# Population Genetics > Paleogenetics >  Moots: Ancient Rome Paper

## Johane Derite

It is out:

*Ancient Rome: A genetic crossroads of Europe and the Mediterranean*


*Abstract*Ancient Rome was the capital of an empire of ~70 million inhabitants, but little is known about the genetics of ancient Romans. Here we present 127 genomes from 29 archaeological sites in and around Rome, spanning the past 12,000 years. We observe two major prehistoric ancestry transitions: one with the introduction of farming and another prior to the Iron Age. By the founding of Rome, the genetic composition of the region approximated that of modern Mediterranean populations. During the Imperial period, Romes population received net immigration from the Near East, followed by an increase in genetic contributions from Europe. These ancestry shifts mirrored the geopolitical affiliations of Rome and were accompanied by marked interindividual diversity, reflecting gene flow from across the Mediterranean, Europe, and North Africa.



LINK: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/366/6466/708

----------


## Jovialis

Behind a paywall?!

----------


## Johane Derite

It seems so. I got the paper with sci hub, but the supplementary data do not seem to be extractable with sci hub.

----------


## Johane Derite

Supplementary data:

https://science.sciencemag.org/conte...Antonio_SM.pdf

----------


## Jovialis

> "An analysis of some of the earliest samples more or less comports with what has been found around Europe—*they represent an influx of farmers primarily descended from early agriculturalists from Turkey and Iran around 8,000 years ago,* followed by a shift toward ancestry from the Ukrainian steppe somewhere between 5,000 and 3,000 years ago. By the founding of Rome, traditionally dated to 753 BCE, the city's population had grown in diversity and resembled modern European and Mediterranean peoples"


Looks like Anatolian copper age-like admixture reached the area of Rome, prior to Steppe.

----------


## kingjohn

No e-z830 i look at the table 
But there is e-v12 in lazio from 0-200 ad so cool
Imperial period... 
Convlusion 
I shouldnt listen to rumors ...

I look at table 1-4 in the paper

Mesolitic:
I

: neolithic
G-L91
J-m304
J-L26
R-m343

Copper age : 
G-F1193
H-L901
I-cts616
I-m223
G-pf3359

Iron age: 
R-m269
T-L208
R-P311
R-PF7588
J-m12
R-p312
R-p312

Imperial:
R-PF7589
E-V12
J-m92
J-Z631
G-FGC5089
J-p58
There are more
J,R,G .....

Late antiquity:
:400-600ad
One e-v13 dude was found

----------


## Pax Augusta



----------


## bicicleur

https://science.sciencemag.org/conte...6.6466.708.DC1

https://science.sciencemag.org/conte...Antonio_SM.pdf

----------


## bicicleur

the tribes that founded Rome were R1b-M269 and they arrived between 2300 and 900 BC

----------


## kingjohn

I now looked in the table there is 1 E-L257/L19
Dude From late mediveal 1280-1430 ad ....
To bad he is johny come lately.... 
anyway he is in the e-z827 branch as oposed to the e-v12 and e-v13 that were found in remains
Who belong to the e-v68 branch.
The E in this paper: 
samples:
1) R113, Via Paisiello, 0-200CE (Imperial Rome) - E-V12
2) R107, Crypta Balbi, 400-600CE (Late Antiquity) - E-V13
3) R59, Villa Magna, 820-990CE (Early Medieval) - E-V12
4) R53, Villa Magna, 1280-1430CE (Late Medieval) - E-V257
5) R1219, Cancelleria, 1417-1463CE (Renaissance) - E-V13

----------


## Jovialis

> Looks like Anatolian copper age-like admixture reached the area of Rome, prior to Steppe.


Logically, one would assume this admixture was stronger in the South during this time as well. Further increased by the Greek settlers. The creation of Roman Italy probably brought a great deal of this ancestry into the area of Rome.





>

----------


## Salento

> Logically, one would assume this admixture was stronger in the South during this time as well. Further increased by the Greek settlers. The creation of the Roman province of Italia probably brought a great deal of this ancestry into the area of Rome.


Where do you think we're located on the map that Pax posted?

I think I know (S.E of S.Italy line), but I'm not sure.

----------


## Jovialis

> Where do you think we're located on the map that Pax posted?
> 
> I think I understand it, but I'm not sure.


I think the green dots are the Italian samples from the Lombard paper. If so, it would be relative to that. Thus near the Northern side of the Imperial Roman cluster, with a proclivity towards the Greek centroid. That's my guess.




> I think I know (S.E of S.Italy line), but I'm not sure.


Apulians are _north_/_northeast_ of the south Italian line.

----------


## Jovialis

Maybe this might make it a bit easier to decipher.

----------


## Salento

> Maybe this might make it a bit easier to decipher.


Thanks Jovialis, I see the Circle.

I’m glad that I get to keep my Avatar  :Satisfied:

----------


## Johane Derite

Trojet has checked the BAM file for the J2b etruscan:


_"I just checked the BAM file for: R474, Civitavecchia, Etruscan, 700-600BCE (Iron Age/Roman Republic) - J-M12+_

_He is: J2b-L283>>Z597>Y15058>CTS6190_

_My friend Principe called it. We do have a J-CTS6190 in ancient Italy"


_This individual was related to the Croatian coast J2b. This is from the supplement:
" In addition, a Bronze Age individual from Croatia (1631-1521 calBCE) belonged to the J2b2a haplogroup (14) and *carried exactly the M314 derived allele that is also found in R474*."

----------


## Jovialis

Here's another comparison.

----------


## Tomenable

Okay, so rumours about Early Romans being South Italian-like are not confirmed.

This PCA shows Republican Era Romans in Latium were probably like modern Piedmontese (North-West Italians):

Only during the Imperial Era mass migration from East Mediterranean changed it:

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/366/6466/708





BTW, soon another paper with ancient DNA from other regions of Italy (outside of Latium) should be published.

This paper had only DNA from the city of Rome and surrounding areas within the present-day region of Latium.

----------


## brick

> Okay, so rumours about Early Romans being South Italian-like are not confirmed.



There were never any of these rumors. What you call early Romans are actually Iron Age Latins. 

According to the rumors, it was the Imperial Romans who were South-Italian like.

----------


## Tomenable

> What you call early Romans are actually Iron Age Latins.


No, these samples range from 900 BCE to 27 BCE and genetic profile did not change much in that period. Rome was founded in 753 BCE. Median age of these samples is given as *"320 BCE Roman Republic" (map):*

----------


## Tomenable

Samples from 900-27 BCE, so 150 years before foundation of Rome (753 BCE) and over 700 years after foundation of Rome. And yet you claim they are not Romans but "early Latins" ??? 

They are Romans from times when Rome was a Kingdom and a Republic:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Kingdom (753-509 BCE)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Republic (509-27 BCE)

----------


## Tomenable

> According to the rumors, it was the Imperial Romans who were South-Italian like.


Nope.

I have heard rumours saying that Rome was founded by Greeks and genetics will confirm this legend.

If those rumours were true, we should be seeing South Italian-like genetics already around 753 BCE.

Besides, according to Razib, South Italian-like genetics was mainly in the cities, not in the countryside. And Razib thought that after the fall of the Western Roman Empire, there was resurgence of the rural locals after the cities (where East Med influence had to be the strongest) died out, and subsequently became re-populated by peasants (with more native "Republican-Iron Age" genetics):



^^^
Rome's (city) population over time:

----------


## Salento

> Samples from 900-27 BCE, so 150 years before foundation of Rome (753 BCE) and over 700 years after foundation of Rome. And yet you claim they are not Romans but "early Latins" ??? 
> 
> They are Romans from times when Rome was a Kingdom and a Republic:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Kingdom (753-509 BCE)
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Republic (509-27 BCE)



Is there a genetic difference between early Romans and Latins?

----------


## Tomenable

> Is there a genetic difference between early Romans and Latins?


I do not think so. But rumours were saying that there would be a difference. 

And that Romans would be Mycenaean-like genetically (= South Italian-like).

I saw people claiming that Rome was founded by the Greeks or Trojans, just like in one of legends about Aeneas:

https://www.thoughtco.com/the-myth-f...of-rome-117754

Genetics proves that this is false and that the legend about local Latin founders (Romulus & Remus) is more true.

----------


## Johane Derite

The J2b2-L283 that is found in Civitavecchia is from 700-600BC, and most likely has origin from the Croatian coast as it is under the same branch despite being near 1000 years younger.

Aeneas was a Dardanian, they are connected with Trojans, but not the same thing, so don't go discounting just yet. There could have been truth in the myth.

----------


## Salento

> Nope. But those rumours were saying that there would be a difference. 
> 
> And that Romans would be Mycenaean-like genetically (= South Italian).
> 
> I saw people claiming that Rome was founded by the Greeks or Trojans, just like in one of legends about Aeneas:
> 
> https://www.thoughtco.com/the-myth-f...of-rome-117754
> 
> Genetics proves that this is false and that the legend about local Latin founders (Romulus & Remus) is more true.


We have been saying on this site for a long time of the possibility that the Republican Romans were shifted north and the imperial Romans were shifted south.

----------


## brick

> No, these samples range from 900 BCE to 27 BCE and genetic profile did not change much in that period. Rome was founded in 753 BCE. Median age of these samples is given as *"320 BCE Roman Republic" (map):*


The Iron age Latin samples are from Latin cities but not from Rome.




> The J2b2-L283 that is found in Cittavechia is from 700-600BC, and most likely has origin from the Croatian coast as it is under the same branch despite being near 1000 years younger.
> 
> Aeneas was a Dardanian, they are connected with Trojans, but not the same thing, so don't go discounting just yet. There could have been truth in the myth.



When are you going to stop talking nonsense about the Etruscans? This study has shown that there are no significant differences between Etruscans and Latins. Bringing out the old theories of an eastern origin of the Etruscans is really inappropriate and ridiculous on the basis of a single Y-DNA that was in Croatia around 1500 BC.

----------


## Jovialis

> I do not think so. But rumours were saying that there would be a difference. 
> 
> And that Romans would be Mycenaean-like genetically (= South Italian-like).
> 
> I saw people claiming that Rome was founded by the Greeks or Trojans, just like in one of legends about Aeneas:
> 
> https://www.thoughtco.com/the-myth-f...of-rome-117754
> 
> Genetics proves that this is false and that the legend about local Latin founders (Romulus & Remus) is more true.


I don't think I have seen anyone here claim that the Latins, who were early Romans; were Greek-like. Certainly, not I:



However, in the south, the people in the outskirts of the cities were Greek-like, since it used to be Magna Graecia. Thus, after the cities fell, it would be been repopulated largely be these kind of people there, in addition to the Italic-like people.

Also, you are wrong about Southern Italian DNA disappearing after repopulation. As a matter of fact it existed in central Italy in the Medieval period! :) Take a look at the PCA, they are yellow dots.

----------


## Jovialis

> I don't think I have seen anyone here claim that the Latins, who were early Romans; were Greek-like. Certainly, not I:
> 
> 
> 
> However, in the south, the people in the outskirts of the cities were Greek-like, since it used to be Magna Graecia. Thus, after the cities fell, it would be been repopulated largely be these kind of people there, in addition to the Italic-like people.
> 
> Also, you are wrong about Southern Italian DNA disappearing after repopulation. As a matter of fact it existed in central Italy in the Medieval period! :) Take a look at the PCA, they are yellow dots.



What had disappeared where the people who were South of south Italians.

There were migrations of people from exotic locations, that were not supplemented with continuous waves. Moreover, the lack of modern public works meant that their legacy would not have lasted. That is what Razib Khan said about these people.

The fact that more than half of the Central Italian population in the medieval to early modern period is slightly south of the of where it is today, should give you an idea of who repopulated it. While the people to the North of northern Italians, are obviously invaders.

----------


## Johane Derite

> The Iron age Latin samples are from Latin cities but not from Rome.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When are you going to stop talking nonsense about the Etruscans? This study has shown that there are no significant differences between Etruscans and Latins. Bringing out the old theories of an eastern origin of the Etruscans is really inappropriate and ridiculous on the basis of a single Y-DNA that was in Croatia around 1500 BC.



Im not claiming that L283 is native etruscan, i'm specifically saying it is not etruscan but illyrian, that assimilated with the locals. That is what the Aeneid describes. 

Leonard Palmer mentions this process being present in mixed Illyrian / Etruscan / Italic names:

----------


## Angela

> 


So, most Republican Era Romans are pretty close to Northwestern Italians, with some drifting toward Tuscans? Close enough. :)

Basically what we've been saying here all along, as Salento has pointed out. 

One is more Sardinian like, and one more Central Italian like. 

The burial context is very important here. What are the class differences, if any?

The Neolithic people in the vicinity of Rome already had CHG or Iranian Neolithic like ancestry.

"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."

So I said for 5 years, to much derision. There was Iranian and J2 in Italy in the Neolithic. I wonder if there was even more in the south?

Could this be Cardial versus Danubian? Yet, it doesn't show up in the Spanish Neolithic, which came from Cardial. Perhaps it's from a movement closer to the Copper Age, and via Northern Greece?

As to the yDna, could the R1b be V88? The J2's are definitely Caucasus like, yes?

For Iron Age Rome...

"We collected data from 11 Iron Age individuals dating from 900 to 200 BCE (including the Republican period). This group shows a clear ancestry shift from the Copper Age, interpreted by ADMIXTURE as the addition of a Steppe-related ancestry component and an increase in the Neolithic Iranian component (Figs. 2B and 3B). Using _qpAdm_, we modeled the genetic shift by an introduction of ~30 to 40% ancestry from Bronze and Iron Age nomadic populations from the Pontic-Caspian Steppe (table S15), similar to many Bronze Age populations in Europe (_10_, _13_, _14_, _19_, _22_). The presence of Steppe-related ancestry in Iron Age Italy could have happened through genetic exchange with intermediary populations (_5_, _23_). Additionally, multiple source populations could have contributed, simultaneously or subsequently, to the ancestry transition before Iron Age. By 900 BCE at the latest, the inhabitants of central Italy had begun to approximate the genetics of modern Mediterranean populations."

"Although we were able to model eight of the 11 individuals as two-way mixtures of Copper Age central Italians and a Steppe-related population (~24 to 38%) using _qpAdm_, this model was rejected for the other three individuals (_p_ < 0.001; table S16). Instead, two individuals from Latin sites (R437 and R850) can be modeled as a mixture between local people and an ancient Near Eastern population (best approximated by Bronze Age Armenian or Iron Age Anatolian; tables S17 and S18). An Etruscan individual (R475) carries significant African ancestry identified by _f_-statistics (|Z-score|>3; fig. S23) and can be modeled with ~53% ancestry from Late Neolithic Moroccan (table S19). Together these results suggest substantial genetic heterogeneity within the Etruscan (_n_ = 3 individuals) and Latin (_n_ = 6) groups. However, using _f_-statistics, we did not find significant genetic differentiation between the Etruscans and Latins in allele sharing with any preceding or contemporaneous population (|Z-score|<2), although the power to detect subtle genetic differentiation is limited by the small sample size."

Well, there's a bit of a surprise in terms of one of the Etruscans? Someone took a foreign bride? :) Too bad three of the Etruscans are female. 

Odd using an Iberomaurusian for comparison. Surely they could use someone more contemporaneous, or even modern?

I really have to dig into the burial contexts, if they provide enough data. It's important. It seems all of the imperial samples are from the port area. Yes, I get that they may be second generation or something, going by isotopes, but this is a specific group, not necessarily representative of all Italian Imperial Romans. 
Hell, it's like some archaeologist from the future finding a big bunch of samples in Flushing who are East Asian.

I'm also highly skeptical that the big northern shift in Late Antiquity is from Lombards and Goths, for God's sake. There were too few of them, especially by the time they got to Rome, and where is there a sign of sufficient I1 or U-106 to make that big a change? The samples just don't come from a "Little Levant". 

Maybe I'll feel differently after I go through the whole supplement and check the context for each sample, but it just seems to me there's a lot of sheer speculation here.

I do think it's funny that they maintain the shift is to the north in Antiquity. Remember that paper that said, based on modern samples, and using a dating tool, that in Antiquity there was a huge movement of Byzantine Anatolians and Levantines into Italy. I even wrote to them and said if there was a shift in Antiquity it would be north, because of the Barbarian invasions. They said that wasn't what their data showed. I responded that maybe they had their locals and intruders mixed up. All the usual suspects joined on that band wagon. Guess it was wrong. :)

----------


## Angela

> What had disappeared where the people who were South of south Italians.
> 
> There were migrations of people from exotic locations, that were not supplemented with continuous waves. Moreover, the lack of modern public works meant that their legacy would not have lasted. That is what Razib Khan said about these people.
> 
> The fact that more than half of the Central Italian population in the medieval to early modern period is slightly south of the of where it is today, should give you an idea of who repopulated it. While the people to the North of northern Italians, are obviously invaders.


First they saddle us with the ravings of the people at anthrogenica, and then they misinterpret the map. 

You're exactly right: the people who disappeared are the more East Med and Levantine people. I was sort of joking a few weeks ago when I said maybe they disappeared because they went to the Rhineland. Who knows? Many died during Antiquity, or moved away to better areas for trade, as early as when Constantinople was established, and maybe some indeed went north.

They can speculate all they want about all this northern ancestry making its way into Rome and accounting for the disappearance of East Med like samples. Did it never occur to them that they just left, or were killed (yes, I know, they give a bow to that)? As I've asked before, where is all the I1 and U-106 in Rome today, enough to account for this big change? Even in the Veneto and Piemonte, where Lombards did settle, they're very much a minority. 

When the large cities in Italy started to decline people left. They were repopulated by people from the countryside. I think it may be as simple as that, although I'm keeping an open mind. I'm hoping for better things from the Reich group.

----------


## Jovialis

> The Neolithic people in the vicinity of Rome already had CHG or Iranian Neolithic like ancestry.
> 
> "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."
> 
> So I said for 5 years, to much derision. There was Iranian and J2 in Italy in the Neolithic. I wonder if there was even more in the south?
> 
> Could this be Cardial versus Danubian? Yet, it doesn't show up in the Spanish Neolithic, which came from Cardial. Perhaps it's from a movement closer to the Copper Age, and via Northern Greece?
> 
> As to the yDna, could the R1b be V88? The J2's are definitely Caucasus like, yes?




I noticed these Neolithic people in the vicinity of Rome are just as south, but further west of Southern Italians.

----------


## Angela

Can we please stop with Herodotus and the Aeneid? We have better tools now.

The Etruscans, with the exception of the one with "foreign" maternal ancestry, and the Latins were similar autosomally. The Etruscans didn't come, during the first millennium BC, from Lydia in Anatolia or from Troy by way of the Balkans.

I'm sorry, but the Etruscans weren't Semites, despite the foreign bride, and they certainly weren't Albanians. J2b seems to have been pretty widespread. Who knows precisely how and when it arrived in Italy, although it may have been via the Balkans.

Give it a rest, people. 

Find your ethnic validation in your own ancestors.

----------


## Johane Derite

Straw man. I commented nothing on the Etruscans being Illyrians. They are two seperate things. I clearly stated that the L283 sample has Illyrian origin. This is hard to argue against since it is in the same branch of the 1000 year older coastal Illyrian sample. There is an Illyrian movement to Rome, and I'm not claiming anything about Etruscans or Italics, but the Illyrians, which are neither of those.

----------


## Angela

> I noticed these Neolithic people in the vicinity of Rome are just as south, but further west of Southern Italians.


From Central Italian-Southern Italian. 

Year ago, when Otzi's genome came out, Dienekes did some analyses that showed that after the Sardinians, Southern Italians were pretty close to him too. Northern Italians and Tuscans have a lot of EEF too. 

When push comes to shove, and all this talk of all these migrations, Central and Southern Italians haven't moved all that far.

I misspoke a bit. There are three "outlier" Iron Age Romans. One is still Sardinian like (different burial?), one is Central Italian like, and one is Southern Italian like.

The authors never address the fact that some of this movement into Rome could have been from Southern Italy, which is a big problem.

Well, after all is said and done, the Etruscans and the "original" Romans were Southern Europeans, not Germans or Scandinavians or Slavs. 

They also seem to be pretty close to Northwestern Italians. My father must be crying with joy. :)

@Johane,
Perhaps, or perhaps both the Etruscans and Illyrians got it from a similar ancestor population. There is absolutely no way of knowing at the present time, no matter the wishful thinking.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> I misspoke a bit. There are three "outlier" Iron Age Romans. One is still Sardinian like (different burial?), one is Central Italian like, and one is Southern Italian like.


The 11 Iron age individuals include 7 Roman/Latins (R851, R1, R1016, R1021, R435, R437, R850) and 4 Etruscans (R1015, R474, R473, R475). The three outliers are two Roman/Latins (R437, R850) and one Etruscan (R475).

----------


## torzio

> The Iron age Latin samples are from Latin cities but not from Rome.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When are you going to stop talking nonsense about the Etruscans? This study has shown that there are no significant differences between Etruscans and Latins. Bringing out the old theories of an eastern origin of the Etruscans is really inappropriate and ridiculous on the basis of a single Y-DNA that was in Croatia around 1500 BC.


Well said
And also etruscans ruled over romans for nearly 200 years....there was a lot of mixing

----------


## davef

I bet the Iranian farmer like genes in Neolithic farmers who were in what is now Rome is part of why southern Italians are close to Mycenaeans bc im sure Neolithic Greeks had this Iranian component as well and obviously Mycenaeans descend from these farmers.

----------


## Jovialis

> I bet the Iranian farmer like genes in Neolithic farmers who were in what is now Rome is part of why southern Italians are close to Mycenaeans bc im sure Neolithic Greeks had this Iranian component as well and obviously Mycenaeans descend from these farmers.


I agree with that. Also the amount of Iranian-like ancestry in the Iron age samples, are comparable to the Steppe.

----------


## Jovialis

> I'm hoping for better things from the Reich group.


Me too, I recall this thread:




> "The bones we're looking at right now are about five or six thousand year old samples from Italy. And we’re trying to understand population transformations in Italy over time.” -David Reich
> 
> He says this right off the bat in this PBS video. This came out on June 6th.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/th...ted-we-all-are

----------


## torzio

R850....T1a1-L208.........mtdna T2c1f

R1543...T1a1-Z709.........H1e

R120....T1a2-L446.....I1c

----------


## Angela

I was wrong about all the Imperial Roman samples coming from Isola Sacra near Ostia, although a good number do. They're actually from some necropoli around the city of Rome itself as well. So, not like future archaeologists excavating just in Flushing. It's like archaeologists excavating in New York City as a whole, or London.

However, the burial contexts tell us nothing. There's no grave goods, no inscriptions, not even names from what I can see, and there's been disturbances at a lot of the sites. 

Interestingly enough, some of the samples come from the Catacombs of Peter and Paul. I have to check tomorrow and see if those are more "East Med", i.e. the samples south and east of modern Southern Italians. It would make sense. The first Christians, and the only Christians for a long time were Jews.

In that regard, look what happens to the J1 in ancient Italy after the Imperial Era.


Razib Khan continues to get it:
https://www.gnxp.com/WordPress/2019/...medium=twitter

"A combination of the wars of the 6th-century, which are recorded to have depopulated much of Italy, and the overall decentering of Rome from the Mediterranean system after the ending of the Western Empire, probably resulted in the inevitable contraction of the Eternal City.Of course, Rome grew again over the centuries. But the new Romans were not the same Romans as those of the Roman Empire, who left few descendants. In addition to far off cosmopolitans, the bulk of the population was probably derived from northern Lazio and southern Tuscany. Rural people whose genetic makeup resembled the Iron Age Italians from whom they descended."

----------


## Cpluskx

Any ideas who were these Iran Neolithic people in Italy?

----------


## Angela

> Any ideas who were these Iran Neolithic people in Italy?


I sincerely doubt they were CHG/Iran Neo people straight from south of the Caucasus. It was mixed in with Anatolian Neo. This ancestry was already in Italy in the Neolithic, as the paper points out, along with J2 lineages. We saw it in the period of the Anatolian Neolithic too, and in Greece. It increased in Italy as time went on.

What I want to see is if its arrival in the area around Rome already by the time of the Republic was via Southern Italy or directly from the East. In either case, again, of course, mixed in with Anatolian Neolithic.

It's just a matter of differing percentages.

----------


## Angela

PCA of ancient Italian samples along with other ancient samples.

Well, now I know why mytrueancestry result show all that sharing with the Scythian from Moldova.




Look how close the Mycenaeans are to those ancient Imperial samples.

----------


## Angela

This is very interesting, but I'd like to see one for each of the Imperial Era burial sites to see if there are differences.

----------


## Tomenable



----------


## Jovialis

> This is very interesting, but I'd like to see one for each of the Imperial Era burial sites to see if there are differences.


Interesting, so the samples that were South of Southern Italians, which disappeared after the fall of the Roman Empire, only came from one grave site.

I don't know how they can use that to make the claim that the _entire_ Italian genome was changed by this kind of ethnicity. Especially when their own data shows that it disappears after Late Antiquity.




> 


Thanks for sharing, it kind of illustrates how naive the inferences in this study are.

NOTHING from Bronze age Italy???

No wonder there is a massive jump in Iran-like ancestry. It must have come from the South, via Greeks and previous Bronze Age populations there.

----------


## Jovialis

> Interesting, so the samples that were South of Southern Italians, which disappeared after the fall of the Roman Empire, only came from one grave site.
> 
> I don't know how they can use that to make the claim that the _entire_ Italian genome was changed by this kind of ethnicity. Especially when their own data shows that it disappears after Late Antiquity.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for sharing, it kind of illustrates how naive the inferences in this study are.
> 
> NOTHING from Bronze age Italy???
> ...

----------


## Jovialis

@Tomenable

Take a look at figure C in the chart provided by Angela, these are the rustic native Italian peasantry that re-populated this part of Italy. They look overwhelmingly Southern Italian-like to me, with some Northern Italian-like people, in the mix. These kinds of people mixed in the middle ages, and pulled them slightly more _north_ to where central Italians are today.

Isola Sacra was a necropolis for immigrants. There is a _northern_ cluster of the Imperial samples that matches with these samples from Villa Magna. I think it is rather that Imperial era _native_ Italians were formed out of the Romans expanding into an already Iran-like rich population in the south (Magna Grecia, and Bronze-Age South Italians). While these exotic people, in these places like Isola Sacra were these _South_ of southern Italian-like people, who disappeared after the end of the Imperial era.

----------


## Tomenable

The map for 300-700 AD shows immigration from the direction of Gallia and Britannia, not Central Europe:

See the blue arrow, which shows North-Western (rather than just northern) source of the bulk of this shift:



Looks like after the loss of Eastern provinces, people from Western provinces started migrating to Rome.

We are talking mostly about immigrants who were citizens of the Roman Empire, rather than barbarians.

Perhaps it included Roman citizens evacuated from Britain to Italy: https://www.jstor.org/stable/297204

----------


## real expert

Is it true that not only one female Etruscan but all Etruscans, including the male had *Iberomaurusian* signals? Did Etruscans have cultural or genetical ties to Berbers, Phoenicians, Cathargians from North Africa? Besides what happened to the R1b and I1 Etruscans?

----------


## real expert

Is it true that not only one female Etruscans but all Etruscans, including the male had *Iberomaurusian* signals? Did Etruscans have cultural or genetical ties to Berbers,Phoencians, Cathargians from North Africa? Besides what happened to the R1b and I1 Etruscans?

----------


## Jovialis

> PCA of ancient Italian samples along with other ancient samples.
> 
> Well, now I know why mytrueancestry result show all that sharing with the Scythian from Moldova.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Look how close the Mycenaeans are to those ancient Imperial samples.*


Also they are in-between the Neolithic era Italians from this area, and Imperial Roman-to-modern era Central/South Italians

----------


## kingjohn

in case 
we don't have this :
https://sci-hub.tw/10.1126/science.aay6826

p.s
hope to see dna research *on remains in italy south of rome* i wish to find some e-m123 please ......

----------


## Ailchu

if part of the CHG/iran neo in central italy did not come to italy during roman times, then who brought it? considering that south italy might have had more during bronze age before migrations from the north happened, how would it compare to anatolian bronze age people?

if the region of rome was completely depopulated why did the morocco HG not disappear in the region? it might have already been introduced in the bronze age too at lower levels? or maybe a large part of the population in rome survived or the ancestry diffused before rome was depopulated.

----------


## Johane Derite

1. Given that this L283 sample is a downstream branch of the older Croatian clade, this is not a good candidate for being a local Etruscan clade, but rather having it's origins in the Illyrian coast.

2. Unlikely scenario with no precedence to propose some shared ancestor for both Illyrian and "Etruscan" J2b2-l283. There is not tradition, mention, or archaeological presence of Etruscans on the Illyrian coast. Whereas the post Trojan war Illyrian presence in Italy is attested in myth, presence of Illyric languages, etc.

3. The Illyrian coast, today among Albanians, is also where we find the highest diversity and frequency of L283 clades. 

Etruscan and Illyrian are two different langauges, this is not a claim that Etruscan is Illyrian. This is evidence that points to the post Trojan war entry of Illyrian speakers into Italy, where they mingled with the Italics and Etruscans, that were already there.

----------


## MOESAN

> The map for 300-700 AD shows immigration from the direction of Gallia and Britannia, not Central Europe:
> 
> See the blue arrow, which shows North-Western (rather than just northern) source of the bulk of this shift:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like after the loss of Eastern provinces, people from Western provinces started migrating to Rome.
> 
> We are talking mostly about immigrants who were citizens of the Roman Empire, rather than barbarians.
> ...


Very possible. Someones speak of a 'mass immigration' when it could very well have been a continual "centralization" of peripheric citizens

----------


## Jovialis

> if part of the CHG/iran neo in central italy did not come to italy during roman times, then who brought it? considering that south italy might have had more during bronze age before migrations from the north happened, how would it compare to anatolian bronze age people?
> if the region of rome was completely depopulated why did the morocco HG not disappear in the region? it might have already been introduced in the bronze age too at lower levels? or maybe a large part of the population in rome survived or the ancestry diffused before rome was depopulated.


Good questions. Considering my closer relation to the copper anatolian, the presence of Iran-like ancestry in neolthic Italy, a survey of the southern Italian bronze-age is key.

Also, I am curious to see them modeled differently.

----------


## Salento

> R850....T1a1-L208.........mtdna T2c1f
> 
> R1543...T1a1-Z709.........H1e
> 
> R120....T1a2-L446.....I1c


@Torzio Do you know the Time Periods and Locations?

----------


## Angela

> Interesting, so the samples that were South of Southern Italians, which disappeared after the fall of the Roman Empire, only came from one grave site.
> 
> I don't know how they can use that to make the claim that the _entire_ Italian genome was changed by this kind of ethnicity. Especially when their own data shows that it disappears after Late Antiquity.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for sharing, it kind of illustrates how naive the inferences in this study are.
> 
> NOTHING from Bronze age Italy???
> ...


I can't be sure all the samples south of modern Southern Italians came only from Isola Sacra, because I haven't checked all the samples from the other sites within the city of Rome. It's important to know that. The fact that they didn't check that themselves is a serious flaw in their methodology. I'm going to try to figure it out today, if I have a chance, or maybe someone is doing it already. The Supplement gives sample numbers for each burial site. I'm particularly interested, as I said, in the ones from the Catacombs as well. 

Then, did anyone find the isotope data for each sample? I don't see it anywhere. It would be important to see which samples grew up locally. Were they youngsters or older people? Also, would the isotope data for some of these samples match the isotopes in, say, southern Italy or Sicily, or Greece.

God, I wish Patrick Geary had worked on this, although given we don't have grave goods or signs of different burial rites or even inscriptions, there's not much to go on. That comment in the paper itself about inscriptions in Hebrew and Aramaic seems to be a general one taken from a paper. None of the samples in the paper seems to have any inscriptions or names whatsoever.

----------


## Aspurg

> 1. Given that this L283 sample is a downstream branch of the older Croatian clade, this is not a good candidate for being a local Etruscan clade, but rather having it's origins in the Illyrian coast.
> 
> 
> 2. Unlikely scenario with no precedence to propose some shared ancestor for both Illyrian and "Etruscan" J2b2-l283. There is not tradition, mention, or archaeological presence of Etruscans on the Illyrian coast. Whereas the post Trojan war Illyrian presence in Italy is attested in myth, presence of Illyric languages, etc.
> 
> 
> 3. The Illyrian coast, today among Albanians, is also where we find the highest diversity and frequency of L283 clades.



