
Greece_F:GreeceF69k,5.99,0.05,1.49,0,23.64,16.84,0,0,10.89,1.35,39.75,0
Greece_Kos:GreeceKos1,8.21,0.83,3.1,0.1,23.32,10.76,0,0,14.19,0,39.31,0.18
Greece_Kos:GreeceKos2,7.15,0.37,2.41,0,24.26,10.76,0,0.17,15.8,0,39.09,0
Greece_Kos:GreeceKos4,8.72,0,2.03,0.34,21.5,10.32,0.6,0.12,14.63,0,41.73,0
Greece_Kos:GreeceKos5,7.67,0,1.6,0.56,25.5,9.49,0,0,14.42,0.85,39.88,0.04
Greece_Kos:GreeceKos6,8.55,0,2.11,1.09,23.32,10.43,0,0,14.84,0,39.66,0
Greece_Kos:GreeceKos7,8.27,0.19,2.85,0,23.92,10.98,0,0.1,14.34,0,39.35,0
Greece_Kos:GreeceKos8,9.32,0.2,3.74,0,22.28,7.83,0,0.4,13.98,0.81,41.45,0
Greece_Kos:GreeceKos9,7.94,0,4.17,0.54,22.17,11.92,0,0,13.1,0,39.93,0.24
Greece_Kos:GreeceKos10,8.54,0.17,2.62,0.07,20.43,10.62,1.12,0,14.65,0,41.56,0.23
Greece_Crete:Crete2,6.12,1.09,3.08,0,20.58,16.33,0,0.13,14.03,0,38.55,0.11
Greece_Crete:Crete3,8.41,0,1.57,0.48,25.78,13.69,0.42,0.16,13.21,0.34,35.93,0
Greece_Crete:Crete4,8.03,0,3.74,0,21.4,13.73,1.1,0.2,13.71,0.18,37.91,0
Greece_Crete:Crete5,9.01,0,1.27,0,23.71,12.93,0,1.59,13.08,0,38.41,0
Greece_Crete:Crete6,8.38,0,1.38,0,24.44,12.63,0.78,0,14.41,0,37.97,0
Greece_Crete:Crete7,5.52,0.74,2.66,0,23.72,10.47,0.96,0,15.36,0,40.22,0.36
Greece_Crete:Crete8,7.66,0.11,2.22,0,24.42,14.89,0.09,0,12.43,0.17,37.06,0.94
Greece_Crete:Crete9,9.28,0,2.75,0,22.32,13.5,0,0,11.81,0,40.34,0
Greece_Crete:Crete10,8.56,0,2.39,0,23.01,10.62,0,0.78,13.36,0,41.21,0.07
Greece_Phokaia:GreecePhokaia60,6.61,0.07,1.28,0,22.96,19.3,0.76,0.03,11.1,0,37.89,0
Greece_Smyrna:GreeceSmyrna4,5.39,0,1.61,0.29,22.82,18.54,0,0.37,12.2,0,38.79,0
Greece_Smyrna:GreeceSmyrna7,9.78,0.36,2.9,0,19.26,7,0,0,14.44,0.04,46.22,0
Greece_Smyrna:GreeceSmyrna9,6.82,0.58,3.34,0,23.47,15.26,0,0.14,11.07,0,39.12,0.19
Greece_Smyrna:GreeceSmyrna30,8.35,0,1.64,0.07,26.31,17.02,0,0,11.71,0,34.9,0
Greece_Smyrna:GreeceSmyrna58,5.32,0,2.08,0,27.92,19.48,0.73,0,10.49,0.08,33.9,0
Cyprus:Cyprus1,5.59,0,2.08,0,20.33,3.08,0.09,0,17.89,0.21,50.72,0
Cyprus:Cyprus2,9.96,0,3.2,0,21.58,4.03,0,0.99,18.48,0,41.62,0.15
Cyprus:Cyprus3,8.64,0,1.14,0,19.54,5.45,0,0,16.78,0.18,48.26,0
Cyprus:Cyprus4,4.87,0,2.63,0.45,15.59,7.55,0,0,17.27,0,51.64,0
Cyprus:Cyprus5,5.26,0.82,3.26,0,19.47,5.3,0,0,14.93,0,50.95,0
Cyprus:Cyprus6,5.89,0,1.08,0,21.59,3.31,0.07,0,17.82,0.24,50.01,0
Cyprus:Cyprus7,7.07,0,0.93,0.41,21.52,2.38,0,0,17.66,0,50.03,0
Cyprus:Cyprus8,5.33,0,0.47,0,20.92,4.07,0.87,0.66,18.79,0,48.89,0
Cyprus:Cyprus9,5.55,0,2.12,0,19.73,5.63,0.94,0.51,16.73,0,48.79,0
Cyprus:Cyprus10,4.62,0,2.85,0,21.7,5.16,0,0.76,15.97,0,48.94,0
Cyprus:Cyprus11,6.15,0,1.56,0.83,19.31,4.48,0,0.76,17.54,0.33,49.05,0
Cyprus:Cyprus12,8.06,0,3.67,0,19.16,2.71,0,0,18.44,0,47.7,0.26
Ashkenazi:ashkenazy1e,2.98,1.4,2.93,0.92,26.64,14.53,0.53,0.3,14.68,0,35.1,0
Ashkenazi:ashkenazy1w,9.04,1.3,4.96,0,22.57,5.08,0.37,1.47,17.86,0.53,36.82,0
Ashkenazi_o:ashkenazy2e,4.79,1.07,2.41,0,19.93,25.96,0.67,1.1,8.71,1.49,33.88,0
Ashkenazi:ashkenazy2w,2.26,0,2.79,0.09,29.03,10.15,0.86,1.64,12.31,1.88,38.98,0
Ashkenazi:ashkenazy3e,1.32,0.98,5.39,0.46,21.06,12.47,1.8,0.18,12.71,0,43.63,0
Ashkenazi:ashkenazy3w,4.03,1.32,4.97,0.57,25.3,10.75,0.2,0,15.43,0,37.43,0
Ashkenazi:ashkenazy4e,4.06,1.54,5.48,0.26,25.22,11.68,0,1.28,13.69,0.03,36.75,0
Ashkenazi:ashkenazy4w,5.11,0.95,4.85,0.03,25.22,10.43,0.33,0.53,15.77,0,36.78,0
Ashkenazi:ashkenazy5e,2.5,0.79,3.86,0.14,21.26,12.16,1.46,0.22,12.92,1.49,43,0.2
Ashkenazi:ashkenazy6w,4.99,0.52,5.15,0,26.99,9.5,0.46,0.72,14.34,0.04,37.3,0
Ashkenazi:ashkenazy7e,0,0.34,7.12,0.3,23.89,14.68,1.18,0,15.06,1,36.44,0
Ashkenazi:ashkenazy7w,1.83,0,5.51,0,28.53,7.96,1.65,0.9,15.39,0.41,37.83,0
Ashkenazi:ashkenazy8e,3.05,0.45,2.7,2.34,24.38,13.17,0,1.44,12.54,0.29,39.65,0
Ashkenazi:ashkenazy8w,2.68,0.2,6.65,0,27.53,11.15,2.56,0.44,13.52,0,35.28,0
Ashkenazi:ashkenazy9e,1.71,1.81,4.5,0,24.26,14.11,1.36,0,12.36,0.37,39.53,0
Ashkenazi_o:ashkenazy9w,6.13,0,2.78,0.25,35.03,28.09,2.19,0,5.96,0,19.38,0.18
Ashkenazi:ashkenazy10e,1.16,0.47,3.68,0,23.33,16.05,1.67,0.3,12.08,1.77,39.49,0
Ashkenazi_o:ashkenazy10w,7.38,0.4,1.63,0.35,31.14,28.55,1.32,0,7.51,0.05,21.49,0.19
Sephardi:sephardic1tur,7.38,0,5.14,0,23.42,6.25,0.48,0.98,13.59,0.62,42.14,0
Sephardi:sephardic2tur,5.19,0.16,6.09,0.1,23.28,5.25,0,0.87,19.54,0,39.52,0
Sephardi:sephardic3tur,8.29,0,6.83,0.05,28.46,6.26,0,1.1,17.51,0,31.5,0
Sephardi:sephardic4tur,5.61,0.18,7.45,0.5,27.06,3.69,0.24,1.58,16.79,0,36.19,0.72
Sephardi:sephardic5tur,4.43,0.58,9.57,0,23.24,5.3,0.48,0.78,17.23,0,38.37,0
Sephardi:sephardic6tur,6.82,1.13,8.61,0,23.35,4.33,0,0.38,17.58,0,37.8,0
Sephardi:sephardic7tur,3.57,0,7.17,0,25.34,5.95,1.47,0,17.57,0.36,38.33,0.24
Sephardi:sephardic8tur,6.91,1.67,5.78,0,27.2,4.28,0,0,18.88,0.2,35.07,0
Sephardi:sephardic9tur,5.61,0.96,8.81,0,28.13,4.08,0.9,0.75,13.63,0,37.13,0
Sephardi:sephardic10tur,6.91,0.22,6.09,0,26.63,3.15,2.41,0,16.38,0,38.22,0
Sephardi_o:sephardic11bel,5.61,0,8.73,0.06,38.28,9.6,0.17,0,13.59,0.17,23.17,0.63
Sephardi:sephardic12bul,6.84,0,4.07,0,28.63,6.2,0.45,0,16.07,0.68,36,1.06
Sephardi:sephardic13bul,5.26,0.41,6.53,0,25.55,7.13,2.03,0.55,16.93,0,35.6,0
Sephardi:sephardic14bul,3.88,0.81,5.07,0,26.68,3.58,2.22,1.31,16.09,0,40.35,0
Sephardi:sephardic15bul,1.06,0.81,3.79,0.78,27.26,8.56,0.01,0.73,15.29,0.94,40.76,0
Sephardi:sephardic16bul,6.19,0,5.77,0.98,25.03,4.13,1.08,0.87,15.4,0,40.08,0.46
Sephardi:sephardic17bul,0.61,0.33,6.87,0.59,24.01,10.35,0.24,1.17,14.18,0,41.64,0
Sephardi:sephardic18bul,4.16,0,4.92,0,24.75,8.55,0,1.1,14.5,0,41.58,0.44
Sephardi:sephardic19bul,2.61,0,5.08,0,29.61,6.86,1.33,0.72,15.24,0,38.29,0.26
Lebanon:Lebanon2,13.55,0.67,4.26,0.75,12.61,0,0,1.77,23.27,0,42.29,0.84
Lebanon:Lebanon3,10.97,0,4.89,0.55,11.42,4.14,0,1.91,24.01,0,41.69,0.41
Lebanon:Lebanon4,6.1,0,9.04,1.02,10.33,0,0.23,7.79,27.19,0,37.41,0.89
Lebanon:Lebanon5,6.2,0,7.7,0.52,9.94,2.04,0,7.51,25.12,0,37.89,3.08
Lebanon:Lebanon6,13.11,1.06,2.16,0.54,7.68,7.27,2.18,1.75,17.01,2.99,42.98,1.3
Lebanon:Lebanon7,8.66,0.54,4.37,0.45,14.12,3.76,1.44,2.19,23.22,0,39.96,1.29
Lebanon:Lebanon8,13.56,2.11,0.73,0,12.14,4.14,0,2.11,19.36,2.17,41.98,1.71
Jordan:Jordan62,9.61,0.79,6.45,0,7.13,0.97,0,5.53,29.4,0,36.93,3.19
Jordan:Jordan214,10.01,1.51,3.8,0,10.41,4.28,0.48,3.67,27.69,0.37,36.23,1.55
Jordan:Jordan305,10.01,0,5.82,0.75,7.69,0.93,0.95,4.32,30.9,0,37.1,1.54
Jordan:Jordan307,9.48,0.15,5.4,0.02,15.23,0.06,0,4.35,29.99,1.64,31.18,2.5
Jordan:Jordan382,7.97,0,6.81,0.54,12.52,0,0,4.94,26.13,1.46,38.47,1.16
Jordan:Jordan384,10.65,0.84,5.9,0,10.15,0.03,0,5.99,27.05,0,36.91,2.48
Jordan:Jordan387,10,0,2.85,0.33,8.69,2.84,0,3.84,35.6,0.98,33.76,1.11
Jordan:Jordan426,7.92,0.44,2.72,0,12.25,2.66,1.08,6.47,22.94,0.99,40.77,1.76
Jordan:Jordan444,2.46,0,4.88,0,0,3.44,0.32,31.54,17.58,0,12.23,27.53
Jordan:Jordan445,4.47,0,4.83,0,11.81,0.4,1.32,3.66,25.17,0.37,45.68,2.28
Jordan:Jordan485,8.41,0,7.19,0.63,10.74,0,0.51,7.03,26.2,0,36.57,2.71
Jordan:Jordan502,7.84,0,6.76,0.91,10.89,2.75,0.14,5.68,27.68,0.01,35.93,1.4
Jordan:Jordan503,14.9,3.07,5.35,0.57,9.34,2.31,1.44,4.33,21.4,0.4,35.93,0.96
Jordan:Jordan543,6.92,0,5.69,0.26,11.34,0.84,1.71,3.17,29.71,0.06,38.1,2.2
Jordan:Jordan546,7.61,0,3.6,0.51,12.03,0,0.8,6.35,25.68,0,40.43,3
Jordan:Jordan560,9.96,1.35,6.42,0.23,10.19,0,0.78,3.08,26.85,0,39.28,1.87
Jordan:Jordan563,10.1,0,8.62,1.69,8.63,0,0,4.95,28.07,0.36,36.18,1.4
Jordan:Jordan603,10.13,1.66,6.46,0,11.92,0.55,0,3.09,25.14,0,38.13,2.91
Jordan:Jordan608,7.77,0,5.81,0,11.45,0.02,0,5.98,25.57,1.23,42.17,0
Jordan:Jordan646,10.36,0,3.71,0,11.62,1.55,0,4.56,27.8,1.17,37.05,2.19
Syria:syria1,15.84,0.74,1.68,1.22,8.13,10.56,1.12,1.03,11.79,1.42,45.57,0.91
Syria:syria2,11.52,0.21,2.59,0,15.97,1.22,1.24,4.02,27.58,0.67,34.98,0
Syria:syria3,9.14,0,3.61,0,10.8,2.01,0.86,3.34,28.41,0.34,39.87,1.63
Syria:syria4,14.28,0,4.78,0,11.61,1.01,0.36,3.17,27.66,0.06,37.08,0
Syria:syria5,17.19,0,0.53,0.69,7.89,3.32,3.58,1.81,27.54,0.62,35.89,0.95
Syria:syria6,12.87,1.22,0.13,0.24,4.86,4.88,2.36,5.22,32.5,0,32.68,3.04
Syria:syria7,10.41,0.51,0.85,0,2.5,4.29,3.9,2.43,34.7,0,36.3,4.1
Syria:syria8,11.12,0.95,1.72,0.14,7.87,0,3.4,2.74,26.82,0,42.23,3.02
Syria:syria9,9.52,1.19,0.2,0,12.26,2.85,1.63,2.12,24.71,0,45.52,0
Syria:syria10,11.51,1.64,1.48,0,12.27,3.7,0.68,0.29,21.78,0.6,43.27,2.78
Syria:syria298,10.67,0.54,2.58,0,11.78,2.46,0.16,2.56,21.78,0,46.49,0.97
Syria:syria361,19.2,0,0.29,0,14.46,0.3,0,0,15.64,0,50.11,0
Syria:syria461,14.36,0.18,2.84,0,4.98,1.14,0.96,4.95,32.78,1.73,31.47,4.61
Syria:syria464,11.89,0,0.56,0,6.44,1.87,2.23,4.11,33.23,1.75,35.19,2.73
Syria:syria485,11.08,0.13,4.18,1.87,11.63,6.85,1.45,2.25,18.95,0,39.15,2.47