He belongs to J-CTS6190, so he is related to J-Y15058 I4331. Yet looking at the spread and diversity of CTS6190, and as Etruscan clusters with the American it is obvious, considering Portuguese, Italian samples at YFull, that the entire CTS6190 has Etruscan affiliation. 
Regarding it's origins:

A) It arrived from the East as you and all Albanians suggest because you have to defend your "J-L283 came out of Steppe".

B) It did not arrive from the East. CTS6190 separated from the PH1602 3800 ybp. So it has had a small bottleneck, and its distance to other clades dates to MBA. There is one Sardinian sample too at YFull but he has no readings for anything under.. The culture where Dalmatian J-L283 was found is abundant in Italian connections. Autosomally I4331 clusters with North Italians, Iberians, not with Albanians.. That is an indication of it having arrived from Italy as archaeological evidence suggests! And even LBA sample from the region is very similar autosomally! That does not favor the Out of Steppe! Why? 1200 BC it had same makeup as 1600 BC, this indicates continuity and that means likely expansion from the east rather than 1900 BC this sample being autosomally 100 % Yamnaya or something like that!! It's more likely that 1900 BC it had a similar makeup!

As I suggested in my first post on eupedia, J-L283 mingled with Bell Beakers and arrived from NE Italy to Dalmatia. And now to claim this is not true you have to argue that somehow the only Etruscan Y-DNA find represents a small minority of Out of Steppe Illyrians. Not only that, you have several J-L283 Nuragic Sardinian finds, Trojet suggesting they arrived there from the Balkans based on J-L283 not being found earlier than that on a large sample of few people, yeah right.. So you claim this Etruscan represents 1-2 % of Etruscans? Mathematical probabilities are not good for that. When you start probing a population, usually more common haplogroups pop out first..

So Nuragic Sardinians and Etruscans seem to have had a substantial Steppe influence, who could have expected that.. Amazing.. We see such a diversity of typical Steppe lineages such as R-Z2103, R-P311 in Nuragic Sardinia, Etruscans don't we.. The Steppe R-V88.. and ofc older subclades J-L283>YP29, J-L283>YP157, J-L283>YP113 are abundant in the Steppe..

I told you Bell Beaker expansion for L283 is more likely.. 

In any case it seems that J-CTS6190 itself is Etruscan..





> Etruscan and Illyrian are two different langauges, this is not a claim that Etruscan is Illyrian. This is evidence that points to the post Trojan war entry of Illyrian speakers into Italy, where they mingled with the Italics and Etruscans, that were already there.


 You keep mentioning those Trojan Dardanians in the context of Illyrians. If there were Dardanians in the time of Trojans, by clear archaeological evidence they most definitely were not Illyrian but Moesian. 
Illyrians expanded westwards into Dardania later, according to historical and archaeological evidence and formed a ruling class over pre-Illyrian original Dardanians (likely mostly E-V13). I don't have a problem with mentioning their possible migrations in those days but I do have a problem when someone says Dardanians they were Illyrian at that time.

----------


## real expert

*" African Introgression*
One particular usage of the f-statistics in our study is to test for African introgression for each of the Italian samples with f3(Test sample; CEU, Yoruba) and f4(Test sample, CEU; Yoruba, Onge). The f3 statistic tests whether across the genome, the allele frequency of the test sample is intermediate between those of Finnish and Yoruba, which is unexpected if the test sample, presumably of primarily European ancestry, forms a clade with Finnish with regard to Yoruba in the phylogenetic tree at all genomic loci. Therefore, a significantly negative f3 statistic provides evidence for African ancestry in the test sample. (In this particular application, we used the imputed diploid genotype data without the “inbreed: YES” option, because qp3Pop cannot calculate f3 when (1) the target is a single individual and (2) the “inbreed: YES” option.) For the f4 statistic described above, under the assumption that chimpanzee is an outgroup, a significant positive score suggests more allele sharing between the ancient Italian individual (test sample)and Yoruba than between CEU and Yoruba, thus pointing to African introgression in the Italian individual. This test alone does not exclude the possibility of gene flow in the reverse direction, i.e., from the Italian sample to Yoruba, but this alternative scenario is unlikely given current knowledge about the demographic history of Yoruba and does not produce a significant f3 statistic as formulated above.*Taken together, significant signals in both tests provide strong evidence for African introgression, which is observed for 8 of the 127 Italian samples, including R475 from Iron Age, R80 and R132 from Imperial period (Fig. S23)*. We obtained qualitatively similar results by substituting Yoruba by Mota (an ancient African found in Ethiopia dated to ~2500 BCE) or Morocco_Iberomaurusian (hunter-gatherers from Morocco dated to 13,000-10,000 BCE) for the African population, and Onge by Papuan for the outgroup. We note that using Yoruba, Mota or Morocco hunter-gatherers as the representative African population is conservative for detecting more recent North African ancestry. We are using conservative estimates, since
data is not available from relevant, contemporaneous (e.g. Iron Age and Imperial) populations, such as Carthagians. For instance, qpAdm analysis using Late Neolithic individuals from Morocco models R475 as approximately 53% Late Neolithic Moroccan, 30% Italian Copper Age and 16% Steppe Eneolithic, whereas the estimates below show Morocco Iberomaurusian and Yoruban to be around 8 - 10% ancestry proportion for this individual. *The African introgression signal we observe in the time series may reflect increased seafaring in the Mediterranean prior to Iron Age.*Phoenician seafaring prowess had resulted in a network of colonies 20 across North Africa, engaged in trans-Mediterranean trade. Carthage, which began as a Phoenician trade colony in 1234 BCE, became the dominant naval state in the Mediterranean, with territory spanning

North African, Sardinia, Sicily, and Iberia (26). Egypt had been involved in trans-Mediterranean and trans-Saharan trade networks for over a millennium by the start of the Iron Age. And trans-Saharan trade routes, made easier by a greener, less arid Sahara than today, connected the states and communities of North Africa and the Mediterranean with their Saharan and Sub-Saharan counterparts (86). "


I‘m not sure whether I properly understood what this data says. Does this study suggest that Etruscans, Italics had North African or even SSA admixture or does it refer to Cartheganian/ North African migrants in Rome? I read many afrocentric websites that claim that Etruscans and original Romans were black. Please, can someone translate it in more layman- language. There are people who also claim that Etruscans originally came from Carthage via Anatolia, Troy due to the Etruscan female with 53% Morrocan mix.

----------


## kingjohn

by the way *none of the ancient remains were from here 
the greatest jewish catacombs*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vigna_Randanini

so i don't lose hope on e-m123 :)

i think those e-v12 that were found were syrians or even ancient phonicians not jews for sure

https://i.imgur.com/y9TLFwP.png

----------


## Angela

This is fast and dirty, folks, because I just don't have the time this morning. I hope someone checks the data.

These are the samples which seem to be south and southeast of modern Southern Italians, i.e. Anatolian/Syrian like, and their burial sites.

70
68
132 Marcellino and Pietro Catacombs
41 Isola Sacra
42 Isola Sacra
75 Viale Rossini
80 Viale Rossini
76 Viale Rossini
1550 Monte Rotondo
1547 Monte Rotondo
126 Casale del Dolce 

We know about Isola Sacra

Viale Rossini Necropolis: again, on a road leading from a port

Casale del Dolce: one of the samples was an outlier
Low meat consumption, which might mean an indication of poverty.


None come from the Via Pasiello Necropolis in Northern Rome, or near the Mausoleo di Augusto near the Center of Rome or from the suburban Centocelli Necropolis, the latter of which is associated with a Roman Villa.

It does look indeed like a modern large city, with enclaves of people from certain areas living and being buried together.

I have to find 68 and 70.

----------


## Angela

> *" African Introgression*
> One particular usage of the f-statistics in our study is to test for African introgression for each of the Italian samples with f3(Test sample; CEU, Yoruba) and f4(Test sample, CEU; Yoruba, Onge). The f3 statistic tests whether across the genome, the allele frequency of the test sample is intermediate between those of Finnish and Yoruba, which is unexpected if the test sample, presumably of primarily European ancestry, forms a clade with Finnish with regard to Yoruba in the phylogenetic tree at all genomic loci. Therefore, a significantly negative f3 statistic provides evidence for African ancestry in the test sample. (In this particular application, we used the imputed diploid genotype data without the “inbreed: YES” option, because qp3Pop cannot calculate f3 when (1) the target is a single individual and (2) the “inbreed: YES” option.) For the f4 statistic described above, under the assumption that chimpanzee is an outgroup, a significant positive score suggests more allele sharing between the ancient Italian individual (test sample)and Yoruba than between CEU and Yoruba, thus pointing to African introgression in the Italian individual. This test alone does not exclude the possibility of gene flow in the reverse direction, i.e., from the Italian sample to Yoruba, but this alternative scenario is unlikely given current knowledge about the demographic history of Yoruba and does not produce a significant f3 statistic as formulated above.*Taken together, significant signals in both tests provide strong evidence for African introgression, which is observed for 8 of the 127 Italian samples, including R475 from Iron Age, R80 and R132 from Imperial period (Fig. S23)*. We obtained qualitatively similar results by substituting Yoruba by Mota (an ancient African found in Ethiopia dated to ~2500 BCE) or Morocco_Iberomaurusian (hunter-gatherers from Morocco dated to 13,000-10,000 BCE) for the African population, and Onge by Papuan for the outgroup. We note that using Yoruba, Mota or Morocco hunter-gatherers as the representative African population is conservative for detecting more recent North African ancestry. We are using conservative estimates, since
> data is not available from relevant, contemporaneous (e.g. Iron Age and Imperial) populations, such as Carthagians. For instance, qpAdm analysis using Late Neolithic individuals from Morocco models R475 as approximately 53% Late Neolithic Moroccan, 30% Italian Copper Age and 16% Steppe Eneolithic, whereas the estimates below show Morocco Iberomaurusian and Yoruban to be around 8 - 10% ancestry proportion for this individual. *The African introgression signal we observe in the time series may reflect increased seafaring in the Mediterranean prior to Iron Age.*Phoenician seafaring prowess had resulted in a network of colonies 20 across North Africa, engaged in trans-Mediterranean trade. Carthage, which began as a Phoenician trade colony in 1234 BCE, became the dominant naval state in the Mediterranean, with territory spanning
> 
> North African, Sardinia, Sicily, and Iberia (26). Egypt had been involved in trans-Mediterranean and trans-Saharan trade networks for over a millennium by the start of the Iron Age. And trans-Saharan trade routes, made easier by a greener, less arid Sahara than today, connected the states and communities of North Africa and the Mediterranean with their Saharan and Sub-Saharan counterparts (86). "
> 
> 
> I‘m not sure whether I properly understood what this data says. Does this study suggest that Etruscans, Italics had North African or even SSA admixture or does it refer to Cartheganian/ North African migrants in Rome? I read many afrocentric websites that claim that Etruscans and original Romans were black. Please, can someone translate it in more layman- language. There are people who also claim that Etruscans originally came from Carthage via Anatolia, Troy due to the Etruscan female with 53% Morrocan mix.


Can you stop being a t-roll? Or are you people blind?

Just look at the admixture graph, and you can see the amount of African and where it is found. These were, for the Imperial Period, "ADMIXED people", i.e. perhaps some with a bit of actual African, but going by the autosomal composition, most likely people who had some North African in most cases; they were slaves or freed slaves or descendants of merchants or economic migrants. These were all poor people, with no substantial burials or grave goods, eating poor diets. They had nothing to do with the building of Roman civilization. 

Stop displaying your ignorance.

Does no one read the Supplement?




As for the part African Etruscan, probably someone married an exotic wife. Hey, they traded with people from Phoenicia, probably with Carthaginians too. There was a bride exchange. It's as simple as that.

Ironic that contrary to the notion that the Romans took pretty mates from among the Northern and Central European populations, they seem to have liked North Africans at least as much. :)



For the challenged, that's the Republican Era and the Imperial Era. The part Iberomaurusian sample in the Republican Era is the Etruscan woman.

Any other reading I can do for you????

----------


## Johane Derite

Ah yes, J2b2, which is highest in Apulia and Po Valley. Those Messapics must be bell beakers. Messapic languages are bell beaker language?

----------


## torzio

> 1. Given that this L283 sample is a downstream branch of the older Croatian clade, this is not a good candidate for being a local Etruscan clade, but rather having it's origins in the Illyrian coast.
> 
> 2. Unlikely scenario with no precedence to propose some shared ancestor for both Illyrian and "Etruscan" J2b2-l283. There is not tradition, mention, or archaeological presence of Etruscans on the Illyrian coast. Whereas the post Trojan war Illyrian presence in Italy is attested in myth, presence of Illyric languages, etc.
> 
> 3. The Illyrian coast, today among Albanians, is also where we find the highest diversity and frequency of L283 clades. 
> 
> Etruscan and Illyrian are two different langauges, this is not a claim that Etruscan is Illyrian. This is evidence that points to the post Trojan war entry of Illyrian speakers into Italy, where they mingled with the Italics and Etruscans, that were already there.


L283 is known as dalmatian or cetina culture
Besides, as per the map you supplied , from the red line northward was no sea , but land in ancient times

----------


## CrazyDonkey

> In that regard, look what happens to the J1 in ancient Italy after the Imperial Era.
> 
> 
> Razib Khan continues to get it:
> https://www.gnxp.com/WordPress/2019/...medium=twitter
> 
> "A combination of the wars of the 6th-century, which are recorded to have depopulated much of Italy, and the overall decentering of Rome from the Mediterranean system after the ending of the Western Empire, probably resulted in the inevitable contraction of the Eternal City.Of course, Rome grew again over the centuries. But the new Romans were not the same Romans as those of the Roman Empire, who left few descendants. In addition to far off cosmopolitans, the bulk of the population was probably derived from northern Lazio and southern Tuscany. Rural people whose genetic makeup resembled the Iron Age Italians from whom they descended."


Some R1b comes in during the Neolithic - same as early influx found in Iberia? Seems to have been submerged or diluted beyond detection, since there is no sign of it in the copper age.

Major R1b influx during the iron age, including the Latins. J2 and T come in with R1b. Copper age male lines look to have been replaced or submerged.

Latins and Etruscans look to share at least the same base population. Question remains about the origin of the Etruscan language, while Latin is clearly Indo-European. A language can survive, however, even though the genetic imprint of its original carriers is diluted to nothing.

R1b shrinks during the Imperial period, likely due to dilution (disappearance of male lines during civil wars?).

R1b rebounds during late antiquity, undoubtedly due to fresh inputs (Goths, Lombards), and expands during the Medieval (progeny of the Ghibelline "dukes"?).

What is the T? It came in during the Iron Age, with R1b, but disappears after the Late Antiquity collapse.

----------


## Angela

> if part of the CHG/iran neo in central italy did not come to italy during roman times, then who brought it? considering that south italy might have had more during bronze age before migrations from the north happened, how would it compare to anatolian bronze age people?
> 
> if the region of rome was completely depopulated why did the morocco HG not disappear in the region? it might have already been introduced in the bronze age too at lower levels? or maybe a large part of the population in rome survived or the ancestry diffused before rome was depopulated.


You consider this a significant amount of Morocco HG, leaving aside the fact that's a hell of a sample to use as reference? Perhaps you'd like to compare the amount of Morocco HG which remained and remains in Spain and Portugal.



Have you forgotten or didn't read the sections of the paper which show there was CHG/Iran Neo already in Italy in the NEOLITHIC? Who brought it? Migrants from Anatolia most likely, either directly or via Greece, migrants who had more CHG/Iran Neo than the ones who went to Central Europe, and of course it was mixed with Anatolian Neolithic. 



JEEZ, people.

----------


## Angela

> Is it true that not only one female Etruscan but all Etruscans, including the male had *Iberomaurusian* signals? Did Etruscans have cultural or genetical ties to Berbers, Phoenicians, Cathargians from North Africa? Besides what happened to the R1b and I1 Etruscans?


Are you blind? Go to post number 67. 

People can post any opinion they choose here, but you don't get to deliberately mis-state facts which are abundantly clear from the paper.

You post one more bit of false information and you're out of here.

As for the information about Etruscans having I1 and R1b, that may be from the upcoming Reich paper. I don't know, but given how similar they are to the Latins, it wouldn't surprise me.

So, my "German" friend, you're posting from Texas? Isn't that where Drago posts from???? :)

If you are Drago, perhaps you should busy yourself with all those North African and African admixed Spaniards from the Spanish paper.

----------


## Aspurg

> Ah yes, J2b2, which is highest in Apulia and Po Valley. Those Messapics must be bell beakers. Messapic languages are bell beaker language?


 Who is to say that Messapic is not descended of Bell Beaker? Bell Beaker language is unknown and some have postulated that languages such as Ligurian are its remnant, I've seen views about Venetian (that is Liburnian), most likely it was not Italo-Celtic but an older split from this group. Also metrically Albanians show similarities to Bell Beakers. The so called "Dinaric" type. That was the dominant type of many Bell Beakers, including Central European group, not the same as modern but this is where "Dinaric"/"Euro-Dinaric" features are first attested in history I believe - with Bell Beakers.

----------


## valentinavalley2

> Who is to say that Messapic is not descended of Bell Beaker? Bell Beaker language is unknown and some have postulated that languages such as Ligurian are its remnant, I've seen views about Venetian (that is Liburnian), most likely it was not Italo-Celtic but an older split from this group. Also metrically Albanians show similarities to Bell Beakers. The so called "Dinaric" type. That was the dominant type of many Bell Beakers, including Central European group, not the same as modern but this is where "Dinaric"/"Euro-Dinaric" features are first attested in history I believe - with Bell Beakers.


Liburnians were originally Illyrian.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

----------


## Maciamo

Great! I am glad this paper is finally out.

In summary, what we can see at first sight is:

*Mesolithic* : typical HG autosomal DNA / Y-haplogroups I2a2-M436, I2a2a-M223

*Neolithic* : typical Anatolian farmer autosomal DNA / Y-haplogroups G2a-L91, but also R1b and *J2a1-L26* (first Neolithic J2a1 in Europe, I believe).

*Iron Age* : Italic and Etruscan have very similar autosomal DNA, close to modern NW Italians but also French and Spaniards. *Roman/Italic Y-DNA is all R1b-M269 or the Proto-Italo-Celtic R1b-P312* (most probably U152, IMHO). A single T1a1 is an autosomal outlier (unlikely to be of Italic origin). The only *Etruscan Y-DNA is J2b1-L283* (big news, as the origins of this haplogroup remained relatively mysterious). 

Interestingly no E1b1b before the Imperial Age, not even the pan-European E-V13.

----------


## Angela

> The map for 300-700 AD shows immigration from the direction of Gallia and Britannia, not Central Europe:
> 
> See the blue arrow, which shows North-Western (rather than just northern) source of the bulk of this shift:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like after the loss of Eastern provinces, people from Western provinces started migrating to Rome.
> 
> We are talking mostly about immigrants who were citizens of the Roman Empire, rather than barbarians.
> ...


Yes, well I'm not sure I buy their explanation, and nor does Razib Khan. 

Rome was Ground Zero for looting, destruction etc. This was when Rome was sacked and plundered. People scattered. The capital of what was left of "Rome" in Italy was moved to Ravenna. Why the hell would people head toward it at that point in time?

People can't just speculate wildly while knowing nothing of what was going on historically. 

The Gothic War raged in Italy between 376-382. Before people start with the Goths again, there weren't very many of them, there didn't need to be, what with the plague also raging. 

382
3 October
_Gothic War (376–382)_: The Goths were made _foederati_ of Rome and granted land and autonomy in Thrace, ending the war.



402

The capital of the Western Roman Empire was moved to Ravenna.



410
24 August
_Sack of Rome (410)_: Rome was sacked by the Visigoths under their king Alaric I.




455
16 March
Valentinian III was assassinated on orders of the senator Petronius Maximus.

17 March
The Senate acclaimed Maximus _augustus_ of the Western Roman Empire.

31 May
Maximus was killed by a mob as he attempted to flee Rome in the face of a Vandal advance.

2 June
_Sack of Rome (455)_: The Vandals entered and began to sack Rome.



In succeeding periods Byzantium caused the shots, and the Lombards and Byzantines battled all over Italy.

Please tell me how the authors could imagine that civilians from northwestern Europe were heading toward Rome to settle?

I'm honestly trying to keep an open mind about this, but it makes no sense.

If they're talking about soldiers of Germanic ancestry, i.e. Goths, Vandals, and Lombards, you'd need a lot of their yDna to affect such big changes, and it's just not there, other than in a few pockets easily accounted for by drift in some individual locations. THat's why the R1b in my area of Italy is over 70%, by the way, although the autosomal analysis tells a different tale. 

I'll go back to Ralph and Coop. Based on IBD analysis, they found no signficiant "foreign" input into modern Italians after about 500 BC, which, I'll remind everyone is the Iron Age, hence Khan's hypothesis of how the area was re-settled. 

If anything, this is a movement of people from more northern and northwestern parts of Italy toward the center and south.

Find a better theory based on knowledge of Roman history and I'll be glad to entertain it.

----------


## valentinavalley2

> He belongs to J-CTS6190, so he is related to J-Y15058 I4331. Yet looking at the spread and diversity of CTS6190, and as Etruscan clusters with the American it is obvious, considering Portuguese, Italian samples at YFull, that the entire CTS6190 has Etruscan affiliation. 
> Regarding it's origins:
> 
> A) It arrived from the East as you and all Albanians suggest because you have to defend your "J-L283 came out of Steppe".
> 
> B) It did not arrive from the East. CTS6190 separated from the PH1602 3800 ybp. So it has had a small bottleneck, and its distance to other clades dates to MBA. There is one Sardinian sample too at YFull but he has no readings for anything under.. The culture where Dalmatian J-L283 was found is abundant in Italian connections. Autosomally I4331 clusters with North Italians, Iberians, not with Albanians.. That is an indication of it having arrived from Italy as archaeological evidence suggests! And even LBA sample from the region is very similar autosomally! That does not favor the Out of Steppe! Why? 1200 BC it had same makeup as 1600 BC, this indicates continuity and that means likely expansion from the east rather than 1900 BC this sample being autosomally 100 % Yamnaya or something like that!! It's more likely that 1900 BC it had a similar makeup!
> 
> As I suggested in my first post on eupedia, J-L283 mingled with Bell Beakers and arrived from NE Italy to Dalmatia. And now to claim this is not true you have to argue that somehow the only Etruscan Y-DNA find represents a small minority of Out of Steppe Illyrians. Not only that, you have several J-L283 Nuragic Sardinian finds, Trojet suggesting they arrived there from the Balkans based on J-L283 not being found earlier than that on a large sample of few people, yeah right.. So you claim this Etruscan represents 1-2 % of Etruscans? Mathematical probabilities are not good for that. When you start probing a population, usually more common haplogroups pop out first..
> 
> ...


Trojans and Illyrians may actually have been related... I wouldn’t be surprised if they were...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

----------


## Angela

> This is fast and dirty, folks, because I just don't have the time this morning. I hope someone checks the data.
> 
> These are the samples which seem to be south and southeast of modern Southern Italians, i.e. Anatolian/Syrian like, and their burial sites.
> 
> 70
> 68
> 132 Marcellino and Pietro Catacombs
> 41 Isola Sacra
> 42 Isola Sacra
> ...


I find 68 and 70 on the list of ancient samples as being from Imperial Rome, but in the archaeology section they're not assigned to any particular necropolis. That's a definite error.

It would be nice if they could spell, too.

This is why people should publish pre-prints. They then have a chance to clean up their papers before publication.

As per their graphic of the samples from Isola Sacra, a lot more of those very "Southern" samples come from there than I have on my list.

----------


## Angela

> Some R1b comes in during the Neolithic - same as early influx found in Iberia? Seems to have been submerged or diluted beyond detection, since there is no sign of it in the copper age.
> 
> Major R1b influx during the iron age, including the Latins. J2 and T come in with R1b. Copper age male lines look to have been replaced or submerged.
> 
> Latins and Etruscans look to share at least the same base population. Question remains about the origin of the Etruscan language, while Latin is clearly Indo-European. A language can survive, however, even though the genetic imprint of its original carriers is diluted to nothing.
> 
> R1b shrinks during the Imperial period, likely due to dilution (disappearance of male lines during civil wars?).
> 
> R1b rebounds during late antiquity, undoubtedly due to fresh inputs (Goths, Lombards), and expands during the Medieval (progeny of the Ghibelline "dukes"?).
> ...


I think that R1b in the Mesolithic may turn out to be V88. The authors point out that the sample which carried it had unusually high percentages of WHG.

The only J I see in the Republican/Iron Age is J-M12. Isn't that the J2b found in the Etruscan male? That could be local Neolithic, or diffused Neolithic picked up by steppe people all over the Balkans and Italy.

I think Etruscan may turn out to be like Basque, i.e. a local language adopted by some of the newcomers. 

If the people studying the R1b lines are correct, most of that Latin R1b may be U-152 and subclades. Like I said, if there is an afterlife, my father is delirious with joy; he was more a fan of the Romans than I am, and he carried U-152, and he was northwestern Italian. :) If with more Etruscan samples they're also U-152, well, words fail me as to his probable reaction. I have the hunch, however, they may carry slightly different sub-clades of R1b. 

Goths and Lombards are highly unlikely to have carried R1b U-152 as major lineages. All the Lombards we have to date are, for example, U-106. There is extremely little of that or I1 in Lazio today. There are five I's in all those Late Antiquity/Early Medieval samples. Can someone categorize them? Also, has anyone figured out if there's any U-106?

If the authors were going to collect yDna, you might think they'd consider it in their analyses.

----------


## torzio

> Who is to say that Messapic is not descended of Bell Beaker? Bell Beaker language is unknown and some have postulated that languages such as Ligurian are its remnant, I've seen views about Venetian (that is Liburnian), most likely it was not Italo-Celtic but an older split from this group. Also metrically Albanians show similarities to Bell Beakers. The so called "Dinaric" type. That was the dominant type of many Bell Beakers, including Central European group, not the same as modern but this is where "Dinaric"/"Euro-Dinaric" features are first attested in history I believe - with Bell Beakers.


Messapics are the smallest of the tribes
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messapians

----------


## Jovialis

> B]Neolithic[/B] : typical Anatolian farmer autosomal DNA / Y-haplogroups G2a-L91, but also R1b and *J2a1-L26* (first Neolithic J2a1 in Europe, I believe)


Imo, I think one of the bigger developments in this paper, is iran-like ancestry in the Neolithic.

Also the resurgence of WHG in Italy, due to mixing with farmers that retained more WHG.

I wonder if that is why I get relatively higher WHG in that ancient calculator by geneplaza, but low levels of steppe.

----------


## Angela

> The J2b2-L283 that is found in Civitavecchia is from 700-600BC, and most likely has origin from the Croatian coast as it is under the same branch despite being near 1000 years younger.
> 
> Aeneas was a Dardanian, they are connected with Trojans, but not the same thing, so don't go discounting just yet. There could have been truth in the myth.


Jesus H. Christ. How do you know there even WAS an AENEAS? Was there a Hercules too, and an Atlas? You think there was an actual man named Ulysses who went to the Land of the Cyclops and had to pass two monsters barring entrance to a sea channel? I could go on and on. 

When will people get that MYTHS are just that: MYTHS, and usually for self aggrandizement.

The Scots thought they were descended from Trojans too. Were they right as well?

Honestly, you're too smart for this.

----------


## Ailchu

> You consider this a significant amount of Morocco HG, leaving aside the fact that's a hell of a sample to use as reference? Perhaps you'd like to compare the amount of Morocco HG which remained and remains in Spain and Portugal.


where did you read the word "significant"? 

on average it was never significant but it was not present in copper age and appears first during iron age here in these samples. it is still present in late antiquity and medival times
so if we assume that it was introduced through migrants who went to rome during roman times this would speak against the theory that the ancestry of imperial rome just disappeared because of depopulation.

why should we compare it to morocco HG in Portugal and Spain?

----------


## Johane Derite

> Jesus H. Christ. How do you know there even WAS an AENEAS? Was there a Hercules too, and an Atlas? You think there was an actual man named Ulysses who went to the Land of the Cyclops and had to pass two monsters barring entrance to a sea channel? I could go on and on. 
> 
> When will people get that MYTHS are just that: MYTHS, and usually for self aggrandizement.
> 
> The Scots thought they were descended from Trojans too. Were they right as well?
> 
> Honestly, you're too smart for this.


I don't believe that specific individuals like aneas existed, but if an entire community is being mentioned arriving in italy and specific sites are attributed to being built by them, this is a different category of myth and not comparable with myths that are possibly allegory of some natural phenomena.

----------


## torzio

> I don't believe that specific individuals like aneas existed, but if an entire community is being mentioned arriving in italy and specific sites are attributed to being built by them, this is a different category of myth and not comparable with myths that are possibly allegory of some natural phenomena.


If these trojans did arrive at rome in the 1100bc , they would be the minority....there was people already living there....it was not like some red-indian type of moving from one camp to another camp

----------


## Angela

> where did you read the word "significant"? 
> 
> on average it was never significant but it was not present in copper age and appears first during iron age here in these samples. it is still present in late antiquity and medival times
> so if we assume that it was introduced through migrants who went to rome during roman times this would speak against the theory that the ancestry of imperial rome just disappeared because of depopulation.
> 
> why should we compare it to morocco HG in Portugal and Spain?


Do you see it in the Mesolithic, or Neolithic, or Copper Age?

So, can we ASSUME it came in the Republican Era, Imperial Age, and perhaps in Late Antiquity?

If it's this insignificant, and it is, why are you so interested in it? In the midst of all these important questions, this is your main focus? Unless you're t-rolling, of course, which you so often do.

Did I ever say or even imply that these people left NO trace of their sojurn in Rome? That would be stupid, and no one has ever accused me of being stupid. Just so that there is no question, I have no doubt that there was probably some intermarriage and traces of their dna remain. Do some "white" New Yorkers marry Puerto Ricans? Yes, they do. Do some marry East Asians? Yes, they do. Do a few marry African-Americans? Some, but even less. What would happen if there was no more migration of Puerto Ricans, East Asians and African Americans, and a lot of the population of New York City died or scattered? 

Christ, it took 1000 years for the Anatolian farmers in Europe to really start intermarrying with the hunter-gatherers.

In Greece, you couldn't legally marry non-citizens, and a child produced with a non-citizen, even one resident in the city-state, had no citizenship rights. If people go around digging up Classical Greeks, are all the samples they'll find going to be the ancestors of modern day Greeks in large proportions?

Ashkenazi Jews lived alongside Slavs for 6-700 years and never intermarried.

Barely 70 something years ago, northern Italians like my paternal grandfather wouldn't allow their children to marry Southern Italians.

I could go on and on.

Human behavior doesn't change all that much. Only our toys do.

However, it's absolutely clear from the data that the "trail" to the Near East, all those kinds of people who plotted south and southeast of Southern Italians are gone relatively quickly. That kind of thing happens when you have a wave that stops, i.e. no replenishment, and the population is killed or is scattered.

There has to be a reason, and some Goth and Vandal tribesman are not the answer. There's just not enough of their y dna around. Hell, 70% R1b where I come from, and we still plot as North Central Italians.

If you're sincerely interested in this and not just t-rolling, go back and read the Supplement. The authors state over and over again that the populations were HETEROGENEOUS, and remained so over time, and were not HOMOGENEOUS.

----------


## Salento

> Great! I am glad this paper is finally out.
> 
> In summary, what we can see at first sight is:
> 
> *Mesolithic* : typical HG autosomal DNA / Y-haplogroups I2a2-M436, I2a2a-M223
> 
> *Neolithic* : typical Anatolian farmer autosomal DNA / Y-haplogroups G2a-L91, but also R1b and *J2a1-L26* (first Neolithic J2a1 in Europe, I believe).
> 
> *Iron Age* : Italic and Etruscan have very similar autosomal DNA, close to modern NW Italians but also French and Spaniards. *Roman/Italic Y-DNA is all R1b-M269 or the Proto-Italo-Celtic R1b-P312* (most probably U152, IMHO). A single T1a1 is an autosomal outlier (unlikely to be of Italic origin). The only *Etruscan Y-DNA is J2b1-L283* (big news, as the origins of this haplogroup remained relatively mysterious). 
> ...


imho y T is not an outlier, y T is rare, but proportionally and coincidentally it’s the only non y R Haplogroup among the Iron-age Roman-Italics.

Proportionally, there are probably many more y T.

‘cause of low %s distributions in Europe and other places, y T is often considered unimportant or an outlier.

----------


## Salento

> Messapics are the smallest of the tribes
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messapians


The Messapi were also very influential in stopping, clearing, and minimizing to Taranto the impact of the Spartan Colonies in Puglia / Salento.

----------


## Angela

> 


Sorry, It's Roman genetic history for dummies. 