Syria:syria520,6.95,0,8.2,0.14,12.72,3.19,0,6.5,23.78,0.2,36.36,1.96
Saudi:saudi1403,0,0.5,1.53,0,0.2,0.74,0,2.76,77.32,0,16.95,0
Saudi:saudi1411,15.87,0.96,3.01,0,2.03,3.72,2.51,2.99,35.09,0,31.18,2.63
Saudi:saudi1413,1.05,0,0,0,0,0.42,0.31,0,85.62,0,12.6,0
Saudi:saudi1424,0,0,0,0,0,0.04,0.61,1.85,80.63,0,16.88,0
Saudi:saudi1426,0,0,0,0,2.44,0.77,0.04,4.47,75.25,0.77,16.26,0
Saudi:saudi1428b,8.18,0,4.32,0,4.97,0.68,2.65,7.48,42.37,0.53,27.75,1.08
Saudi:saudi1430,8.88,0,1.76,0,3.64,1.86,0.85,2.56,63.99,0,16.42,0.05
Saudi:saudi1432,0,0,3.02,0,1.86,0.62,0,0.63,77.43,0.07,15.47,0.9
Saudi:saudi1434,0,0.88,1.04,0,2.5,0,0,2.56,72.45,0,20.57,0
Saudi:saudi1436,19.98,0.1,0.42,0,4.9,3.06,1.92,1.11,27.55,3.63,31.38,5.96
SaudiA:SaudiA1,0,0,1.64,0.69,0,0,0,3.7,74.49,0,19.35,0.12
SaudiA:SaudiA2,10.83,0,1.6,0,0,3.75,3.77,21.37,21.12,1.29,14.53,21.75
SaudiA:SaudiA3,7.4,0.05,2.15,0,5.54,1.86,0,5.55,50.96,0,25.84,0.64
SaudiA:SaudiA4,1.59,0,0.87,0,2.97,0,0,2.16,67.45,0.19,24.77,0
SaudiA:SaudiA5,0,0,0.02,0,0,1.81,0,2.82,81.73,0,13.62,0
SaudiA:SaudiA6,7.15,0,1.36,0.89,3.1,3.13,0.59,2.34,49.47,0,30.39,1.57
SaudiA:SaudiA7,10.21,0.23,4.01,0.12,14.11,0.01,2.16,1.84,23.97,0,42.52,0.83
SaudiA:SaudiA8,1.2,0,2.69,0,1.43,0.44,0,4.4,72.03,0.25,17.33,0.22
SaudiA:SaudiA9,11.99,0,1.53,0,4.41,1.76,1.55,2.1,40.9,0,33.64,2.12
SaudiA:SaudiA10,5.63,0.2,0,0.85,3.24,0,0,3.73,62.27,0,24.07,0
Yemen:Yemen1,1.82,0.62,2.46,4.23,1.81,0.46,0.1,11.82,21.84,1.08,8.66,45.1
Yemen:Yemen2,10.6,0.69,2.66,0,4.86,0,4.19,12.8,28.92,1.14,23.58,10.56
Yemen:Yemen3,3.61,0.11,4.9,0.96,0.41,0.84,1.88,10.87,34.74,0,19.01,22.66
Yemen:Yemen4,6.61,1.05,6.6,0.67,5.74,1.11,1.99,5.98,34.12,0,26.35,9.78
Yemen:Yemen5,3.72,1.62,4.41,0.56,5.32,0,2.95,9.41,42.56,0,23.53,5.92
Yemen:Yemen6,3.67,0.13,4.79,0.91,0.3,0.92,1.89,10.88,34.8,0,18.99,22.72
Yemen:Yemen7,9.26,0.53,2.52,0.88,3.46,0.86,3.69,12.47,31.79,0,25.71,8.83
Yemen:Yemen8,13.74,0.37,2.82,1.1,3.7,2.29,4.43,4.92,32.7,0,25.94,8
Yemen:Yemen9,13.99,0.86,2.13,0,7.22,0,2.48,5.59,34.63,0,30.67,2.42
Yemen:Yemen10,4.41,0.08,2.82,0,1.63,1.02,0,7.89,53.05,0,29.1,0
Armernia:arm3,13.52,0.07,0,0.13,8.44,4,0.78,0,13.79,0.38,58.89,0
Armernia:arm4,21.1,0,0,0.01,4.7,6.28,0.77,0,9.34,0.15,57.64,0
Armernia:arm5,15.83,0,0,0,10.25,1.43,0.76,0,10.3,0,61.44,0
Armernia:arm6,14.64,0,0,0,9.31,1.54,0.68,0,8.89,0,64.94,0
Armernia:arm7,10.43,4.12,1.19,0,10.61,33.22,0.35,0,8.43,0,31.65,0
Armernia:arm8,16.04,0.45,0,0,13.53,0.28,0,0,11.19,0,58.5,0
Armernia:arm9,17.76,0.89,0.94,0,9.44,6.28,0.93,0.08,12.72,0,50.97,0
Armernia:arm10,20.63,0,0,0.01,13.03,1.19,1.47,0,11.57,0,52.12,0
Armernia:arm11,18.36,0,0,0.3,10.21,4.36,0,0,13.54,0,53.23,0
Armernia:arm12,13.35,0,0,0,5.55,5.01,0.2,0,6.99,0.88,68.02,0
Armernia:arm13,14.76,0.61,0.5,0,10.27,14.85,0.37,0,6.35,0,52.29,0
Armernia:arm14,7.51,2.02,0,0,9.37,36.7,0.31,0,6.76,0,37.34,0
Armernia:arm17,15.74,0,0,0,7.94,5.92,0,0,12.67,0.56,57.17,0
Armernia:arm18,14.43,0,0,0,11.21,2.38,0,0,10.01,0,61.97,0
Armernia:arm19,20.53,0,0,0,7.1,2.67,0,0,14.81,0,54.89,0
Armernia:arm20,14.96,0,0,0.1,5.35,5.94,0,0,8,0.9,64.74,0
Armernia:arm21,6.11,0.86,1.15,0.19,12.94,49.83,0.18,0,0.96,0.33,27.44,0
Armernia:arm23,14.75,0,0,0.03,7.88,3.96,0,0,8.99,0.27,64.13,0
Armernia:arm26,17.42,0.45,0,0,8.19,4.34,0.72,0.04,10.74,0,58.09,0
```

----------


## Pax Augusta

I removed the outliers and now the PCA may be more readable. As soon as I have time I will add other missing populations. 





﻿

----------


## Duarte

Thanks Pax

Distance to:
Duarte

3.46759753
94.20% Portugal:Portugal1 + 5.80% Yemen:Yemen1

3.92769015
94.60% Portugal:Portugal13 + 5.40% Yemen:Yemen1

3.99881721
94.60% Portugal:Portugal1 + 5.40% Jordan:Jordan444

4.25482403
94.60% Portugal:Portugal1 + 5.40% SaudiA:SaudiA2

4.42105157
95.00% Portugal:Portugal13 + 5.00% Jordan:Jordan444

4.48433901
95.60% Portugal:Portugal1 + 4.40% Yemen:Yemen3

4.48654320
95.60% Portugal:Portugal1 + 4.40% Yemen:Yemen6

4.57856277
92.60% Portugal:Portugal6 + 7.40% Yemen:Yemen1

4.60076850
15.60% Corsica:CorsicaS15608 + 84.40% Portugal:Portugal1

4.70932725
95.60% Portugal:Portugal1 + 4.40% Yemen:Yemen2

4.80708071
96.20% Portugal:Portugal1 + 3.80% Yemen:Yemen7

4.82129406
7.80% Trapani:TP05_LazaridisNat2014 + 92.20% Portugal:Portugal1

4.83238355
96.20% Portugal:Portugal1 + 3.80% Yemen:Yemen4

4.84072684
95.80% Portugal:Portugal13 + 4.20% SaudiA:SaudiA2

4.84626195
96.00% Portugal:Portugal1 + 4.00% Lebanon:Lebanon5

4.85460060
95.60% Portugal:Portugal1 + 4.40% Syria:syria485

4.86018268
96.00% Portugal:Portugal1 + 4.00% Jordan:Jordan485

4.86315746
96.00% Portugal:Portugal1 + 4.00% Turkey:tur170

4.86480118
96.00% Portugal:Portugal1 + 4.00% Turkey:tur124

4.86571552
96.00% Portugal:Portugal1 + 4.00% Jordan:Jordan546

4.86711957
6.80% W-Sicily:21 + 93.20% Portugal:Portugal1

4.87056010
70.40% Portugal:Portugal1 + 29.60% Portugal:Portugal2

4.87752032
96.00% Portugal:Portugal1 + 4.00% Jordan:Jordan603

4.87886782
95.80% Portugal:Portugal1 + 4.20% Turkey:tur20

4.88044989
95.80% Portugal:Portugal1 + 4.20% Syria:syria520


4.87056010
70.40% Portugal:Portugal1 + 29.60% Portugal:Portugal2

4.95510975
86.20% Spain:Spain3 + 13.80% Jordan:Jordan444

4.98804250
68.00% Portugal:Portugal2 + 32.00% Spain:Spain13

5.00595646
74.00% Portugal:Portugal2 + 26.00% Spain:Spain1

5.01033939
66.60% Portugal:Portugal2 + 33.40% Spain:Spain10

5.03266161
87.00% Spain:Spain3 + 13.00% Yemen:Yemen1

5.04763256
67.60% Portugal:Portugal12 + 32.40% Spain:Spain10

5.06634171
24.80% Corsica:CorsicaS15608 + 75.20% Portugal:Portugal6

5.10246199
67.00% Portugal:Portugal2 + 33.00% Spain:Spain3

5.11094081
76.20% Portugal:Portugal1 + 23.80% Portugal:Portugal12

5.17435914
58.80% Portugal:Portugal1 + 41.20% Portugal:Portugal13

5.18510254
87.80% Spain:Spain6 + 12.20% Jordan:Jordan444

5.19927637
64.40% Portugal:Portugal2 + 35.60% Spain:Spain6

5.20765874
67.80% Portugal:Portugal2 + 32.20% Spain:Spain2

5.22479839
85.40% Spain:Spain3 + 14.60% SaudiA:SaudiA2

5.29966012
87.60% Spain:Spain4 + 12.40% Yemen:Yemen1

5.31227891
32.60% Albanian:AL9 + 67.40% Spain:Spain10


5.30431899
Portugal:Portugal1

5.43745345
Portugal:Portugal13

6.39920308
Portugal:Portugal9

6.84937953
Portugal:Portugal12

6.87803024
Portugal:Portugal6

6.90954412
Portugal:Portugal7

6.93103167
Portugal:Portugal10

6.99095129
Portugal:Portugal2

7.20277724
Portugal:Portugal3

7.56310783
Portugal:Portugal11

8.99914996
Corsica_o:CorsicaS00708

9.10243374
French_Provence-Provance4109

9.52070901
Spain:Spain5

9.89869688
Spain:Spain6

10.57147577
Spain:Spain4

10.73484047
N_Italy_HGDP:HGDP01154

10.92404687
Spain:Spain10

10.94775776
Spain:Spain3

10.97884784
Corsica_o:corsica11908

10.98203533
N_Italy_HGDP:HGDP01173

11.06127931
Lombardy:BGD28_Lombardy

11.07024390
Piedmont:ItalyPiedmont127

11.12115552
Spain:Spain2

11.29594618
French_Provence-Provance2508

11.37322733
N_Italy_HGDP:HGDP01172



Target: Duarte
Distance: 1.8032% / 1.80315011

46.6
Spain



26.9
GermanyB



9.3
Yemen



8.7
Sardinia_HGDP



6.7
Portugal



1.5
Turkey



0.3
Germany





Target: Duarte
Distance: 2.3593% / 2.35934702 | ADC: 0.25x RC

60.4
Spain



20.0
Portugal



11.0
N_Italy_HGDP



8.6
Yemen





Target: Duarte
Distance: 3.3973% / 3.39728023 | ADC: 0.5x RC

94.3
Portugal



5.7
Yemen





Target: Duarte
Distance: 4.8706% / 4.87055729 | ADC: 1x RC

70.5
Portugal:Portugal1



29.5
Portugal:Portugal2

----------


## italouruguayan

With the new coordinates, my results got a bit strange...Wales? Ashkenazi? German?
Distance to:	italouruguayan
12.12725855	UK_Wales:WalesL45
12.45939806	Ashkenazi_o:ashkenazy10w
13.30189460	GermanyB:GermanB18
13.55852499	Greece_Macedonia:GreeceMaced8
13.80775145	Ashkenazi_o:ashkenazy9w
14.34106342	Greece_NorthEast:GreeceNE34
14.41980582	Greece_NorthEast:GreeceNE59
14.56452883	Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:ALP346
14.61209088	Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:KF2700960
14.75188801	Piedmont:ItalyPiedmont63
15.11099600	Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:ALP235
15.23157904	Piedmont:Piedmont154
15.33053489	Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:KF1800761
15.36169262	Albanian:AL9
15.36592984	Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:ALP081
15.46325968	Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:KF2700922
15.47954780	Trentino-Alto-Adige:ALP200
15.49061006	Lombardy:ALP288

----------


## Salento

> With the new coordinates, my results got a bit strange...Wales? Ashkenazi? German?
> Distance to: italouruguayan
> 12.12725855 UK_Wales:WalesL45
> 12.45939806 Ashkenazi_o:ashkenazy10w
> 13.30189460 GermanyB:GermanB18
> 13.55852499 Greece_Macedonia:GreeceMaced8
> 13.80775145 Ashkenazi_o:ashkenazy9w
> 14.34106342 Greece_NorthEast:GreeceNE34
> 14.41980582 Greece_NorthEast:GreeceNE59
> ...


@italouruguayan ...  your top sample (WalesL45) comes from: _The Genomic Impact of European Colonization of the Americas ..._ GreeceNE34 and GreeceNE39 too, ... the samples should be of Europeans with affinities to Colonizer, I think.

.https://www.cell.com/current-biology...822(19)31306-5

----------


## italouruguayan

That makes more sense...thanks Salento!

----------


## Pax Augusta

> With the new coordinates, my results got a bit strange...Wales? Ashkenazi? German?
> Distance to: italouruguayan
> 12.12725855 UK_Wales:WalesL45
> 12.45939806 Ashkenazi_o:ashkenazy10w
> 13.30189460 GermanyB:GermanB18
> 13.55852499 Greece_Macedonia:GreeceMaced8
> 13.80775145 Ashkenazi_o:ashkenazy9w
> 14.34106342 Greece_NorthEast:GreeceNE34
> 14.41980582 Greece_NorthEast:GreeceNE59
> ...



You are far away from everybody. Even the first one you come out with is at 12.12725855, that's a considerable distance. Try to do a PCA.






> @italouruguayan ...  your top sample (WalesL45) comes from: _The Genomic Impact of European Colonization of the Americas ..._ GreeceNE34 and GreeceNE39 too, ... the samples should be of Europeans with affinities to Colonizer, I think.
> 
> .https://www.cell.com/current-biology...822(19)31306-5




Thank you for the valuable contribution.

How should they be labeled in your opinion Wales set, then?

----------


## Salento

> You are far away from everybody. Even the first one you come out with is at 12.12725855, that's a considerable distance. Try to do a PCA.
> 
> Thank you for the valuable contribution.
> 
> How should they be labeled in your opinion Wales set, then?


imho the labels are fine, you could edit it if you like, … it is the Colonizers who have affinities with our European samples :)

----------


## Duarte

@Pax Augusta, @Salento, @italouruguayan



```
UK_Wales:WalesL45,6.74,0.5,2.5,0,30.35,29.65,0,0,7.52,1.13,21.6,0
Ashkenazi_o:ashkenazy10w,7.38,0.4,1.63,0.35,31.14,28.55,1.32,0,7.51,0.05,21.49,0.19
GermanyB:GermanB18,5.58,1.45,1.42,0.42,31.01,32.91,0.26,1.86,5.14,0,19.94,0
Greece_Macedonia:GreeceMaced8,7.86,1.73,1.06,0,26.44,30.87,0,0,6.41,0.64,24.98,0
Ashkenazi_o:ashkenazy9w,6.13,0,2.78,0.25,35.03,28.09,2.19,0,5.96,0,19.38,0.18
Greece_NorthEast:GreeceNE34,6.36,0,2.82,0,27.36,30.25,0,0,7.9,0,25.31,0
Greece_NorthEast:GreeceNE59,6.59,0.83,1.44,0,25.65,26.93,1.27,0,10.96,0,26.24,0.08
```

These are the distances of samples above used as target and, using as source the Vahaduo K12b updated spreadsheet:

Distance to:
Greece_NorthEast:GreeceNE59

4.37961185
Turk_Makedonya

4.52077427
Bulgarian_Thrace

5.04378826
Macedonian_South

5.05466122
Greek_Thessaly

5.40490518
Bulgarian_East

5.43984375
Greek_Thrace

5.74054875
Albanian_Kosovo

5.77509307
Moldovan_Gagauz

5.93518323
Greek_Macedonia

6.02970978
Greek_Thessaloniki

6.05070244
Macedonian_Vardar

6.60162859
Macedonian_Northeast&Skopje;

6.74244763
Macedonian_East

6.81491012
Macedonian_Polog

7.09058531
Greek_Peloponnese

7.10554713
Turk_Deliorman

7.18034818
Bulgarian_Central

7.54792687
Albanian

7.56649853
Turk_Trakya

7.80544041
Pomak_Bulgaria

7.86221979
Pomak_Greece

8.39933926
Moldovan_South

8.48232869
Bulgarian_West

9.14783581
Romanian

9.37139797
Greek_Central



Distance to:
Greece_NorthEast:GreeceNE34

2.89259399
Macedonian_Polog

3.46555912
Bulgarian_East

3.49915704
Macedonian_Vardar

3.70596816
Moldovan_Gagauz

3.77583103
Macedonian_South

3.78284285
Macedonian_East

3.93033077
Bulgarian_Central

3.97266913
Greek_Macedonia

3.98150725
Macedonian_Northeast&Skopje;

4.55587533
Moldovan_South

4.67640888
Bulgarian_West

4.84033057
Pomak_Bulgaria

5.18395602
Romanian

5.67920769
Albanian_Kosovo

6.17983819
Pomak_Greece

6.44520752
Bulgarian_Thrace

6.49372774
Turk_Makedonya

6.87858270
Montenegrin

7.02725409
Greek_Thessaly

7.73405456
Greek_Thrace

7.95475330
Turk_Deliorman

8.10506632
Greek_Thessaloniki

8.67857707
Italian_Friuli_VG

9.20416753
Albanian

9.98241454
Turk_Trakya



Distance to:
Ashkenazi_o:ashkenazy9w

3.97836650
Italian_Friuli_VG

4.73729881
Italian_Piedmont

4.82879902
Italian_Veneto

5.31954885
Italian_Trentino

6.03938842
Swiss_Italian

6.99577015
Italian_Aosta_Valley

7.05284340
Italian_Lombardy

7.55560057
Italian_Liguria

8.21692156
Italian_Emilia

8.56102214
Austrian_Tyrol

9.46043339
Swiss_French

9.50565095
Italian_Tuscany

9.96080820
Spanish_Baleares

10.03612475
Macedonian_Vardar

10.28896982
Portuguese

10.36751658
Macedonian_Polog

10.52702237
Macedonian_East

10.63366353
Spanish_Canarias

10.80087959
Macedonian_South

11.22993767
Italian_Romagna

11.52451734
Albanian_Kosovo

11.64410581
Greek_Macedonia

11.87263240
Montenegrin

11.90727089
Romanian

12.20054507
Macedonian_Northeast&Skopje;



Distance to:
Greece_Macedonia:GreeceMaced8

3.05681206
Moldovan_Gagauz

3.54866172
Bulgarian_East

3.67042232
Bulgarian_Central

3.71130705
Macedonian_Polog

3.87640297
Moldovan_South

4.26184232
Bulgarian_West

4.45850872
Romanian

4.49338403
Pomak_Bulgaria

4.70820560
Macedonian_Vardar

4.85993827
Macedonian_East

4.89864267
Macedonian_Northeast&Skopje;

4.94085013
Greek_Macedonia

5.55332333
Macedonian_South

5.58341293
Pomak_Greece

6.18373673
Turk_Deliorman

6.41329868
Montenegrin

6.44729401
Turk_Makedonya

7.08849067
Albanian_Kosovo

7.31450614
Bulgarian_Thrace

8.42560384
Greek_Thessaly

8.81152087
Turk_Trakya

9.01696734
Greek_Thrace

9.37526533
Greek_Thessaloniki

9.63255937
Serb

9.68051652
Italian_Friuli_VG



Distance to:
GermanyB:GermanB18

5.98632609
Austrian_Tyrol

6.19753177
Montenegrin

6.32678433
Italian_Friuli_VG

6.85178079
Romanian

7.35885181
Moldovan_South

7.64024214
Bulgarian_West

7.65620010
Macedonian_Polog

7.73080850
Serb

8.11041306
Swiss_French

8.21610613
Macedonian_East

8.68888946
Italian_Trentino

8.72001147
Macedonian_Vardar

8.75078282
Bulgarian_Central

8.98854827
Hungarian_Transylvania+Székely

9.07730687
Italian_Veneto

9.30740028
Pomak_Bulgaria

9.43038175
Macedonian_Northeast&Skopje;

9.76421016
Greek_Macedonia

9.76480415
Macedonian_South

9.82648462
Moldovan_Central

9.99203183
Moldovan_Gagauz

10.03113154
Bulgarian_East

10.06980635
Bavarian_German

10.19094696
Italian_Piedmont

10.29755371
Swiss_Italian



Distance to:
Ashkenazi_o:ashkenazy10w

4.56495345
Italian_Friuli_VG

6.28743191
Macedonian_Vardar

6.51771432
Macedonian_Polog

6.78273544
Italian_Veneto

6.87373261
Macedonian_East

6.95633524
Macedonian_South

7.45501174
Italian_Piedmont

7.74977419
Greek_Macedonia

8.02148989
Albanian_Kosovo

8.32313042
Romanian

8.36157282
Macedonian_Northeast&Skopje;

8.36366546
Moldovan_South

8.54350631
Bulgarian_West

8.54554270
Moldovan_Gagauz

8.60482423
Italian_Trentino

8.65557624
Bulgarian_Central

8.70070112
Bulgarian_East

8.99576567
Montenegrin

9.18344707
Italian_Liguria

9.28941333
Italian_Emilia

9.55675154
Pomak_Bulgaria

9.68210269
Swiss_Italian

9.76258163
Italian_Lombardy

9.77690135
Greek_Thessaly

9.86282921
Italian_Tuscany



Distance to:
UK_Wales:WalesL45

5.10288154
Italian_Friuli_VG

5.75871513
Macedonian_Polog

5.94568751
Macedonian_Vardar

6.22204147
Macedonian_East

6.63006787
Macedonian_South

7.10584970
Moldovan_South

7.12500526
Romanian

7.31356274
Greek_Macedonia

7.38367795
Bulgarian_West

7.60840982
Macedonian_Northeast&Skopje;

7.62621794
Bulgarian_Central

7.63264699
Italian_Veneto

7.77098449
Montenegrin

7.84963056
Moldovan_Gagauz

7.87671251
Bulgarian_East

8.05316708
Albanian_Kosovo

8.42894418
Pomak_Bulgaria

8.50355220
Italian_Piedmont

9.17952068
Italian_Trentino

9.56000523
Austrian_Tyrol

9.87535316
Greek_Thessaly

10.04413262
Turk_Makedonya

10.28497448
Italian_Liguria

10.30603707
Bulgarian_Thrace

10.35402639
Swiss_Italian

----------


## Salento

@Duarte … you are comparing averages with a chosen set of single samples, … not unusual to find discrepancies.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> @Pax Augusta, @Salento, @italouruguayan
> 
> 
> 
> ```
> UK_Wales:WalesL45,6.74,0.5,2.5,0,30.35,29.65,0,0,7.52,1.13,21.6,0
> Ashkenazi_o:ashkenazy10w,7.38,0.4,1.63,0.35,31.14,28.55,1.32,0,7.51,0.05,21.49,0.19
> GermanyB:GermanB18,5.58,1.45,1.42,0.42,31.01,32.91,0.26,1.86,5.14,0,19.94,0
> Greece_Macedonia:GreeceMaced8,7.86,1.73,1.06,0,26.44,30.87,0,0,6.41,0.64,24.98,0
> ...



Thank you, Duarte. On the one hand it's normal to find a lot of individual variation, as Salento says, but if you notice some of those are _o, I've already labeled them as outliers, because some are really unlikely to be completely "native" or completely accurate. When I have time I also check others. I have long said that academic modern samples should be taken with caution anyway.

----------


## Duarte

Hi Salento. Hi Pax.
Italo's main ancestry is Italian. He was surprised by the presence of Welsh, German and Askenazi in his individual tops. However seems that these guys have a lot of Italian in his ancestry, mainly from the North and even from neighbors to the North (Austria Tyrol, as the GermanB). It seems, I think, that there is no “visible mistake” in the “top” selection of single samples of Ítalo, I think.

Distance to:
Ashkenazi_o:ashkenazy9w

3.97836650
Italian_Friuli_VG

4.73729881
Italian_Piedmont

4.82879902
Italian_Veneto

5.31954885
Italian_Trentino

6.03938842
Swiss_Italian

6.99577015
Italian_Aosta_Valley

7.05284340
Italian_Lombardy

7.55560057
Italian_Liguria

8.21692156
Italian_Emilia

8.56102214
Austrian_Tyrol

9.46043339
Swiss_French

9.50565095
Italian_Tuscany


Distance to:
Ashkenazi_o:ashkenazy10w

4.56495345
Italian_Friuli_VG


Distance to:
GermanyB:GermanB18

5.98632609
Austrian_Tyrol

6.19753177
Montenegrin

6.32678433
Italian_Friuli_VG


Distance to:
UK_Wales:WalesL45

5.10288154
Italian_Friuli_VG

----------


## Salento

> Hi Salento. Hi Pax.
> Italo's main ancestry is Italian. He was surprised by the presence of Welsh, German and Askenazi in his individual tops. However seems that these guys have a lot of Italian in his ancestry, mainly from the North and even from neighbors to the North (Austria Tyrol, as the GermanB). It seems, I think, that there is no “visible mistake” in the “top” selection of single samples of Ítalo, I think.
> 
> Distance to:
> Ashkenazi_o:ashkenazy9w
> 
> 3.97836650
> Italian_Friuli_VG
> 
> ...