Unless they know what the samples from southern Italy look like for the Bronze and Iron Age, they have no way of knowing where this Near Eastern shift came from. Did some come directly from the Near East? Yes. Did all of it come from the Near East? I doubt it.

Likewise, I don't see anything in the yDna showing a mass migration into Rome and central Italy from the north/northwest of Europe, i.e. as compared to northern/northwestern Italy, not, at least, in Late Antiquity, or the Medieval Era. You have to take some account of the history and archaeology. This was the problem all along with some of the Etruscan analyses.

If someone can show it to me, with actual facts, fine. I always follow the data. I don't follow interpretation by Polako and his socks over at Eurogenes, or Sikeliot and his socks at anthrogenica.

Same with the Etruscans. If the overall picture of Etruscan autosomal genetics changes when we have lots more samples, fine, I'll modify my interpretation. Until then, Herodotus is a non-starter. Go back to the other Greek writers on Etruscan origins. Jesus, you'd think he's the only one who ever wrote about it. Talk about selective choice of sources.

----------


## ntindeo

What is new?

----------


## Megalophias

> I think that R1b in the Mesolithic may turn out to be V88. The authors point out that the sample which carried it had unusually high percentages of WHG.


Ooh, that's interesting. Yes, according to poster ArmandoR1b, who looked at the BAM, R6 (~5200 BC) belongs to the R1b-Y8451 branch of V88. Contemporary Early Neolithic farmers from 2 sites in Spain as well as a Late Neolithic Sardinian also belong to this branch, which is the parent to both Sardinian R1b-V35 and mostly-African R1b-Y8447. YF estimates R1b-Y8451's TMRCA at about 5-7000 years and its parent's around 7-10 000 years, so these guys could potentially have been pretty close to the ancestor of almost all modern R1b-V88.

R1b-V88 or pre-V88 was also found in Mesolithic Serbia and Ukraine. We'll need more ancient DNA to find out whether it was already present in Italy, or whether it was brought by early farmers from elsewhere (maybe across the Adriatic). If Mesolithic it would agree with Roy King's idea of R1b-V88 spreading with Castelnovian culture, which has connections to both Ukraine and Tunisia (and could have ultimate origins in either direction depending who you ask).

----------


## real expert

Please have mercy. I‘m not stating my opinion but bringing up all the diverse interpretations, conclusions and claims concerning this important study on Roman DNA, to discuss all that in this forum. I have no intention to ***** in any form, shape or fashion. It‘s interesting to examine how people analyze the same information from this study so differently and controversial. In my humble opinion, I don‘t think that the “imperial Romans“ that were tested in this study reflect the genetics of the original Romans or the patrician class. I can assure you I'm not Drago, etc.

----------


## Angela

> Ooh, that's interesting. Yes, according to poster ArmandoR1b, who looked at the BAM, R6 (~5200 BC) belongs to the R1b-Y8451 branch of V88. Contemporary Early Neolithic farmers from 2 sites in Spain as well as a Late Neolithic Sardinian also belong to this branch, which is the parent to both Sardinian R1b-V35 and mostly-African R1b-Y8447. YF estimates R1b-Y8451's TMRCA at about 5-7000 years and its parent's around 7-10 000 years, so these guys could potentially have been pretty close to the ancestor of almost all modern R1b-V88.
> 
> R1b-V88 or pre-V88 was also found in Mesolithic Serbia and Ukraine. We'll need more ancient DNA to find out whether it was already present in Italy, or whether it was brought by early farmers from elsewhere (maybe across the Adriatic). If Mesolithic it would agree with Roy King's idea of R1b-V88 spreading with Castelnovian culture, which has connections to both Ukraine and Tunisia (and could have ultimate origins in either direction depending who you ask).


Thanks for that interesting information. Yes, all that WHG in that R1b sample sort of sealed the deal for me.

Well, that's another bit of confirmation, if anyone still needs it, that R1b of the M-269 variety was not in Central and Western and Southern Europe until quite late, and is somehow connected to the steppe people.

----------


## torzio

> The Messapi were also very influential in stopping, clearing, and minimizing to Taranto the impact of the Spartan Colonies in Puglia / Salento.


Yes correct...but the landing of these 3 tribes , led by dauni arrived south of foggia, they then started marching south kicking out the greeks in the heel of italy
Btw, the dauni are the only ones to have chariots matching the chariots of the iapodes of the north adriatic

.
If i was to make a call on these messapic tribes i would say dalmatian or liburnian with a umbri mix once arriving in italy....then a "roman " mix

----------


## MOESAN

> Liburnians were originally Illyrian.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Are you so sure? The Liburnian language shows more ties to a proto-Italic or archaic Italic language close to Venetic than to Illyrian. Even the maps about Illyrian ethny put their borders a bit too far north, i think.

----------


## Angela

> Are you so sure? The Liburnian language shows more ties to a proto-Italic or archaic Italic language close to Venetic than to Illyrian. Even the maps about Illyrian ethny put their borders a bit too far north, i think.


Some sense at last.

----------


## Tomenable

Two-way mixture models for individuals from 300-700 AD, Table S24:

Germany_Late_Roman was that Roman soldier FN_2 who resembled genetically Republican Era Romans, or maybe Celtiberians:



^^^ So Romans from ca. 300-700 AD can be modelled as 60% Romans from 0-300 AD + 40% Roman soldiers similar to FN_2:





Table S23, F4 stats: https://science.sciencemag.org/conte...Antonio_SM.pdf

----------


## Salento

> Yes correct...but the landing of these 3 tribes , led by dauni arrived south of foggia, they then started marching south kicking out the greeks in the heel of italy
> Btw, the dauni are the only ones to have chariots matching the chariots of the iapodes of the north adriatic
> 
> If i was to make a call on these messapic tribes i would say dalmatian or liburnian with a umbri mix once arriving in italy....then a "roman " mix


If so, there must have been more the one Iapygian base migration towards Puglia, because by the time the Greeks showed up, the Messapi had been in Puglia for over a 1000 years.

----------


## Tomenable

Roman soldier FN_2 from Monachium dated to ca. 300-500 CE plots in the PCA just like Republican Romans several centuries before him.

Or is it just my impression?

Another question - why didn't the authors in Table S24 include more mixture models with fully ancient sources? Only one ancient model.

----------


## Salento

edit.. DeL...
point made

----------


## Angela

> Two-way mixture models for individuals from 300-700 AD, Table S24:
> 
> Germany_Late_Roman was that Roman soldier FN_2 who resembled genetically Republican Era Romans, or maybe Celtiberians:
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^ So Romans from ca. 300-700 AD can be modelled as 60% Romans from 0-300 AD + 40% Roman soldiers similar to FN_2:
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, and as a lot of other mixtures.

He was a combination of IBS and TSI, using the 1000 genomes that the authors of that paper used as a reference.

So?

Sorry, you've lost me a bit. How do you know where FN_2 would plot? I'm looking at the PCA of the ancient Italian samples and other published ancient samples, and I don't see him near the Republican Era Romans, or, actually on that plot at all, unless he was given a new number. Am I going blind? :)




As to why they modeled that way, you've got me. Why didn't they get some samples from Bronze Age and Iron Age Southern Italy before coming to some of these conclusions?

----------


## Tomenable

They should have checked a model assuming the resurgence of local (pre-Imperial) population:

Target: Rome_LA [300-700 AD]

Source 1: Rome_IR [0-300 AD]
Source 2: Rome_IA [900-0 BC]

Not sure why they didn't do this. Just like they didn't check any Germanic models for Rome_LA.

High P value indicates that a model is good / probable.

If there was no resurgence they would get low P value.

----------


## CrazyDonkey

> In Greece, you couldn't legally marry non-citizens, and a child produced with a non-citizen, even one resident in the city-state, had no citizenship rights.[...]


That might have been true later in Athens (under Pericles?), but Cleisthenes, considered to be the founder of Athenian democracy, was the son of Megacles (of the powerful Alcmaeonid family) and Agariste, daughter of Cleisthenes, tyrant of Sicyon, and there was no question about his citizenship at the time.

----------


## Salento

> R850....T1a1-L208.........mtdna T2c1f
> R1543...T1a1-Z709.........H1e
> R120....T1a2-L446.....I1c





> imho y T is not an outlier, y T is rare, but proportionally and coincidentally it’s the only non y R Haplogroup among the Iron-age Roman-Italics.



Match (outlier? Lost Tourist :) 
I don’t think so:

y T-L208 (R850) Latin Tribe Ardea 650 BC

----------


## kingjohn

We need more samples from other areas of italy south of rome but also north of it ... 
3 samples of etruscan is not enough ..... 
6-8 latin samples also hard to know ....

----------


## valentinavalley2

> Are you so sure? The Liburnian language shows more ties to a proto-Italic or archaic Italic language close to Venetic than to Illyrian. Even the maps about Illyrian ethny put their borders a bit too far north, i think.


They were Illyrian before the Roman expansion, just because Romans colonised it doesn’t make it theirs, original Liburnians were Illyrian. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

----------


## halfalp

Mtdna Haplogroup *D* in Imperial Roma, Mesolithic people were all y-dna I2a2(a) and mtdna U5 and *U8* and probably one Neolithic sample was R1b-V88. They say the *intriguing* y-dna I1 in Late Antiquity... not so intriguiging for the time to be honest.

Looking forward to see the history of mtdna D and if the U8 sample is U8a.

Even tho slight, the Iberomaurusian admixture is kind of interesting, we can actually make a lot of assumptions on it. But if it came from Phoenicians, why would they bring only Morocco Hunter-Gatherer ancestry and not both with Morocco Neolithic ancestry?

----------


## Jovialis

> Match (outlier? Lost Tourist :) 
> I don’t think so:
> 
> y T-L208 (R850) Latin Tribe Ardea 650 BC


Here's mine :)




> I now get Latin Tribe Ardea as a new sample, and it is right before Anatolian Copper age. I think these are the two most important samples I get, as I speculate it I am roughly a merger of these two groups, ultimately.
> 
> 
> 
> I used to get Copper Age Anatolian as my 4th sample by these settings, now it has been bumped down to 5, by Latin Tribe Ardea that took it's place.
> 
> 
> 
> What a glorious revelation :)

----------


## Tomenable

During upheavals etc. cities suffer more than countryside.

Here is example from two regions of Poland during *the "Deluge"* (disastrous wars of 1648-1667):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_(history)

Population change of these two regions is estimated as:

*In years 1578-1580:*

Rural population (non-Jewish) - 1,676,000
Non-Jewish urban population - 650,200
Jewish (all urban population) - 26,500

*In years 1662-1676:*

Rural population (non-Jewish) - 1,531,600
Non-Jewish urban population - 308,200
Jewish (all urban population) - 43,500

Summary of the decline:

Non-Jewish *urban population* changed from 650 thousand to 300 thousand *(decline by 54%)*.

Non-Jewish *rural population* changed from 1676 thousand to 1532 thousand *(decline by 9%)*.

Urban population suffered much more than rural.

Jewish (vast majority urban) population increased, mainly due to their super high natural growth rates (which is already known from AJ genetics).

*SOURCES* (two books):

Bogucka, Samsonowicz, "Dzieje miast i mieszczaństwa w Polsce" [History of cities in Poland]
Schiper, Tartakower, Hafftka, "Żydzi w Polsce Odrodzonej" [Jews in the Reborn Poland]

----------


## MOESAN

> They were Illyrian before the Roman expansion, just because Romans colonised it doesn’t make it theirs, original Liburnians were Illyrian. 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


In fact the question is a bit more complicated. It depends if you speak of a politic "state" or if you speak of ethnicity or language. The Liburnian language is closer to Venetic, as say Bernard SERGENT and WIKIPEDIA. B. SERGENT explains that at le anthroponymic level, the "Illyrian" territory (according to later Roman naming?) was divided into three parts (at least). One of them checks geographically the zone where Greeks had signaled their "Illyrians", it's to say in the N-W of Greece, where they localized the Taulantians, Enkhelai, Piraei: their lands correspond well enough to the southern anthroponymic zone of the author KATICIC (KATICHICH') 1976. It would be the true linguistic original Illyrian zone. The later in between Dalmatian zone had anthroponyms seeming formed on pan-italic languages descendant as Venetic, someones call it Pannono-Italic (let's not forget the Italics differenciation could have occurred around Panninia). It seems all that was already settled before Roman occupation and the changes it caused. It's out of discussion that Liburni(ans) were not true Illyrians, if they were, maybe, unde Illyrian control at some stage of history.

----------


## valentinavalley2

> In fact the question is a bit more complicated. It depends if you speak of a politic "state" or if you speak of ethnicity or language. The Liburnian language is closer to Venetic, as say Bernard SERGENT and WIKIPEDIA. B. SERGENT explains that at le anthroponymic level, the "Illyrian" territory (according to later Roman naming?) was divided into three parts (at least). One of them checks geographically the zone where Greeks had signaled their "Illyrians", it's to say in the N-W of Greece, where they localized the Taulantians, Enkhelai, Piraei: their lands correspond well enough to the southern anthroponymic zone of the author KATICIC (KATICHICH') 1976. It would be the true linguistic original Illyrian zone. The later in between Dalmatian zone had anthroponyms seeming formed on pan-italic languages descendant as Venetic, someones call it Pannono-Italic (let's not forget the Italics differenciation could have occurred around Panninia). It seems all that was already settled before Roman occupation and the changes it caused. It's out of discussion that Liburni(ans) were not true Illyrians, if they were, maybe, unde Illyrian control at some stage of history.


Both the Liburnians and Dalmatians before the Roman Empire were Illyrian, it’s stupid to say weren’t when original Greek sources say they were. You can’t compare modern scholars to ancient ones, because one only “guess” and take sources out of Romans who had an “agenda” to spread their people to replace them with the natives, the others were here to hear the language they spoke.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

----------


## Tomenable

IIRC, in the Olalde 2019 study the authors claimed Iberia has almost no Germanic admixture after modelling Visigoths with use of very "northern" Pre-Roman samples as a source (while samples from times of the Roman rule in Iberia were no longer as northern-shifted as those Pre-Roman, due to admixtures from the east).

And that made no sense, because Celtiberian genetics got altered during Roman period. The authors used a biased model to prove lack of Germanic DNA.

Here the authors have the opposite agenda - and are also using biased models. In this case it would actually make sense to use Republican samples, because - unlike Celtiberians in Iberia - Republican Romans could survive Imperial era unaltered. Imperial samples so far are only from Rome and vicinity, not from all over Italy.

We should wait for a comprehensive study with samples from all over Italy including various rural areas, just like Olalde 2019 sampled most of Iberia.

----------


## Maciamo

> Match (outlier? Lost Tourist :) 
> I don’t think so:
> 
> y T-L208 (R850) Latin Tribe Ardea 650 BC


What I meant by outlier was that it is the only Iron Age sample that plots with South Italians and Greeks, while the others plot with North Italians. Clearly there must have been a merger of two populations. I assume that T-L208 sample was of Greek origin.

----------


## kingjohn

macaimo
*where do you think most of the roman emperors would cluster ?*
with northwest italian like *most* iron age samples or 
with central italians mainland greeks like *most* of the imperial samples ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_emperors
regards
adam

----------


## Salento

> What I meant by outlier was that it is the only Iron Age sample that plots with South Italians and Greeks, while the others plot with North Italians. Clearly there must have been a merger of two populations. I assume that T-L208 sample was of Greek origin.


It could be Greek hg, but I should add that a Parent of y T-L208, T-L162 (CTS880) was found in 7000 year old Karsdorf burials in Germany.







https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_T-M184

----------


## Tomenable

This shows for period 300-700 CE the direction of gene flow into Lazio from areas between Spain and Germany:



^^^ 
Those Bronze Age Anatolians were genetically a lot like modern Cyprus.

Imperial Rome is modelled as 20% Republic Romans plus *80%* Cyprus:



^^^
This is 4/5 replacement. Do you really believe countryside was also 80% replaced?

----------


## Angela

> IIRC, in the Olalde 2019 study the authors claimed Iberia has almost no Germanic admixture after modelling Visigoths with use of very "northern" Pre-Roman samples as a source (while samples from times of the Roman rule in Iberia were no longer as northern-shifted as those Pre-Roman, due to admixtures from the east).
> 
> And that made no sense, because Celtiberian genetics got altered during Roman period. The authors used a biased model to prove lack of Germanic DNA.
> 
> Here the authors have the opposite agenda - and are also using biased models. In this case it would actually make sense to use Republican samples, because - unlike Celtiberians in Iberia - Republican Romans could survive Imperial era unaltered. Imperial samples so far are only from Rome and vicinity, not from all over Italy.
> 
> We should wait for a comprehensive study with samples from all over Italy including various rural areas, just like Olalde 2019 sampled most of Iberia.


I don't think they're necessarily biased. That will and is coming from the amateur community. :) I just don't think they thought things through, and they have a high schoolers understanding of Roman history and that of Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, if that. Some of their commentary sounded like a study note card from Middle School. 

They also don't seem as conversant with the findings of other papers as we are, which is indeed worrying. 

Still, at least, unlike Hellenthal and his group, they get that the "Southern" group was already there and didn't arrive with the Byzantines. I wonder if that group remembers the texts I sent! :) Indeed, I wonder if the group over at Anthrogenica and Polako remember all the arguments they put forward for a huge movement from the east during Late Antiquity. I mean, it couldn't be more ironic. The change was the other way.

I have no problem with the change in Central Italy coming about because of input from Goths and Lombards. Well, I have a personal problem with it, as I don't like the idea of these destroyers entering our bloodlines, but I try to keep personal feelings out of it. I've accepted the Indo-Europeans, after all. :) I had little choice. My father carried U-152, and unlike certain dead enders, I don't think it derives from WHG. Then there's my U2e, so there's that as well. They came, and that's an end to it.

I just don't see the evidence for this, however. 

The Lombards' own chronicler, Paul the Deacon, said there were only 60,000 of them, including women and children. All the samples we have so far are U-106. Now, in the Veneto, and to a lesser extent in the rest of Northern Italy, we do see settlement patterns, some of which have survived, indeed, the very holdings have survived, and we do see U-106. We also see I1. Whether that came from other types of Lombards or from Goths or Franks from later on I don't know. Now, there isn't a lot of it, but it's there.

It's true that the Lombards established kingdoms elsewhere in Italy, including further south. However, those were some knights and their retinues. It was in no way a mass migration. You can get spikes of yDna because of founder effects, but for substantial autosomal change, which this was, you need a lot of it. I'll repeat my example of my area of Italy. The people plot firmly as north/central Italians, and yet they're over 70% R1b. 

Where is all that U-106 and I1 in modern Lazio?

Now let's turn to IBD analysis. It's unlike IBS and more reliable in my opinion. So, unlike you, I don't think Olalde was wrong about there being very few signs of Germanic dna intrusion in Spain. Ralph and Coop found the exact same thing, i.e. very little sign of genetic change coming from the Germanic tribes in either Spain or Italy. I do think it makes sense. These were elite invasions, not mass invasions. 

So, how did the change come about? Could there be other factors? I do think looking at Italians further north is a possibility which should have been explored. The change doesn't seem to be stemming from central/east Europe, but rather from northwestern Europe. Isn't that precisely what was more present in northern, especially northwestern Italy. 

I'm not at all saying, by the way, as I tried to explain upthread, that Central Italy didn't remain more "southern" than it was at the time of the Republic. There's a great deal of Greek like ancestry in Italy. However, I just don't see evidence yet that the change was because of Goths and Lombards. 

The disappearance of that "tail" into the Levant is a different matter. The mass decline in J1 should tell part of the story. The authors should have looked at the differences in ancestry per each burial site, as I tried to do in a quick and dirty way. There seems to be a difference, which would support their own statement about the heterogeneity of these Roman populations. It wasn't a melting pot; it was more like a stew. :) There were probably ethnic "enclaves", as there are in any great city where there's been a lot of migration from foreign parts. Look at London, or New York. In a couple of hundred years those differences aren't going to disappear. As trade dried up, people moved to more advantageous locations, and then there was the sacks and mass destruction. Those who had the ability or contacts elsewhere fled. The others would have died. 

These are patterns which are repeated over and over again in history. You just have to read it, a lot of it, and try to learn from it, from it and archaeology, and not just play with algorithms. I tried telling the usual suspects not to include Messina in their attempts to figure out ancient migrations specifically to particular areas of Sicily. There was a massive earthquake at the beginning of the 20th century. Very few people survived. Where did most of the resettlement come from? Calabria across the water.

----------


## Johane Derite

Sample R1016 seems to be R1b-Z2103. This, like L283 is one of the 3 main Albanian paternal lineages, thus increasing possibility that it has shared recent origin on the Illyrian coast from the same movement that brought the L283 into Rome.

----------


## Maciamo

> macaimo
> *where do you think most of the roman emperors would cluster ?*
> with northwest italian like *most* iron age samples or 
> with central italians mainland greeks like *most* of the imperial samples ?
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_emperors
> regards
> adam


That's an odd question considering that over half of the Roman emperors were not from Italy. From the 3rd century onwards, the majority were from the Balkans (including the Tetrachs and the Constantinian dynasty). Some were from Spain (Trajan, Hadrian, Theodosius), from North Africa (Macrinus, Septimius Severus), mixed North Africa and Syria (Geta, Caracalla), Syria (Elagabalus, Severus Alexander).

If you refer to early emperors of Patrician descent, it's hard to tell because Rome was multicultural from the start. It wasn't purely Italic (Latin and Sabine), but also incorporated families of Greek and Etruscan descent. But considering that the Etruscan appear to be autosomally similar to Italics, and that the Greek ancestry was the lowest in the lot during the Kingdom and Republic, I'd say that Republican patrician and plebeian families from Rome itself were most probably like the Iron Age samples in this study, but plotting slightly more south toward southern Italy.

----------


## Angela

> This shows for period 300-700 CE the direction of gene flow into Lazio from areas between Spain and Germany:
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^ 
> Those Bronze Age Anatolians were genetically a lot like modern Cyprus.
> 
> Imperial Rome is modelled as 20% Republic Romans plus *80%* Cyprus:
> 
> ...


This is where you are going wrong. The "Cyprus" part is an AVERAGE. Plus, they're using modern Cypriots.

Even they themselves state that it's an average, and it doesn't mean that there was this big migration from Cyprus.

What do you get if you combine people from a community of Mycenaean like people, which is probably what most Greeks were like at the time, or Southern Italians of the time who had such ancestry, with people from some transplanted Jewish or Syrian like community, with a sprinkling of some locals? You get people who might approximate modern Cypriots. 

The thing is, you can't average people from different communities like this and get some sort of good information about ancient genetics.

Think about it: if we were talking about New York City, would it be a good idea to average Hasidic Jews from Borough Park, Middle Class Jews from Forest Hills and Manhattan, Puerto Ricans from the Bronx, Italians from Bay Ridge, and East Asians from Flushing? This is going on 120 years after some of them migrated from Europe.

Well, you may not know those places, but I assure you that they're "ethnic" strongholds, and there are others. 

Did you read my post number 117? You're preaching to the choir. :)

There was no mass migration from Spain to Rome. I don't know how that got past peer review. I guess no one knows ancient history anymore. Going by Ralph and Coop there's literally no input from Spain to Italy for thousands of years.

----------


## brick

> Sample R1016 seems to be R1b-Z2103. This, like L283 is one of the 3 main Albanian paternal lineages, thus increasing possibility that it has shared recent origin on the Illyrian coast from the same movement that brought the L283 into Rome.



R1b-Z2103 and L283 are older than any supposed Illyrian movement into Rome.

So no evidence for what you claim.

----------


## Angela

The garbage that some people are posting is literally insane. Somebody could look at these results and say Etruscans came to Italy from AFRICA???? And Polako leaves posts like that there but deletes ones with which he disagrees? 

Meanwhile, posters from anthrogenica come here to read our content, but prohibit one of our members from doing the same? 

Honestly, I knew things were bad out there, but this is unbelievable.

As for all this "Illyrian" stuff, groups of mixed Indo-European and "local" ancestry may have passed through the Balkans and then into Italy. Others might have come down through Hungary. Some of these yDna lines were all over the Balkans and probably Hungary and southern Germany. We just can't untangle all of it completely yet, so I don't see the point of some of this commentary.

----------


## Johane Derite

> R1b-Z2103 and L283 are older than any supposed Illyrian movement into Rome.
> 
> So no evidence for what you claim.


The L283 in Rome is downstream of the exact same clade as the 1000 year older Illyrian coast sample. 

R1b-Z2013 is one of the 3 main Albanian paternal lineages, and it is a Balkan R1b, not really present among Italics or Celts or Slavs.

----------


## kingjohn

> That's an odd question considering that over half of the Roman emperors were not from Italy. From the 3rd century onwards, the majority were from the Balkans (including the Tetrachs and the Constantinian dynasty). Some were from Spain (Trajan, Hadrian, Theodosius), from North Africa (Macrinus, Septimius Severus), mixed North Africa and Syria (Geta, Caracalla), Syria (Elagabalus, Severus Alexander).
> 
> 
> 
> If you refer to early emperors of Patrician descent, it's hard to tell because Rome was multicultural from the start. It wasn't purely Italic (Latin and Sabine), but also incorporated families of Greek and Etruscan descent. But considering that the Etruscan appear to be autosomally similar to Italics, and that the Greek ancestry was the lowest in the lot during the Kingdom and Republic, I'd say that Republican patrician and plebeian families from Rome itself were most probably like the Iron Age samples in this study, but plotting slightly more south toward southern Italy.



ok thanks for your answere 
yes i meant the early ones 
i agree with your answer 
regards
adam 

p.s
septimus severus was only half north african his mom was italian but overall i get the point

----------


## torzio

> What I meant by outlier was that it is the only Iron Age sample that plots with South Italians and Greeks, while the others plot with North Italians. Clearly there must have been a merger of two populations. I assume that T-L208 sample was of Greek origin.


That T sample came with the R1b from ancient LBK areas of central europe...i will check if it also matches the neolithic T samples from malek bulgaria

----------


## Angela

I have news for Simon W...

Republican Era Romans were a mix of Spanish and Greek? Seriously? That would be MODERN northern Spanish and MODERN mainland Greek the paper was showing. We have to look at mixtures of PROXIMATE populations as in NOT MODERN POPULATIONS.

That doesn't mean admixture between those two groups you dunderheads!

Plus, most of the Republican samples don't plot far south enough for that. My God, look at the PCA.

I can use myself as an example. On the old gedmatch calculators I come out as midway between the Spaniards (a heavily northern Spaniard weighted sample) and the Greeks. I have neither Spanish nor Greek ancestry. It's just that I, and Italians like me, are neither West nor East Mediterranean. We're CENTRAL Mediterraneans.

Oh, and I'm at 3.4 genetic distance to a TSI like sample from Szolad, and 4.3 to an ancient sample from near Collegno (Piemonte). I haven't heard of anyone being closer. 

Honestly, people, after all this time some of you people still don't understand how to interpret genetics results AT ALL.

----------


## torzio

> Both the Liburnians and Dalmatians before the Roman Empire were Illyrian, it’s stupid to say weren’t when original Greek sources say they were. You can’t compare modern scholars to ancient ones, because one only “guess” and take sources out of Romans who had an “agenda” to spread their people to replace them with the natives, the others were here to hear the language they spoke.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


In roman texts there are no illyrians, it is a geophical term, like british...in the roman census of 5bc , which i supplied before, they had tribes under the term illyricum of which the dalmatian represented 52 percent, next came pannonians with 21 percent

----------


## torzio

> In fact the question is a bit more complicated. It depends if you speak of a politic "state" or if you speak of ethnicity or language. The Liburnian language is closer to Venetic, as say Bernard SERGENT and WIKIPEDIA. B. SERGENT explains that at le anthroponymic level, the "Illyrian" territory (according to later Roman naming?) was divided into three parts (at least). One of them checks geographically the zone where Greeks had signaled their "Illyrians", it's to say in the N-W of Greece, where they localized the Taulantians, Enkhelai, Piraei: their lands correspond well enough to the southern anthroponymic zone of the author KATICIC (KATICHICH') 1976. It would be the true linguistic original Illyrian zone. The later in between Dalmatian zone had anthroponyms seeming formed on pan-italic languages descendant as Venetic, someones call it Pannono-Italic (let's not forget the Italics differenciation could have occurred around Panninia). It seems all that was already settled before Roman occupation and the changes it caused. It's out of discussion that Liburni(ans) were not true Illyrians, if they were, maybe, unde Illyrian control at some stage of history.


Liburnians and histri and iapodes all sit under the term illyrian and so do other tribes in noricum, how else do you get halstatt culture in noricum, a mix of celts and illyrians

----------


## torzio

> IIRC, in the Olalde 2019 study the authors claimed Iberia has almost no Germanic admixture after modelling Visigoths with use of very "northern" Pre-Roman samples as a source (while samples from times of the Roman rule in Iberia were no longer as northern-shifted as those Pre-Roman, due to admixtures from the east).
> 
> And that made no sense, because Celtiberian genetics got altered during Roman period. The authors used a biased model to prove lack of Germanic DNA.
> 
> Here the authors have the opposite agenda - and are also using biased models. In this case it would actually make sense to use Republican samples, because - unlike Celtiberians in Iberia - Republican Romans could survive Imperial era unaltered. Imperial samples so far are only from Rome and vicinity, not from all over Italy.
> 
> We should wait for a comprehensive study with samples from all over Italy including various rural areas, just like Olalde 2019 sampled most of Iberia.


What about the vandali confederation (vandals) of germanic tribes of modern north poland

----------


## valentinavalley2

> In roman texts there are no illyrians, it is a geophical term, like british...in the roman census of 5bc , which i supplied before, they had tribes under the term illyricum of which the dalmatian represented 52 percent, next came pannonians with 21 percent


The Romans had an agenda to expand... invade and expand like all empires. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

----------


## Dianatomia

In the early Iron age Romans were genetically mostly Northern Italians and slowly became more East Med because populations of the Southern part settled there (probably lots of Greeks and Phoenicians). Rome reached its height in the Imperial Era. Absolute power corrupts and Rome slowly but surely started to loose power. It became depopulated and absorbed newcomers which brought some North European admixture into the city (Medieval Rome). But the overall Italian population did not change. So when Italian population resettled in Rome during modern times, the average Italian genetic make up was represented.

----------


## torzio

> Seems to be quite evident that the largest populations of the time were in the South of the Italian peninsula. In the early Iron age Romans were genetically mostly Northern Italians and slowly became more East Med because populations of the Southern part settled there (probably lots of Greeks and Phoenicians). Rome reached its height in the Imperial Era. Absolute power corrupts and Rome slowly but surely started to loose power. It became depopulated and absorbed newcomers which brought some North European admixture into the city. But the overall Italian population did not change. So when Italian population resettled in Rome during modern times, the average Italian genetic make up was represented.


At the start of the first Punic wars the romans are a combination of latins, Etruscans and Umbrians ( Sabines, sabellics, Samnites etc )

----------


## torzio

> The Romans had an agenda to expand... invade and expand like all empires. 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


and so what does this mean in reference

70 plus percent of Illyrians come from two tribes Dalmatians and pannonians

----------


## valentinavalley2

> and so what does this mean in reference
> 
> 70 plus percent of Illyrians come from two tribes Dalmatians and pannonians


But they weren’t italic. The name Arbon some are suggesting possibly came from Liburnia, Arbon were an Illyrian Tribe...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

----------


## torzio

> But they weren’t italic. The name Arbon some are suggesting possibly came from Liburnia, Arbon were an Illyrian Tribe...
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


i agree they are not italic

----------


## Carlos

I'm monarchist

----------


## bicicleur

Y-DNA by Ted Kendall :

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...gid=1779018830

work in progress, more details may be added later

Latin IA : some R1b-Z2118 = L51xL151 and some R1b-U152

https://yfull.com/tree/R-Z2118/

----------


## Jovialis

> What I meant by outlier was that it is the only Iron Age sample that plots with South Italians and Greeks, while the others plot with North Italians. Clearly there must have been a merger of two populations. I assume that T-L208 sample was of Greek origin.


I find it intriguing that there were already south Italian-like people in the Republican era, among the other Latins and Etruscans. Instead of being Greek, perhaps he was just closer to the Neolithic Italians from the area of Lazio. Despite being an outlier in this set of samples, it shows there were people that plotted there consistently throughout the ages. From the early days, and beyond the fall of the Roman empire; represented by the graves of Vila Magna.