… no surprises, it nailed :) … his top match comes from a set of Europeans that people of the Americas have more affinities with, … I find it interesting.

My top 10 ... LivingDNA:



https://www.cell.com/current-biology...822(19)31306-5

----------


## italouruguayan

My distance from all the samples is important, due to my non-European components (15-18% Native American, 2-3% Sub Saharan African). What caught my attention is that although some calculators, with a significant distance (up to 22%), show my affinities with samples from northern Italy, others instead show affinity with samples from southeastern Europe (Romanians, Bulgarians, Thracian Turks) , even with more affinity than the Italian samples. My interpretation (which may be very wrong) is that these peoples show small Eastern Eurasian components, and that some calculators might interpret them as similar to the Native American component.
But such "Western" affinities had never appeared to me, such as Wales or Germany....

----------


## Angela

> My distance from all the samples is important, due to my non-European components (15-18% Native American, 2-3% Sub Saharan African). What caught my attention is that although some calculators, with a significant distance (up to 22%), show my affinities with samples from northern Italy, others instead show affinity with samples from southeastern Europe (Romanians, Bulgarians, Thracian Turks) , even with more affinity than the Italian samples. My interpretation (which may be very wrong) is that these peoples show small Eastern Eurasian components, and that some calculators might interpret them as similar to the Native American component.
> But such "Western" affinities had never appeared to me, such as Wales or Germany....


I think that's a good hunch. It would be EEF like, plus a Slavic component with some eastern affinities or some ancestry from peoples like the Bulgars, or an Ottoman component with some Central Asian affinity.

----------


## Angela

> @Pax Augusta, @Salento, @italouruguayan
> 
> 
> 
> ```
> UK_Wales:WalesL45,6.74,0.5,2.5,0,30.35,29.65,0,0,7.52,1.13,21.6,0
> Ashkenazi_o:ashkenazy10w,7.38,0.4,1.63,0.35,31.14,28.55,1.32,0,7.51,0.05,21.49,0.19
> GermanyB:GermanB18,5.58,1.45,1.42,0.42,31.01,32.91,0.26,1.86,5.14,0,19.94,0
> Greece_Macedonia:GreeceMaced8,7.86,1.73,1.06,0,26.44,30.87,0,0,6.41,0.64,24.98,0
> ...


Those two samples labeled "Ashkenazi" are clearly not Ashkenazi at all. That Wales sample also looks really "Wonky"

----------


## Pax Augusta

> Those two samples labeled "Ashkenazi" are clearly not Ashkenazi at all. That Wales sample also looks really "Wonky"


They are all academic samples.

----------


## Salento

If we were making a modern calculator we would filter the samples, just like Vahaduo and others.

Most users never see the unfiltered, unsupervised big blocks of Modern samples, … and to a degree, that’s what some of these are. 

The “experts” pick and choose the samples, or they make averages out of it, … it’s OK, I guess.

----------


## torzio

> With the new coordinates, my results got a bit strange...Wales? Ashkenazi? German?
> Distance to:	italouruguayan
> 12.12725855	UK_Wales:WalesL45
> 12.45939806	Ashkenazi_o:ashkenazy10w
> 13.30189460	GermanyB:GermanB18
> 13.55852499	Greece_Macedonia:GreeceMaced8
> 13.80775145	Ashkenazi_o:ashkenazy9w
> 14.34106342	Greece_NorthEast:GreeceNE34
> 14.41980582	Greece_NorthEast:GreeceNE59
> ...



my new ones are fine

Distance to:	Torziok12b
1.83711731	Veneto:ALP022
2.08712721	Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:ALP235
2.80196360	Veneto:ALP249
2.82104591	Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:KF2700960
2.84116173	Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:ALP346
2.94732082	Ashkenazi_o:ashkenazy9w
3.05674664	Trentino-Alto-Adige:ALP200
3.09166622	Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:ALP354
3.11242671	Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:ALP280
3.25023076	Veneto:KF1803151
3.28344331	Piedmont:ItalyPiedmont127
3.28800852	Veneto:KF1803105
3.42483576	Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:ALP081
3.51180865	Corsica_o:corsica11908
3.61798286	Friuli-Venezia-Giulia:KF1800761
3.89629311	Veneto:ALP378
3.92330218	Veneto:ALP273
4.13805510	Trentino-Alto-Adige:ALP420
4.16438471	Veneto:KF1803109
4.19916658	Veneto:KF1800751
4.21149617	Lombardy:ALP288
4.21709616	N_Italy_HGDP:HGDP01154
4.22912521	Piedmont:ItalyPiedmont63
4.36495132	Veneto:ALP250
4.37962327	Veneto:Alp401


I do have 15% of welsh and irish in myheritage admixture ( along with 72% italian )

----------


## Angela

> They are all academic samples.


And? That may be, but if so, the academics didn't check the ancestry of those people carefully enough, because there's no way in hell those two samples are 100% Ashkenazi. The Wales sample is also highly suspect. Maybe the researchers were oblivious to the fact that quite a few Italians settled in Wales.

Therefore, they shouldn't be used. Inclusion in a PCA, for example is going to throw it off. 

The Corsican samples should also all be carefully checked, because apparently the researchers didn't give a darn whether some of them were French admixed.

Dienekes always carefully checked each and every sample, academic or not, to make sure it should be included.

No offense to people working on this, of course, but we all want accuracy, I'm sure.

----------


## Salento

I re-extracted the raw-data (Win and Linux) and ran the Dodecad K12b with a variety of apps.

... test subject WalesL45: 



```
WalesL45_AdmixtureStudio,6.74,0.5,2.5,0,30.35,29.65,0,0,7.52,1.13,21.6,0
WalesL45_Admix_Linux,6.74,0.50,2.49,0,30.36,29.66,0,0,7.52,1.13,21.60,0
WalesL45_DIYDodecadWin,6.58,0.47,2.36,0.05,30.51,29.44,0.25,0,7.87,1.12,21.34,0
WalesL45_DIYDodecadLinux64,6.58,0.47,2.36,0.05,30.51,29.44,0.25,0,7.87,1.12,21.34,0
WalesL45_DIYDodecadLinux64_10-iteration,6.58,0.46,2.36,0,30.51,29.44,0.24,0,7.87,1.18,21.34,0
```



… looks OK, I guess.

----------


## Angela

Never thought it was your error, Salento, but something must have gone wrong with the selection of that sample.

----------


## Salento

What are scientific samples? … samples collected from a specific verified area … It doesn’t necessarily mean that those samples must match each other.

The scientific list below has 109 samples collected in Tuscany, … COLLECTED in … Some of the samples on that list do not resemble typical Tuscans.

They made available the block of samples collected in Tuscany, … after that it's up to others which samples to use or not to use or how to label them.

----------


## Salento

> Never thought it was your error, Salento, but something must have gone wrong with the selection of that sample.


thanks, Angela, I understand that some samples look strange, I guess we could omit some samples, … carefully avoiding being biased :)

----------


## Pax Augusta

> And? That may be, but if so, the academics didn't check the ancestry of those people carefully enough, because there's no way in hell those two samples are 100% Ashkenazi. The Wales sample is also highly suspect. Maybe the researchers were oblivious to the fact that quite a few Italians settled in Wales.
> 
> Therefore, they shouldn't be used. Inclusion in a PCA, for example is going to throw it off. 
> 
> The Corsican samples should also all be carefully checked, because apparently the researchers didn't give a darn whether some of them were French admixed.
> 
> Dienekes always carefully checked each and every sample, academic or not, to make sure it should be included.
> 
> No offense to people working on this, of course, but we all want accuracy, I'm sure.



I was stating a fact: these are indeed academic samples. They have been dowloaded by academic sites by Salento, who is not responsible at all for their strange results, because outliers and especially mislabeled individuals (who don't fully belong to the label, who may have been born in the place, to which the label refers, to parents who have migrated from elsewhere) are really here and there in the academic sample sets. For many different reasons. This is frequently seen happening, for more than 10 years in academic studies. Sometimes they represent a percentage of the set not large enough to influence the average too much, other times as in the case of Corsicans they represent 25 percent of the individuals, if memory serves me, and influence the average more. There are attentative geneticists who remove them, other geneticists who use them all.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> What are scientific samples? … samples collected from a specific verified area … It doesn’t necessarily mean that those samples must match each other.
> 
> The scientific list below has 109 samples collected in Tuscany, … COLLECTED in … Some of the samples on that list do not resemble typical Tuscans.
> 
> They made available the block of samples collected in Tuscany, … after that it's up to others which samples to use or not to use or how to label them.


Thanks Salento for that. That's the TSI sample set, it belongs to 1000genomes/HapMap projects. Or rather, TSI is a sample set from the HapMap project shared with 1000genomes.



In this sample set there are definitely individuals who are not 100 percent Tuscan, the same people who collected this sample around 2006 or 2007 confirmed this (I also found the date but can't remember it precisely now).

As stated in the project data sheet that I found 4 or 5 years ago and I believe also already published it on Eupedia, TSI is set of individuals based on self reported people with "at least three out of four grandparents who were born in Tuscany."

Aside from the fact that one of the grandparents may be non-Tuscan, even the fact that the other three were simply born in Tuscany (and their full ancestry from the Tuscany is not proven but only self reported) may lead to further inaccuracy.

I think it is the only sample set, but I am really going from memory, of 1000genomes/HapMap projects that does not guarantee that all grandparents are native.

In general, I think that being the sample set really large, there are 117 in all, many are completely Tuscan for real, but obviously not all of them are, and so the most obvious outliers (those that move away from the main cluster) should be removed and in any case not be considered. Again, in the past some geneticists have removed outliers from this sample set, but that doesn't always happen. The Estonian geneticist Metspalu used in his studies a subset of TSI, which he labeled TSI30 (I think based on 21 or 30 individuals from this set chosen by him). Diekenes in his calculators used this specific subset created by Metspalu, TSI30.


Official statement from the TSI HapMap project.

----------


## Jovialis

I bet R437 wasn't much of an "outlier" if you traveled to the south in the IA. But I guess we just have to wait and see.

----------


## Jovialis

INB4 someone mentions Daunians.

These people are *late* bronze age invaders.

I.e. forgiener/aliens.

----------


## Salento

I looked at the coordinates of the TSIs big list.
but … the Tuscan and the TSI30 of the original Vahaduo don’t match the updated Vahaduo Tuscan,

… the end result is that the TSIs that match the original don’t match the updated, and the TSIs that match the updated don’t match the original.

Posting the TSIs coordinates would create too much confusion, I think.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> I looked at the coordinates of the TSIs big list.
> but … the Tuscan and the TSI30 of the original Vahaduo don’t match the updated Vahaduo Tuscan,
> 
> … the end result is that the TSIs that match the original don’t match the updated, and the TSIs that match the updated don’t match the original.
> 
> Posting the TSIs coordinates would create too much confusion, I think.


Indeed, agreed.

----------


## Pax Augusta

Samples from most of Italy are missing for the Iron Age. I do not understand why studies on Iron Age Italy presented almost a year ago have not yet come out. However, it is possible that slowly the picture will be clarified.

----------


## Salento

> I bet R437 wasn't much of an "outlier" if you traveled to the south in the IA. But I guess we just have to wait and see.


Antonio 2019 has a table listing the full outliers, R437 and R850 are not on the list, … and they are Scientific Samples :)

----------


## Jovialis

> Antonio 2019 has a table listing the full outliers, R437 and R850 are not on the list, … and they are Scientific Samples :)


Funny that we have a ton of Greek samples now that show that steppe wasn't a major component. But some people hang their hopes that they will show 50% steppe etc. Thus far there's only one, a woman from the MBA not even from where the Mycenaeans were. But we have only 6 Latin samples, and yet people are confident to call two outliers... why?

----------


## Leopoldo Leone

> Funny that we have a ton of Greek samples now that show that steppe wasn't a major component. But some people hang their hopes that they will show 50% steppe etc. Thus far there's only one, a woman from the MBA not even from where the Mycenaeans were. But we have only 6 Latin samples, and yet people are confident to call two outliers... why?


850 and 437 are outliers relative to the main cluster of Etruscans and Italics, even the leaked samples from the Campanian paper show Samnites were akin to Latins and Etruscans. 
Though they were outliers in a genetic sense it doesn't seem true to me that they must have been foreigners born outside of Italy (I don't understand why they are labelled "Greeks" here): the Daunian samples show a cline from Latins to Sicily_BA (who we know from the abstract of an upcoming study were similar to Sicily_IA) and, surprise surprise, ORD001 is very close to 437.

I suspect that the "east med" gene flow in the later samples from the Campanian study is due to a mixing of the later arrived Etruscans and Italics and the previous inhabitants, maybe more akin to Sicily_BA (and maybe the "east med" affinity was strengthened by the Greek colonies)

----------


## torzio

> Antonio 2019 has a table listing the full outliers, R437 and R850 are not on the list, … and they are Scientific Samples :)


R850 was initially labelled as a Cretan who married a Etruscan and lived with the Rutuli Etruscan tribe..................but I read recently, he was from Greek Corsica ..........somewhere along the line he went to Italy after the Etruscans conquered the Greeks in Corsica.
I will try to find the article

----------


## Angela

> thanks, Angela, I understand that some samples look strange, I guess we could omit some samples, … carefully avoiding being biased :)


There have always been some problems with even academic samples, first and foremost the fact that the requisite ancestry, usually defined as four grandparents from the same area, is self reported. These academics don't act as investigators who go and look up records to make sure that's true.

The only geneticist who I know for a fact did that is Cavalli-Sforza, in his monumental work on the people of the Val Parma and Val Cedra. (I really wish that Stanford would release that raw data; the bloodlines go back to the mid 1500s and before for each sample or they weren't included.)

Then, as we've long known about the TSI sample, some only require 3/4 grandparents to be born in the same area. There has been considerable movement throughout the country since the latter part of the 1800s, especially in areas like Piemonte, Liguria and Lombardia, which were the first to industrialize. So, unless, as in the study on the Peloponnese, care was taken to sample only the elderly, you're going to get some admixed people in the sample in addition to possibly one grandparent. One small study about the Lunigiana studying unparentals didn't ask any questions about ancestry at all! If you showed up for testing, you were in! Talk about a complete waste of time.

One can "check" the list of samples, make it more accurate, in the way that Metspalu did, and Dienekes did, and 23andme did and does, and that is to use a PCA. Samples which fall outside the main cluster are excluded. Of course, you have to have a decent number of samples with which to work. Now, 30 seems a pretty low number for the main cluster of TSI but you see what I mean.

Using this method ensures that no biases are at play, because there is complete transparency. Anyone could duplicate the analysis by just doing a PCA of all the samples.

I'm not by any means trying to influence you guys one way or another as to how to proceed; just giving my two cents about how even academic samples can be misleading.

It's especially visible in groups like the Ashkenazim, where they're so close genetically that they're all "cousins", as 23andme has shown again and again.

----------


## Angela

> R850 was initially labelled as a Cretan who married a Etruscan and lived with the Rutuli Etruscan tribe..................but I read recently, he was from Greek Corsica ..........somewhere along the line he went to Italy after the Etruscans conquered the Greeks in Corsica.
> I will try to find the article


You do that. I'm allergic to suppositions and rumor without at least citations, and I don't mean to a post on an amateur site.

----------


## Angela

> Funny that we have a ton of Greek samples now that show that steppe wasn't a major component. But some people hang their hopes that they will show 50% steppe etc. Thus far there's only one, a woman from the MBA not even from where the Mycenaeans were. But we have only 6 Latin samples, and yet people are confident to call two outliers... why?


I think you know the answer to your question.

Whether a sample is "autochthonous" to an area is time dependent. 

If a sample is buried in the proper context for the time, with the requisite cultural artifacts, i.e. not a slave, a traveling merchant, tourist, pilgrim, etc. and thus seems to have been considered a member of the "tribe", then, in my book, they are exactly that. I mean, one of the, to some people, "suspect" samples, is from the earliest years of the Republic, for goodness' sakes!

Now, if you have a decent enough number of samples to form a cluster on a PCA, and one lists off a bit toward another group, then that is worth noting, for the acceptance and inclusion of people from other groups, if nothing else. 

Even then, however, the additional ancestry might be, in the case we're discussing, from another part of Italy, i.e. the Gallic influenced areas north of the Po, or the Greek influenced areas south of Rome.

I keep on coming back to Livy about whom I recently learned quite a bit. He was undoubtedly Gallic admixed, and yet he at numerous times writes of his pride in being a ROMAN. How things have changed in certain parts of the country as some Italians have adopted the values and prejudices of the northerners they once scorned.

So, in those cases, perhaps not completely "Latin" or "Italic" in ancestry, but "Republican Roman" nonetheless.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> 850 and 437 are outliers relative to the main cluster of Etruscans and Italics, even the leaked samples from the Campanian paper show Samnites were akin to Latins and Etruscans. 
> Though they were outliers in a genetic sense it doesn't seem true to me that they must have been foreigners born outside of Italy (I don't understand why they are labelled "Greeks" here): the Daunian samples show a cline from Latins to Sicily_BA (who we know from the abstract of an upcoming study were similar to Sicily_IA) and, surprise surprise, ORD001 is very close to 437.
> 
> I suspect that the "east med" gene flow in the later samples from the Campanian study is due to a mixing of the later arrived Etruscans and Italics and the previous inhabitants, maybe more akin to Sicily_BA (and maybe the "east med" affinity was strengthened by the Greek colonies)


This issue will be resolved, I believe, with the second half of the Bronze Age samples from mainland southern Italy.

----------


## Palermo Trapani

The Raveane et al 2022 "Assessing temporal and geographic contacts across the Adriatic Sea through the analysis of genome-wide data from Southern Italy" is now published in the journal Genomics

----------


## Jovialis

> The Raveane et al 2022 "Assessing temporal and geographic contacts across the Adriatic Sea through the analysis of genome-wide data from Southern Italy" is now published in the journal Genomics


Cool! I'll check it out if there is anything different.

----------


## Palermo Trapani

> Cool! I'll check it out if there is anything different.


No problem Jovialis. Razib already has it up on his blog and I saw you made a comment over there pointing out the paper's findings are in line with the Antonio et al 2019 paper. Are any of those samples available to be reviewed, the modern ones that is?

----------


## Jovialis

"we analysed around 700 South Mediterranean genomes"

These are modern samples, Salento, is there anything you can do to obtain them?

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0888754322001501?via%3Dihub#bb0085

----------


## Salento

> "we analysed around 700 South Mediterranean genomes"
> 
> These are modern samples, Salento, is there anything you can do to obtain them?
> 
> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0888754322001501?via%3Dihub#bb0085


I'll take a look and then I'll take it from there :)

----------


## Salento

> "we analysed around 700 South Mediterranean genomes"
> 
> These are modern samples, Salento, is there anything you can do to obtain them?
> 
> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0888754322001501?via%3Dihub#bb0085


... they have a spreadsheet listing many samples from many papers, it might take a while, ... some might be duplicates of samples we already had.



```
ItalyAbruzzo9_Behar_2013,7.93,0,2.44,0,29.54,16.30,0.05,0.65,11.17,0,31.92,0
ItalyAbruzzo13_Behar_2013,8.46,0,2.77,0,31.93,16.49,0,0,11.85,0,28.50,0
ItalyAbruzzo14_Behar_2013,6.37,0.23,1.17,0.29,30.67,15.60,0,0.42,12.82,0,32.37,0.04
ItalyAbruzzo15_Behar_2013,7.81,0.38,3.26,0,29.22,17.66,0,0,10.76,0,30.91,0
ItalyAbruzzo16_Behar_2013,7.45,0.39,2.50,0.27,28.89,17.92,0,0,10.86,0,31.73,0
ItalyAbruzzo17_Behar_2013,6.78,0.41,2.38,0,29.99,17.91,0.21,0.36,11.98,0,29.97,0
ItalyAbruzzo19_Behar_2013,9.16,0,2.05,0,29.78,17.49,0.01,0,11.99,0.56,28.86,0.10
ItalyAbruzzo20_Behar_2013,8.63,0,2.55,0,28.77,18.04,0,0.36,10.36,0.50,30.79,0
ItalyAbruzzo21_Behar_2013,7.38,0,1.54,0,33.31,16.82,0.28,0.06,11.27,0.11,28.93,0.32
ItalyAbruzzo22_Behar_2013,6.90,0,2.69,0.26,30.81,15.99,0.51,0,9.90,0.49,32.46,0
ItalyAbruzzo23_Behar_2013,6.77,0,2.43,0,28.77,18.94,0,0.04,11.45,0,31.59,0
C-Sicily50_Behar_2013,6.22,0.50,3.62,0,27.78,14.29,0,0.96,12.97,0.12,32.19,1.35
C-Sicily57_Behar_2013,5.88,0.14,4.31,0.30,25.95,15.11,0.24,0.81,13.24,0,34.01,
Ag-Sicily5_Behar_2013,8.11,0,4.73,0,29.88,12.05,0,0.88,11.66,0,32.68,0
Ag-Sicily8_Behar_2013,7.44,0.30,5.18,0.40,27.65,13.74,0.05,0.70,12.31,0,31.71,0.52
E-Sicily18_Behar_2013,4.57,0,4.55,0,28.22,14.85,0.37,0,15.10,0.38,31.41,0.56
W-Sicily1_Behar_2013,7.27,0,4.47,0,28.58,13.24,0,1.03,10.76,0,34.42,0.23
W-Sicily3_Behar_2013,6.69,0.09,4.53,0,28.83,12.64,0,0.47,12.19,0.18,34.27,0.12
W-Sicily4_Behar_2013,6.29,0,3.76,0,31.55,13.88,0,0,12.43,0.46,30.79,0.86
W-Sicily5a_Behar_2013,8.76,0,3.46,0.89,26.50,13.84,0,1.77,11.65,0.13,33.00,0
W-Sicily5b_Behar_2013,4.78,0,3.80,0.83,26.41,15.35,0,0.33,12.18,0,35.60,0.72
W-Sicily7_Behar_2013,5.95,0.23,2.89,0.61,31.36,14.20,0,0,12.77,0.12,31.54,0.33
W-Sicily9_Behar_2013,7.47,0.24,4.26,0,28.88,13.07,0,0.77,14.72,0,30.48,0.10
W-Sicily21_Behar_2013,7.06,0,4.17,0.98,27.98,11.07,0.07,2.67,11.80,0,33.88,0.32
SR23_Busby_2015,4.46,0.74,4.22,1.15,27.25,14.39,0,0.56,12.10,0,35.14,0
SR44_Busby_2015,6.34,0,3.34,0,26.31,16.59,2.66,0,13.18,0,31.58,0
SR48R_Busby_2015,7.10,0.63,3.01,1.31,30.38,15.98,0.27,0,11.62,0,28.51,1.21
SR64_Busby_2015,7.97,0,3.45,0,29.75,13.44,0,2.33,12.10,0,30.48,0.48
TP04_Busby_2015,5.79,0,3.08,0,28.73,18.49,0.78,0.43,11.03,0,30.21,1.46
TP05_Busby_2015,7.76,0,7.31,0,29.40,11.85,0,0,9.38,1.31,32.10,0.89
TP06_Busby_2015,5.05,0,5.42,0.18,29.97,17.93,0,0,9.93,0,30.54,0.98
TP07_Busby_2015,8.32,0.77,5.64,0,26.41,12.48,1.43,2.69,11.62,0,30.64,0
TP08_Busby_2015,4.24,0.57,5.24,0.11,31.12,15.86,0.66,0.70,8.79,0.72,31.22,0.77
TP25_Busby_2015,7.66,0,4.75,1.83,31.62,13.02,0,0,10.63,0,29.49,1
SR60_Busby_2015,5.07,0,5.64,0,27.22,15.93,0,0.20,11.48,0,33.31,1.15
```

----------


## Pax Augusta

> ... they have a spreadsheet listing many samples from many papers, it might take a while, ... some might be duplicates of samples we already had.



You're right, for the Italians many are surely duplicates (North Italian/Bergamo HGDP, TSI, Sardinian HGDP... also some south Italian sample is also a duplicate). The new ones are some Greek samples, such as Achea, Argolis, Elis, Corinthia, North Tsakonia, South Tsakonia, Arcadia, Messenia, West Taygetos, East Taygetos, Laconia, Deep Mani.

----------


## Jovialis

It would be cool to the new ones if possible.

----------


## Palermo Trapani

Salento: Buona Domenica. Great work again. I quickly took the coordinates from your post #946 and combined them with the earlier version of the modern Italian samples. I kept only the samples from Abruzzo and Sicily. There are some duplicates but still some new samples. The W-Sicily 7, West-Sicily-4 and TP-25 (Trapani) are all new samples which I get close distances to. The SR48_Bugsby2015r (Syracuse I would assume) is another close match and new one. Seems the Behar 2013 are duplicates and Bugsby 2015 samples are the new ones. Great work again and thanks again for putting these modern academic samples into one database. 

Distance to:
PalermoTrapani_ANCESTRY

1.79596771
W-Sicily7_Behar_2013

1.88369318
W-Sicily4_Behar_2013

2.74534151
SR64_Busby_2015

2.74534151
Siracusa:SR64_LazaridisNat2014

2.88128444
Abruzzo:Alp380

2.88513431
Ag-Sicily5_Behar_2013

2.88513431
Ag-Sicily:5

2.97045451
W-Sicily9_Behar_2013

2.97045451
W-Sicily:9

3.07784015
Abruzzo:Alp090

3.36884253
Ag-Sicily8_Behar_2013

3.36884253
Ag-Sicily:8

3.47981321
C-Sicily50_Behar_2013

3.47981321
C-Sicily:50

3.53990113
ItalyAbruzzo14_Behar_2013

3.62692707
W-Sicily3_Behar_2013

3.62692707
W-Sicily:3

3.71638265
TP25_Busby_2015

3.81167942
Abruzzo:Alp503

3.83469686
ItalyAbruzzo9_Behar_2013

4.16391643
ItalyAbruzzo22_Behar_2013

4.27519590
W-Sicily1_Behar_2013

4.27519590
W-Sicily:1

4.36253367
SR48R_Busby_2015

4.44958425
E-Sicily18_Behar_2013

4.44958425
E-Sicily:18

4.90147937
ItalyAbruzzo13_Behar_2013

4.97591198
ItalyAbruzzo15_Behar_2013

4.97730851
ItalyAbruzzo17_Behar_2013

5.01247444
W-Sicily21_Behar_2013

5.01247444
W-Sicily:21

5.05732143
W-Sicily5a_Behar_2013

5.05732143
W-Sicily:5a

5.15226164
Abruzzo:ALP205

5.28343638
Abruzzo:Alp616

5.29267418
ItalyAbruzzo16_Behar_2013

5.44095580
Abruzzo:Alp162

5.51926626
SR60_Busby_2015

5.51926626
Siracusa:SR60_LazaridisNat2014

5.56050357
Abruzzo:Alp140

5.66633038
TP05_Busby_2015

5.66633038
Trapani:TP05_LazaridisNat2014

5.66649804
C-Sicily57_Behar_2013

5.68560463
ItalyAbruzzo19_Behar_2013

5.72960732
SR23_Busby_2015

5.73702885
ItalyAbruzzo21_Behar_2013

5.74471061
TP08_Busby_2015

5.80655664
TP07_Busby_2015

5.80655664
Trapani:TP07_LazaridisNat2014

5.88855670
ItalyAbruzzo20_Behar_2013

5.96341345
SR44_Busby_2015

5.98609221
TP06_Busby_2015

6.03721790
ItalyAbruzzo23_Behar_2013

6.09758149
TP04_Busby_2015

6.57307386
W-Sicily5b_Behar_2013

6.79867634
Abruzzo:ALP161

----------


## Salento

… yes PT, … I’ve been redundant :) though the Abruzzesi were new to us, I suspect? … they belong with previously posted Sicilians, I figure they should be together.

----------


## Salento

> It would be cool to the new ones if possible.


the one listed by Pax - I think they are not publicly available or I just couldn’t find them. 
Most other Italians would be redundant and similar with the ones we already have, I guess.

… there is another list of Italians using a non linear and different alleles format which we need to figure out how to convert to a standard format.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> the one listed by Pax - I think they are not publicly available or I just couldn’t find them. 