----------


## Maciamo

> I find it intriguing that there were already south Italian-like people in the Republican era, among the other Latins and Etruscans. Instead of being Greek, perhaps he was just closer to the Neolithic Italians from the area of Lazio. Despite being an outlier in this set of samples, it shows there were people that plotted there consistently throughout the ages. From the early days, and beyond the fall of the Roman empire; represented by the graves of Vila Magna.


Republican Rome's first expansion was southward. Cumae and Naples, two Greek colonies, were absorbed by 338 BCE, and the other Greek colonies in Apulia, Basilicata and Calabria by 272 BCE. So immigration of Greeks from these areas to Rome would have increased progressively from 4th century BCE.



However the T1a samples dates from 800 to 500 BCE, so it is harder to explain, unless the dating is off.

----------


## Jovialis

> Republican Rome's first expansion was southward. Cumae and Naples, two Greek colonies, were absorbed by 338 BCE, and the other Greek colonies in Apulia, Basilicata and Calabria by 272 BCE. So immigration of Greeks from these areas to Rome would have increased progressively from 4th century BCE.
> 
> However the T1a samples dates from 800 to 500 BCE, so it is harder to explain, unless the dating is off.


Greek admixture is absolutely plausible for this sample. It's closest affinity to other samples, is to Myceneans, and other Greeks. Especially given the history you have noted.

I think samples the Bronze Age and Iron age from southern Italy should help to better understand the true trajectory of Italian genetics throughout the history of the Roman empire.

----------


## Salento

Plausible but improbable.

After how long is a population to be considered local?

What about common ancient Italian ancestry with the Very Old Mycenaeans.

more or less Mycenaean elements:
like South Italian like Pugliese like Calabrese like Greek like ...

.. even MyHeritage can’t tell who’s who.

----------


## Saetrus

So here are the iron age so-called Latin samples:


Palestrina 
Individuals: R435, R436, R437
Praeneste, modern-day Palestrina, located south of Rome, was one of the largest ancient cities in Iron Age Latium and home to the Praenesti tribe.
_"Praeneste was originally an Etruscan settlement. Like other Etruscan city-states. Praeneste was allied with the Latin League, a loose federation of independent cities"_


Veio Grotta Gramiccia
Individual: R1015
_The site of Veio (Veii in English, Veio in Italian) is a large Etruscan city, located about 18 kilometers north of Rome._


Ardea
Individuals: R850, R851 
Located 4 kilometers from the Tyhrennian coast, the area was once the main urban center of the Rutuli
"According to modern scholars the Rutuli were *an Etruscan people*."


Martinsicuro
Individuals: R1 
Martinsicuro is a coastal site located on the border of Le Marche and Abruzzo on central Italy’s Adriatic coast. It is a Villanovan village
"Villanovan culture (c. 900–700 BC) is regarded as the *oldest phase of Etruscan civilization."
*




So you sample only coastal places that you know for a fact are Etruscan and none of the mountainous regions that are Italic, and voilá Etruscans are now the real Italics and Romans are dirty Middle Eastern immigrants, and the Kurgan theory gets to live for a couple more years, even though this still doesn't top Indo-Iranian languages being transmitted by great-grandmothers. Congratulations to all the clowns involved.

----------


## Salento

@Saetrus take it easy.

those are the results we have, for now.

Calmati, ma quante cazz... vai dicendo.

----------


## Angela

Is this the Italian Nordicist perspective? 

I haven't looked at each of those samples individually yet, but the majority of the Iron Age/Republican Rome Era samples are at most one third Indo-European, which makes them Southern European.

That's not good enough for you?

What did you expect? Scandinavians? Germans?

Honestly, what planet do some of you internet pop gen people come from? You're not playing with a full deck.

And one more pejorative about people from the Near East and you're history.

The culture to which all of Europe owes so much derives from the Near East via Greece. It sure as hell didn't come from the steppe.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> So here are the iron age so-called Latin samples:
> 
> Veio Grotta Gramiccia
> Individual: R1015
> _The site of Veio (Veii in English, Veio in Italian) is a large Etruscan city, located about 18 kilometers north of Rome._
> 
> 
> Martinsicuro
> Individuals: R1 
> ...



The sample (a female) from Veio Grotta Gramiccia is labeled in the study as Villanovan and is clearly Etruscan, and the study does not attempt to make her appear as Latin.


Martinsicuro is a Protovillanovan site, not Villanovan. Protovillanovan is a supranational Bronze facies that is ancestral to many different Iron age facies. Villanovan is instead an Iron age facies which is exclusively Etruscan.

----------


## Joey37

My father would say he was a proud steppe barbarian, but that's neither here nor there. By the time of the Roman period, the steppe component of the original Italic tribes had been diluted due to the large Neolithic population in the peninsula, so they would not have resembled northern Europeans in any way; the Po valley is more Gallic than Italic in ancestry and has the most U152 from Celtic tribes as well as lingering Italics.

----------


## blevins13

> Is this the Italian Nordicist perspective? 
> 
> I haven't looked at each of those samples individually yet, but the majority of the Iron Age/Republican Rome Era samples are at least one third Indo-European, which makes them Southern European.
> 
> That's not good enough for you?
> 
> What did you expect? Scandinavians? Germans?
> 
> Honestly, what planet do some of you internet pop gen people come from? You're not playing with a full deck.
> ...


So what did come from steppe? Something came for sure after all that made those lines so successful, even as we speak. So is the wealth accumulated due to what Europeans owe to steppe or near east, this could be a good question to answer?


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum

----------


## Salento

> That T sample came with the R1b from ancient LBK areas of central europe...i will check if it also matches the neolithic T samples from malek bulgaria


R1543 T1a1a - 1-400 CE

R120 is a T1a2 :) 1000 year younger than R850 (T-L208) too.

*R120*:
y T1a2b L131>Y6033 
mt I1c 
400-600 CE Late Antiquity 
San Ercolano

*R1543*:
y T1a1a L162>L208>CTS11451>Y4119>CTS2214>Z709
mt H1e
1-400 CE
Imperial Rome
Mazzano Romano

*R850
*Y T1a1a TL208
mt T2c1f
800-500 BCE
Latin_IA
Ardea

----------


## Angela

> So what did come from steppe? Something came for sure after all that made those lines so successful, even as we speak. So is the wealth accumulated due to what Europeans owe to steppe or near east, this could be a good question to answer?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum


Blevins, you know all this, surely? Where did agriculture originate? How about metallurgy? It was in the Near East and some of it was developed by EEF like people in the Balkans. How about irrigation systems, cities, monumental buildings, paved roads, writing, law codes? If you want to add empires, throw that in.

Do I have to go on???

We learn all this in middle school and high school, at least in the U.S., and from what I've seen in the Anglo world as a whole There's no need to belabor it. It's not some plot.

The original steppe people were fisher/hunters living in yurts, illiterate, without domesticated animals other than the horse, without farming, without metallurgy. Now, I want to emphasize that's how ALL human beings lived originally, even in the Near East, but there they developed more sophisticated cultures first.


Every culture builds on prior cultures; they borrow and adapt to suit their own needs, and the better ones add some improvements of their own. Look at the Japanese. Within one hundred years of Commodore Perry's arrival they had totally transformed their culture. There's no shame in it.

The Greeks of the Aegean learned and added, created something new, something that didn't exist in the Near East, and passed it on to the Romans, who added their own tweaks and then passed it down to all Europeans. Then most of it was lost and had to be re-learned in the Renaissance. 

The steppe people (half EHG and half CHG like) mixed with EEF people when they moved west. By the time the Indo-European speaking people got to Italy, they were
already a mixture of EEF (with some additional WHG from the resurgence) and steppe. The Beakers were about 50/50 broadly speaking, yes?. You know all this.

Once the Indo-European speakers got to Italy they admixed with the Neolithic population there, a population much like the EEF, but already with some CHG/Iran Neo like ancestry, perhaps from Greece or perhaps by a more direct route. It further diluted the steppe signal. The same thing happened elsewhere in Southern Europe. It's only in the low population extreme north-east of Europe that you get people over 50% steppe. I mean, think about it, there was barely anyone living up there. Even Britain is more EEF than steppe. Southern Europe was heavily populated, so it's the least steppe. 

Sometimes we just have to step back when we look at historical processes and use some reason and common sense. 

To this day, Northern Italians/Tuscans have the highest EEF ancestry in Europe after certain Sardinians perhaps, followed closely by Spaniards. Look at the plot. They lean toward the Sardinians. These Iron Age and Republican Era samples average out perhaps to the high 30s for steppe ancestry? (I haven't gotten into the nitty gritty of the details yet.) That's not much more than Northern Italians have today. 

What did modern Europeans get from them? Language for most Europeans, of course, parts of the religion prior to Christianity, perhaps a more male centered social structure, although the desert Near Easterners may have them beat. Some parts of the culture, perhaps. Oh, also the domesticated horse, which turned out to be really important for traveling long distances quickly, and eventually for warfare, along with the chariot, although it was the Near Easterners who perfected chariot warfare. 

It's too big a topic to cover in one post on another topic altogether.

@Joey,
Half of my ancestry comes from the Po Valley, and I assure you they're not Celts, whatever you mean by that. They don't plot with the people of the Celtic fringe like the Irish or Welsh, and not even with the French. We're our own people. 

Did the Gauls invade in the first millennium BC? Yes, they did, although some, like the Boi, were mostly kicked out. The ones who remained mixed with the people already living there. The Italics and Etruscans, people of mixed Italian Neolithic and Indo-European ancestry, weren't wiped out. Place names and inscriptions show Italic, Etruscan, and Gallic names in the same area.

----------


## Johane Derite

R1016 is not a certain Z2103 it seems:

Ted Kandell writes: "R1016 is *both* Z2103+ and L51+. Impossible. It's completely ambiguous. Contamination?"

----------


## blevins13

> Blevins, you know all this, surely? Where did agriculture originate? How about metallurgy? It was in the Near East and some of it was developed by EEF like people in the Balkans. How about irrigation systems, cities, monumental buildings, paved roads, writing, law codes? If you want to add empires, throw that in.
> 
> Do I have to go on???
> 
> We learn all this in middle school and high school, at least in the U.S., and from what I've seen in the Anglo world as a whole There's no need to belabor it. It's not some plot.
> 
> The original steppe people were fisher/hunters living in yurts, illiterate, without domesticated animals other than the horse, without farming, without metallurgy. Now, I want to emphasize that's how ALL human beings lived originally, even in the Near East, but there they developed more sophisticated cultures first.
> 
> 
> ...


IMG_3925.jpg

In my eyes, indo-europian were military culture that conquered whoever found in their path. 
In their path they conquered continents and exterminated populations. And yes they did adopted all the things that you said above from the other populations, mostly the conquered ones.



Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum

----------


## Tomenable

Sample *R435 Roman Republic, 600-200 BC*, Similitude Map:

https://gen3553.pagesperso-orange.fr/ADN/similitude.htm

K36 results:

*R435*
Basque 5.56 
Central_Euro 2.72 
Eastern_Euro 0.55 
Fennoscandian 3.40 
French 12.68 
Iberian 21.95 
Italian 23.51 
North_Atlantic 6.45 
North_Sea 12.39 
West_Med 10.80



Sample *R1021 Iron Age B, 700-600 BC*, Similitude Map: 

K36 results:

*R1021*
Basque 2.44
Central_Euro 6.81
East_Balkan 2.65
East_Central_Euro 0.70
East_Med 4.06
Fennoscandian 0.21
French 8.25
Iberian 26.56
Italian 25.56
Near_Eastern 0.50
North_African 0.46
North_Atlantic 3.75
North_Sea 4.85
Volga-Ural 0.01
West_Caucasian 0.69
West_Med 12.49

----------


## Jovialis

> Sample *R435 Roman Republic, 600-200 BC*, Similitude Map:
> https://gen3553.pagesperso-orange.fr/ADN/similitude.htm
> K36 results:
> *R435*
> Basque 5.56 
> Central_Euro 2.72 
> Eastern_Euro 0.55 
> Fennoscandian 3.40 
> French 12.68 
> ...


If you could do the following, I'd appreciate it.
R850, R851, R475, R437

----------


## kingjohn

I would like to see the* imperial ones upload to gedmatch* .....
By the way
*Dacian war* : imperial time
*Morcomanic wars* (yes the one in gladiator) : imperial time 
many of the wars were in that period...

----------


## Jovialis

_But first, something I won’t update: it seems clear that Imperial Romans were genetically distinct and quite cosmopolitan in comparison to their Republican predecessors, but neither did they leave a clear imprint down to the future. The histories are quite clear that Imperial Rome was a reflection of the whole Roman Empire, with eminent intellectuals and aristocrats congregating from all corners of the world-state. That being said, the results from the paper confirmed the weight of the eastern provinces in their influence and demographic heft.
_
_And yet for all that heft, the scions of the eastern provinces who settled down in and around the Eternal City left few descendants judging from modern Italian DNA. Why? Because cities were massive demographic sinks in the best of times, with endemic disease, combined with periodic shocks like plagues and invasions.

_https://www.gnxp.com/WordPress/2019/...u-less-fecund/

----------


## Jovialis

> _But first, something I won’t update: it seems clear that Imperial Romans were genetically distinct and quite cosmopolitan in comparison to their Republican predecessors, but neither did they leave a clear imprint down to the future. The histories are quite clear that Imperial Rome was a reflection of the whole Roman Empire, with eminent intellectuals and aristocrats congregating from all corners of the world-state. That being said, the results from the paper confirmed the weight of the eastern provinces in their influence and demographic heft.
> _
> _And yet for all that heft, the scions of the eastern provinces who settled down in and around the Eternal City left few descendants judging from modern Italian DNA. Why? Because cities were massive demographic sinks in the best of times, with endemic disease, combined with periodic shocks like plagues and invasions.
> 
> _https://www.gnxp.com/WordPress/2019/...u-less-fecund/





The _near eastern tail_ had been severed after the end of the Imperial era. However, other than some peripheral urban enclaves, this study *cannot* determine how much of a fixture it was throughout Roman Italy. However, the extinction of these people in Italy, should logically indicate that their presence was not prevalent.




The study itself models the surviving native population around Rome as as 40% "European C7" + 60% "Mediterranean C6"; who plotted mainly around Central to South Italians.

Just in case it is not clear enough, Mediterranean C6 cluster is right on top of South Italians. As the Neolthic Italians from Rome, are on the same axis on the PCA:

----------


## Salento

> R1543 T1a1a - 1-400 CE
> 
> R120 is a T1a2 :) 1000 year younger than R850 (T-L208) too.
> 
> *R120*:
> y T1a2b L131>Y6033 
> mt I1c 
> 400-600 CE Late Antiquity 
> San Ercolano
> ...


_y Ts Romans:_

*R120* ~ _C. Italian_
*R1543* ~ _S. Italian_
*R850* ~ S. Italian

( ~ = about )

----------


## kingjohn

I can see that 1 individual latin in the iron age period was in cluster c4 eastern med that is cool...

----------


## Ailchu

are some of those clusters based on modern populations? if so wouldn't it be logical that the closer you get to modern times, the better you can model populations with modern clusters of populations that live close?

----------


## Jovialis

> are some of those clusters based on modern populations? if so wouldn't it be logical that the closer you get to modern times, the better you can model older populations with modern clusters of populations that live close?




I think they are ancient clusters from the study, organized by broard _ethnic_ grouping.

----------


## Jovialis

> I can see that 1 individual latin in the iron age period was in cluster c4 eastern med that is cool...


I think you may be confusing 45, for 850. He is Mycenaean-like (C6 Mediterranean). Also, C5 is eastern Mediterranean, C4 is Near Eastern.

----------


## Jovialis

> The _near eastern tail_ had been severed after the end of the Imperial era. However, other than some peripheral urban enclaves, this study *cannot* determine how much of a fixture it was throughout Roman Italy. However, the extinction of these people in Italy, should logically indicate that their presence was not prevalent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The study itself models the surviving native population around Rome as as 40% "European C7" + 60% "Mediterranean C6"; who plotted mainly around Central to South Italians.
> 
> Just in case it is not clear enough, Mediterranean C6 cluster is right on top of South Italians. As the Neolthic Italians from Rome, are on the same axis on the PCA:



A medieval re-peopling of the Central-to-South with ancestry from C7 (Iron Age Romans) and C6 (Mycenaean/Greek-like) makes absolute sense to me:

----------


## brick

It is unbelievable how many users on Eurogenes insist on the eastern origin of the Etruscans when DNA evidence is all in favour of the western origin of the Etruscans. How can Davidski tolerate some comments that only look like low-level trXolling?

----------


## kingjohn

> I think you may be confusing 45, for 850. He is Mycenaean-like (C6 Mediterranean). Also, C5 is eastern Mediterranean, C4 is Near Eastern.


yes you are correct my mistake

----------


## Ailchu

> I think they are ancient clusters from the study, organized by broard _ethnic_ grouping.


ah i see. that is confusing. is this still really usefull? i mean, imperial rome can be modeled best with the samples from imperial rome, while early modern and medieval can be modeled best with samples from early modern, medieval. and those samples/clusters probably resemble modern pops. those clusters aren't source populations, or am i wrong?

----------


## Jovialis

> It is unbelievable how many users on Eurogenes insist on the eastern origin of the Etruscans when DNA evidence is all in favour of the western origin of the Etruscans. How can Davidski tolerate some comments that only look like low-level trXolling?


You won't have to worry about low-level t-rolling on this site. Thanks to the superior diligence of the moderation staff.

----------


## brick

> You won't have to worry about low-level t-rolling on this site. Thanks to the superior diligence of the moderation staff.



He has banned on Eurogenes users for much less, if tolerates them shows no respect for Italians.

----------


## Ailchu

> ah i see. that is confusing. is this still really usefull? i mean, imperial rome can be modeled best with the samples from imperial rome, while early modern and medieval can be modeled best with samples from early modern, medieval. and those samples/clusters probably resemble modern pops. those clusters aren't source populations, or am i wrong?



what if south italy was like minoans, somewhere between modern south italy and ABA, roughly were the east med/near east cluster is located? the C6 cluster started to exist later because those south italians mixed with the central/north italians and a bit from more north? italy might have been a cline from latin-like to minoan/ABA like. 

this "near east tail", individuals south of modern south italians, was maybe only partially caused by migrants from near east during imperial age.

----------


## kingjohn

> what if south italy was like minoans, somewhere between modern south italy and ABA, roughly were the east med/near east cluster is located? the C6 cluster started to exist later because those south italians mixed with the central/north italians and a bit from more north? italy might have been a cline from latin-like to minoan/ABA like. 
> 
> *this "near east tail", individuals south of modern south italians, was maybe only partially caused by migrants from near east during imperial age*.



*maybe* syrian /Lebanese merchants/ traders 
who came to rome

----------


## Angela

> It is unbelievable how many users on Eurogenes insist on the eastern origin of the Etruscans when DNA evidence is all in favour of the western origin of the Etruscans. How can Davidski tolerate some comments that only look like low-level trXolling?


It's because he wants that to be out in the public domain, as it aids in his Storm Front like endeavor to trash Italians, and make them look as untermenschen as he possibly can, and any additional "Near Eastern" ancestry does that from his warped world view. My God, are you people all newcomers to this? Does no one remember the atrocious stuff he published in the old days?

He does the Nazis even one better. He wants to prove they were wrong in viewing the Slavs as untermenschen scheduled to be next on the chopping block. He wants to prove the Slavs are the most "steppe" like, and therefore the most ubermensch, and therefore should have been the official allies of the Germans. I believe he mentioned that his father was one of the turncoats who fought for them.

We spoil his plan, because the Romans weren't highly steppe people at all, and the Renaissance Italians even less so.

It's a real bummer when history proves you're a jerk and your theories are crap. 

I wonder if it ever occurs to these numbskulls that the people they called untermenschen and put into gas chambers had, on average, a higher IQ and more talent than they had? They barely had a Berlin Philharmonic during the War because more than half the players were carted off to gas chambers. What also would have been the fate of their U2 rockets if they hadn't killed or exiled all those Jewish physicists? Maybe it would have worked in time to save them. So who were the untermenschen in that scenario? It's one of the great ironies of that period.

Hell, that crazy poster may be one of his socks, or one of the people who fund his research. He sure doesn't seem to have a day job if you get my drift.

----------


## Tomenable

R116 the "outlier" with high Steppe dated to 0-200 CE. Maybe he was a Gallic immigrant to Rome?:

(this sample has the highest level of Steppe admixture out of all Imperial samples, so not "typical")

*His Y-DNA haplogroup:* https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-Z631/

K36 results:

Arabian 0.67 
Armenian 0.63 
Basque 5.90 
Central_Euro 3.24 
East_Balkan 6.25 
East_Central_Euro 3.07 
East_Med 0.02 
Eastern_Euro 3.92 
Fennoscandian 4.08 
French 7.39 
Iberian 25.17 
Italian 16.47 
Near_Eastern 0.74 
North_Atlantic 7.52 
North_Sea 12.29 
Volga-Ural 1.36 
West_Med 1.29

https://gen3553.pagesperso-orange.fr/ADN/similitude.htm

----------


## Angela

> what if south italy was like minoans, somewhere between modern south italy and ABA, roughly were the east med/near east cluster is located? the C6 cluster started to exist later because those south italians mixed with the central/north italians and a bit from more north? italy might have been a cline from latin-like to minoan/ABA like. 
> 
> this "near east tail", individuals south of modern south italians, was maybe only partially caused by migrants from near east during imperial age.


It wasn't a Near Eastern Tail, it was called a "Levant Tail". I will be surprised if there was a lot of it in Southern Italy during the first Millennium BC, although there may have been some. What was probably there was a tail into Anatolia, if you like, so pretty Mycenaean like. The Mycenaeans are pretty damn close to those Imperial Samples anyway, the ones that aren't part of the tail into the Levant.

I still think there was a large community in Rome, and probably in other Italian port cities, and port cities like Massalia, if they ever check them, and more to be found in ports in Spain, of Jews, Phoenicians/Syrians, and others who were there as craftsmen and merchants, people who had their own ethnic enclaves and burial sites. Did some intermarry with their hosts and leave descendants behind? Probably, as happens in New York City with its own ethnic enclaves. Most, however, probably largely did not, again if we take our lessons from history. How much intermarriage is there in London between Muslims and "local" British people? Religion is a huge barrier to integration, as are vastly different customs. As I said, it took 1000 years for the WHG and EEF to start to mingle. How many local Romans do you think would have been willing to undergo adult male circumcision in order to marry a Jewish bride. Jewish girls were barely let out of the house by themselves. 

Largely, they just disappeared as historical conditions changed. Once again, just look at what happens to yDna "J1". Trade moved, craft worked died out. Then there was the 6th century plague and just the general destruction of the cities. 

Did, as Khan now opines, some change come from movement from the north? Yes, a bit, but if the change came from Northern movement, it was mostly northern Italians, not some mythical movement from western Europe, not even Central Eastern Europe as one would expect from Goths and Lombards. 

We've been down this road before. Hellenthal et al, including that dunderhead Christian Capelli, from whom I expected better things, was convinced the "mixing" he saw was from a mass migration during Antiquity and Early Medieval times into Italy from the Near East. The dunderheads at anthrogenica eagerly jumped onto the bandwagon. I argued at the time until I was blue in the face that there was NO evidence in history or archaeology of any such movement. Like wise, there is no indication of any movement post Imperial Age of masses of people from Spain and France moving into Italy. It just didn't happen.

If Polako tries to prove it through his usual massaging of the data, it's just plain crap.

In that regard, regard with extreme caution anything based on his K-36 data. For goodness' sakes, it's like bringing in an art forger to authenticate art for you. How can you possible trust him? 

People involved in this hobby should spend a year in a criminal prosecution bureau. It would cure the incredible naivete I see on constant display.

Our discussion of the wrong headed Hellenthal et al paper. Never do population genetics based on modern samples, especially when you don't have a clue about archaeology or history.
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...ght=Hellenthal

----------


## Angela

> R116 the "outlier" with high Steppe dated to 0-200 CE. Maybe he was a Gallic immigrant to Rome?:
> 
> (this sample has the highest level of Steppe admixture out of all Imperial samples, so not "typical")
> 
> *His Y-DNA haplogroup:* https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-Z631/
> 
> K36 results:
> 
> Arabian 0.67 
> ...


If I bought the complete validity of anything based on Eurogenes work, I might say he was a partial or complete descendant of Gallic tribesmen who came into Northern Italy and then moved to Rome for whatever reason. 

Maybe it's time for people to review the history of Northern Italy:
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...taly+Roman+Era

Too bad the authors didn't read it before writing their paper.

----------


## Salento

K36 needs to get updated with new samples, from Lecce too (the cause for a lack of dark red)

I don’t mind, but to be realistic, it shouldn’t make a South Pugliese like me Roman, or Half Roman and Half Cyclades. 
(unless I’m wrong and is what it is)

23:


AncestryDNA or Combined

----------


## kingjohn

i prefer eurogenes k13 :)

----------


## Carlos

For me para Modern Group:

----------


## CrazyDonkey

> It is unbelievable how many users on Eurogenes insist on the eastern origin of the Etruscans _when DNA evidence is all in favour of the western origin of the Etruscans_. How can Davidski tolerate some comments that only look like low-level trXolling?


All of it? There are some dissenting studies. I doubt the question has been put to bed, and it may never be.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1852723/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2189563/

https://www.nature.com/articles/ejhg2008224

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25230205

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ar...l.pone.0119242

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ar...l.pone.0192567

----------


## alais

An incredible paper! So the Latins were South European after all and identical to the Etruscans. The other Italic tribes?

Who agrees with this analysis of Anthrogenica? Does the Etruscan language then come from the fertile crescent? 





> Just a quick note as I see many people trying to discuss the origins of the Etruscans, well autosomally they are of course EFF and Steppe, but I would like to add that if the Etruscan language is the survival of the Neolithic language of Central Italy being those from Le Marche, it is clearly that they can from a Fertile Crescent source, and would actually tie some of the religious aspects of the Etruscans which are identical to Mesopotamian and Anatolian groups. Its very possible at this point to speculate that Impressed Ware Neolithic could be the pre cursor to the Tyrrhenian languages and the other Neolithic Anatolian communities we see in the Balkans, Central Europe and Iberia can represent the Ibero-Sardinian languages.
> 
> This is of course a major speculation and something I would have never considered before seeing R17 and R19, as I personally believed the Eastern migration theory and it seems to be majorly refuted or flat out wrong.

----------


## Tomenable

> If I bought the complete validity of anything based on Eurogenes work, I might say he was a partial or complete descendant of Gallic tribesmen who came into Northern Italy and then moved to Rome for whatever reason. 
> 
> Maybe it's time for people to review the history of Northern Italy:
> https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...taly+Roman+Era
> 
> Too bad the authors didn't read it before writing their paper.


Actually he is also modelled as *French* in study's Table S28, check:



^^^ 
So just like this similarity map shows (highest similarity to France):

----------


## Ailchu

> It wasn't a Near Eastern Tail, it was called a "Levant Tail". I will be surprised if there was a lot of it in Southern Italy during the first Millennium BC, although there may have been some. What was probably there was a tail into Anatolia, if you like, so pretty Mycenaean like. The Mycenaeans are pretty damn close to those Imperial Samples anyway, the ones that aren't part of the tail into the Levant.
> 
> .


sry, i called it near east tail because the study mentines a "near eastern" "east med" source probably because the levant is near east. i'll call it levant tail from now on.
see figure S18 in the supplements, it's a tail to levant, but also bronce age anatolia. and while the myceneans are indo europeans, living closer to steppe, south italy might not have been indo-european at the beginning of the iron age. i know, as it stands there is this tail probably from migration from east.

anyways, i have some concerns regarding your comparison with HG's and farmers and also new york city. HG's didn't live together with farmers in the same cities, they also were culturally and probably also visually way more different from each other than mediterranean populations in the roman period. 

in new york city, the migrant groups increased fast in a relatively short amount of time and many are first generation migrants. that might not be comparable with ancient rome were migration was probably slower and the people with migrant background who lived there might have lived there already for several generations. also those were mostly people from other mediterranean populations from within the same empire. 

i don't know about the intermarriage rate of muslims and local british people. what are the numbers? how does it change from first generation to second generation migrants? in france it changes drastically but there the data sadly only gives the spouses french nationality and no indication for a possible migration background. how does it change based on location and education level? is it the same in all countries? 
what about the intermarriage rate of other religions or non-european but also european ethnicities with local british people?

----------


## brick

> All of it? There are some dissenting studies. I doubt the question has been put to bed, and it may never be.



Can you really not understand for yourself that what you posted are old and outdated studies that base their conclusions on a kind of cherrypicking of the analysis of modern samples?

Today we have the DNA of the Etruscans, and the studies you posted cannot be put on the same level as the DNA of the Etruscans.

You doubt the question has been put to bed, and it may never be, simply because you want it to. It's not on the basis of studies on modern samples that you can challenge the DNA results of the Etruscans themselves. And, moreover, in conjunction with the publication of a study that claims that during the Roman imperial era there were numerous migrations from the East to Italy. Whatever those studies have found, it may well have arrived in the imperial era.

----------


## Carlos



----------


## RHAS



----------


## Carlos

If there were already foreigners to put it in some way that they came to emperors or were able to access senior citizens less famous in history, they could have been integrated as Romans because it must be a necessity for socio-political issues and for the regeneration and maintenance of the Empire. You can not sell me that you are the best in the world and at the same time prevent me from entering, I think they did it around in what is done today, it should be something attractive and at the same time possible to be Roman, contrary to what we are seeing for example in America: I am desirable, the best in the world but you do not enter, I think that in the Roman case the door should be open in some way as a way of perpetuating itself.

----------


## brick

> Who agrees with this analysis of Anthrogenica? Does the Etruscan language then come from the fertile crescent?


Did the EEF come from the fertile crescent? No. So there is no evidence either that Etruscan language comes from the fertile crescent.

----------


## Angela

> sry, i called it near east tail because the study mentines a "near eastern" "east med" source probably because the levant is near east. i'll call it levant tail from now on.
> see figure S18 in the supplements, it's a tail to levant, but also bronce age anatolia. and while the myceneans are indo europeans, living closer to steppe, south italy might not have been indo-european at the beginning of the iron age. i know, as it stands there is this tail probably from migration from east.
> 
> anyways, i have some concerns regarding your comparison with HG's and farmers and also new york city. HG's didn't live together with farmers in the same cities, they also were culturally and probably also visually more different from each other than mediterranean populations in the roman period.
> 
> in new york city, the migrant groups increased fast in a relatively short amount of time and many are first generation migrants. that might not be comparable with ancient rome were migration was probably slower and the people with migrant background who lived there might have lived there already for several generations. also those were mostly people from other mediterranean populations from within the same empire. 
> 
> i don't know about the intermarriage rate of muslims and local british people. what are the numbers? how does it change from first generation to second generation migrants? in france it changes drastically but there the data sadly only gives the spouses french nationality and no indication for a possible migration background. how does it change based on location and education level? is it the same in all countries? 
> what about the intermarriage rate of other religions or non-european but also european ethnicities with local british people?


Ailchu, I don't want to take the thread off-topic again, so I'll be brief. Yes, there is a distressing gap in the data in this paper of virtually the entire Bronze Age, but we know there were Indo-Europeans in northern Italy at that time in the form of the Parma Beakers. 

We have Beakers from Sicily which don't have very much if any Indo-European, so I don't know what precisely the data will show for Southern Italy. However, we know that there were Italic tribes there, tribes which would have been a mixture of the original Italic speakers entering the peninsula who then moved south, but then there was, from what we already know, also a Bronze Age migration from the Near East which hit the South Balkans, Greece, and presumably Southern Italy. In addition to all that we have the Greek migrations of the first century BC, who would probably still have been pretty Mycenaean like. Also, you seem to have forgotten the genetic make-up of the Mycenaeans. The people of whom the Iliad and the Odyssey recount legends may have had an Indo-European language and social structure, and horses and chariots and a war like mentality, but they were mostly Anatolian Neo and CHG/Iran Neo. Their steppe percentage was extremely small, much smaller than that of the Iron Age people living around Rome.

You can look all this up. It's all in the papers. I'm writing in haste, so if I've make little errors, I hope people correct them.

As for inter-marriage, it's true that Rome was a "stew" of different peoples for about 400 years, and New York City and London only for about 100-150 years. It's still a considerable amount of time.