> Most other Italians would be redundant and similar with the ones we already have, I guess.


I will look for them tomorrow; they must have been released, perhaps in a previous study.

----------


## Jovialis

> You're right, for the Italians many are surely duplicates (North Italian/Bergamo HGDP, TSI, Sardinian HGDP... also some south Italian sample is also a duplicate). *The new ones are some Greek samples, such as Achea, Argolis, Elis, Corinthia, North Tsakonia, South Tsakonia, Arcadia, Messenia, West Taygetos, East Taygetos, Laconia, Deep Mani.*


@Salento, indeed, I saw them and I'm going to check them out now. But I was actually referring to these samples in bold.

----------


## Jovialis

Here are my results using the new additions:

Distance to:
Jovialis

1.36923336
ItalyAbruzzo15_Behar_2013

1.66129468
ItalyAbruzzo16_Behar_2013

1.71953482
ItalyAbruzzo20_Behar_2013

1.94663813
ItalyAbruzzo9_Behar_2013

2.75210828
ItalyAbruzzo22_Behar_2013

2.82391572
ItalyAbruzzo23_Behar_2013

3.41641625
ItalyAbruzzo17_Behar_2013

3.78219513
TP04_Busby_2015

3.97039041
ItalyAbruzzo19_Behar_2013

4.28499708
TP06_Busby_2015

4.67142377
ItalyAbruzzo14_Behar_2013

4.67279360
SR48R_Busby_2015

4.77744702
ItalyAbruzzo13_Behar_2013

5.08283386
Ag-Sicily8_Behar_2013

5.21470996
SR64_Busby_2015

5.23111843
SR60_Busby_2015

5.24194620
C-Sicily50_Behar_2013

5.26858615
W-Sicily5a_Behar_2013

5.27725307
W-Sicily1_Behar_2013

5.31319113
W-Sicily7_Behar_2013

5.41809930
W-Sicily4_Behar_2013

5.46488792
TP08_Busby_2015

5.47620306
SR44_Busby_2015

5.57361642
ItalyAbruzzo21_Behar_2013

5.87851172
Ag-Sicily5_Behar_2013

----------


## Jovialis

Here are my results combining the new additions with the previous Italians.

9 out of 10 top matches are Abruzzo, and one Molise. Apulians seem to range all over the South, so it makes sense.

Distance to:
Jovialis

1.36923336
ItalyAbruzzo15_Behar_2013

1.66129468
ItalyAbruzzo16_Behar_2013

1.71953482
ItalyAbruzzo20_Behar_2013

1.85132385
Molise:PG26_Molise

1.94663813
ItalyAbruzzo9_Behar_2013

2.16529444
Abruzzo:Alp140

2.71775643
Abruzzo:Alp090

2.73558038
Abruzzo:Alp616

2.75210828
ItalyAbruzzo22_Behar_2013

2.82391572
ItalyAbruzzo23_Behar_2013

2.89611809
Apulia:cera1

2.91856129
Apulia:cera2

3.19426048
Umbria:PG06

3.32980480
Molise:PG27

3.34511584
Apulia:cera8

3.38212951
Lazio:NOR28

3.39328749
Marche:MarABY030D

3.41641625
ItalyAbruzzo17_Behar_2013

3.47597468
Marche:MarACO100D

3.49479613
Apulia:Pu45

3.70070264
Abruzzo:Alp503

3.77326119
Abruzzo:ALP161

3.78219513
TP04_Busby_2015

3.80215728
Marche:MarACY030D

3.80621860
Apulia:cera9

----------


## Jovialis

SR and TP are Siracusa and Trapani?

----------


## Salento

… yes Jovialis, Trapani and Siracusa.

----------


## Palermo Trapani

Salento and Jovialis: Here are my distances for the new samples (I included all 35). I get close distances from samples all over Sicily and from Abruzzo as well. What is also interesting is that I get really close with W-Sicily7 and 4 from Behar 2013 but W-Sicily 5b is more distant at 6.57 (not horrible). Kind of indicates that in the past, some of the samples selected to be included in population averages for moderns can be skewed if they are solely selected from 1 side of the distribution, i.e. a Bell shaped curve with population mean that is statistically valid (random sample or N large enough for central limit theorem to hold).

Jovialis, regarding your K8 model, I just quickly ran the new Sicilian samples and the goodness of fit average is 0.86, which is really good. It is quite apparent to me that your K8 model approximates what Raveane et al 2019 reported in "Population structure of modern-day Italians reveals patterns of ancient and archaic ancestries in Southern Europe" Figure 2 quite well. I noticed over at Gene expressions some yahoo was taking issue with your model and that poster threw in a few lets say interesting attempts at humor. Keep up the excellent work. 



Distance to:
PalermoTrapani_ANCESTRY

1.79596771
W-Sicily7_Behar_2013

1.88369318
W-Sicily4_Behar_2013

2.74534151
SR64_Busby_2015

2.88513431
Ag-Sicily5_Behar_2013

2.97045451
W-Sicily9_Behar_2013

3.36884253
Ag-Sicily8_Behar_2013

3.47981321
C-Sicily50_Behar_2013

3.53990113
ItalyAbruzzo14_Behar_2013

3.62692707
W-Sicily3_Behar_2013

3.71638265
TP25_Busby_2015

3.83469686
ItalyAbruzzo9_Behar_2013

4.16391643
ItalyAbruzzo22_Behar_2013

4.27519590
W-Sicily1_Behar_2013

4.36253367
SR48R_Busby_2015

4.44958425
E-Sicily18_Behar_2013

4.90147937
ItalyAbruzzo13_Behar_2013

4.97591198
ItalyAbruzzo15_Behar_2013

4.97730851
ItalyAbruzzo17_Behar_2013

5.01247444
W-Sicily21_Behar_2013

5.05732143
W-Sicily5a_Behar_2013

5.29267418
ItalyAbruzzo16_Behar_2013

5.51926626
SR60_Busby_2015

5.66633038
TP05_Busby_2015

5.66649804
C-Sicily57_Behar_2013

5.68560463
ItalyAbruzzo19_Behar_2013

5.72960732
SR23_Busby_2015

5.73702885
ItalyAbruzzo21_Behar_2013

5.74471061
TP08_Busby_2015

5.80655664
TP07_Busby_2015

5.88855670
ItalyAbruzzo20_Behar_2013

5.96341345
SR44_Busby_2015

5.98609221
TP06_Busby_2015

6.03721790
ItalyAbruzzo23_Behar_2013

6.09758149
TP04_Busby_2015

6.57307386
W-Sicily5b_Behar_2013

----------


## Salento

out of curiosity  :Big smile:  Ashkenazy and Sephardic samples in our list were collected in:

ashkenazy1w Austria
ashkenazy2e Belorussia
ashkenazy2w Austria
ashkenazy3e Latvia
ashkenazy3w Austria
ashkenazy4e Latvia
ashkenazy4w France
ashkenazy5e Latvia
ashkenazy6w Germany
ashkenazy7e Poland
ashkenazy7w Germany
ashkenazy8e Poland
ashkenazy8w Netherlands
ashkenazy9e Poland
ashkenazy9w Netherlands
sephardic10tur Turkey
sephardic11bel Portugal
sephardic12bul Bulgaria
sephardic13bul Bulgaria
sephardic14bul Bulgaria
sephardic15bul Bulgaria
sephardic16bul Bulgaria
sephardic17bul Bulgaria
sephardic18bul Bulgaria
sephardic19bul Bulgaria
sephardic1tur Turkey
sephardic2tur Turkey
sephardic3tur Turkey
sephardic4tur Turkey
sephardic5tur Turkey
sephardic6tur Turkey
sephardic7tur Turkey
sephardic8tur Turkey
sephardic9tur Turkey

----------


## Salento

... some modern Serbia, Kosovo, Bosnia, Montenegro, Macedonia, ... _The Genetic Structure of Western Balkan Populations Based on Autosomal and..._



```
Bosnian_10,3.06,0.44,0,0.55,27.00,42.48,0,0.33,4.98,0,21.15,0
Bosnian_11,5.64,0.03,0.96,0,25.33,42.04,0,0,4.77,0,21.23,0
Bosnian_12,5.24,0.63,0.40,0,25.12,43.50,0.64,0,5.50,0,18.96,0
Bosnian_13,5.51,0,0.23,0,25.26,41.18,1.93,0,5.16,0,20.73,0
Bosnian_14,4.40,1.23,0,0.54,25.72,42.67,0,0,4.39,0,21.04,0
Bosnian_15,5.01,0.20,1.81,0,27.25,47.94,0,0,2.84,0,14.89,0.06
Bosnian_16,5.95,0,0.44,0,27.26,39.69,0.52,0,4.98,0,21.15,0
Bosnian_2,4.84,0.29,0,0,25.16,44.53,0.93,0.14,3.38,0.19,20.54,0
Bosnian_3,5.54,0.23,0.75,0.42,26.23,39.63,0.49,0,3.24,0.09,23.39,0
Bosnian_4,4.08,1.33,0.36,0,24.07,44.11,0,0.16,4.94,0,20.95,0
Bosnian_5,4.60,0.64,0,0,26.63,44.10,1.12,0,4.45,0,18.40,0.08
Bosnian_7,4.52,1.31,0.93,0.13,23.41,44.39,0.12,0.08,5.11,0,20,0
Bosnian_8,5.01,0.62,0,0,27.23,42.26,0.73,0.08,5.04,0.09,18.95,0
Kosovo1,5.40,0.63,0.60,0,30.94,24.44,0,0,7.22,0,30.63,0.14
Kosovo11,5.19,1.12,1.28,0,28.15,27.51,0,0,7.60,0.11,29.04,0
Kosovo12,7.44,0,1.12,0,28.84,27.85,1.71,0,7.53,0,25.49,0
Kosovo14,4.96,0,0,0,31.77,28.45,0,0,5.97,0,28.85,0
Kosovo16,6.85,0,0.46,0.39,29.54,26.37,0.27,0,7.17,0,28.95,0
Kosovo18,7.62,0.02,1.15,0,26.29,28.10,0.22,0,9.87,0,26.73,0
Kosovo7,4.68,0.17,0.35,0.54,29.29,26.60,0,0.09,8.87,0,29.41,0
Kosovo8,6.84,0.11,1.01,0,28.83,25.39,0,0,6.35,0.39,31.08,0
Macedonian12,6.37,0.52,0.85,0,23.90,34.46,0,0,7.66,0,26.24,0
Macedonian17b-d,4.48,0.12,1.17,0,27.66,31.85,0,0,7.43,0.72,26.58,0
Macedonian19,5.08,0.81,0,0,28.13,33.31,0.18,0,6.54,0.08,25.86,0
Macedonian20,7.09,0,0.58,0.32,24.55,35.80,0.65,0,5.13,0,25.87,0
Macedonian21,5.84,0.74,0,0.16,27.94,34.32,0.64,0.03,4.07,0.12,26.09,0.05
Macedonian3,5.71,0.48,0,0.03,24.75,42.82,0.02,0,5.45,0.06,20.68,0
Macedonian7,5.82,0,0.51,0.35,26.79,35.95,0,0,6.99,0,23.60,0
Montenegro1,5.47,0,1.35,0.29,27.51,35.26,0.71,0,5.82,0.20,23.41,0
Montenegro14,6.57,0.54,0.61,0,30.38,33.27,0,0,7.70,0,20.93,0
Montenegro15,3.48,0.87,0.56,0,28.64,35.21,0,0,6.61,0,24.63,0
Montenegro17,4.11,0,1.23,0,25.54,37.23,0.02,0,5.81,1.10,24.96,0
Montenegro19,3.56,0.53,1.05,0,28.99,35.17,0,0.09,5.63,0.17,24.82,0
Montenegro20,5.16,0.70,0.68,0.28,29.88,34.38,0.18,0,5.35,0,23.38,0
Montenegro21,4.91,0.81,0,0,28.76,33.68,0.23,0,6.63,0,24.98,0
Montenegro4,5.56,0.28,0,0.42,28.98,40.14,0,0,3.79,0,20.78,0.05
Montenegro5,5.48,1.19,0.29,0.43,28.82,38.25,0,0,5.60,0.61,19.32,0
Montenegro6,5.47,0.48,0.61,0.25,30.05,35.82,0,0,6.85,0.20,20.29,0
Montenegro9,5.99,1.24,0.43,0,28.02,35.38,0.96,0,4.82,0,23.16,0
Serbia1,3.87,0.50,0.47,0,28.19,40.13,1.11,0,4.52,0,21.21,0
Serbia10,5.52,1.41,0.79,0,28.41,33.37,0.52,0,7.09,0,22.90,0
Serbia16,4.65,1.52,0.18,0,27.60,40.31,0.14,0,4.84,0.26,20.49,0
Serbia18,0.53,1.14,0.74,0.79,26.61,37.64,1.15,0,5.43,0,25.93,0.04
Serbia19,4.53,0.66,1.11,0,26.88,40.49,0.51,0,5.61,0.19,20.02,0
Serbia2,3.95,0.88,1.37,0,28.34,35.40,1.08,0,5.53,0,23.44,0
Serbia3,3.16,0.82,0.16,0.23,25.70,39.16,0,0,4.33,0.68,25.75,0
Serbia4,5.99,0.88,0.86,0,27.69,33.32,0.25,0,5.21,0.65,25.14,0
Serbia5,4.24,1.33,0.13,0,27.73,36.76,0,0.34,3.28,0.33,25.86,0
Serbia6,6.50,0.55,0.49,0.99,25.64,39.61,0.23,0,5.81,0,20.20,0
Serbia7,4.86,1.05,1.11,0.44,27.75,37.80,0.17,0,4.40,0.45,21.96,0
Serbia9,6.32,0,0.16,0,26.15,38.03,0.49,0,5.49,0,23.36,0
Serbian_B-H11_in_Bosnia-Hertzegovina,6.32,0.91,0,0.18,24.73,43.84,1.22,0,5.15,0,17.64,0
Serbian_B-H4_in_Bosnia-Hertzegovina,3.92,0.72,0.35,0.21,28.27,43.45,0.65,0,3.67,0,18.77,0
Serbian_B-H7_in_Bosnia-Hertzegovina,2.71,0.28,0,0,28.08,41.92,0,0.05,5.06,0,21.91,0
Serbian_B-H9_in_Bosnia-Hertzegovina,4.75,0,0,0.63,28.16,41.17,0,0,5.19,1.20,18.89,0
```

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ar...l.pone.0105090

----------


## Jovialis

Great work once again, Salento!

Distance to:
Jovialis

8.86856245
Kosovo1

9.29981720
Kosovo8

10.41323197
Kosovo16

10.72360014
Kosovo7

11.53868277
Kosovo11

12.47563225
Kosovo18

12.86061429
Kosovo12

13.30911718
Kosovo14

16.33415746
Macedonian17b-d

18.05188356
Macedonian19

18.38612248
Serbia4

18.67171658
Montenegro21

19.03011561
Serbia10

19.19075298
Macedonian12

19.39474671
Macedonian21

19.74296330
Montenegro14

20.02962057
Montenegro20

20.34746913
Montenegro19

20.35888504
Montenegro15

20.61361201
Montenegro1

20.77116029
Macedonian20

21.02077782
Serbia2

21.05242266
Macedonian7

21.09559670
Montenegro9

22.10760503
Serbia5

----------


## Duarte

> out of curiosity Ashkenazy and Sephardic samples in our list were collected in:
> 
> 
> ashkenazy1w Austria
> ashkenazy2e Belorussia
> ashkenazy2w Austria
> ashkenazy3e Latvia
> ashkenazy3w Austria
> ashkenazy4e Latvia
> ...


 :Good Job:  Salento


Distance to:
Duarte

3.46759753
94.20% Portugal:Portugal1 + 5.80% Yemen:Yemen1

3.92769015
94.60% Portugal:Portugal13 + 5.40% Yemen:Yemen1

3.99881721
94.60% Portugal:Portugal1 + 5.40% Jordan:Jordan444

4.25482403
94.60% Portugal:Portugal1 + 5.40% SaudiA:SaudiA2

4.42105157
95.00% Portugal:Portugal13 + 5.00% Jordan:Jordan444

4.48433901
95.60% Portugal:Portugal1 + 4.40% Yemen:Yemen3

4.48654320
95.60% Portugal:Portugal1 + 4.40% Yemen:Yemen6

4.57856277
92.60% Portugal:Portugal6 + 7.40% Yemen:Yemen1

4.60076850
15.60% Corsica:CorsicaS15608 + 84.40% Portugal:Portugal1

4.70932725
95.60% Portugal:Portugal1 + 4.40% Yemen:Yemen2

4.80708071
96.20% Portugal:Portugal1 + 3.80% Yemen:Yemen7

4.82129406
7.80% TP05_Busby_2015 + 92.20% Portugal:Portugal1

4.82129406
7.80% Trapani:TP05_LazaridisNat2014 + 92.20% Portugal:Portugal1

4.82253112
8.80% TP25_Busby_2015 + 91.20% Portugal:Portugal1

4.83238355
96.20% Portugal:Portugal1 + 3.80% Yemen:Yemen4

4.84072684
95.80% Portugal:Portugal13 + 4.20% SaudiA:SaudiA2

4.84626195
96.00% Portugal:Portugal1 + 4.00% Lebanon:Lebanon5

4.85460060
95.60% Portugal:Portugal1 + 4.40% Syria:syria485

4.86018268
96.00% Portugal:Portugal1 + 4.00% Jordan:Jordan485

4.86315746
96.00% Portugal:Portugal1 + 4.00% Turkey:tur170

4.86480118
96.00% Portugal:Portugal1 + 4.00% Turkey:tur124

4.86571552
96.00% Portugal:Portugal1 + 4.00% Jordan:Jordan546

4.86711957
6.80% W-Sicily21_Behar_2013 + 93.20% Portugal:Portugal1

4.86711957
6.80% W-Sicily:21 + 93.20% Portugal:Portugal1

4.87056010
70.40% Portugal:Portugal1 + 29.60% Portugal:Portugal2

4.87752032
96.00% Portugal:Portugal1 + 4.00% Jordan:Jordan603

4.87886782
95.80% Portugal:Portugal1 + 4.20% Turkey:tur20

4.88044989
95.80% Portugal:Portugal1 + 4.20% Syria:syria520

4.88343538
94.60% Portugal:Portugal1 + *5.40% Sephardi:sephardic4tur*

4.89115536
96.60% Portugal:Portugal1 + 3.40% Armernia:arm8

4.89131455
95.00% Portugal:Portugal1 + *5.00% Sephardi:sephardic16bul*

4.89334625
96.20% Portugal:Portugal1 + 3.80% Turkey:tur110

4.89342859
96.60% Portugal:Portugal1 + 3.40% Armernia:arm10

4.89381816
96.20% Portugal:Portugal1 + 3.80% Jordan:Jordan384

4.89393734
96.00% Portugal:Portugal1 + 4.00% Lebanon:Lebanon8

4.89441565
94.60% Portugal:Portugal1 + *5.40% Sephardi:sephardic9tur*

4.89768773
96.00% Portugal:Portugal1 + 4.00% Jordan:Jordan426

4.89779168
96.40% Portugal:Portugal1 + 3.60% Yemen:Yemen8

4.89816915
96.40% Portugal:Portugal1 + 3.60% Saudi:saudi1436

4.89908999
96.20% Portugal:Portugal1 + 3.80% Syria:syria1

4.90008066
97.00% Portugal:Portugal1 + 3.00% Armernia:arm6

4.90047757
96.80% Portugal:Portugal1 + 3.20% Armernia:arm5

4.90062643
96.00% Portugal:Portugal1 + 4.00% Jordan:Jordan503

4.90230423
96.00% Portugal:Portugal1 + 4.00% Turkey:tur277

4.90496537
96.80% Portugal:Portugal1 + 3.20% Armernia:arm18

4.90857000
96.20% Portugal:Portugal1 + 3.80% Syria:syria10

4.90901703
6.60% Campania:NaN195ST + 93.40% Portugal:Portugal1

4.91052512
96.40% Portugal:Portugal1 + 3.60% Syria:syria361

4.91068335
97.00% Portugal:Portugal1 + 3.00% Armernia:arm23

4.91149804
6.80% TP07_Busby_2015 + 93.20% Portugal:Portugal1

4.91149804
6.80% Trapani:TP07_LazaridisNat2014 + 93.20% Portugal:Portugal1

4.91203856
96.20% Portugal:Portugal1 + 3.80% Lebanon:Lebanon6

4.91212596
8.00% TP08_Busby_2015 + 92.00% Portugal:Portugal1

4.91236469
96.20% Portugal:Portugal1 + 3.80% Turkey:tur37

4.91302294
95.20% Portugal:Portugal1 + *4.80% Sephardi:sephardic1tur*

4.91484424
96.80% Portugal:Portugal1 + 3.20% Armernia:arm26

4.91563078
97.20% Portugal:Portugal1 + 2.80% Armernia:arm12

4.91579826
96.40% Portugal:Portugal1 + 3.60% Jordan:Jordan62

4.91659853
8.20% SR48R_Busby_2015 + 91.80% Portugal:Portugal1

4.91738219
97.20% Portugal:Portugal1 + 2.80% Armernia:arm20

4.91744946
96.40% Portugal:Portugal1 + 3.60% Lebanon:Lebanon2

4.91833399
97.00% Portugal:Portugal1 + 3.00% Armernia:arm4

4.91839320
7.40% SR64_Busby_2015 + 92.60% Portugal:Portugal1

4.91839320
7.40% Siracusa:SR64_LazaridisNat2014 + 92.60% Portugal:Portugal1

4.91853253
96.40% Portugal:Portugal1 + 3.60% Jordan:Jordan445

4.91865978
96.40% Portugal:Portugal1 + 3.60% Jordan:Jordan563

4.91897969
96.20% Portugal:Portugal1 + 3.80% Jordan:Jordan382

4.91969535
96.40% Portugal:Portugal1 + 3.60% Lebanon:Lebanon4

4.92147077
96.60% Portugal:Portugal1 + 3.40% Armernia:arm11

4.92326847
95.80% Portugal:Portugal1 + 4.20% Turkey:tur262

4.92344427
96.80% Portugal:Portugal1 + 3.20% Armernia:arm19

4.92388570
95.80% Portugal:Portugal1 + 4.20% Turkey:tur52

4.92457022
94.60% Portugal:Portugal1 + *5.40% Sephardi:sephardic12bul*

4.92540377
96.60% Portugal:Portugal1 + 3.40% Greece_Macedonia_o:GreeceMaced1

4.92740166
6.80% C-Sicily50_Behar_2013 + 93.20% Portugal:Portugal1

4.92740166
6.80% C-Sicily:50 + 93.20% Portugal:Portugal1

4.92811240
6.80% Ag-Sicily8_Behar_2013 + 93.20% Portugal:Portugal1

4.92811240
6.80% Ag-Sicily:8 + 93.20% Portugal:Portugal1

4.92853651
6.40% W-Sicily5a_Behar_2013 + 93.60% Portugal:Portugal1

4.92853651
6.40% W-Sicily:5a + 93.60% Portugal:Portugal1

4.92910917
6.40% W-Sicily1_Behar_2013 + 93.60% Portugal:Portugal1

4.92910917
6.40% W-Sicily:1 + 93.60% Portugal:Portugal1

4.92971032
96.60% Portugal:Portugal1 + 3.40% Syria:syria8

4.93021475
96.40% Portugal:Portugal1 + 3.60% Syria:syria298

4.93026590
96.40% Portugal:Portugal1 + 3.60% Jordan:Jordan560

4.93116903
96.60% Portugal:Portugal1 + 3.40% Armernia:arm9

4.93160694
96.40% Portugal:Portugal1 + 3.60% Turkey:tur84

4.93399025
95.40% Portugal:Portugal1 + 4.60% Greece_Kos:GreeceKos8

4.93513099
96.00% Portugal:Portugal1 + 4.00% Turkey:tur2

4.93571581
96.80% Portugal:Portugal1 + 3.20% Armernia:arm17

4.93646529
6.60% Ag-Sicily5_Behar_2013 + 93.40% Portugal:Portugal1

4.93646529
6.60% Ag-Sicily:5 + 93.40% Portugal:Portugal1

4.93699891
95.20% Portugal:Portugal1 + *4.80% Sephardi:sephardic6tur*

4.93733691
97.00% Portugal:Portugal1 + 3.00% Armernia:arm3

4.93988244
96.40% Portugal:Portugal1 + 3.60% Jordan:Jordan646

4.94175361
6.60% SR60_Busby_2015 + 93.40% Portugal:Portugal1

4.94175361
6.60% Siracusa:SR60_LazaridisNat2014 + 93.40% Portugal:Portugal1

4.94177753
5.60% Calabria:ALP582 + 94.40% Portugal:Portugal1

4.94224682
96.60% Portugal:Portugal1 + 3.40% Turkey:tur197

4.94347922
95.20% Portugal:Portugal1 + *4.80% Sephardi:sephardic18bul*

----------


## Angela

I've sort of lost the plot so I'll have to go back and try to find the other coordinates. Thanks Salento. :)

Distance to:
Angela

12.14671972
Kosovo1

13.38750910
Kosovo14

13.95295668
Kosovo16

14.44534527
Kosovo8

14.51025844
Kosovo7

15.26153334
Kosovo12

15.55925448
Kosovo11

17.84257268
Kosovo18

18.42842098
Macedonian17b-d

18.79448323
Montenegro14

19.14214460
Montenegro20

19.14937075
Montenegro21

19.21753106
Macedonian19

19.42374578
Serbia10

19.50516598
Serbia4

20.09329490
Montenegro19

20.14152924
Macedonian21

20.42779479
Montenegro15

20.78610834
Serbia2

20.99903807
Montenegro6

21.13484327
Montenegro9

21.17840882
Montenegro1

22.25042022
Serbia5

22.25897347
Macedonian7

23.02014770
Macedonian12



Not my group, clearly.

----------


## Angela

Not that much better:

Distance to:
Angela

10.29025753
ItalyAbruzzo21_Behar_2013

11.90679638
ItalyAbruzzo13_Behar_2013

11.98841107
TP08_Busby_2015

12.71835681
TP06_Busby_2015

12.85875966
ItalyAbruzzo22_Behar_2013

12.90065115
SR48R_Busby_2015

13.13537209
TP25_Busby_2015

13.16600547
ItalyAbruzzo17_Behar_2013

13.45773384
W-Sicily4_Behar_2013

13.75745616
ItalyAbruzzo19_Behar_2013

13.77992017
W-Sicily7_Behar_2013

13.78993836
TP04_Busby_2015

13.80142022
ItalyAbruzzo15_Behar_2013

14.15748565
ItalyAbruzzo20_Behar_2013

14.25281727
ItalyAbruzzo9_Behar_2013

14.25840805
ItalyAbruzzo14_Behar_2013

14.26076085
ItalyAbruzzo16_Behar_2013

14.36989562
ItalyAbruzzo23_Behar_2013

15.08224121
SR64_Busby_2015

16.08740190
Ag-Sicily5_Behar_2013

16.16724466
TP05_Busby_2015

16.77179179
W-Sicily1_Behar_2013

16.82153382
C-Sicily50_Behar_2013

16.84593126
SR60_Busby_2015

16.93869239
W-Sicily9_Behar_2013




A lot of Abruzzo is clearly more northern than the rest of the South. It makes sense. Also interesting how similar northern Puglia is to it. 

What incredible variation we have in Italy. In other parts of the world they kill each other when they're genetically like 2nd cousins.

Political boundaries in Italy don't match the genetic boundaries.

----------


## Angela

More in the ballpark, but still not great. Perhaps because there's no Emilian or Eastern Ligurian samples? Still don't understand the Corsica matches. Some French ancestry in some of those samples? I'm very far west on PCAs. Or perhaps because some of the Corsicans are from the coast and have ancestry from Liguria and northern Toscana? Like Napoleone, whose oldest family seat is across the Magra from where my mother was born? 


Is there a way I can examine these samples more closely? Are they on any of the PCAs by number?