There is extremely little intermarriage in New York between blacks and whites and between East and South Asians and whites. (I'm using "whites" for people of European descent.) Up until the time when I was in university, Jewish parents were still sitting shiva for children who married "gentiles", and they were second and third generation. I knew and know people who were in that situation. Yes, it has changed, but only because the Jews have given up on a lot of the parts of their religion which kept them apart, i.e. eating only kosher, ritual baths for wives, doing absolutely nothing on the Sabbath, accepting the children of a gentile mother as Jews. That all came about because of the Reform movement. That is completely contrary to the situation in the classical world. Yes, as I explained in another post, there was a movement of Jews to assimilate to Hellenistic society. The Sadducees are an example of that. So is Philo of Alexandria. However, the increasing polarization pushed by the Zealots, and then the Roman Jewish wars, meant the ascendancy of the Pharisees and the most restrictive type of Judaism. They turned inward and closed off contact with pagans and Christians both. For a gentile who wanted to convert, he had to undergo adult circumcision, and say goodby to any advancement in the Roman world. He would also be subject to the periodic purges of Jews from Rome throughout the time of the Empire. The majority of the Jews, who were indeed a large part of the population of Rome and other mercantile, port cities, who blended into the "Roman World" most completely were probably Jewish Christians, but even there they were marginalized and forced out to a large degree. If you want more information, the best original source is "The Acts of the Apostles". Constantine and the later Christian Emperors were, in our understanding of the word, Anti-Semites, and laws prohibiting the marriage of Jews and Christians were quickly enacted. So, in addition to the Jewish authorities in the Imperial Era prohibiting inter-marriage, by the end of the Empire, the Roman Emperors were prohibiting it as well. 

For the third time, you just have to look at what happened to yDNA "J1". It virtually disappeared. 

Now, does that mean that there wasn't some intermarriage between "locals" and people from these foreign enclaves? Of course not. I'm sure there was some, but unless they had the money and resources to move away to the east and the safer Eastern Roman Empire, they died in those cities of plague, hunger, or just as victims of war. 

My people lived through the destruction of their cities. We know what happens. Look at Germany itself as an example. You think that after World War II people from the East didn't fill in the areas in western Germany that had been devastated? Or how about even before that after the religious wars in Germany. History repeats itself.

As for England, this is what the data shows: In 2001, 2% of all marriages in the United Kingdom were inter-ethnic.[411] Seem like a lot to you?

----------


## Angela

> Actually he is also modelled as *French* in study's Table S28, check:
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^ 
> So just like this similarity map shows (highest similarity to France):


Like I said, if people knew anything about Northern Italian history, maybe they would have figured out he was just one of those Northern Italians with more Gallic ancestry. Still, by his estimation, and those of the people around him, a "ROMAN". Just read the book on Northern Italy in the Roman Era, ok?

----------


## Angela

> An incredible paper! So the Latins were South European after all and identical to the Etruscans. The other Italic tribes?
> 
> Who agrees with this analysis of Anthrogenica? Does the Etruscan language then come from the fertile crescent?


No one with an IQ over 80. First of all, you have to define what you mean by the Fertile Crescent.

Here it is:


Now, anyone with some functioning brain cells who has been reading the scientific papers knows that the people who went to Europe 000 years ago and brought farming with them came from either northwestern Anatolia or perhaps Southern Anatolia via Cyprus. 

I hardly think "The Fertile Crescent" is an apt description. If anything, a few of the migrants came from a tiny, peripheral part of the "Fertile Crescent". We know very little about the genetic make-up of Mesopotamians; how the hell do we know they had the same make-up as the people who went to Europe during the Neolithic and what language they spoke? Anatolia alone could have had dozens of languages. Look at the number of Amerindian languages, and yet they all came from one stock. So why on earth include the Mesopotamians?

Second of all, this is indeed a major speculation. We don't know where Etruscan as a language originated. That's it. Until you have a language from the Near East which resembles it, stop with the story telling.

These people got into major trouble with all their vast speculations. You'd think they'd know enough now to cut it out.

I will say one thing: at least "Principe" admits he was wrong. What he doesn't do is take back all the insults he hurled at people who always doubted the Eastern migration theory and were called racists for their pains. Maybe, just maybe, they just knew more about history and archaeology and had read dozens and dozens of books on the subject. 

Think of that: doing extensive research before opining.

Ed. So whose sock are you, ntendeo?

----------


## Angela

> Ailchu, I don't want to take the thread off-topic again, so I'll be brief. Yes, there is a distressing gap in the data in this paper of virtually the entire Bronze Age, but we know there were Indo-Europeans in northern Italy at that time in the form of the Parma Beakers. 
> 
> We have Beakers from Sicily which don't have very much if any Indo-European, so I don't know what precisely the data will show for Southern Italy. However, we know that there were Italic tribes there, tribes which would have been a mixture of the original Italic speakers entering the peninsula who then moved south, but then there was, from what we already know, also a Bronze Age migration from the Near East which hit the South Balkans, Greece, and presumably Southern Italy. In addition to all that we have the Greek migrations of the first century BC, who would probably still have been pretty Mycenaean like. Also, you seem to have forgotten the genetic make-up of the Mycenaeans. The people of whom the Iliad and the Odyssey recount legends may have had an Indo-European language and social structure, and horses and chariots and a war like mentality, but they were mostly Anatolian Neo and CHG/Iran Neo. Their steppe percentage was extremely small, much smaller than that of the Iron Age people living around Rome.
> 
> You can look all this up. It's all in the papers. I'm writing in haste, so if I've make little errors, I hope people correct them.
> 
> As for inter-marriage, it's true that Rome was a "stew" of different peoples for about 400 years, and New York City and London only for about 100-150 years. It's still a considerable amount of time.
> 
> There is extremely little intermarriage in New York between blacks and whites and between East and South Asians and whites. (I'm using "whites" for people of European descent.) Up until the time when I was in university, Jewish parents were still sitting shiva for children who married "gentiles", and they were second and third generation. I knew and know people who were in that situation. Yes, it has changed, but only because the Jews have given up on a lot of the parts of their religion which kept them apart, i.e. eating only kosher, ritual baths for wives, doing absolutely nothing on the Sabbath, accepting the children of a gentile mother as Jews. That all came about because of the Reform movement. That is completely contrary to the situation in the classical world. Yes, as I explained in another post, there was a movement of Jews to assimilate to Hellenistic society. The Sadducees are an example of that. So is Philo of Alexandria. However, the increasing polarization pushed by the Zealots, and then the Roman Jewish wars, meant the ascendancy of the Pharisees and the most restrictive type of Judaism. They turned inward and closed off contact with pagans and Christians both. For a gentile who wanted to convert, he had to undergo adult circumcision, and say goodby to any advancement in the Roman world. He would also be subject to the periodic purges of Jews from Rome throughout the time of the Empire. The majority of the Jews, who were indeed a large part of the population of Rome and other mercantile, port cities, who blended into the "Roman World" most completely were probably Jewish Christians, but even there they were marginalized and forced out to a large degree. If you want more information, the best original source is "The Acts of the Apostles". Constantine and the later Christian Emperors were, in our understanding of the word, Anti-Semites, and laws prohibiting the marriage of Jews and Christians were quickly enacted. So, in addition to the Jewish authorities in the Imperial Era prohibiting inter-marriage, by the end of the Empire, the Roman Emperors were prohibiting it as well. 
> ...


Now, would there have been a problem with Italics admixing with Greeks? I highly doubt it. They had too many things in common and the Romans admired them too much. Plus, it might have been going on in Southern Italy, among people who both had some Iran Neo/CHG in addition to Anatolian Neolithic, for a long, long time. 

I'm talking about that "tail into the Levant", about people with whom the Romans had very little in common in terms of religion, culture, language etc. 

People don't seem to be aware of it, but there were periodic expulsions of all Jews from Rome from both before the Roman Jewish Wars and after them. 

Just an aside, but doesn't anybody else find it odd that what racist Nordicist are so worried about is a relatively minor different in terms of CHG/Iran Neo.

If you look at Europeans like the British and Germans, the ones who along with the French and the Italians have given the most to European Civilization, and add up the Anatolian Neo and the CHG in the steppe people, it's the majority of their ancestry. What, the CHG/Iran Neo like ancestry is somehow not objectionable if it comes mixed with EHG, but "is" objectionable if mixed with Albanian like Neo ancestry, ancestry which they already have.

People have asked me why I like this graphic. It's because it's simple and easy to understand, and because it's not based on Admixture, but on higher order statistics. Cut that green in half and add it to the orange. Most Europeans are way more than half "Near Eastern", no matter when it came or with which groups it was mixed. 



If people don't see that, they're wilfully blind.

----------


## CrazyDonkey

> Can you really not understand for yourself that what you posted are old and outdated studies that base their conclusions on a kind of cherrypicking of the analysis of modern samples?
> 
> Today we have the DNA of the Etruscans, and the studies you posted cannot be put on the same level as the DNA of the Etruscans.
> 
> You doubt the question has been put to bed, and it may never be, simply because you want it to. It's not on the basis of studies on modern samples that you can challenge the DNA results of the Etruscans themselves. And, moreover, in conjunction with the publication of a study that claims that during the Roman imperial era there were numerous migrations from the East to Italy. Whatever those studies have found, it may well have arrived in the imperial era.


I was responding to the claim that the "DNA evidence is _all in favour_ of the western origin of the Etruscans". I'm not arguing the opposite case, but just don't think it is a complete slam dunk. Nor am I arguing for a large lock-stock-and-barrel "migration".

I don't disagree that the Etruscan population was mostly neolithic/steppe. If the original language carriers were not, but were a one-time, male-biased, early iron-age insertion (the Sea Peoples?), any "eastern" genetic imprint could have been rapidly diluted down to nothing, as was the case with the Philistines, for instance. They might also have already been heterogeneous, as the Philistines were speculated to have been.

----------


## Angela

This is completely illogical. 

The only evidence that MATTERS about an ancient group's genetics is the genetic evidence from THAT GROUP. In this case it's the genomes of the actual ETRUSCANS. We HAVE them. They are indistinguishable from LATINS. If the leak from the upcoming paper is correct, as the leak about this one was correct, the males carried R1b and I1.

What is so difficult to comprehend? What more proof could anyone want?

The following is pure, unadulterated, absolute speculation that someone has dreamed up to try to save their reputations or prejudices. Where is there a shred of evidence to support it? 

"If the original language carriers were not, but were a one-time, male-biased, early iron-age insertion (the Sea Peoples?), any "eastern" genetic imprint could have been rapidly diluted down to nothing, as was the case with the Philistines, for instance. They might also have already been heterogeneous, as the Philistines were speculated to have been."

Obviously some people haven't been keeping up with the literature. The Sea Peoples were NOT Lydians. They seem to have been Europeans, perhaps from Greece, perhaps from Italy. Plus, there's someone who knows a lot about their language and has compared it to Etruscan, about which we know next to nothing, and sees a comparison?

How can you say a language came from the Near East, when the only person who posited such a link between Etruscan and any ancient Near Eastern languages is an amateur whose speculations aren't even considered in linguistic circles.

What then, also, do you make of the Basques? They were also a mix of Neolithic farmer and Indo-European; they're actually MORE Indo-European than the Etruscans. Did the Lydians from Anatolia go there as well to bequeath them their language?

You're reading the wrong people, my friend. Be careful. It can rot the brain.

If people are quoting people like that and Fallmayer, for that matter, you can be sure of one thing, their education stopped with the "scholars" of the late 19th and early 20th century. Time to move on.

Just as an aside, did it ever occur to you why these people so prefer the "story" of Herodotus to that of Dionysius? Think about it.

"Dionysius of Halicarnassus, a Greek writer living in Rome, dismisses many of the ancient theories of the other Greek historians and postulates that the Etruscans were indigenous people who had always lived in Etruria.[33]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.Furthermore, Dionysius of Halicarnassus is the first ancient writer who reports the endonym of the Etruscans: Rasenna.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.[34] Their own name for themselves, however, is the same as that of one of their leaders, Rasenna.

----------


## torzio

Agree with above
What i was taught at school was that the fertile cresent was only between the euphrates and tigres rivers set up by hammurabi and his babylonians, even after the fall of the babylonians to the assyrians the area was still the only fertile cresent.....somebody seems to have extended the area but i cannot find who or why

----------


## Johane Derite

Ok it seems the z2103 assignment is indeed correct. 

So the Italic male lines are probably:
U152>Z56
U152>L2
R1b-Z2118

And the Etruscan:
I1.

This means the Z2103 and L283 are both non-local, neither italic or etruscan, but illyrian samples. Something we know already from the 2018 grugni paper.

Massive discovery.

----------


## Johane Derite

From this paper and Grugni 2018, we now know which Y-lines were introduced into Italy by the Illyrians and Messapics:
J2b-L283
R1b-Z2103 
E-V13 (still not clear which exact clades, but Grugni proved that it correlates with J2b distribution and places of Illyric settlement.)

Obviously these are the same three paternal groups of Albanians. Very significant.

----------


## Johane Derite

If anyone seriously wants to argue that L283 is not illyrian but authentically etruscan, it necessitates the positing of a etruscan migration from the illyrian coast lol. Good luck with that.

----------


## Angela

Something that struck me but we haven't yet discussed is the fact that the modeling for the Iron Age samples takes not Bell Beaker but Yamnaya.

Now, why would that be? 

Was it a group that split off in the steppe before we get the split leading to Bell Beakers? Perhaps it is from all those kurgans in Hungary whose samples have still not been tested? Did this group have more of the CHG/Iran like ancestry than the Bell Beakers? It could then have diffused through the Balkans as well as Italy. 

Or, did that group move through the Balkans and then into Italy, picking up more "Anatolian like or Iranian like" ancestry deposited there during the Bronze Age? Or does it come from diffusion up from Southern Italy?

What then of the Parma Beakers? 

Are we talking about two waves? Perhaps the Parma Beakers contributed more to the Etruscans, with their slightly more Spanish Bronze Age tilt, while the slightly more "eastern" tilt of the Latins comes from this other group?

Any ideas?

----------


## Tutkun Arnaut

> If anyone seriously wants to argue that L283 is not illyrian but authentically etruscan, it necessitates the positing of a etruscan migration from the illyrian coast lol. Good luck with that.


so, why are Albanians autosomaly closer to Tuscans, east shifted,? could this exchange be the reason?

----------


## Joey37

Wait, wait, an Etruscan is I1?! Are you sure it's not a badly dated Lombard? And I've also read somewhere that Messapian is close to the Albanian language, so at least THIS makes sense!

----------


## Angela

I've had just about enough of this nonsense. NO MODERN NATIONALITY OWNS A HAPLOGROUP! 

PERIOD

Steppe people moved into Hungary, the Carpathians, the Balkans, Italy etc. They picked up ancestry along the way. Maybe some came directly into Italy from Hungary. Indeed, that's extremely possible. Maybe some came to Italy through the Balkans. That's extremely possible too. 

Who knows where that particular y lineage originated? Maybe it originated in Hungary, maybe in the Carpathians, maybe in the Balkans. WHO THE HELL CARES?

The Parma Beakers who had steppe ancestry got it from people who crossed the Alps from Switzerland or southern Germany. Do you see people from those countries trying to get proprietary rights on that ancestry. 

Ancient people moved around and a lot of mixing took place to create the people we now know as Etruscans or Latins or Greeks or whatever. 

I let you have your say Johane, because this isn't anthrogenica. However, this isn't going to turn into another Albanian argumentation thread. You made your point, you've been heard. 

The fact that no one wants to engage you on it should tell you all you need to know about whether people agree with your "Albanian twist" on things or not.

The irony of all this is that Albanians are not very "Illyrian" at all, so why you cling to it so much as the defining element of your ethnicity is beyond me. Holdovers from your Communist dictatorship's propaganda? There are northeastern Italians who are closer to the Illyrians than you are. Heck, even the Spaniards come out as "close" to the Illyrians. Did your ancestors travel all the way to Iberia as well? It's just similar mixtures of steppe and Neolithic, for crying out loud.

You made your point, such as it is. Enough. There's no need to keep repeating it over and over again. You think saying it twenty times will convince more people than saying it twice?

----------


## brick

PCA with 2 Etruscans, 3 Latins, 1 Villanovan (Etruscan) and 1 Proto-Villanovan, all available in the G25.

----------


## MOESAN

> Liburnians and histri and iapodes all sit under the term illyrian and so do other tribes in noricum, how else do you get halstatt culture in noricum, a mix of celts and illyrians


It seems you don't understand what I write. A lot of different tribes have been put under the same umbrella more than a time when they were not exactly the same ethny. When we don't know the languages we are tempted to group people according to archeologic culture; when we know languages, we are tempted to group them otherwise. In some part Golasecca culture was "etruscan", but here we know the language or at least the dominant one. I doubt BB's ere only one ethny, I doubt Urnfields were only one ethny, I even doubt Hallstatt were only Celts and your "Illyrians". Where were the ancestors of Venetics, by instance? Central Europe was a crossroad at those times and someones see links between S-W Poland and N-E Italy between Urnfields and Early IA.

----------


## brick

> so, why are Albanians autosomaly closer to Tuscans, east shifted,? could this exchange be the reason?


They don't. Albanians don't look closer to Tuscans than let's say to many other people.

----------


## Carlos

> Wait, wait, an Etruscan is I1?! Are you sure it's not a badly dated Lombard? And I've also read somewhere that Messapian is close to the Albanian language, so at least THIS makes sense!


That is a very sharp point that you have had.

----------


## brick

PCA with 3 Etruscans (2 Etruscans + 1 Villanovan), 4 Latins and 1 Proto-Villanovan, all those available in the G25. This PCA doesn't include the three mixed outliers.

----------


## Johane Derite

> Steppe people moved into Hungary, the Carpathians, the Balkans, Italy etc. They picked up ancestry along the way. Maybe some came directly into Italy from Hungary. Indeed, that's extremely possible. Maybe some came to Italy through the Balkans. That's extremely possible too. 
> 
> Who knows where that particular y lineage originated? Maybe it originated in Hungary, maybe in the Carpathians, maybe in the Balkans.


*1.* The Etruscan L283 is *downstream* of the 1000 year older croatian coast sample, meaning they are recently related. This doesn't favour the continental route, but a trans-adriatic one. 

*2.* Among north-west Albanians, the highest L283 clade diversity and frequency is observed. This favours a trans-adriatic movement into Italy from Illyria, as opposed to from Etruscans into the Illyrian Coast, as there is not one single archaeological record or historical mention of Etruscans being there.

*3.* The distribution of J2b and Ev13 together in the Grugni paper, favours a trans-adriatic movement into the Italic peninsula from the Balkans, and correlates precisely with where we know Messapic / Illyric speakers were.


We are discussing the most probable working hypothesis, not just saying anything is possible therefore lets just move on. Otherwise, why are we even here. They are not equally possible. One is evidently much more probable than the other, and to say otherwise is not supported by the evidence as presented.

This is not about claiming ownership, this is about having clarity in labeling from which direction, which language group one clade most probably entered Rome. You are arguing the north-south continental route for L283, which I am presenting evidence against. I2a-Slav obviously entered Albanian population as slavic speakers, this is something we can readily admit, why is it such an outrage if I point out that the L283 in rome seems to be a similar situation.

I was the first to comment when it seemed Z2103 was possibly miscalled, so I am being objective and not trying to manipulate the data in any way or form. 

As for "The irony of all this is that Albanians are not very "Illyrian" at all". What seems to be not Illyrian about us having preserved our language and paternally descending from the same Y-dna groups that seem to have founded Alba Longa?

----------


## torzio

> It seems you don't understand what I write. A lot of different tribes have been put under the same umbrella more than a time when they were not exactly the same ethny. When we don't know the languages we are tempted to group people according to archeologic culture; when we know languages, we are tempted to group them otherwise. In some part Golasecca culture was "etruscan", but here we know the language or at least the dominant one. I doubt BB's ere only one ethny, I doubt Urnfields were only one ethny, I even doubt Hallstatt were only Celts and your "Illyrians". Where were the ancestors of Venetics, by instance? Central Europe was a crossroad at those times and someones see links between S-W Poland and N-E Italy between Urnfields and Early IA.


We all know this ...we also know that people moved from area to area and in all cases they left some behind to be absorbed by others who entered these lands

Btw the venetics are not indigenous to italy like the ligures are.....the venetics are made up of the indigenous Euganei of NE-italy

----------


## brick

> *1.* The Etruscan L283 is *downstream* of the 1000 year older croatian coast sample, meaning they are recently related. This doesn't favour the continental route, but a trans-adriatic one. 
> 
> *2.* Among north-west Albanians, the highest L283 clade diversity and frequency is observed. This favours a trans-adriatic movement into Italy from Illyria, as opposed to from Etruscans into the Illyrian Coast, as there is not one single archaeological record or historical mention of Etruscans being there.
> 
> *3.* The distribution of J2b and Ev13 together in the Grugni paper, favours a trans-adriatic movement into the Italic peninsula from the Balkans, and correlates precisely with where we know Messapic / Illyric speakers were.
> 
> 
> We are discussing the most probable working hypothesis, not just saying anything is possible therefore lets just move on. Otherwise, why are we even here. They are not equally possible. One is evidently much more probable than the other, and to say otherwise is not supported by the evidence as presented.
> 
> ...



This paper is not about the history of the Albanians. Can you understand that? It's not hard to understand.

----------


## Johane Derite

This paper is about the history of rome. And there is special pleading false arguments being made about the only Etruscan ydna sample. Lets not mention albanians ever again. Where is that L283 from?

----------


## Hawk

> This paper is about the history of rome. And there is special pleading false arguments being made about the only Etruscan ydna sample. Lets not mention albanians ever again. Where is that L283 from?


They are right. Stop spamming this thread.

It might well be that J2b2 was common among Etruscan as much as it was in Illyrians. Maybe they mixed with similar kind of people and they got it from them. Don't forget the Nuragic J2b2, now the Etruscan. I am sure we will get the bigger picture of this Y-DNA.

----------


## Johane Derite

> They are right. Stop spamming this thread.
> 
> It might well be that J2b2 was common among Etruscan as much as it was in Illyrians. Maybe they mixed with similar kind of people and they got it from them. Don't forget the Nuragic J2b2, now the Etruscan. I am sure we will get the bigger picture of this Y-DNA.


What about it being downstrwam of the mathieson sample do you not understand? Etruscans were not IE, so if it was "common equally" to both an IE and etruscan group, ot cannot always have been. What type of argumentation is that.

The nuragic j2b2 is also further evidence of illyrian origin, not continental. Im not spamming this thread. Its the most obvious origin for the and the push to ignore it is wholly recationary and ideological.

----------


## brick

You're being very rude, Johane Derite.

----------


## S04ancap

"Roman soldier FN_2 from Monachium dated to ca. 300-500 CE plots in the PCA just like Republican Romans several centuries before him." 

I am interested in seeing how close the G-L42 300 AD Roman soldier sample FN_2 plots to a G-CTS4803 400-600 AD Late Antiquity Crypta Balbi sample R108

----------


## kingjohn

someone posted it in anthrogenica
don't know which calculator he used :

results look logic by shortest distance :)


Distance to:
ITA_Etruscan_RMPR473

0.03254449
Italian_Lombardy




Distance to:
ITA_Etruscan_RMPR474b

0.02040298
Italian_Veneto




Distance to:
ITA_Etruscan_o_RMPR475b

0.05527070
Spanish_Canarias




Distance to:
ITA_Grotta_Continenza_CA_RMPR4

0.03494477
Sardinian




Distance to:
ITA_Grotta_Continenza_CA_RMPR5

0.04806604
Sardinian




Distance to:
ITA_Grotta_Continenza_Meso_RMPR7

0.36272996
Latvian




Distance to:
ITA_Grotta_Continenza_Meso_RMPR11

0.35975182
Latvian




Distance to:
ITA_Grotta_Continenza_Meso_RMPR15

0.36510542
Latvian




Distance to:
ITA_Grotta_Continenza_N_RMPR2

0.06765043
Sardinian




Distance to:
ITA_Grotta_Continenza_N_RMPR3

0.07050388
Sardinian




Distance to:
ITA_Grotta_Continenza_N_RMPR6

0.04997628
Sardinian




Distance to:
ITA_Grotta_Continenza_N_RMPR8

0.05830176
Sardinian




Distance to:
ITA_Grotta_Continenza_N_RMPR9

0.07540242
Sardinian




Distance to:
ITA_Grotta_Continenza_N_RMPR10

0.06489646
Sardinian




Distance to:
ITA_Monte_San_Biagio_CA_RMPR1014

0.04069294
Sardinian




Distance to:
ITA_Prenestini_tribe_IA_RMPR435b

0.01651655
French_South




Distance to:
ITA_Prenestini_tribe_IA_o_RMPR437b

0.02659481
Italian_Campania




Distance to:
ITA_Proto-Villanovan_RMPR1

0.02247622
Italian_Lombardy




Distance to:
ITA_Remedello_BA_RISE486

0.04754374
Sardinian




Distance to:
ITA_Remedello_BA_RISE487

0.04363005
Sardinian




Distance to:
ITA_Remedello_BA_RISE489

0.03849824
Sardinian




Distance to:
ITA_Ripabianca_di_Monterado_N_RMPR16

0.04353057
Sardinian




Distance to:
ITA_Ripabianca_di_Monterado_N_RMPR17

0.04814002
Sardinian




Distance to:
ITA_Ripabianca_di_Monterado_N_RMPR18

0.05810093
Sardinian




Distance to:
ITA_Ripabianca_di_Monterado_N_RMPR19

0.04602643
Sardinian




Distance to:
ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR37

0.03472320
Spanish_Soria




Distance to:
ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR38

0.03236586
Cypriot




Distance to:
ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR39

0.01990150
Greek_Kos




Distance to:
ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR40

0.02753859
Greek_Kos




Distance to:
ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR41

0.01886577
Romaniote_Jew




Distance to:
ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR42

0.02329748
Lebanese_Christian




Distance to:
ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR43

0.03473337
Greek_Kos




Distance to:
ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR44

0.03783763
Greek_Kos




Distance to:
ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR45

0.03371377
Italian_Jew




Distance to:
ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR47

0.01862262
Italian_Campania




Distance to:
ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR49

0.01958219
Italian_Basilica




Distance to:
ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR50

0.02653126
Greek_Crete




Distance to:
ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR51

0.03052100
Sicilian_East




Distance to:
ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR66

0.04277771
Cypriot




Distance to:
ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR67

0.02938263
Georgian_Jew




Distance to:
ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR68

0.02375481
Iraqi_Jew




Distance to:
ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR69

0.03778518
Greek_Kos




Distance to:
ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR70

0.02694747
Cypriot




Distance to:
ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR71

0.03685558
Greek_Central_Anatolia




Distance to:
ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR72

0.03173555
Cypriot




Distance to:
ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR73

0.03195050
Romaniote_Jew




Distance to:
ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR75

0.02542093
Cypriot




Distance to:
ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR76

0.03396961
Cypriot




Distance to:
ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR78

0.04106184
Cypriot




Distance to:
ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR80

0.03542737
Moroccan_Jew




Distance to:
ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR81

0.02347214
Greek_Kos




Distance to:
ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR111

0.03250955
Italian_Umbria




Distance to:
ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR113

0.03530855
Italian_Apulia




Distance to:
ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR114

0.02672989
Greek_Crete




Distance to:
ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR115

0.02004098
Greek_Kos




Distance to:
ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR116

0.01809474
French




Distance to:
ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR123

0.02300978
Greek_Kos




Distance to:
ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR125

0.03049942
Greek_Kos




Distance to:
ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR126

0.02337482
Cypriot




Distance to:
ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR128

0.03250066
Greek_Central_Anatolia




Distance to:
ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR131

0.02333972
Italian_Campania




Distance to:
ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR132

0.06779557
Libyan_Jew




Distance to:
ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR436

0.02568965
Greek_Kos




Distance to:
ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR835

0.02058905
Italian_Campania




Distance to:
ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR836

0.02718180
Italian_Apulia




Distance to:
ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR1543

0.02213186
Sephardic_Jew




Distance to:
ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR1544

0.02345995
Italian_Campania




Distance to:
ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR1545

0.03406077
Cypriot




Distance to:
ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR1547

0.02958786
Lebanese_Christian




Distance to:
ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR1548

0.02598342
Greek_Crete




Distance to:
ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR1549

0.03439954
Italian_Abruzzo




Distance to:
ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR1550

0.02256962
Palestinian_Beit_Sahour




Distance to:
ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR1551

0.03413629
Greek_Trabzon




Distance to:
ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_RMPR30

0.02191906
Italian_Calabria




Distance to:
ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_RMPR31

0.03159048
Welsh




Distance to:
ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_RMPR32

0.02463914
Italian_Campania




Distance to:
ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_RMPR33

0.01759383
Italian_Bergamo




Distance to:
ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_RMPR34

0.01876256
Greek_Kos




Distance to:
ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_RMPR35

0.01836963
Italian_Campania




Distance to:
ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_RMPR36

0.02130072
Italian_Marche




Distance to:
ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_RMPR104

0.02236527
Sardinian




Distance to:
ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_RMPR105

0.02504601
Italian_Trentino-Alto-Adige




Distance to:
ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_RMPR106

0.02623729
Belgian




Distance to:
ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_RMPR107

0.02414862
Italian_Apulia




Distance to:
ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_RMPR108

0.02438511
French_Provence




Distance to:
ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_RMPR109

0.02528145
Spanish_Baleares




Distance to:
ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_RMPR110

0.02577841
Italian_Trentino-Alto-Adige




Distance to:
ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_RMPR117

0.02349091
Italian_Calabria




Distance to:
ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_RMPR118

0.02794022
Italian_Umbria




Distance to:
ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_RMPR120

0.02765728
Italian_Marche




Distance to:
ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_RMPR121

0.02694788
Italian_Marche




Distance to:
ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_RMPR122

0.01962059
Sicilian_East




Distance to:
ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_RMPR130

0.02602672
Cypriot




Distance to:
ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_RMPR133

0.02726685
Greek_Kos




Distance to:
ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_RMPR134

0.02090265
Romaniote_Jew




Distance to:
ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_RMPR136

0.01626674
Italian_Campania




Distance to:
ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_RMPR137

0.02620622
Greek_Kos




Distance to:
ITA_Rome_Latini_IA_RMPR1016

0.03957103
Spanish_La_Rioja




Distance to:
ITA_Rome_MA_RMPR52

0.02843482
Sicilian_East




Distance to:
ITA_Rome_MA_RMPR53

0.02120602
Sicilian_East




Distance to:
ITA_Rome_MA_RMPR54

0.01795049
Italian_Basilica




Distance to:
ITA_Rome_MA_RMPR55

0.01970909
Swiss_Italian




Distance to:
ITA_Rome_MA_RMPR56

0.02164858
Italian_Campania




Distance to:
ITA_Rome_MA_RMPR57

0.02090354
Italian_Apulia




Distance to:
ITA_Rome_MA_RMPR58

0.01625702
Italian_Campania




Distance to:
ITA_Rome_MA_RMPR59

0.02971906
Sicilian_East




Distance to:
ITA_Rome_MA_RMPR60

0.02684793
Sicilian_West




Distance to:
ITA_Rome_MA_RMPR61

0.02376975
Italian_Northeast




Distance to:
ITA_Rome_MA_RMPR62

0.02590241
French_East




Distance to:
ITA_Rome_MA_RMPR63

0.02492310
Spanish_Castello




Distance to:
ITA_Rome_MA_RMPR64

0.01779212
Italian_Campania




Distance to:
ITA_Rome_MA_RMPR65

0.02125249
Italian_Campania




Distance to:
ITA_Rome_MA_RMPR1283

0.02009685
Italian_Lazio




Distance to:
ITA_Rome_MA_RMPR1285

0.02911585
Italian_Marche




Distance to:
ITA_Rome_MA_RMPR1286

0.02841211
Dutch




Distance to:
ITA_Rome_MA_RMPR1287

0.02447268
Italian_Marche




Distance to:
ITA_Rome_MA_RMPR1288

0.02459225
German




Distance to:
ITA_Rome_MA_RMPR1289

0.02275595
Spanish_Castello




Distance to:
ITA_Rome_MA_RMPR1290

0.01967685
Italian_Campania




Distance to:
ITA_Rome_Renaissance_RMPR1219

0.02628569
German




Distance to:
ITA_Rome_Renaissance_RMPR1220

0.02422033
French




Distance to:
ITA_Rome_Renaissance_RMPR1221

0.02577587
French_Provence




Distance to:
ITA_Rome_Renaissance_RMPR1224

0.01410185
French




Distance to:
ITA_Tivoli_Renaissance_RMPR969

0.02079134
Italian_Umbria




Distance to:
ITA_Tivoli_Renaissance_RMPR970

0.02466607
Italian_Umbria




Distance to:
ITA_Tivoli_Renaissance_RMPR973

0.01804293
Italian_Basilica




Distance to:
ITA_Villabruna_Villabruna

0.30906211
Latvian




Distance to:
ITA_Villanovan_RMPR1015

0.03305564
Spanish_La_Rioja



Distance to:
Bell_Beaker_ITA_I1979

0.04198158
French_Corsica

----------


## brick

> someone posted it in anthrogenica
> don't know which calculator he used



G25 I think.