Distance to:
Angela

3.03352930
Corsica:CorsicaS04208

3.74296674
TSI30

4.07762186
Corsica:CorsicaS29908

4.12169868
Lombardy:BGD31_Lombardy

4.16088933
Corsica:Corsica29708

4.31811301
Tuscany:Tuscany98

4.32551731
Corsica:CorsicaS03308

4.59341921
Corsica:CorsicaS10208

4.62110376
Trentino-Alto-Adige:ALP114

4.66352871
Corsica:corsica29008

4.72634108
Tuscan_HGDP:HGDP01162

4.77855627
N_Italy_HGDP:HGDP01155

4.89772396
Corsica:Corsica24508

4.92195083
Lombardy:BGD301_Lombardy

4.96589368
Tuscan_HGDP:HGDP01163

5.14806760
Tuscan_HGDP:HGDP01167

5.52170264
N_Italy_HGDP:HGDP01172

5.63329389
Corsica_o:Corsica14708

5.71635373
Corsica:Corsica19508

5.76627263
Tuscan_HGDP:HGDP01168

5.76965337
Corsica:Corsica03708

5.85776408
Piedmont:ItalyPiedmont149

6.09634317
Piedmont:ItalyPiedmont43

6.09717968
Corsica:CorsicaS13808

6.18154511
Tuscany:VO65

6.22679693
N_Italy_HGDP:HGDP01177

6.30558483
Tuscany:Tuscany65

6.39665538
Piedmont:ItalyPiedmont119

6.43815191
Umbria:PG08

6.44818579
Tuscany:Tuscany27

6.46058047
Tuscan_HGDP:HGDP01164

6.47928237
Tuscan_HGDP:HGDP01161

6.54887013
Tuscan_HGDP:HGDP01166

6.55823909
N_Italy_HGDP:HGDP01174

6.85763079
Piedmont:ItalyPiedmont98

6.89233632
N_Italy_HGDP:HGDP01152

6.89848534
Corsica:corsica1308

6.93375800
Tuscany:MURLO114

7.01978632
Tuscan_HGDP:HGDP01169

7.12763635
Veneto:KF1800772

7.15986033
Corsica:CorsicaS15608

7.16769140
Piedmont:ItalyPiedmont145

7.28999314
Tuscany:Tuscany38

7.40563299
Veneto:ALP040

7.46905617
Umbria:PG12

7.48586668
Lombardy:BGD28_Lombardy

7.58625731
N_Italy_HGDP:HGDP01157

7.61442710
Tuscany:Tuscany54

7.70445326
N_Italy_HGDP:HGDP01156

7.73679520
N_Italy_HGDP:HGDP01171

7.75944586
Liguria:ALP099

7.84105223
Lombardy:BGD103_Lombardy

8.03954601
Tuscany:Tuscany93

8.10570787
Piedmont:ItalyPiedmont136

8.10839072
Veneto:ALP116

8.15638400
Marche:MarACW030D

8.40005952
Tuscany:Tuscany74

8.41772535
Tuscany:VO59

8.45947398
Marche:MarABI020D

8.50290539
N_Italy_HGDP:HGDP01173

8.52858722
N_Italy_HGDP:HGDP01153

8.76107870
Lombardy:ALP288

8.85215228
Lazio:PG28

8.95054188
Marche:MarADC050D

8.97648038
Marche:MarABU050D

9.06816409
Umbria:PG11

9.19212163
Albanian:AL12

9.21218215
Veneto:KF1803109

9.25663546
Piedmont:ItalyPiedmont63

9.31194931
Veneto:ALP209

9.31813286
N_Italy_HGDP:HG
DP01147

9.58208746
Veneto:KF1800751

9.59945311
Marche:MarABG010D

9.89644886
Tuscany:VO109

9.95424533
Marche:MarABP050D



Well, I now officially claim all the greats of Florence from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance and beyond as my ancestors! :)

My bucket list had more of the Greek islands on it (and mainland), Istanbul and the ancient cities of Asia Minor, Israel, and now I guess I have to go to Corsica. :) Of course I'm going back once or twice a year again to Liguria and the Lunigiana (N.W. Toscana), as, even after all these years, that's home.

Btw, are these Piemonte samples the ones from the border area between Piemonte and Liguria? Would make perfect sense as they're really Ligurian.

----------


## Angela

Well, those people hiding out in the foothills of the Apennines and the Apennines themselves have kept a lot of their Copper Age EEF ancestry. It shows up for me in other analyses as well. 

For those who've been following the discussion about how much Germanic ancestry there might be in people like the N.W. Tuscans, I guess it's about 10%. :)


Target: Angela
Distance: 6.8659% / 0.06865937

24.6
Sardinia_HGDP



19.0
Tuscany



12.4
Veneto



10.8
Basilicata



8.4
GermanyB



6.2
Greece_Thessaly



3.0
Greece_NorthEast



2.4
Romania_o



2.2
Germany



2.0
Greece_Crete



1.6
Hungary



1.4
Greece_Macedonia_o



1.2
Slovenia



1.0
Cyprus



0.8
Greek_Thessaloniki



0.8
Marche



0.8
Piedmont



0.6
Greece_Central



0.4
Spain



0.2
Apulia



0.2
Turkey

----------


## Palermo Trapani

> Not that much better:
> 
> Distance to:
> Angela
> 
> 10.29025753
> ItalyAbruzzo21_Behar_2013
> 
> 11.90679638
> ...


Angela if you don't mind me asking, what are the ranges of those distances, from my screen looks like 11 to about 16/18, etc.

----------


## Palermo Trapani

Salento: My results for Western Balkans Samples (Post 860). Excellent work again.

Distance to:
PalermoTrapani_ANCESTRY

12.79894136
Kosovo1

13.89447012
Kosovo8

14.43572305
Kosovo7

14.64423777
Kosovo16

15.63217515
Kosovo11

16.38913970
Kosovo18

16.76973166
Kosovo12

17.18742273
Kosovo14

20.23436681
Macedonian17b-d

22.03268481
Macedonian19

22.52220682
Serbia4

22.53221915
Montenegro21

22.72660555
Serbia10

23.15786475
Montenegro14

23.33456449
Macedonian12

23.65436746
Macedonian21

23.83446664
Montenegro20

24.10174060
Montenegro15

24.17500362
Montenegro19

24.54264248
Montenegro1

24.81982272
Serbia2

24.96276026
Macedonian7

25.09975896
Montenegro9

25.13141460
Macedonian20

25.85560094
Montenegro6

----------


## Angela

> Angela if you don't mind me asking, what are the ranges of those distances, from my screen looks like 11 to about 16/18, etc.


Of course I don't mind. Sorry it's hard to read: 10.29 (Abruzzi) to 16.9 (West Sicily).

I have some better West Sicily samples, though: 12-13 and:

11.98841107
TP08_Busby_2015

12.71835681
TP06_Busby_2015



That's 11.9 and 12.7.

There's a lot more variety in these Southern Italian samples than I expected.

----------


## Palermo Trapani

> Of course I don't mind. Sorry it's hard to read: 10.29 (Abruzzi) to 16.9 (West Sicily).
> 
> I have some better West Sicily samples, though: 12-13 and:
> 
> 11.98841107
> TP08_Busby_2015
> 
> 12.71835681
> TP06_Busby_2015
> ...


Thanks Angela. Just a friendly suggestion, did you adjust your gradient when you ran the Oracle program. I just set mine to 100 to clear up the resolution. It works on my computer like a charm.

Yes, there is some variety in those Samples. In my post 958, I am closer to some Abruzzo samples than some of the ones from Sicily and closer to some areas of Sicily for which none of my Great-Grandparents (1 Grandfather) were from (3rd closest is Syracuse SR64).

----------


## Dushman

> ... some modern Serbia, Kosovo, Bosnia, Montenegro, Macedonia, ... _The Genetic Structure of Western Balkan Populations Based on Autosomal and..._
> 
> 
> 
> ```
> Bosnian_10,3.06,0.44,0,0.55,27.00,42.48,0,0.33,4.98,0,21.15,0
> Bosnian_11,5.64,0.03,0.96,0,25.33,42.04,0,0,4.77,0,21.23,0
> Bosnian_12,5.24,0.63,0.40,0,25.12,43.50,0.64,0,5.50,0,18.96,0
> Bosnian_13,5.51,0,0.23,0,25.26,41.18,1.93,0,5.16,0,20.73,0
> ...


Ok, these "academic samples" from Kosovo are not as weird as the Albanian ones.

Kosovo7 is literally my sibling it's scary, whereas Kosovo14 looks like Albanians from Montenegro. 

And as always, the Montenegro samples are super cherry picked. They left at least 30-40% of the population of Montenegro out and some are clearly from Serbia or Bosnia but of Montenegrin heritage.

----------


## Leopoldo Leone

> Thanks Angela. Just a friendly suggestion, did you adjust your gradient when you ran the Oracle program. I just set mine to 100 to clear up the resolution. It works on my computer like a charm.
> 
> Yes, there is some variety in those Samples. In my post 958, I am closer to some Abruzzo samples than some of the ones from Sicily and closer to some areas of Sicily for which none of my Great-Grandparents (1 Grandfather) were from (3rd closest is Syracuse SR64).


As far as I recall behar samples were gathered in London and by individuals who self-reported their ethnicity (and this explains the high number of Romanian individuals with high south asian admixture), and the Busby samples are recycled from Hellenthal et al 2015 who gathered for south Italy and Sicily new samples from anonymous donours (https://www.science.org/action/downl...lenthal.sm.pdf), and for the same reservations expressed for some Tuscan samples I do not think all these samples represent the genuine genetic variation present in Sicilians and south Italians, and it also explains why the samples from Italian authors gathered in situ form much tighter clusters (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-01802-4 , https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-82591-9 for example).

----------


## Palermo Trapani

> As far as I recall behar samples were gathered in London and by individuals who self-reported their ethnicity (and this explains the high number of Romanian individuals with high south asian admixture), and the Busby samples are recycled from Hellenthal et al 2015 who gathered for south Italy and Sicily new samples from anonymous donours (https://www.science.org/action/downl...lenthal.sm.pdf), and for the same reservations expressed for some Tuscan samples I do not think all these samples represent the genuine genetic variation present in Sicilians and south Italians, and it also explains why the samples from Italian authors gathered in situ form much tighter clusters (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-01802-4 , https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-82591-9 for example).


Leopoldo: Thanks for the note. Here is what I don't quite understand. I have been able to go back to Sicily and get birth, marriage and death certificates dating back to the early 1800's both Paternal and Maternal lineages. It seems to me that Italian researchers when taking a DNA sample from someone in Sicily, Puglia, Campania, Tuscany, or wherever in modern Italy can ask the Donor to provide his or her birth record, which has the parents with their family names, and then get the parents wedding civil record, which has both their parents and document that the person donating sample has family history dating back to to the 1800's which would provide a higher confidence that the donor represents a population that has long-term ties to the area (and not do to some recent migrant moving into the region with no historic ties to the region).

However, the variation in these samples from Sicily might in reality not be outside the normal distribution and could all be relative to the mean within 2 SD's of it and not in the 5% tails, 2.5 left or 2.5% right. So while there is some variation, I don't want to suggest that some of these samples are outliers and thus not within, statistically, the genetic variation one would expect to find if you plotted them and looked at the data in the context of a Bell Shaped curve (which is kind of how I visualize the data sometimes to wrap my head around it).

Thanks again Leopoldo, PT

----------


## Pax Augusta

> Leopoldo: Thanks for the note. Here is what I don't quite understand. I have been able to go back to Sicily and get birth, marriage and death certificates dating back to the early 1800's both Paternal and Maternal lineages.It seems to me that Italian researchers when taking a DNA sample from someone in Sicily, Puglia, Campania, Tuscany, or wherever in modern Italy can ask the Donor to provide his or her birth record, which has the parents with their family names, and then get the parents wedding civil record, which has both their parents and document that the person donating sample has family history dating back to to the 1800's which would provide a higher confidence that the donor represents a population that has long-term ties to the area (and not do to some recent migrant moving into the region with no historic ties to the region).


As I know they don't ask for birth or baptismal certificates. At least not always. Many times ancestry is simply self reported. And it is not always the researchers/geneticists directly who collect the samples, and samples are collected following very different procedures from time to time.

----------


## Jovialis

I can say with confidence I'm representative of my area considering all four of my grandparents come from the province of Bari. I knew them all well, and all four of their grandparents also came from Bari too.

----------


## Jovialis

^^I knew my great-grandmother too. She watched me while my parents went to work, prior to me starting school. I also spent my whole child and teenage years with her in my life, which I was very fortunate for. She was 100% Barese and her grandparents were too.

----------


## Palermo Trapani

> As I know they don't ask for birth or baptismal certificates. At least not always. Many times ancestry is simply self reported. And it is not always the researchers/geneticists directly who collect the samples, and samples are collected following very different procedures from time to time.


Well in my view, that is a potential flaw in the sample collection methods used if birth and/or baptismal certificates are not asked for.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> Well in my view, that is a potential flaw in the sample collection methods used if birth and/or baptismal certificates are not asked for.



Definitely it is a potential flaw. Which is why academic samples are useful because they give us the big picture but they cannot always be taken for completely reliable when it comes to individual cases, especially the outlying ones, for the lack of control and strictness when they were collected. Because they may not always be completely accurate. 

On the other hand, there is then to add the fact that there is individual variation, just see that often two brothers or sisters are not 100% identical genetically, so let alone two unrelated people who come from the same area, even when they really have all the grandparents from that area, it is not a given that they are entirely similar genetically.

----------


## 1337

> Why would this be the case? Northern Albania was more isolated during the migration age. The south should have higher Slavic/Gothic admixture. There is higher R1a and I2. I1 is more pocketed (Dibra has high % IIRC), but places like Vlore have like 15% I1 if I'm not mistaken.


Northern Albanians on average plot more north and it's an undisputed fact.

----------