----------


## Mals

> What about it being downstrwam of the mathieson sample do you not understand?


That only means that it shares a more recent MRCA with someone else under that subclade, not that it is a descendant of the Dalmatian sample.

The Etruscan J2b-L283 split from the one found in Dalmatia around 2000 BC. This is before any mention of Illyrians or Etruscans so all scenarios of J2b expansion remain possible. As for the relationship to Albanians, all ancient J2b-L283 & R-Z2103 samples with good coverage split from the main Albanian lineages >4000 ybp, so once again, they do not have to share ethnic origins more recently than 2000 BC.

We cannot draw conclusions on Balkan IA ethnicities right now as we need more Balkan IA samples. But both J-L283 and R-Z2103 being found all around IA Illyria increases the likelihood that the main Albanian lines were present there & then as well.

----------


## Johane Derite

> That only means that it shares a more recent MRCA with someone else under that subclade, not that it is a descendant of the Dalmatian sample.
> 
> The Etruscan J2b-L283 split from the one found in Dalmatia around 2000 BC. This is before any mention of Illyrians or Etruscans so all scenarios of J2b expansion remain possible. As for the relationship to Albanians, all ancient J2b-L283 & R-Z2103 samples with good coverage split from the main Albanian lineages >4000 ybp, so once again, they do not have to share ethnic origins more recently than 2000 BC.
> 
> We cannot draw conclusions on Balkan IA ethnicities right now as we need more Balkan IA samples. But both J-L283 and R-Z2103 being found all around IA Illyria increases the likelihood that the main Albanian lines were present there & then as well.



They are both under Y15058 which has a TMRCA of *3900 YBP*. The Dalmatian Y15058 sample is from *3620 - 3520 YBP.* 

https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-Y15058/


Like I commented before, the argument of this was not based only on this amazing result, but this result in conjunction with Grugni, and clade diversity & frequency. A proposed shared split of Y15058 doesn't strike me as convincing given the totally assymtrical representation of L283 diversity of other clades across the adriatic.

But I will leave this thread now, as it seems we are not ready to discuss certain things yet.

I'm sure things will get clearer with upcoming papers. Great to see that 215 comments into this thread, the first Etruscan Y dna sample has been given all the attention it requires.

----------


## Jovialis

> someone posted it in anthrogenica
> don't know which calculator he used :
> 
> results look logic by shortest distance :)
> 
> 
> Distance to:
> ITA_Etruscan_RMPR473
> 
> ...




@Salento

My speculation was correct, 836, 57,107, and 113 are Apulian-like samples, which are in the _SITALY3-_circled area. Though I should have shifted it south west a tad, because 107, and 113 are half-in. Nevertheless, almost spot on.

----------


## Dibran

> This paper is not about the history of the Albanians. Can you understand that? It's not hard to understand.


It isn't hard to understand at all. People just seem to be offended by the potential possibility of this Etruscan migrating from Illyrians around the Dalmatian coast. Others turned it into something "Albanian". As an Albanian I take offense to this pointing of fingers. No where in any of his posts was he saying this lineage came from Albania proper or modern Albanians specifically.

He made a logical point stating the obvious; The L283 Etruscan has a 1000ybp TMRCA with the Dalmatian Proto-Illyrian L283, and so, likely migrated from around Dalmatia. 

If we are to deal with evidence and facts, than the only evidence we have at the moment is that the only L283 that shares the 1000 year distance with the Etruscan sample is the Proto-Illyrian in Dalmatia.

The whole "Albanians are not even close to Illyrians" nonsense is an argumentative blow that contributes nothing to the point he made, and it certainly does not debunk it. 

Iberians and North Italians are not closer and do not have any real significant "Illyrian" ancestry. This is merely similar admixture. The only clear indicator for the migration of a people and their direct paternal relationship, is their Y-DNA and the clade they belong. Ancestry by proxy is just that. Proxy. 

The idea that Albanians are not descended from one or more Illyrian tribes around Albania, despite clearly carrying all the major haplogroups found in paleo-west-balkans because of genetic drift is nonsense. Iberians/North Italians don't have the Y-DNA of the Illyrian lineages that Albanians do in either proportion of distribution or diversity.

Denying their connection based on something like changing autosomal DNA and drift is absolutely nonsense and wouldn't take the place of Y-DNA in determining who descended from whom. 

He is also right to bring up I2a-Slav, which no one here denies is connected to Slavs, and reinforces it all the time. Yet, we have more ancient DNA for J2b-L283 and its connection to Illyrians/Albanians than we do I2a-Slav, which literally has post-migration medieval samples being used as determining factor. 

Why the double standard? Does the idea of admitting Illyrian connection to this ONE specific Etruscan sample which clearly is only 1000 years apart from its parent clade in Dalmatia ruffle feathers? 

All it means is this Etruscans earliest paternal ancestor likely split from his Proto-Illyrian ancestor around Dalmatia. Thats the only evidence we have right now. Where is the evidence for all the other scenarios?

Is that so hard to understand?

----------


## Tomenable

> Sample *R435 Roman Republic, 600-200 BC*, Similitude Map:


^^^
That one was based on 107,000 SNPs.

I've managed to get some more SNPs now. Differences are minor:

116,000 SNPs from BAM file:



117,000 SNPs from VCF file:



I guess we should stick to this version which has the most SNPs.

----------


## brick

> If we are to deal with evidence and facts, than the only evidence we have at the moment is that the only L283 that shares the 1000 year distance with the Etruscan sample is the Proto-Illyrian in Dalmatia.


You have monopolized any discussion about the Greeks, now you are doing the same with this discussion. You are so imbued with a spirit of nationalism that no one wants to discuss it with you.

Until proven otherwise, L283 was found in Croatia and, to the best of my knowledge, Croatia is not Albania. 

Of course you forget that L283 was also found among the Nuragic Sardinians.

It is up to you to try and bring in interesting arguments. Otherwise you will always be just annoying. As you are.

----------


## torzio

> You have monopolized any discussion about the Greeks, now you are doing the same with this discussion. You are so imbued with a spirit of nationalism that no one wants to discuss it with you.
> 
> Until proven otherwise, L283 was found in Croatia and, to the best of my knowledge, Croatia is not Albania. 
> 
> Of course you forget that L283 was also found among the Nuragic Sardinians.
> 
> It is up to you to try and bring in interesting arguments. Otherwise you will always be just annoying. As you are.


https://j2-m172.info/2015/10/j2b2a1-...wish-lineages/

It is a balkan marker but it is from cetina culture......via hungarian plains

----------


## Jovialis

Please correct me if I am wrong about any of the samples.

----------


## Angela

> PCA with 3 Etruscans (2 Etruscans + 1 Villanovan), 4 Latins and 1 Proto-Villanovan, all those available in the G25. This PCA doesn't include the three mixed outliers.


Am I getting this right?

435-Prenestini Tribe plots with the Southern French


One in Spain, four near it but veering toward Sardinia, so even more Anatolian Neolithic?

851-Ardea Latini plots in the Spanish cluster. Which region is that?
1021 Boville Latini
1016 Rome Latini
473 Etruscan
1015 Villanovan


Etruscan 474-Italy, but which province is it actually in? Lombardia?

R1 Proto-Villanovan-Italy. It looks like it's near Liguria, but which province is it actually in?

So, anyone want to tell me again that Etruscans are from Lydia in the first millennium BC?

Both are, as I said, Southern Europeans.

Good-bye to so many myths.

Not Basque like so why model with them?

Did they model with only the steppe admixed Parma Beakers? Where would they plot here?

What happened to the other samples, especially 850?

@Johane,
Are you being deliberately obtuse? I never said the Etruscans went to the Balkans. You still can't know where this particular sub-lineage "originated". Nor does a route through the Balkans for the steppe people mean there weren't other routes?

Do you know how childish this sounds? You want a medal because some steppe people took a route through the Balkans to get to Italy? 

You have now said the same thing about five times. We heard you. Keep repeating it, and it is spamming and will be treated as such.

----------


## Dibran

> You have monopolized any discussion about the Greeks, now you are doing the same with this discussion. You are so imbued with a spirit of nationalism that no one wants to discuss it with you.
> 
> Until proven otherwise, L283 was found in Croatia and, to the best of my knowledge, Croatia is not Albania. 
> 
> Of course you forget that L283 was also found among the Nuragic Sardinians.
> 
> It is up to you to try and bring in interesting arguments. Otherwise you will always be just annoying. As you are.


Oh please. Hop off your high horse. Any thread I argue with Greeks is where they clearly attacked with filthy speech against my people. Some wrong things were stated so I made it clear they were related. 

Obviously it’s you who does not know what they’re talking about and need to understand things contextually before going on your rant. 

no one claimed the Nuragic/Sardinian L283 was Illyrian. As far as I know that sample was of a different clade unrelated in a historical time sense to Illyrians or Albanians. 

the Etruscan sample is the only one being referenced here. Which clearly has a 1000 year gap from its parent clade in Dalmatia identified as a Proto Illyrian. 

Real slick with that jab. Croatia must be teaming with J2b-L283(sarcasm). 

keep on with with your delusions and ignoring the obvious fact. All of you LARPing with admixture calculators and ignoring hard science. Y chromosomes don’t lie. Supplemental data revealed the subclade of the L283 Sardinian descends from parent clade found in Proto Illyrian Croatia. 

no one is saying Albanians are directly related to this sample. They are however related and more directly related to southern Illyrians which will be distant cousins of this. 

there’s no arguing the hard fact that their Ydna is related. Paternal. That’s what indo European society was built on. Patriarchy. DNA doesn’t lie. 

This Nuragic sample you toss in is far older. The Etruscan sample and Proto Illyrian sample in Dalmatia are closely related. Distantly so to Albanians. 

Iberians and North Italians can’t claim that legacy. Hell, even me, an Albanian can not claim so either in a paternal sense. Despite being part of later phases
of proto Albanian culture, my line likely came from central/central East Europe with Slavs most likely. 

i don’t make mental hurdles to cope. Neither should you. Simple fact is they’re related more than anyone. Everyone just likes broad generalizations so they don’t hurt anyone’s feelings. 

however, as full genome Y sequencing advances, there will be no more half truths and lies. It’s already headed there whilst everyone has fun with gedmatch finding all their new ethnicities And which ancient people’s they claim. 

You have morons on the apricity taking Mytrueancestry as gospel truth with Italians and Spaniard prancing around calling themselves Illyrian. It’s become a game. 

Simple fact is that Etruscans grand grand grand pappy and so on came from a Proto Illyrian in Dalmatia. Show me a sample from outside the Balkans that is closer in relation sharing the same branching SNPs and distance. You cannot because right now the closest match in a thousand years is a Proto Illyrian. 

How about you bring evidence countering that simple fact and leave Albanians out of the question, which is, Who is this etruscans closest paternal ancestor? The only evidence shows a 1000 year distance between him and his ancestor in Croatia.

----------


## Carlos

Prenestini Tribe Inland 435 is mine, it could be a bit afrancesado.

Etruscan is also mine R474





I took out these values. I did it myself, I'm a scientist.

----------


## MOESAN

> He made a logical point stating the obvious; The L283 Etruscan has a 1000ybp TMRCA with the Dalmatian Proto-Illyrian L283, and so, likely migrated from around Dalmatia. 
> 
> If we are to deal with evidence and facts, than the only evidence we have at the moment is that the only L283 that shares the 1000 year distance with the Etruscan sample is the Proto-Illyrian in Dalmatia.
> 
> Is that so hard to understand?


Without trying to go into a "war" I 'll say: 1000 years is more than nothing + you jump very quickly to conclusions when you speak of this (geographically) old J-L283 "Dalmatian" as a confirmed Illyrian or proto-Illyrian. + linguisitically there is no link direct link between Etruscan and the diverse ancient Balkanic IE languages we have heard of. And first mentions of "Illyrians" are from around the 400 BC, even if we can think they did not appear suddenly from nowhere.
That said, we have very few Y-haplo's for Etruscans, genuine or not. Y-R1b among them could very well be of Italic or even better of Ligurian origin, and Y-J2 from original Etruscans come from around Pannonia, cousins to this Dalmatian L283.

----------


## Salento

> @Salento
> 
> My speculation was correct, 836, 57,107, and 113 are Apulian-like samples, which are in the _SITALY3-_circled area. Though I should have shifted it south west a tad, because 107, and 113 are half-in. Nevertheless, almost spot on.


Thanks Jovialis, cool :) I circle them out in red in the connected square.

----------


## MOESAN

Sorry, I went too quick and too far myself concerning Y-J2b - It's distribution doesn't correspond too well to ancient Etruria; it could also be only a lineage picked up by them later. It seems this kind of sedented culture incorporated more easily other male lineages (as it occured elsewhere in Neolithic central Europe) than did the post-nomadic clannic tribes of the first IE'ans. The only thing I'm sure for now is that we lack enough Y-haplo's for a lot of places and times, and precisely for Etruscans.

----------


## Angela

> Oh please. Hop off your high horse. Any thread I argue with Greeks is where they clearly attacked with filthy speech against my people. Some wrong things were stated so I made it clear they were related. 
> 
> Obviously it’s you who does not know what they’re talking about and need to understand things contextually before going on your rant. 
> 
> no one claimed the Nuragic/Sardinian L283 was Illyrian. As far as I know that sample was of a different clade unrelated in a historical time sense to Illyrians or Albanians. 
> 
> the Etruscan sample is the only one being referenced here. Which clearly has a 1000 year gap from its parent clade in Dalmatia identified as a Proto Illyrian. 
> 
> Real slick with that jab. Croatia must be teaming with J2b-L283(sarcasm). 
> ...


I am not going to allow you to destroy this thread the way you have every thread about the Greeks. You've made your point.

If any of you keep repeating the same thing over and over again it will be considered spamming and the posts will be deleted. Have I made myself clear????

----------


## Pax Augusta

> Without trying to go into a "war" I 'll say: 1000 years is more than nothing + you jump very quickly to conclusions when you speak of this (geographically) old J-L283 "Dalmatian" as a confirmed Illyrian or proto-Illyrian. + linguisitically there is no link direct link between Etruscan and the diverse ancient Balkanic IE languages we have heard of. And first mentions of "Illyrians" are from around the 400 BC, even if we can think they did not appear suddenly from nowhere.
> That said, we have very few Y-haplo's for Etruscans, genuine or not. Y-R1b among them could very well be of Italic or even better of Ligurian origin, and Y-J2 from original Etruscans come from around Pannonia, cousins to this Dalmatian L283.


We have one Y-DNA, Moesan. It's little to say that Y-J2 is from original Etruscans who came from around Pannonia. We have just to wait other papers. For years we have had to undergo many speculations based on silly studies, now we hope that more analysis on the Etruscans will come.

Then, in general, I find it wrong to associate Y-DNA so strongly with Iron Age ethnic groups. Given the distribution today in the regions that were Etruria, it seems to me rather unlikely that all the R1b in modern Etruria comes from others. But I might be wrong.





> Sorry, I went too quick and too far myself concerning Y-J2b - It's distribution doesn't correspond too well to ancient Etruria; it could also be only a lineage picked up by them later. It seems this kind of sedented culture incorporated more easily other male lineages (as it occured elsewhere in Neolithic central Europe) than did the post-nomadic clannic tribes of the first IE'ans. The only thing I'm sure for now is that we lack enough Y-haplo's for a lot of places and times, and precisely for Etruscans.


That's right. Its distribution doesn't correspond too well to ancient Etruria but it does exist in the modern population of Etruria. However, the Etruscans were not a sedentary culture. On the contrary. J2b-L283 has been found in the Etruscan necropolis of La Mattonara near Civitavecchia, in southern Etruria, which is on the sea. The fact that J2b-L283 was found among the Nuragics could be an indication of a link. Maybe. We do know that areas of southern Etruria were involved since the early stage of the Etruscan civilization in the trading with Sardinia. Among other things, the outlier believed to be mixed with Phoenician ancestry was found right here in this same necropolis, and the Phoenicians were settled in Sardinia. With the difference that the J2-L283 found in Sardinia had no steppes, while this Etruscan has indeed steppe-related ancestry, and the study hypothesizes a connection with the one found in Dalmatia, Croatia. That is, however, 1000 years older. I'm telling myself, there's no point in speculating on one sample. Perhaps we will discover that J2b-L283 existed among the Etruscans but it was not very common, or how we can discover the opposite.

Etruscan necropolis of La Mattonara near Civitavecchia (province of Rome).

----------


## Regio X

The Etruscan and the proto-Illyrian were J-Y15058, right?
https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-Y15058/

I'd like to opine, assuming that YFull age estimation, samples dating and hgs assignments are accurate. I'm not aware of a reason to doubt it.

The Etruscan would have lived between 2600 and 2700 years ago. The proto-Illyrian, between 3520 and 3620 years ago.
The TMRCA is 3900 years before present, however, it must be read as 4400-3500 ybp, which is the CI 95%. The actual TMRCA may be then a bit closer or farer in time, naturally, meaning the common ancestor of them probably lived between 800 and 1800 years before the Etruscan and 0-900 before the Illyrian. However, Y15058 SNP has four equivalents. I wonder if the Illyrian was confirmed positive for all. Being younger than the TMRCA doesn't necessarily mean that that specific line thrived*. If not, the TMRCA between the Etruscan and the Illyrian would be slightly different (older), and so the CI 95%. I continue this post assuming the Illyrian was a "complete" J-Y15058, to simplify, since I don't have details on his exact categorization, but also because the equivalents involved are just few.

"If" the actual TMRCA is closer to the later limit, then it would appear far more likely that ancestors of this Etruscan individual (not necessarily "the Etruscans") did live around present day Croatia ~3500 years ago, migrating anytime after that. Speculating when approximately it left Balkan, and from where it must have arrived, would be another story, which demands a knowledge I don't have. On the other hand, if the actual TMRCA is closer to the earlier limit, then we'd be talking on a relevant time window for dispersal, making more difficult to speculate on the place of the common source. 

We obviously don't have a definitive answer, but it seems to me that the possibility proposed (patrilineal ancestors of that Etruscan individual living in the other side of Adriatic Sea certain time before) deserves to be considered.

*Side note not that important neither directly related:
- The extinction of a given lineage could have happened anytime after sample's time, including way after the TMRCA of the related survivor lineage. 
- These old samples usually have low coverage, however, when coverage allows, a supposedly extinct lineage would be well evidenced in general by an ancient sample being positive and negative for some SNPs that defines the related survivor lineage and being positive for SNPs not shared with this survivor lineage. How close this hypothetical extinct lineage is from the survivor lineage would be especially relevant, but it may be difficult to know it, due to the usual low coverage.
- The condition of an ancient sample way older than the TMRCA of the lineage being positive for some SNPs and negative for other SNPs that currently define it, while proves a "pre-hg", doesn't necessarily prove per se the lineage went extinct, i.e., that it's not direct ancestral to moderns. Of course, finding the remains of such old direct ancestors doesn't seem likely, but... 
- There are some well developed lineages in regards to phylogeny, but also the "underdeveloped" ones, due to undersampling and/or rarity, that's why I used "supposedly extinct". We've old branches still to be developed, so in theory what is a pre-hg today could be an hg tomorrow.
- Finally, of course: I'm especially talking about hgs currently defined by several equivalent SNPs.

----------


## Pax Augusta

If we have only one Y-DNA of an Etruscan, instead on the mtDNA side we have many of them. 


Those published in this study are these and confirm the pattern already seen in the 2013 studies (U5, JT, H): 

- R1015 mtDNA K1a4 (female, Villanovan period, 900 - 800 BCE, female) from Grotta Gramiccia (Veio, Rome)

- R473 mtDNA U5a1 (female, Orientalizing period, 700 - 600 BCE) from La Mattonara necropolis, Civitavecchia (Rome)

- R474 mtDNA H (male, Orientalizing period, 700 - 600 BCE) from La Mattonara necropolis, Civitavecchia (Rome)

- R475_outlier mtDNA T2b32 (female, Orientalizing period, 700 - 600 BCE) from La Mattonara necropolis, Civitavecchia (Rome)


Very interesting is the confirmation that among the Etruscans there was U5, which in the studies of 2013 was found both in two necropolis in Tuscany and one in Lazio (Tarquinia).


What do these Etruscan mtDNAs tell us? Angela, Moesan.


For the mtDNAs of the 2013 study this may be useful

----------


## Pax Augusta

> The Etruscan and the proto-Illyrian were J-Y15058, right?
> https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-Y15058/
> 
> I'd like to opine, assuming that YFull age estimation, samples dating and hgs assignments are accurate.


Very interesting, thank you very much Regio X. If we really want to face this discussion, however, we must place archaeologically the individual found in Croatia who was J2b2a-L283. It is not enough to say that he was proto-Illyrian. What was the bronze culture to which he belonged? In the autosomal DNA he had a significant amount of steppe-related ancestry.


Let's remember, this individual was a 5-7 year old boy, found near the town of Vrgorac in Split-Dalmatia County, in southern Croatia. 


Individual I4331, dated 1631-1521 calBCE (~3591 ybp), Y-DNA haplogroup J2b2a-L283 mtDNA: I1a1

----------


## Aspurg

> Very interesting, thank you very much Regio X. If we really want to face this discussion, however, we must place archaeologically the individual found in Croatia who was J2b2a-L283. It is not enough to say that he was proto-Illyrian. What was the bronze culture to which he belonged? In the autosomal DNA he had a significant amount of steppe-related ancestry.
> 
> 
> Let's remember, this individual was a 5-7 year old boy, found near the town of Vrgorac in Split-Dalmatia County, in southern Croatia. 
> 
> 
> Individual I4331, dated 1631-1521 calBCE (~3591 ybp), Y-DNA haplogroup J2b2a-L283 mtDNA: I1a1


 My first post on Eupedia




> Footnote from "The Genomic History Of Southeastern Europe"
> Radiocarbon dates and preserved artifacts (hair ornament made of coiled copper wire and fragments of pottery) date these burials to the Early/Middle Bronze Age.*28*
> 
> 
> *28*
> Mucić, K. & Kovačević Bokarica, N. Doprinosi poznavanju povijesti Vrgoračke krajine
> na osnovi rezultata novijih arheoloških istraživanja. In: Arheološka istraživanja na trasi
> autoceste u Zabiokovlju i Plini (ed M Tomasović) 125-212 (Gradski muzej Makarska,
> 2011).
> ...

----------


## Pax Augusta

> My first post on Eupedia


Thank you very much, Aspurg.

"Dinara culture has clear ties to Apennine Peninsula". Does it mean to Italy, right?

----------


## Aspurg

> Thank you very much, Aspurg.
> 
> "Dinara culture has clear ties to Apennine Peninsula". Does it mean to Italy, right?


 Few quotes about these connections from archaeologist Govedarica who wrote on Dinara culture (Posušje culture per other archaeologist who researched it) from 1989.

 By differentiating Dinara and Cetina culture and by placing the older phase of Dinara culture within the frame of the Br. A2 period, a need arises to reassess the chronological evaluation of the origin of handles with Axe-like extensions, that are among the most recognizable traits in the pottery material of this culture. The question of appearance of these forms in the Middle-Adriatic area is not resolved in an appropriate manner, and this problem is showing itself as one of the most critical moments in the cultural and chronological evaluation of this culture..


 Handles of this type ("anse ad ascia") are best documented on the Apennine peninsula and in the Southeast France, their mass appearance is being connected with the proto-Apennine culture ("proto-apenninico B") whose datation is not fully agreed upon but is most commonly placed in the period which corresponds to the younger phase of the Early Bronze Age per South German chronology, that is Br. A2.


 Individual finds of "pseudobrassarda" from the Dinara culture also have best analogues in the area of Northern Italy, in the late Polada culture.

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

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

----------


## Mals

> They are both under Y15058 which has a TMRCA of *3900 YBP*.


Exactly, they split around 2000 BC.




> Like I commented before, the argument of this was not based only on this amazing result, but this result in conjunction with Grugni, and clade diversity & frequency. A proposed shared split of Y15058 doesn't strike me as convincing given the totally assymtrical representation of L283 diversity of other clades across the adriatic.


With the current level of testing, the greatest J2b-L283 diversity is found in Sardinia. The highest frequency is in Albanians, and it is very diverse too, but it is >99% under Z638.

As far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong), there is no Balkan result under CTS6190, but there are Italians. The one on YFull is from Tuscany. Given their MRCA of 3100 ybp, a movement related to the Sea Peoples is very much possible. We know Sardinia's connections to the Sea Peoples, and possibly to Illyrians. We also know that Etruscans had settled islands around Sardinia. So this remains a possibility. 

With splits as old as 2000 BC, we can exclude neither a BA dispersion from east of the Alps (with or without Sea Peoples as an extra step), nor an Illyrian migration. As I said, J2b-L283 was likely one of the main Illyrian Y-lines, but we cannot say that all J2b-L283 was originally Illyrian.

----------


## Angela

Excellent discussion, gentlemen, thank-you.

----------


## kingjohn

I know the number of remains is limited
But i took a look and i don't see mtdna h3 
in all periods..... contrary to the last iberian ancient dna 
Paper were it was common

----------


## Salento

* Significant genetic outliers for each time period identified by f4 statistics*



Judging by the title, I'm assuming that this is the Official Outliers list.
Guess who's NOT on the list :) 

https://science.sciencemag.org/conte...Antonio_SM.pdf

----------


## kingjohn

Could it be that R80 and R132 are part
carthegenian ?

----------


## Salento

> Could it be that R80 and R132 are part
> carthegenian ?


It could be.

Page 98 - Table S28

https://science.sciencemag.org/conte...Antonio_SM.pdf

----------


## Nik

The fist thing that came into my mind after getting 3 ancient J2b-L283 results from Sardinia, Etruria, and Dalmatia, was the Neolithic distribution of Cardium pottery and its successor cultures where the earliest finds are from Albania and Corfu, then Dalmatia and Bosnia, then crossed over to Italy a couple of hundred years later and so on (approx 6,000 BC). 

Now Cardium pottery might explain only the initial spread of J2b parent clades and not the later Etruscan with TMRCA of 2000 BC, but it could serve as an indication of a specific cultural area which facilitated a sort of "internal migration". 

For all we know, there could have been a strong North Adriatic kingdom destroyed by incoming IE tribes, he could have been a later Proto-Illyrian from Hallstatt, or a proto-Italic, etc. so it's useless to involve Iron Age ethnicities as of yet because we have J2b with TRMCA of 4,500 ybp found in Armenia and even in India, so it could have been any IE or non-IE.

----------


## Johane Derite

I didn't want to comment anymore but was adressed directly. 

Yes, CTS6190 has been found in a turkish guy who says he has Albanian origins. We also have clades other than z638, which has tmrca of 4200 ybp, so its not some young founder effect.

Sardinia is known for sampling bias and overrepresentation on YFull since it had some study done, but i still think its normal some clades will show up there that wont among albs, but are nonetheless related to same origins.

Cardium culture and 6000BC is not serious.

Dalmatian sample is 17th -16th Century BC
Nuragic Civilization begins 18th Century BC, and the Sardinian L283 samples come from around 13th Century BC and were not found in sardinian samples dated prior to Nuragic civillization. 

The evidence points to seafaring introduction of l283 that is IE. The language those l283 spoke is possibly hinted at by work of non-albanian linguists that have poinyed out certain non-latin words in sardinian language that point to an albanoid linguistic substratum.

----------


## brick

> I didn't want to comment anymore but was adressed directly. 
> 
> Yes, CTS6190 has been found in a turkish guy who says he has Albanian origins. We also have clades other than z638, which has tmrca of 4200 ybp, so its not some young founder effect.
> 
> Sardinia is known for sampling bias and overrepresentation on YFull since it had some study done, but i still think its normal some clades will show up there that wont among albs, but are nonetheless related to same origins.
> 
> Cardium culture and 6000BC is not serious.
> 
> Dalmatian sample is 17th -16th Century BC
> ...



On Yfull, under CTS6190 there are four Portuguese, one Italian, one Dutch, one British, one Russian. There's not a single Albanian. 



https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-CTS6190/

----------


## Johane Derite

> On Yfull, under CTS6190 there are four Portuguese, one Italian, one Dutch, one British, one Russian. There's not a single Albanian. 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-CTS6190/


So he is not on Yfull..? Are you accusing me of making that turkish guy up?

----------


## Johane Derite

I meant the parent clade to cts6190, common to etruscan and dalmatian. Contact J2 project admin for confirmation. I am not falsifying anything.

----------


## Aspurg

> Nuragic Civilization begins 18th Century BC, and the Sardinian L283 samples come from around 13th Century BC and were not found in sardinian samples dated prior to Nuragic civillization.


 The sample prior to Nuragic era is very small. The TMRCA of Sardinian samples (5400 ybp) suggests an older presence there. Additionally there is also a Tuscan NA20763 who is J-Z585*. The Tuscan is also older than any clades found in Albanians...

There is no real evidence whatsoever that the L283 arrived to Sardinia in 13th century BC.

In fact if you go strictly by the find, the only new addition in Nuragic era is J-L283, so logic dictates J-L283 is *proto-Nuragic*.  :Grin:

----------


## Angela

> * Significant genetic outliers for each time period identified by f4 statistics*
> 
> 
> 
> Judging by the title, I'm assuming that this is the Official Outliers list.
> Guess who's NOT on the list :) 
> 
> https://science.sciencemag.org/conte...Antonio_SM.pdf


These WHG results are seriously weird!

----------


## Hawk

> What about it being downstrwam of the mathieson sample do you not understand? Etruscans were not IE, so if it was "common equally" to both an IE and etruscan group, ot cannot always have been. What type of argumentation is that.
> 
> The nuragic j2b2 is also further evidence of illyrian origin, not continental. Im not spamming this thread. Its the most obvious origin for the and the push to ignore it is wholly recationary and ideological.


The problem with you is that, you already start with a basis which is based on logical fallacy. You already concluded in your mind that Y-DNA J2b2 is Indo-European despite being non-existent at any Indo-European speaking people except for Albanians that they might have well incorporated from non-IE speaking people from the Balkans.

You cannot make conclusion from scarce almost to non-existent proofs.

So far, and so less. I am seeing a pattern, Nuragics to a degree, Etruscans to a certain degree, if J2b2 is continued to be found among shore Mediterraneans and Anatolians then this logical puzzle will be solved.

----------


## brick

> Am I getting this right?
> 
> 435-Prenestini Tribe plots with the Southern French
> 
> 
> One in Spain, four near it but veering toward Sardinia, so even more Anatolian Neolithic?
> 
> 851-Ardea Latini plots in the Spanish cluster. Which region is that?
> 1021 Boville Latini
> ...


Assuming that nMonte with G25 is accurate, the Latins all have a high WHG (12-13% WHG), which is why they move a lot in the direction of Iberia and southern France. 

ITA_Prenestini_tribe_IA:RMPR435b plots with the southern French because he might have 14.4% of WHG.

Two Etruscans also have high WHG (8%) but it is more in line with northern Italy than with Iberia/southern France; Villanovan R1015 has around 13% of WHG but her steppe related ancestry is lower than that calculated in the paper. So here it could be lack of accuracy on my side.

ITA_Proto-Villanovan:RMPR1 has the lowest WHG (3%) and higher steppe-related ancestry (37%) and that's why she ends up with the Italians in the PCA and not with Iberians and Southern French. This sample plots with Italian Piedmont and not distantly from other Italian clusters. Liguria has only one sample, so it doesn't form a cluster.

ITA_Etruscan:RMPR474b in the PCA plots in the Bergamo and Veneto clusters (in the area of intersection between these two clusters).

In the PCA I highlighted the clusters of the regions of Tuscany, Piedmont, Lombardy, Bergamo (Lombardy), Veneto.







> What happened to the other samples, especially 850?



ITA_Etruscan_o:RMPR475b seems to be only a 1/4 North African, definitely not half North African. Also nMonte suggests this.

In the PCA there are also the two Latin outliers.

ITA_Prenestini_tribe_IA_o:RMPR437b and ITA_Ardea_Latini_IA_o:RMPR850

----------


## Cpluskx

Illyrians are Indo-European speakers, what do they have to do with Etruscans?

----------


## Johane Derite

We also have specific R1b clades in sardinia shared with Alb:

https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Y10789/
https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-PF7563/

Pf7562 has highest european diversity and frequency in Albanians. Arguing these are not relatwd to the movement of l283 from* albania seems forced.

----------


## Salento

> These WHG results are seriously weird!


The outliers list is almost at the end of the pdf, maybe some people didn’t see it, and they focused their attention on other samples.

... giving the benefit of the doubt :) 



https://science.sciencemag.org/conte...Antonio_SM.pdf

----------


## Angela

> Assuming that nMonte with G25 is accurate, the Latins all have a high WHG (12-13% WHG), which is why they move a lot in the direction of Iberia and southern France. 
> 
> ITA_Prenestini_tribe_IA:RMPR435b plots with the southern French because he might have 14.4% of WHG.
> 
> Two Etruscans also have high WHG (8%) but it is more in line with northern Italy than with Iberia/southern France; Villanovan R1015 has around 13% of WHG but her steppe related ancestry is lower than that calculated in the paper. So here it could be lack of accuracy on my side.
> 
> ITA_Proto-Villanovan:RMPR1 has the lowest WHG (3%) and higher steppe-related ancestry (37%) and that's why she ends up with the Italians in the PCA and not with Iberians and Southern French. This sample plots with Italian Piedmont and not distantly from other Italian clusters. Liguria has only one sample, so it doesn't form a cluster.
> 
> ITA_Etruscan:RMPR474b in the PCA plots in the Bergamo and Veneto clusters (in the area of intersection between these two clusters).
> ...


Thanks. It's difficult for me to make out the separate clusters sometimes.

Also, it just seemed to me that in the PCA in the paper the samples seemed more to be in an almost no man's land between Spain and northern Italy. 

If you don't mind, where would Parma Beakers place in relation to this?

As the result of that huge gap for the Bronze Age in their analysis it makes it difficult to figure out the direction of flow for the steppe admixed people. Certainly a Balkan route makes sense. Connections with Apennine Culture always hinted at that, but what about a route through the Alps, or even from the direction of France? Was it predominantly one route, a combination? Might Latial be a different route from Villanovan?

----------


## Jovialis

I think there must some kind of odd projection bias in the Global25 PCAs. They look nothing like the academic ones from the study.

----------


## brick

> I think there must some kind of odd projection bias in the Global25 PCAs. They look nothing like the academic ones from the study.



Likely. There's nothing weird about it. They're different tools. Rarely what you see in the papers is exactly identical to what is seen with these amateur tools.

----------


## Jovialis

> Likely. There's nothing weird about it. They're different tools. Rarely what you see in the papers is exactly identical to what is seen with these amateur tools.


True,

Here are the southern Italian-like samples highlighted according to region. I used the results that Kingjohn provided, from Global25 FST. Here you can see that samples from Umbria, and Marche cluster closer to the South. The real genetic break is north of these regions. Based on these results, I see a lot of Campanians are similar to many samples:



Lazio: 1283
Puglia: 113, 836, 107, 57
Campania: 56, 58, 64, 65, 1290, 437, 47, 131, 835, 1544, 32, 35, 136,
Basilica: 49, 54, 973,
East Sicily: 51, 122, 52, 53, 59,
West Sicily: 60
Calabria: 30, 117,
Abruzzo: 1549,
Umbria, 111, 118, 969, 970,
Marche: 36, 120, 121, 1285, 1287,



I would suspect Calabrians, or East Sicilians to be closest to the 850 Ardea Latini sample.

Campanians are closest to the 435 Latin.

----------


## brick

> Thanks. It's difficult for me to make out the separate clusters sometimes.
> 
> Also, it just seemed to me that in the PCA in the paper the samples seemed more to be in an almost no man's land between Spain and northern Italy. 
> 
> If you don't mind, where would Parma Beakers place in relation to this?
> 
> As the result of that huge gap for the Bronze Age in their analysis it makes it difficult to figure out the direction of flow for the steppe admixed people. Certainly a Balkan route makes sense. Connections with Apennine Culture always hinted at that, but what about a route through the Alps, or even from the direction of France? Was it predominantly one route, a combination? Might Latial be a different route from Villanovan?



Sure, no problem. On the basis of the three Parma Bell Beaker samples it is not clear if there were different routes.

Bell_Beaker_ITA:I1979 is very close to ITA_Etruscan:RMPR474b. This sample has both steppe-related ancestry and WHG similar to what two Etruscans and the north Italians have. 

Bell_Beaker_ITA:I2477 is a modern Sardinian.

Instead Bell_Beaker_ITA:I2478 is close to ITA_Prenestini_tribe_IA:RMPR435b which plots with Spaniards and Southern French and has more steppe-related ancestry but also the highest value of WHG, almost 14%.

The difference is all around this WHG.

----------


## Dianatomia

> 


What happened to J1 after imperial Rome? Did they coincidentally took samples from some immigrant cemetery? Or perhaps some Phoenicians which they happen to have selected. At the very least, one could argue that immigration into Rome stopped at some point. And J1 was absorbed by the locals. As such it decreased rapidly.

----------


## Regio X

> Very interesting, thank you very much Regio X. If we really want to face this discussion, however, we must place archaeologically the individual found in Croatia who was J2b2a-L283. It is not enough to say that he was proto-Illyrian. What was the bronze culture to which he belonged? In the autosomal DNA he had a significant amount of steppe-related ancestry.
> Let's remember, this individual was a 5-7 year old boy, found near the town of Vrgorac in Split-Dalmatia County, in southern Croatia. 
> Individual I4331, dated 1631-1521 calBCE (~3591 ybp), Y-DNA haplogroup J2b2a-L283 mtDNA: I1a1


Thanks, Pax! I agree that the individual must be "contextualized", and also that other variables may possibly help to "refine" the chances we're talking about, since there is a window of time. I focused on the "crude" data, and started the analysis from informations shared in this thread. If I had the time, I'd check details on the "proto-Illyrian" Y-DNA.The categorization of the Etruscan was confirmed by Ted Kandell. These papers usually don't provide the most deep assignments possible. Even errors may occur. For example, Ted assures that R55 guy was G-S2808, whereas the paper suggests G-Z30771. At least they agree he was G-CTS4803. 

@Mals
SNP and STR diversities are important references, but so is ancient DNA. Natufians should supposedly be mainly G2a, yet E1b was likely the "protagonist" among them. So, what if there wasn't such old sample in Croatia? Who would tell based only on SNP diversity* and hg distribution? Which doesn't mean what you talked isn't interesting, neither that we should despise all "ifs" and third clues, jumping to simple conclusions from isolated data or monodisciplinary approaches. 
Your info on more than 99% of Albanians belonging to the same J-Z638, if accurate, seems also interesting. Is that so? Literally more than 99%? Wow! 

*Generally speaking, wider areas may also be used as reference when it comes to estimate SNP diversity, not only specific countries, so ok. It depends. Still...

But I'd be careful especially with those Sardinians below J-Z2507. It seems possible they belong to a different context compared to those under J-YP29, J-YP157 and J-YP113. Apparently Cagliari is "overrepresented" in YFull, that's why you may find there Sardinians in "improbable" branches, and it's possible J-Z2507 is one of them. This overrepresentation doesn't seem to explain per se the several Sardinians under those three though.
Briefly looking YFull results only (no time for FTDNA's, where I'd consider mainly confirmed results rather than predictions), particularly I wouldn't rule out the possibility of J-L283 MRCA originating in Sardinia. If so, they would have left the island very early, possibly before 4200 ybp. In this case, that basal G-Y15058 Sardinian in YFull could result from a "back migration" (indeed, notice that IT-CA doesn't develop that much downstream G-Z2507, despite the mentioned "overrepredentation"), but it's also possible, "in theory", G-Y15058 originated in Sardinia, and, if so, the "out of Sardinia" would have possibly happened after 4400 ybp. 
But... It also seems possible a flow of J-L283 from Balkans to Sardinia beginning very early. Here, sampling bias could perhaps explain the apparent abscence of basal J-L283 in Balkans, after all, they're almost completely G-Z638, at the same time there are tons of Sardinians in YFull. 
Both are however speculative. :)

As a side note: low frequency and high SNP diversity may coexist. There are many examples, and G-M201 in Armenia, according to Rootsi et al. 2012, is one of them.

That's also a crude lecture of mine which involves too many assumptions. It still seems an open question. At least for me.
Feel free to elaborate, but this is my last post about it, 'cause the thread is not on J-L283. If the point is showing that this movement from Balkans to Italy could have happened, then I agree. It seems very possible, as far as I can see. And it's also possible the clade is "Italian" in origin, ending up in Balkan soon enough, also as far as I can see. Who knows! 
Further ancient DNAs may help to solve the "J-L283 mistery".

----------


## Carlos

> Sure, no problem. On the basis of the three Parma Bell Beaker samples it is not clear if there were different routes.
> 
> Bell_Beaker_ITA:I1979 is very close to ITA_Etruscan:RMPR474b. This sample has both steppe-related ancestry and WHG similar to what two Etruscans and the north Italians have. 
> 
> Bell_Beaker_ITA:I2477 is a modern Sardinian.
> 
> Instead Bell_Beaker_ITA:I2478 is close to ITA_Prenestini_tribe_IA:RMPR435b which plots with Spaniards and Southern French and has more steppe-related ancestry but also the highest value of WHG, almost 14%.
> 
> The difference is all around this WHG.


Really as the subject has advanced. Congratulations to the authors of the graphics, spectacular. I am pleasantly surprised when I have seen the graphic with my own personal samples Penestrini. 435, Etruscan 474 and Belle Beker Italy I2478 and how they are situated and related.

----------


## torzio

> Thanks Jovialis, cool :) I circle them out in red in the connected square.


Sample R850 was found in the necroplis of campo del fico in 1982 by E.Tortorici.......the necropolis was only open for use from 600 bc to 800 bc....it had 24 bodies, 11 male , 10 female and 3 children.....all pottery in the necroplis is the etruscan Bucchero style

----------


## Ralphie Boy

According to the study, here is where modern populations plot in comparison with the Rome samples. It looks like modern south Italy has a lot of similarity with many of the samples.1F6BEED3-EF9A-420A-9321-FFF12771E494.jpg

----------


## Angela

> I think there must some kind of odd projection bias in the Global25 PCAs. They look nothing like the academic ones from the study.


That is always a problem for me. 

I mean no disrespect to Brick; he's just using the Global 25 created by Polako.

----------


## Duarte

@Pax Augusta @Regio X




> Very interesting, thank you very much Regio X. If we really want to face this discussion, however, we must place archaeologically the individual found in Croatia who was J2b2a-L283. It is not enough to say that he was proto-Illyrian. What was the bronze culture to which he belonged? In the autosomal DNA he had a significant amount of steppe-related ancestry.
> 
> 
> Let's remember, this individual was a 5-7 year old boy, found near the town of Vrgorac in Split-Dalmatia County, in southern Croatia. 
> 
> 
> Individual I4331, dated 1631-1521 calBCE (~3591 ybp), Y-DNA haplogroup J2b2a-L283 mtDNA: I1a1





> Thanks, Pax! I agree that the individual must be "contextualized", and also that other variables may possibly help to "refine" the chances we're talking about, since there is a window of time. I focused on the "crude" data, and started the analysis from informations shared in this thread. If I had the time, I'd check details on the "proto-Illyrian" Y-DNA.The categorization of the Etruscan was confirmed by Ted Kandell. These papers usually don't provide the most deep assignments possible. Even errors may occur. For example, Ted assures that R55 guy was G-S2808, whereas the paper suggests G-Z30771. At least they agree he was G-CTS4803. 
> 
> @Mals
> SNP and STR diversities are important references, but so is ancient DNA. Natufians should supposedly be mainly G2a, yet E1b was likely the "protagonist" among them. So, what if there wasn't such old sample in Croatia? Who would tell based only on SNP diversity* and hg distribution? Which doesn't mean what you talked isn't interesting, neither that we should despise all "ifs" and third clues, jumping to simple conclusions from isolated data or monodisciplinary approaches. 
> Your info on more than 99% of Albanians belonging to the same J-Z638, if accurate, seems also interesting. Is that so? Literally more than 99%? Wow! 
> 
> *Generally speaking, wider areas may also be used as reference when it comes to estimate SNP diversity, not only specific countries, so ok. It depends. Still...
> 
> But I'd be careful especially with those Sardinians below J-Z2507. It seems possible they belong to a different context compared to those under J-YP29, J-YP157 and J-YP113. Apparently Cagliari is "overrepresented" in YFull, that's why you may find there Sardinians in "improbable" branches, and it's possible J-Z2507 is one of them. This overrepresentation doesn't seem to explain per se the several Sardinians under those three though.
> ...

----------


## Angela

> The outliers list is almost at the end of the pdf, maybe some people didn’t see it, and they focused their attention on other samples.
> 
> ... giving the benefit of the doubt :) 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://science.sciencemag.org/conte...Antonio_SM.pdf


Imo, they don't deserve the benefit of the doubt. 

However, that said, the paper also doesn't inspire the greatest confidence in their characterization of these samples with so many samples with these kinds of numbers for WHG.

We also have a quasi "Carthaginian" sample. Why on earth use Iberomaurusian? 

I'm always disappointed in the papers that come out of Stanford. Maybe because they're taking cues from Piazza's clique, who haven't had a new idea in two decades.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> Few quotes about these connections from archaeologist Govedarica who wrote on Dinara culture (Posušje culture per other archaeologist who researched it) from 1989.
> 
> By differentiating Dinara and Cetina culture and by placing the older phase of Dinara culture within the frame of the Br. A2 period, a need arises to reassess the chronological evaluation of the origin of handles with Axe-like extensions, that are among the most recognizable traits in the pottery material of this culture. The question of appearance of these forms in the Middle-Adriatic area is not resolved in an appropriate manner, and this problem is showing itself as one of the most critical moments in the cultural and chronological evaluation of this culture..
> 
> 
> Handles of this type ("anse ad ascia") are best documented on the Apennine peninsula and in the Southeast France, their mass appearance is being connected with the proto-Apennine culture ("proto-apenninico B") whose datation is not fully agreed upon but is most commonly placed in the period which corresponds to the younger phase of the Early Bronze Age per South German chronology, that is Br. A2.
> 
> 
> Individual finds of "pseudobrassarda" from the Dinara culture also have best analogues in the area of Northern Italy, in the late Polada culture.
> ...


Thank you, as soon as I have time I read everything and I look for more information in the books in Italian, English, French and German that I own. And I answer you.






> Thanks, Pax! I agree that the individual must be "contextualized", and also that other variables may possibly help to "refine" the chances we're talking about, since there is a window of time. I focused on the "crude" data, and started the analysis from informations shared in this thread. If I had the time, I'd check details on the "proto-Illyrian" Y-DNA. The categorization of the Etruscan was confirmed by Ted Kandell. These papers usually don't provide the most deep assignments possible. Even errors may occur. For example, Ted assures that R55 guy was G-S2808, whereas the paper suggests G-Z30771. At least they agree he was G-CTS4803. .



Agreed, errors may occur. On the other hand, sometimes we get obsessed with the details when in these papers what is most important is the whole picture.

----------


## Tutkun Arnaut

> The problem with you is that, you already start with a basis which is based on logical fallacy. You already concluded in your mind that Y-DNA J2b2 is Indo-European despite being non-existent at any Indo-European speaking people except for Albanians that they might have well incorporated from non-IE speaking people from the Balkans.
> 
> You cannot make conclusion from scarce almost to non-existent proofs.
> 
> So far, and so less. I am seeing a pattern, Nuragics to a degree, Etruscans to a certain degree, if J2b2 is continued to be found among shore Mediterraneans and Anatolians then this logical puzzle will be solved.


are you ok? 
J2b2 is the most obvious Indo-European haplogroup besides R1a. It stretches from India, Bangladesh to Portugal and all in between with low frequency, but present everywhere.

----------


## torzio

> Sample R850 was found in the necroplis of campo del fico in 1982 by E.Tortorici.......the necropolis was only open for use from 600 bc to 800 bc....it had 24 bodies, 11 male , 10 female and 3 children.....all pottery in the necroplis is the etruscan Bucchero style


The necropolis time period fits in with when Rome was an etruscan colony

----------


## Angela

> What happened to J1 after imperial Rome? Did they coincidentally took samples from some immigrant cemetery? Or perhaps some Phoenicians which they happen to have selected. At the very least, one could argue that immigration into Rome stopped at some point. And J1 was absorbed by the locals. As such it decreased rapidly.


This fact was raised a couple of times upthread. A number of samples come from the cemetery for the port city of Ostia. Some others come from the catacombs, and we know early Christians were usually foreign, including Jews. 

Unfortunately, these graves provide no context whatsoever. The authors mention inscriptions having been found with Greek names, for example, but if you read the Supplement it's clear that was a general statement, and none of the samples they present have any context as to background, class etc. 

It's very disappointing, nothing like what Patrick Geary was able to get and do with the Langobard cemetery in Piemonte.

The least they could have done is checked to see if the samples which plot south and east of modern Italians come predominantly from certain cemeteries.

----------


## Angela

This is not meant to be a thread about one particular y lineage. 

I think all the possibilities have been exhausted, and there is no way currently to decide the issue.

----------


## Jovialis

> That is always a problem for me. 
> I mean no disrespect to Brick; he's just using the Global 25 created by Polako.


Indeed, I too use Polako's calculators. Despite the fact I disagree on key interpretations. But I always make sure to look at it relative to the academic results. As well as the ancient samples relative to one another.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> Sample R850 was found in the necroplis of campo del fico in 1982 by E.Tortorici.......the necropolis was only open for use from 600 bc to 800 bc....it had 24 bodies, 11 male , 10 female and 3 children.....all pottery in the necroplis is the etruscan Bucchero style


What are you trying to suggest, Torzio? If you're insinuating that sample R850 might be Etruscan, you must have the courage to write it down.

This reminds me a lot when you always confused the alphabet/script with the language. Which is an incredible mistake.

Etruscans were the most influential cultural group in this period and the Latium Vetus, where the necropolis of Campo del Fico is located, was much backward both culturally and socially than Etruria. it is obvious that in this phase the Latins imitate the Etruscans, as the Etruscans had imitated the Greeks. Latium Vetus in this period has also many relations with southern Italy, especially with Campania.

The Campo del Fico necropolis from Ardea belongs to the Orientalizing period of the Latial culture. So it is obvious that there may have been foreigners in Latium Vetus coming from outside Italy. 









> The necropolis time period fits in with when Rome was an etruscan colony



Apart from the fact that it is very incorrect to call Rome an Etruscan colony, but on the other hand I realize that the level of discussion is this. And so what? Torzio you're really old enough to start taking these discussions more seriously.

----------


## Regio X

I said I wouldn't talk about it anymore, but I'd like to thanks Duarte. 

@Duarte
Thanks. je je
He says "likely" (!) fully developed, then the ancient must have no reads for some equivalent(s). See my first post on the subject.

@Pax
Well, yes. Particularly, I'm not obsessed. At the end I was off-topic discussing a very specific point as if it were a thread on Y-DNA. 

@Angela
Sorry. I'm done. That's a promise. :)

----------


## Duarte

> This is not meant to be a thread about one particular y lineage. 
> 
> I think all the possibilities have been exhausted, and there is no way currently to decide the issue.


Thanks Regio, you’re kind :)

Sorry me Angela. :) 

In fact this is not a topic about the Y J2b2 lineage. In an effort to collaborate I did not see the observation below, made by Regio in his last post. Once again, sorry my lack of atention. Next time I be more careful in my posts, avoiding precipitation:




> That's also a crude lecture of mine which involves too many assumptions. It still seems an open question. At least for me.
> Feel free to elaborate, but this is my last post about it, 'cause the thread is not on J-L283. If the point is showing that this movement from Balkans to Italy could have happened, then I agree. It seems very possible, as far as I can see. And it's also possible the clade is "Italian" in origin, ending up in Balkan soon enough, also as far as I can see. Who knows! 
> Further ancient DNAs may help to solve the "J-L283 mistery".



Enviado do meu iPhone usando Tapatalk

----------


## Angela

> Thanks Regio, you’re kind :)
> 
> Sorry me Angela. :) 
> 
> In fact this is not a topic about the Y J2b2 lineage. In an effort to collaborate I did not see the observation below, made by Regio in his last post. Once again, sorry my lack of atention. Next time I be more careful in my posts, avoiding precipitation:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Enviado do meu iPhone usando Tapatalk


Duarte, you never put a foot wrong, in my book. :)

----------


## Angela

@I was just going to respond to Torzio's post, and ask what point he was trying to make. :)

So what if a Latin site had Etruscan pottery?

Haven't we learned by now that pots are not always people? Were all the people who possessed Beaker pots the same in terms of autosomal genetics? Clearly not. Does the fact that goods from the Mediterranean wound up in graves in far northern Europe mean there was a mass migration from southern Europe to Denmark in the Bronze and Iron Age? I feel stupid just posing these questions.

Sometimes pots are just pots, and the fact that a town of a neighboring culture had some Etruscan pots means absolutely nothing. 

If we've learned anything valuable from this paper, it's that the Etruscans had quite a bit of WHG. They didn't freaking come from Lydia in Anatolia. 

Is it so hard for some people to say: I WAS WRONG?

----------


## CrazyDonkey

> How can you say a language came from the Near East, when the only person who posited such a link between Etruscan and any ancient Near Eastern languages is an amateur whose speculations aren't even considered in linguistic circles.


I didn't. I have no idea where the Etruscan language came from (east, west, north, south, or right where it was). All that is relatively certain is that it wasn't Indo-European. The transmission of genes and a language/cultural package are two different things. Languages can expand, but also absorb other cultures (or be absorbed by them), while the genes of their original carriers can be progressively diminished, even disappear, over time. I don't doubt that the ancient population (a word with an Etruscan root) was largely genetically indistinguishable, regardless of on which side of the Tiber they dwelled.

I mentioned the Sea Peoples only because the Etruscans were renowned in the classical world as seafarers, traders, and pirates, in contrast to the ancient Latins who were, from all accounts, farmers and landlubbers. Does that mean I think that Etruscan-speakers (let's leave gene-bearers aside) can be traced back to a branch of the Sea Peoples landing on the Italian shore circa 1100 BC? No, but they scattered widely, need not have all been Indo-Europeans, and might have had iron weapons, which the natives likely lacked. So, who knows? Not I.

You mentioned the Bronze Age "gap" in the samples. A group coming in with the Copper Age expansion looking for metals (which Etruria had) can't automatically be excluded, it seems to me. Stuart Piggott in _Ancient Europe_ archaeologically traces one such possible movement from the coast of the Near East, up the Adriatic, and then across the Alps to the Tyrol, with similar metallurgical technology and products cropping up at both ends. The Adriatic was named after Adria, an Etruscan port at the mouth of the Po. So, once again who knows?

As to what I'm reading now, it is _History of Florence_ by Machiavelli. Florence is, of course, smack dab in the middle of Tuscany.

My paternal line (surname) came from Ireland to Virginia, possibly speaking Gaelic and as indentured servants, well over 200 years ago, then traveled to Pennsylvania, Iowa, Nebraska, and Bellingham, Washington, in the Pacific Northwest, where I was born. How much Irish "blood" still courses through my veins? My sister got tested (I haven't yet) and it said maybe 10%. I'm pretty much "Irish" in name only. If I claim it as a descent (from the Kings of Cork!), it is only when in an exceedingly romantic mood. (I have no children, but my sister's children are related to Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce Indian tribe through their father.) 

Personally, I believe most "high cultures" are hybrids and can't be traced back to a single line.

----------


## Joey37

I always thought the Etruscans were related to the Raetians and therefore, mostly local. Sometimes legends are based in fact, so there may have been a small immigration from the eastern Aegean area.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> I always thought the Etruscans were related to the Raetians and therefore, mostly local. Sometimes legends are based in fact, so there may have been a small immigration from the eastern Aegean area.



The "accounts" of the Greek authors on the origins of the Etruscans are all much more recent than the beginning of the Etruscan civilization, at least 500 years later. The first Greek sources mentioning the Etruscans do not refer to an eastern origin. The first ever is Hesiod around the eighth century BC, which places the Etruscans in Italy next to the Latins.

While stories about the eastern origins of the Etruscans come out around 450 BC after groups of Greeks from Ionia migrated to southern Etruria, fleeing the Persian conquest of the Greek colonies of Asia Minor. Then the last Greek author to talk about it is Dionysius who criticizes all the previous Greek authors claiming that they are wrong and says that the Etruscans have always lived in Etruria, do not come from outside, and that other authors also supported this, authors whose fragments have not been preserved, for one reason or another.

The Roman authors, on the other hand, were aware of the link between the Etruscans and the Raetians, even if they did not know how it originated. If the Roman authors knew it, both the Etruscans and the Raeti were perfectly aware of this link.

----------


## torzio

> What are you trying to suggest, Torzio? If you're insinuating that sample R850 might be Etruscan, you must have the courage to write it down.
> 
> This reminds me a lot when you always confused the alphabet/script with the language. Which is an incredible mistake.
> 
> Etruscans were the most influential cultural group in this period and the Latium Vetus, where the necropolis of Campo del Fico is located, was much backward both culturally and socially than Etruria. it is obvious that in this phase the Latins imitate the Etruscans, as the Etruscans had imitated the Greeks. Latium Vetus in this period has also many relations with southern Italy, especially with Campania.
> 
> The Campo del Fico necropolis from Ardea belongs to the Orientalizing period of the Latial culture. So it is obvious that there may have been foreigners in Latium Vetus coming from outside Italy. 
> 
> 
> ...


What are you assuming....all i stated was where the sample was found, the time period and the pottery found with it.....no point in you giving me a negative for the facts.....or do facts not count in this site.....you can make any story you want with the facts i supplied........just do NOT assume what i state

Btw, R851 was found in the sanctuary next to the necropolis.....i will let you ASSUME what you want with that fact

----------


## Pax Augusta

> What are you assuming....all i stated was where the sample was found, the time period and the pottery found with it.....no point in you giving me a negative for the facts.....or do facts not count in this site.....you can make any story you want with the facts i supplied........just do NOT assume what i state
> 
> Btw, R851 was found in the sanctuary next to the necropolis.....i will let you ASSUME what you want with that fact



There's really nothing to assume. They're all well-known facts.

----------


## torzio

> There's really nothing to assume. They're all well-known facts.


Can we give a negative for a fact.....so was i wrong with the fact of where R850 was found and by who

----------


## Salento

@Pax about _Burial 6_ at Campo del Fico

Do you a know if they’re talking about R850 or someone else ???

... Dated to the 3rd Lazio Era, of an adult male accompanied by a Cannon Spear, a Precious Sword with an ivory-bone handle and bronzed sheath ...

----------


## Angela

> The "accounts" of the Greek authors on the origins of the Etruscans are all much more recent than the beginning of the Etruscan civilization, at least 500 years later. The first Greek sources mentioning the Etruscans do not refer to an eastern origin. The first ever is Hesiod around the eighth century BC, which places the Etruscans in Italy next to the Latins.
> 
> While stories about the eastern origins of the Etruscans come out around 450 BC after groups of Greeks from Ionia migrated to southern Etruria, fleeing the Persian conquest of the Greek colonies of Asia Minor. Then the last Greek author to talk about it is Dionysius who criticizes all the previous Greek authors claiming that they are wrong and says that the Etruscans have always lived in Etruria, do not come from outside, and that other authors also supported this, authors whose fragments have not been preserved, for one reason or another.
> 
> The Roman authors, on the other hand, were aware of the link between the Etruscans and the Raetians, even if they did not know how it originated. If the Roman authors knew it, both the Etruscans and the Raeti were perfectly aware of this link.


Reading the commentary from amateur pop gen people online you would think Herodotus was the only ancient author who wrote about the Etruscans.

Confirmation bias, much???

It's so extreme that even ancient dna won't move them.

----------


## torzio

> There's really nothing to assume. They're all well-known facts.


I will give you some food for thought.......is this necropolis for these 24 people over a 200 year period a family necropolis or not....since the nearby sanctuary of graves held far more samples of which R851 was one ?

----------


## Angela

> i will give you some food for thought.......is this necropolis for these 24 people over a 200 year period a family necropolis or not....since the nearby sanctuary of graves held far more samples of which r851 was one ?


Clearly you can't read Italian, or if you read it, you don't understand it. 

Re-read Pax' post please.

----------


## Carlos

> @Pax about _Burial 6_ at Campo del Fico
> 
> Do you a know if they’re talking about R850 or someone else ???
> 
> ... Dated to the 3rd Lazio Era, of an adult male accompanied by a Cannon Spear, a Precious Sword with an ivory-bone handle and bronzed sheath ...


Is there any news?

----------


## torzio

> Clearly you can't read Italian, or if you read it, you don't understand it. 
> Re-read Pax' post please.


I cannot see it as i am not on my pc....what does it say as it will not expand on my mobile

----------


## Salento

> Is there any news?


I was referring to the image with informations in Italian posted by Pax.

Sorry I wasn’t clear  :Ashamed: 

I was asking if they’re talking about Carusu (R850)

... Dated to the 3rd Lazio Era, of an adult male accompanied by a Cannon Spear, a Precious Sword with an ivory-bone handle and bronzed sheath ...

----------


## Carlos

To Salento

It would not be bad for Mta to incorporate another tab in each sample with the type of burial.

----------


## Salento

> To Salento
> 
> It would not be bad for Mta to incorporate another tab in each sample with the type of burial.


They should do that.

Also they're probably already working on a new group of samples.

We'll find out in the next 2 - 3 weekends :)

----------


## Angela

For those who haven't got to the supplement yet: Ardea was part of the Latin League, but it was NOT Rome, and in fact at times was allied AGAINST Rome.


Only two samples are from Ardea.


The archaeological context as posited by the authors:







More on Ardea:

----------


## Angela

@Pax,

I kid you not, I think some of this comes from old legends that PERHAPS, according to Dionysios, King Turnus of the Rutuli was King of the Tyrrhenians, and therefore ETRUSCAN.

Yeah, and Caesar was descended from Venus too. 

So, of course, if one of these two Latin samples can be modeled with some Copper or Bronze Age Anatolian, it can't have come from Campanians or other Southern Italians, or Greek artisans; it had to come from the Etruscans, even though with the exception of the woman with some North African, they don't look like that at all. 

Oy Veh! :)

----------


## Salento

> For those who haven't got to the supplement yet: Ardea was part of the Latin League, but it was NOT Rome, and in fact at times was allied AGAINST Rome.
> 
> 
> Only two samples are from Ardea.
> 
> 
> The archaeological context as posited by the authors:
> 
> 
> ...


Today Ardea is part of Rome Metropolitan area.

I'm thinking of the 5 New York City boroughs,

If one is from Manhattan and the other from the Bronx (home of the New York Yankees) :) , they’re still New Yorkers.

----------


## Angela

> I didn't. I have no idea where the Etruscan language came from (east, west, north, south, or right where it was). All that is relatively certain is that it wasn't Indo-European. The transmission of genes and a language/cultural package are two different things. Languages can expand, but also absorb other cultures (or be absorbed by them), while the genes of their original carriers can be progressively diminished, even disappear, over time. I don't doubt that the ancient population (a word with an Etruscan root) was largely genetically indistinguishable, regardless of on which side of the Tiber they dwelled.
> 
> I mentioned the Sea Peoples only because the Etruscans were renowned in the classical world as seafarers, traders, and pirates, in contrast to the ancient Latins who were, from all accounts, farmers and landlubbers. Does that mean I think that Etruscan-speakers (let's leave gene-bearers aside) can be traced back to a branch of the Sea Peoples landing on the Italian shore circa 1100 BC? No, but they scattered widely, need not have all been Indo-Europeans, and might have had iron weapons, which the natives likely lacked. So, who knows? Not I.
> 
> You mentioned the Bronze Age "gap" in the samples. A group coming in with the Copper Age expansion looking for metals (which Etruria had) can't automatically be excluded, it seems to me. Stuart Piggott in _Ancient Europe_ archaeologically traces one such possible movement from the coast of the Near East, up the Adriatic, and then across the Alps to the Tyrol, with similar metallurgical technology and products cropping up at both ends. The Adriatic was named after Adria, an Etruscan port at the mouth of the Po. So, once again who knows?
> 
> As to what I'm reading now, it is _History of Florence_ by Machiavelli. Florence is, of course, smack dab in the middle of Tuscany.
> 
> My paternal line (surname) came from Ireland to Virginia, possibly speaking Gaelic and as indentured servants, well over 200 years ago, then traveled to Pennsylvania, Iowa, Nebraska, and Bellingham, Washington, in the Pacific Northwest, where I was born. How much Irish "blood" still courses through my veins? My sister got tested (I haven't yet) and it said maybe 10%. I'm pretty much "Irish" in name only. If I claim it as a descent (from the Kings of Cork!), it is only when in an exceedingly romantic mood. (I have no children, but my sister's children are related to Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce Indian tribe through their father.) 
> ...


I have always maintained, based on archaeology, and a knowledge of Etruscan culture, that there was no mass migration in the first millennium BC from Anatolia to Etruria.

I furthermore never saw why that mountain of evidence should be discounted by the report of a Greek "historian" who lived 500 years after the fact, especially when other Greek "historians" saw it differently.

Be that as it may, we now have the dna of the Etruscans. It most emphatically "isn't" the dna of Copper or Bronze Age Anatolians, or the dna of Aegean Greeks, who are among the best candidates for the "Sea Peoples", along with, of course, the Sardinians, the Sicilians, and the Etruscans themselves.

Now, if someone wants to believe that perhaps an "elite" came from Anatolia to Etruria in the first millennium BC to create the Etruscan civilization, it's no skin off my nose, but the reality is that the history and the archaeology is against them, and there is no proof in the genetics. 

So, imo, it just looks like reluctance to give up cherished ideas, but hey, whatever floats their boat.

As to "ancestry" or "ethnicity", I'm in a different situation. I know exactly where my ancestors have lived for at least the last approximately nine hundred years, and it's in a certain specific area of Italy. So, I don't think I'm on shaky ground in saying I'm 100% Italian.

However, I do know what you're getting at. I too believe that layer after layer of migration and culture make up the modern ethnicities of today. That goes for every group, and perhaps for Italians more than for some.

Decades of reading about Italian history and pre-history have taught me that, if nothing else.

Clearly, CHG/Iran Neo ancestry is one of those layers. Heck, it had already arrived in Italy by the Neolithic, as I've been saying for ten years, to howls of derision I might add. I know it was in Sardinia and Sicily early, and I absolutely believe we'll see it in Southern Italy in the Bronze and Iron Age, and clearly it had reached the Latin areas by the first millennium BC, as per sample 850 as one example.

None of that has anything to do with the Etruscans and the "theory" of their origin in the Anatolia of the first millennium BC.,or with the original Italics, for that matter.

----------


## Angela

> Today Ardea is part of Rome Metropolitan area.
> 
> I'm thinking of the 5 New York City boroughs,
> 
> If one is from Manhattan and the other from the Bronx (home of the New York Yankees) :) , they’re still New Yorkers.


They were both Latins, so yes, your New York City analogy is apt.

However, I was trying to clear up any confusion caused by Torzio's...confusion. ROME was ruled by the Etruscans. To my knowledge, the Rutuli of Ardea were not.


In reality, of course, it's a tempest in a teapot. There was a constant flow of ideas and technology between these two groups living adjacent to one another, although it was usually from the Etruscans to the Latins, as the Etruscans had a more advanced civilization earlier on. Eventually, they battled one another and Rome (the Latins) won. 

The really amazing thing is that they could be so alike autosomally and yet one spoke an Indo-European language and the other did not. The Basques are another such mystery. 

I don't know of anyone who has an answer for that yet, although I do believe maybe we should be thinking of many groups moving west from the steppe, generally similar autosomally as mixtures of Copper Age "farmers" and steppe people, but with some differences, taking different routes, encountering slightly different groups, and with perhaps some picking up different languages. Or, Basque and Etruscan could be local "farmer" languages.

Take your pick. :)

----------


## davef

Why are certain people from Nazi sites pushing for a west Asian origin for etruscans? Wouldn't they instead want them to be indo European? Lol it kinda boggles my mind bc the etruscans were very influential

----------


## Jovialis

> I have always maintained, based on archaeology, and a knowledge of Etruscan culture, that there was no mass migration in the first millennium BC from Anatolia to Etruria.
> 
> I furthermore never saw why that mountain of evidence should be discounted by the report of a Greek "historian" who lived 500 years after the fact, especially when other Greek "historians" saw it differently.
> 
> Be that as it may, we now have the dna of the Etruscans. It most emphatically "isn't" the dna of Copper or Bronze Age Anatolians, or the dna of Aegean Greeks, who are among the best candidates for the "Sea Peoples", along with, of course, the Sardinians, the Sicilians, and the Etruscans themselves.
> 
> Now, if someone wants to believe that perhaps an "elite" came from Anatolia to Etruria in the first millennium BC to create the Etruscan civilization, it's no skin off my nose, but the reality is that the history and the archaeology is against them, and there is no proof in the genetics. 
> 
> So, imo, it just looks like reluctance to give up cherished ideas, but hey, whatever floats their boat.
> ...




Indeed, and as you have said in previous threads, modern day Italians really are formed in the medieval era. The paper confirms that the true ethnogenisis of the modern day Italians emerged out of the rural people taking back the cities. 

Towns like my father's being re-settled after 300 years of abandonment in the 1200s, under Federico II Di Svevia. Perhaps with people who owe much of their ancestry to groups that preceded the Romans; who were closer to Bronze-Age groups in Southern Italy (i.e. this "Mediterranean C6" group).

Also, the 850, and 437 are considered "Mediterranean C6", at least according to their grouping in the chart above. These kind of people would surely have been part of the re-settlement in the South, considering me, Salento, and your husband get 850 in our results. As well as the Center, considering the the chart is actually of that (40%/60%).

----------


## Carlos

I think that the Basque language would come from WHG and the Etruscan language from NorthEastEuropeHG.



I found this map. A rough way is a little what I want to say about the HG origin of the Basque and the Etruscan, I had no idea that the thing was like that, but look where it is good to stage my hypothesis. The Basques in a matter of language would have been the redoubt of the orange color on the map and the Etruscans the redoubt of the green color, as an idiomatic trunk because there would have been a multitude of derived dialects.

----------


## Jovialis

> Indeed, and as you have said in previous threads, modern day Italians really are formed in the medieval era. The paper confirms that the true ethnogenisis of the modern day Italians emerged out of the rural people taking back the cities. 
> 
> Towns like my father's being re-settled after 300 years of abandonment in the 1200s, under Federico II Di Svevia. Perhaps with people who owe much of their ancestry to groups that preceded the Romans; who were closer to Bronze-Age groups in Southern Italy (i.e. this "Mediterranean C6" group).
> 
> Also, the 850, and 437 are considered "Mediterranean C6", at least according to their grouping in the chart above. These kind of people would surely have been part of the re-settlement in the South, considering me, Salento, and your husband get 850 in our results. As well as the Center, considering the the chart is actually of that (40%/60%).


The people that lived in Italy during the Renaissance, have their origins in a genetic-renaissance.

----------


## Dianatomia

> Indeed, and as you have said in previous threads, modern day Italians really are formed in the medieval era. The paper confirms that the true ethnogenisis of the modern day Italians emerged out of the rural people taking back the cities.


If the rural people took back the cities, then how can this be considered a genetic ethnogenesis? The genes were there, in the rural area. Perhaps Rome had many immigrants, but this in itself would say little about Italy as a whole.

----------


## Nik

> someone posted it in anthrogenica
> don't know which calculator he used :
> 
> results look logic by shortest distance :)
> Distance to:
> ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR37
> 
> 0.03472320
> Spanish_Soria
> ...


Guys, I would appreciate your opinion on these calculations. How reliable do you think they are? 

If they are indeed reliable, what's with all the fuss people are making and the "shocking discoveries" and Near Eastern signal and this significant genetic shift of Italy and coastal Spain and France in comparison to the Republican samples? 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as the Roman Republic grew larger into becoming an empire and giving citizenship to more and more subdued/allied nations, it's obvious that the probability to encounter foreigners in cemeteries near Rome and other metropolitan areas are logically way higher. 

Any of you actually calculated approximately this "Near Eastern signal" that actually managed to survive past Late Antiquity and Early Middle Ages in Latium and Italy in general? What percentage are we talking about? 

I believe my opinion on the matter is obvious, but I'm trying hard to see it also from the perspective of people who don't agree with me and have a completely different take on the matter. What's "justifying" their views if that's even the correct word to use. Or plain racism?

----------


## Pax Augusta

> @Pax about _Burial 6_ at Campo del Fico
> 
> Do you a know if they’re talking about R850 or someone else ???
> 
> ... Dated to the 3rd Lazio Era, of an adult male accompanied by a Cannon Spear, a Precious Sword with an ivory-bone handle and bronzed sheath ...



Salento, I don't know. The page comes from a book published in 2003 and talks about the Campo del Fico necropolis. It is difficult to understand to which burials it refers and which of these are those analyzed in the paper. 

https://books.google.it/books?id=W7-EjeOnQqwC





> Why are certain people from Nazi sites pushing for a west Asian origin for etruscans? Wouldn't they instead want them to be indo European? Lol it kinda boggles my mind bc the etruscans were very influential



There is a really unhealthy obsession with the Etruscans and especially with the question of origins. 


Here the responsibility is also due to the many non-Etruscologist scholars, especially the Indo-Europeanist linguists and some Orientalists, who have supported over time the most unlikely hypotheses about the Etruscans, even against the archaeological evidence.


Stories of eastern origins in the Greek writers also exist for the Latins and the ancient Veneti, but nobody has ever taken them seriously. 


However, the Lydians spoke an Indo-European language. So if the Etruscans had been of Lydian origin, they would have spoken an Indo-European language. Instead, the Etruscans spoke a pre-Indo-European language, like the Basques still today (although Etruscan language and Basque do not seem related).


Speaking a pre-Indo-European language in the Iron Age does not imply that one was genetically pre-Indo-European. This is demonstrated by the fact that these analyzed Etruscans all have more steppe ancestry than the Mycenaeans. Although it is necessary to remember, the former live in the Iron Age, the latter in the Bronze Age.

----------


## Salento

Thanks Pax :)

----------


## Leka

> For those who haven't got to the supplement yet: Ardea was part of the Latin League, but it was NOT Rome, and in fact at times was allied AGAINST Rome.
> 
> 
> Only two samples are from Ardea.


Anything on the ANAS, Angela?

----------


## Jovialis

> If the rural people took back the cities, then how can this be considered a genetic ethnogenesis? The genes were there, in the rural area. Perhaps Rome had many immigrants, but this in itself would say little about Italy as a whole.


It is the entho-genesis of new regional identities, who make up the modern Italian people. The native re-settlers who converged from the surrounding countryside; created their own unique traditions, dialects, cusine, artistic patrimony, etc. They were unified under Roman Catholicism.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> Anything on the ANAS, Angela?


Do you know what ANAS is? ANAS is this

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

----------


## Jovialis

> It is the entho-genesis of new regional identities, who make up the modern Italian people. *The n**ative re-settlers who converged from the surrounding countryside*; created their own unique traditions, dialects, cusine, artistic patrimony, etc. They were unified under Roman Catholicism.

----------


## Angela

> Indeed, and as you have said in previous threads, modern day Italians really are formed in the medieval era. The paper confirms that the true ethnogenisis of the modern day Italians emerged out of the rural people taking back the cities. 
> 
> Towns like my father's being re-settled after 300 years of abandonment in the 1200s, under Federico II Di Svevia. Perhaps with people who owe much of their ancestry to groups that preceded the Romans; who were closer to Bronze-Age groups in Southern Italy (i.e. this "Mediterranean C6" group).
> 
> Also, the 850, and 437 are considered "Mediterranean C6", at least according to their grouping in the chart above. These kind of people would surely have been part of the re-settlement in the South, considering me, Salento, and your husband get 850 in our results. As well as the Center, considering the the chart is actually of that (40%/60%).


I just find it extraordinary that the authors of the paper spent all that time, as evidenced in the Supplement, modeling later samples in Central and Southern Italy as mixtures of Copper/Iron Age people and Germans, Scandinavians etc., but never bother to model them using Iron Age samples. 

In what history or archaeology of the period do they see mass migration of Goths and Lombards to the depths of Calabria???? Where is all the y dna which would show that??? There would have to have been a lot of it to explain this amount of change. 

They go to the effort of finding the ydna but then never incorporate it into their analysis? Maybe you could make an argument for Sicily and some Normans, although given how few they were in number they must have each fathered fifty children to explain it, but Calabria? And Calabria not near Sicily I might add. 

Listen, it's fine with me either way. I accept the data whatever it shows. They just should have tested it.

I wonder if some of these researchers worked with Piazza, he who was so completely wrong about the Etruscans, by the way. His disciples couldn't even tell the difference between Linearbandermilk Neolithic dna and Iron Age Anatolian dna. Notice how the paper doesn't dwell on how these results make mincemeat of the "Etruscans from the East" hypothesis. :)

----------


## Leka

> Do you know what ANAS is? ANAS is this
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANAS


I thought it was a settlement within Rome based on that map. No?

----------


## kingjohn

someone from eurogenes blog i think it is nmonte  :Thinking: :

The outlier from IA Ardea
 looks interesting:


_[1] "distance%=3.8939"_

_ITA_Ardea_Latini_IA_o_

*Anatolia_EBA_Isparta,60.6*
Yamnaya_Samara,13.5
*Natufian,11.8*
Barcin_N,11.1
Ganj_Dareh_N,1.6
Han,0.8
WHG,0.6
Anatolia_EBA_Ovaoren,0
Morocco_Iberomaurusian,0
Yoruba,0

Predominantly Anatolia_BA with some Natufian! 









The outlier from Praeneste
*has also a lot of Anatolia_BA:*

*[1]* "distance*%=1.6679"*

_ITA_Prenestini_tribe_IA_o_

*Barcin_N,37.6*
Anatolia_EBA_Isparta,25.1
Yamnaya_Samara,17.6
*Anatolia_EBA_Ovaoren,16.9
*WHG,2.3
Natufian,0.5
Ganj_Dareh_N,0
Morocco_Iberomaurusian,0
Han,0
Yoruba,0

----------


## Jovialis

> someone from eurogenes blog i think it is nmonte :
> 
> The outlier from IA Ardea
>  looks interesting:
> 
> 
> _[1] "distance%=3.8939"_
> 
> _ITA_Ardea_Latini_IA_o_
> ...


I wouldn't trust it, users on that website seem to have issues with the paper. For example, the user known as "Samuel Andrews" is unable to find Iranian-like admixture in the samples. Despite the fact that it is clearly listed in the in the admixture chart. Perhaps that is why Razib Khan admonished him for being a manipulator in the comment section of brownpundits.

----------


## Angela

> Salento, I don't know. The page comes from a book published in 2003 and talks about the Campo del Fico necropolis. It is difficult to understand to which burials it refers and which of these are those analyzed in the paper. 
> 
> https://books.google.it/books?id=W7-EjeOnQqwC
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a really unhealthy obsession with the Etruscans and especially with the question of origins. 
> ...


I have to go back and check, but doesn't the excerpt I published indicate the rich hoard was Bronze Age? Aren't the samples we're discussing from a later period as per your graphic?

Excellent information in this post, btw, but I'm out of ammunition. :)

----------


## kingjohn

> I wouldn't trust it, users on that website seem to have issues with the paper. For example, the user known as "Samuel Andrews" is unable to find Iranian-like admixture in the samples. Despite the fact that it is clearly listed in the in the admixture chart. Perhaps that is why Razib Khan admonished him for being a manipulator in the comment section of brownpundits.



it is not samuel 
anyway get your point 

last example they did :

The Etruscan outlier looks weird, as though he had North African admixture:

[1] "distance%=*2.954"*

*ITA_Etruscan_o*

*Barcin_N,65.6*
Yamnaya_Samara,14.7
*Morocco_Iberomaurusian,11.4 :)*
WHG,6
Yoruba,1.3
Natufian,1
Anatolia_EBA_Isparta,0
Anatolia_EBA_Ovaoren,0
Ganj_Dareh_N,0
Han,0

----------


## Jovialis

That's strange, I just ctrl-f searched the comments there, and nothing came up. Who made that?

----------


## kingjohn

> That's strange, I just ctrl-f searched the comments there, and nothing came up. Who made that?


it is simon_w

----------


## Jovialis

> 


_"Considering these results, I'm tempted to say that the present-day Italian gene pool largely formed in the Iron Age, and that it was only augmented by population movements during later periods"

_http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/

----------


## Angela

> If the rural people took back the cities, then how can this be considered a genetic ethnogenesis? The genes were there, in the rural area. Perhaps Rome had many immigrants, but this in itself would say little about Italy as a whole.


I'm sure a lot of port cities would have had immigrants and immigrant remains in their cemeteries. What will future archaeologists say about the cemeteries of Marseilles, or Hamburg? 

Most of the large cities of the Empire were probably similar to some degree. Look at London today, or NYC, or some cities in Germany or France. How would they look to future archaeologists?

With time, with human nature being what it is, would there have been some admixture with "locals", with the probably exception of the Jews? Yes, I'm sure there would have been. 

The issue is, what happened to the people in the cities? Cities get destroyed in times of war, and pestilence, i.e. Justinian's Plague, take a greater toll in crowded cities. People die or flee. 

Even before the worst of it, the actual sacking(s) of Rome and most major cities throughout the Empire, the depredations of the "Barbarians" were taking their toll on the Western Empire. Everything started shifting to the east, to the "New Rome", Constantinople, and thank God for it, because they were able to maintain the culture and learning for longer. 

Those who still had connections in the East, from where they could continue their mercantile and "industrial" activities, undoubtedly left for greener pastures. The poor, as is always the case, are the ones who have to just wait to die. 

I by no means mean to imply that the more heavily Iran Neo/CHG ancestry didn't remain in Central Italy. We had it in the Neolithic. I'm convinced it moved into Southern Italy in greater numbers in the Bronze Age, and particularly in the Iron Age with Greek colonization. That ancestry moved northwards. We have it already appearing in very early Latins in Ardea. 

What I am talking about is this "tail" into the Levant with which the people at anthrogenica are so enamored. It disappeared. I think the authors should have considered the possibility that it disappeared because the migration from that area ceased, and those who carried it might either have been transients, or after a generation or two left for other regions, or, just were more impacted by the calamities which befell the Western Empire because they were congregated in the cities which were hit the hardest.

----------


## Salento

> I have to go back and check, but doesn't the excerpt I published indicate the rich hoard was Bronze Age? Aren't the samples we're discussing from a later period as per your graphic?


I read it like that :) :

Sample 6 = III Periodo Laziale (Iron Age) and could be IIIA (800 - 750 BC), or IIIB (750 - 725 BC)

it could Match R850

The “Exceptional” Final Bronze Burial is someone else.

_... Dated to the 3rd Lazio Era, of an adult male accompanied by a Cannon Spear, a Precious Sword with an ivory-bone handle and bronzed sheath ...
_
An “exceptional“ burial, from the end of the Bronze Age ...

----------


## Jovialis

> someone from eurogenes blog i think it is nmonte :
> The outlier from IA Ardea
>  looks interesting:
> _[1] "distance%=3.8939"_
> _ITA_Ardea_Latini_IA_o_
> *Anatolia_EBA_Isparta,60.6*
> Yamnaya_Samara,13.5
> *Natufian,11.8*
> Barcin_N,11.1
> ...


Like I said, the sample is in the C6 grouping. Not near eastern, or even eastern Mediterranean.

Also:

----------


## Jovialis

> Like I said, the sample is in the C6 grouping. Not near eastern, or even eastern Mediterranean.
> 
> Also:

----------


## Angela

> Guys, I would appreciate your opinion on these calculations. How reliable do you think they are? 
> 
> If they are indeed reliable, what's with all the fuss people are making and the "shocking discoveries" and Near Eastern signal and this significant genetic shift of Italy and coastal Spain and France in comparison to the Republican samples? 
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but as the Roman Republic grew larger into becoming an empire and giving citizenship to more and more subdued/allied nations, it's obvious that the probability to encounter foreigners in cemeteries near Rome and other metropolitan areas are logically way higher. 
> 
> Any of you actually calculated approximately this "Near Eastern signal" that actually managed to survive past Late Antiquity and Early Middle Ages in Latium and Italy in general? What percentage are we talking about? 
> 
> I believe my opinion on the matter is obvious, but I'm trying hard to see it also from the perspective of people who don't agree with me and have a completely different take on the matter. What's "justifying" their views if that's even the correct word to use. Or plain racism?


My friend, some of it is clearly Levanticism, or Levantism, i.e. some people with history from the Levant who want to attach themselves to the glory of Rome and the accomplishments of the Italian people. Is there such a word? :) It's nice to be admired, or maybe it's sort of like pay back by the conquered, in their minds, but we have to stick to the facts. 

Some of it is pure, outright racism against any Europeans who carry CHG/Iran Neo which arrived at the wrong time for their liking, and with the wrong people, i.e. not with steppe people, but from Neolithic, Bronze and Iron Age people who went to Greece, the Balkans, Italy, and further west in the Mediterranean from the east. Do I have to repeat that Polako said Southern Italians should be kicked out of Europe, or that he permits racist posts on his site from maniacs who say they're not "European" because they have too much of that ancestry? What, precisely, is too much ancestry from the Near East? If you add up all the Anatolian Neo and CHG and Iran Neo in Europe, even northern Europe is at 50=60%. Is that going to be the cut off?

Then, there's the old "Portuguese Princess" and her socks, who is an absolute racist against Italians as proved by tens of thousands of posts on theapricity, who now under the name "Sikeliot", and perhaps Azzurro, pretends to be a Levanticist and even a quasi Jew. Gosh, I thought anthrogenica had a policy against multiple accounts, even if they were because passwords were forgotten. 

What a bunch of disgusting hypocrites.

It's like trying to debate with someone in a hall of mirrors. 

Meanwhile, anthrogenica gives him and others like him free rein, and bans anyone with a contrary opinion. 

It's unreal.

----------


## Ailchu

> If the rural people took back the cities, then how can this be considered a genetic ethnogenesis? The genes were there, in the rural area. Perhaps Rome had many immigrants, but this in itself would say little about Italy as a whole.


that graphic with the "admixtures" over time doesn't give you the ancestry based on real modern or old populations, so it isn't really usefull if you want to understand the ethnogenesis. i mean just look at the farmers admixture. 
you could make the assumption that the cluster C6 was always present and roughly always corresponded to the same population in italy. then you could say something about ethnogenesis, but it's just an assumption and you could miss out a lot of possible details.
and surprise, if you try to model for example the imperial samples with samples of the exact same study they will probably be modeled by themselves. 
i think based on this graphic you can only say that early modern rome can be modeled as a mix of a theoretical population that looks modern north italian and a theoretical population that looks modern south italian.

----------


## kingjohn

> Like I said, the sample is in the C6 grouping. Not near eastern, or even eastern Mediterranean.
> 
> Also:


ok so he doesn't know how to use nmonte .......

----------


## Angela

> someone from eurogenes blog i think it is nmonte :
> 
> The outlier from IA Ardea
>  looks interesting:
> 
> 
> _[1] "distance%=3.8939"_
> 
> _ITA_Ardea_Latini_IA_o_
> ...


Total B.S.

Here's a novel idea. :)

There were two samples found in Ardea, same time period.

How about modeling sample 850 with the genes from the other Ardean and see what else has to be added?

OH, WAIT! They already did that in the paper. 

The clique at anthrogenica just doesn't like that result.  :Sad:  Too bad, so sad. 

The problem, Ironside, whoever you are, is that the paper shows that the change in the Italian gene pool was from "added" ancestry from Anatolia, and the Caucasus, not the Levant. It also shows the "LEVANT TAIL" disappeared from the gene pool of modern Central Italians. I'm sure Sikeliot/Azzurro, and maybe Agamemnon and all their socks are devastated, but there it is.

These two "outliers" show that ancestry from that part of the world arrived in Central Rome very early; it didn't need to wait for hordes of Syrians or Jews who came as slaves in the Empire. My bet is that they either came from Greeks as prized artisans and teachers, or migrated up from Southern Italy.

Not that I would have had a problem with the Levant ancestry staying, God knows. From my own subjective world view better Levantine craftsmen and merchants than marauding Goths and Langobards from whose depredations it took us almost 2000 years to recover.

Facts are sometimes inconvenient things, but they have to be accepted to keep your own sense of honor intact and to be respected by those whom you yourself respect.

Honestly, anyone with any intellectual honesty should boycott that thread on anthrogenica. How can people support such blatant dishonesty in analysis?

----------


## Angela

> that graphic with the "admixtures" over time doesn't give you the ancestry based on real modern or old populations, so it isn't really usefull if you want to understand the ethnogenesis. i mean just look at the farmers admixture. 
> you could make the assumption that the cluster C6 was always present and roughly always corresponded to the same population in italy. then you could say something about ethnogenesis, but it's just an assumption and you could miss out a lot of possible details.
> and surprise, if you try to model for example the imperial samples with samples of the exact same study they will probably be modeled by themselves. 
> i think based on this graphic you can only say that early modern rome can be modeled as a mix of a theoretical population that looks modern north italian and a theoretical population that looks modern south italian.


Exactly right.

----------


## kingjohn

> Total B.S.
> 
> Here's a novel idea. :)
> 
> There were two samples found in Ardea, same time period.
> 
> How about modeling sample 850 with the genes from the other Ardean and see what else has to be added?
> 
> OH, WAIT! They already did that in the paper. 
> ...


i also think so
regards
adam

----------


## Pax Augusta

> I thought it was a settlement within Rome based on that map. No?



Yes, ANSA is the owner of the land where this necropolis was discovered, near Acilia in the southern suburb of Rome. Often archaeological finds in Italy (and I imagine that it happens abroad as well) are found by accident during public works or road building.





> I have to go back and check, but doesn't the excerpt I published indicate the rich hoard was Bronze Age? Aren't the samples we're discussing from a later period as per your graphic? Excellent information in this post, btw, but I'm out of ammunition. :)



There are too many necropolises in Rome, I can not find a scientific publication avalaible that explains in detail the necropolis of Campo del Fico. The page previously posted comes from a book that costs only 250 euros :), and the information continued on the following pages.

https://www.amazon.it/Sepolture-prin.../dp/B01K058CRM


According to a booklet, the Campo del Fico necropolis dates from 11th century BC (end of the bronze) to the 6th century B.C. It is necessary to see if there have been any updates. While in this paper evidently only skeletal materials from two individuals dated VIII (700 B.C) and VI century BC (500 BC) have been analyzed.

----------


## Angela

> Guys, I would appreciate your opinion on these calculations. How reliable do you think they are? 
> 
> If they are indeed reliable, what's with all the fuss people are making and the "shocking discoveries" and Near Eastern signal and this significant genetic shift of Italy and coastal Spain and France in comparison to the Republican samples? 
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but as the Roman Republic grew larger into becoming an empire and giving citizenship to more and more subdued/allied nations, it's obvious that the probability to encounter foreigners in cemeteries near Rome and other metropolitan areas are logically way higher. 
> 
> *Any of you actually calculated approximately this "Near Eastern signal" that actually managed to survive past Late Antiquity and Early Middle Ages in Latium and Italy in general? What percentage are we talking about? 
> 
> I believe my opinion on the matter is obvious, but I'm trying hard to see it also from the perspective of people who don't agree with me and have a completely different take on the matter. What's "justifying" their views if that's even the correct word to use. Or plain racism?*



In one matter, I am in complete agreement with the paper, as the data is unambiguous: The "tail into the Levant" ( and yDna J1, btw) which was seen in the Imperial Age is GONE by Late Antiquity (contrary to a "theory" pushed by these same people that whole bunches of Levantine Christians and Anatolian Christians came flooding into Italy precisely *during Late Antiquity;*  right, they left the relative safety of the east for the war zone that was Italy) and the Early Middle Ages and the Modern Era. What remains in Central Italy is more CHG/Iran Neo than was seen in the Etruscans and most early Latins. 

So the only question is why that is the case. I think a good chunk of it is ancestry flowing north from Southern Italy with perhaps some directly from Greece and the Aegean and perhaps some from Asia Minor. Some of it was even there in the Neolithic, perhaps partly by way of Northern Greece.

It's as simple and unarguable as that. There is no wiggle room which the denizens of anthrogenica/theapricity can use to prove masses of Levantine ancestry in Central Italy.

If someone can show me lots of Northern European yDna in Central Italy I'll believe that's what erased the signal. 

I really couldn't care less if that's a disappointment to some people.

----------


## Angela

> In one matter, I am in complete agreement with the paper, as the data is unambiguous: The "tail into the Levant" ( and yDna J1, btw) which was seen in the Imperial Age is GONE by Late Antiquity (contrary to a "theory" pushed by these same people that whole bunches of Levantine Christians and Anatolian Christians came flooding into Italy precisely *during Late Antiquity;*  right, they left the relative safety of the east for the war zone that was Italy) and the Early Middle Ages and the Modern Era. What remains in Central Italy is more CHG/Iran Neo than was seen in the Etruscans and most early Latins. 
> 
> So the only question is why that is the case. I think a good chunk of it is ancestry flowing north from Southern Italy with perhaps some directly from Greece and the Aegean and perhaps some from Asia Minor. Some of it was even there in the Neolithic, perhaps partly by way of Northern Greece.
> 
> It's as simple and unarguable as that. There is no wiggle room which the denizens of anthrogenica/theapricity can use to prove masses of Levantine ancestry in Central Italy.
> 
> I really couldn't care less if that's a disappointment to some people.


I pointed it out to these yo-yos repeatedly for years, just from what I knew from archaeology and history, and even from what public testing companies like 23andme showed. It was obvious from the latter that Southern Italians (and parts of Lazio today are indeed Southern Italian) have an excess of "Near Eastern" in the 23andme analysis, what they now call "West Asian", but that ancestry is, if you looked up their definition, which I did for them numerous times, Iranian and Caucasus and Anatolian ancestry, in other words, a mix of Anatolian Neolithic plus CHG/Iran Neo, and the reference samples for it were the Caucasus countries, Iran, and Turkey. Their proportion of what 23andme calls North African and where Southerners get MAYBE 2 % as a maximum, and Sicilians maybe a bit more, includes JORDAN AND PALESTINE. 

When people ignore things like this, you know they're not being honest. 

Heck, if you go back to the old calculators Dienekes did, mainland Greeks get the same or more of that "West Asian" ancestry. No wonder, looking at the make up of the Mycenaeans. Are the Mycenaeans, the heroes of one of the greatest western epic prose poems now not European? Only Beowulf qualifies? Tell that to the western European intelligentsia; Homer and Livy is what was drilled into the brains of the western elites, not Beowulf. 

One other thing: One reason J1 and the Levantine signal may have disappeared, besides the fact that real trade and business moved out of Rome, either to Ravenna, the new capital, or to Constantinople, might be because the Roman Emperors periodically exiled all Jews from Rome, both during the Imperial Era and later, and into the Middle Ages. Unfortunate, but true.

----------


## Carlos

*Romans and Italians*

An interactive table in google with all samples

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ZpoaWEgKWeKgxdrs0jemndT_CRwiatuhdEzOGFWTXrQ/htmlview?fbclid=IwAR2EAHgnZSB2RDJ7sD9cPESECT7zRSUF hPTPbX2EyNqF8pOZ4mZHocjPsBw#

Antonio (2019) Romans and Italians

Table S2 Sample InformationMales onlyTable S1 SitesTable S3 Sample AMS DatingTable S4 Published Reference Sa

----------


## Angela

I'm going to steal this. It's from Razib Khan, and goes for pop gen sites too:

"the democratization enabled by twitter of many voices means the really stupid get to talk too. my model for why online discourse is dumb: the dumb are online now."

----------


## Angela

Well, well, the Reich Lab must be leaking like a sieve. 

It must be nice, Polako, to have someone in your pocket who's willing to talk to a White Nationalist Skinhead like yourself and also has contacts in the right places. 

So, ergo, the guy who told me he was going to prove to me that all Italians were descendants of slaves from North Africa and the Levant is now posting this:

"The Germanic and East Med admixtures were definitely important factors in the formation of the modern Italian gene pool, but I feel that they were overstated in the paper, which, in my mind, made it out as if there were a couple of total population replacements in the Italian Peninsula since the Bronze Age.

I think it's obvious that modern Italians largely derive from the Iron Age and even Bronze Age peoples of the area just by looking at their Y-haplogroups."

Somehow, when I mention y lineages it's irrelevant, but when the Reich Lab think they're important, they're important. 

Oh, and he somehow has a nice new PCA too.

"*Update 13/11/2019: Here's another, similar PCA. This one, however, is based on genotype data, and it also highlights many more of the samples from the Antonio et al. paper. Considering these results, I'm tempted to say that the present-day Italian gene pool largely formed in the Iron Age, and that it was only augmented by population movements during later periods. The relevant datasheet is available here."
*
My oh my, perhaps it's time to retire Archi and some of the other mouthpieces on eurogenes. 

Oh, and "Rob", whoever you are, who never wanted to admit he was from the Balkans, was banned and had to do who knows what to get to post again on eurogenes, now wants to brag about "Balkan" Emperors, the ones too incompetent to keep the Empire united, would you have the guts to make this statement to an Italian face to face, maybe someone who had ancestors who died or were maimed in those mountains, or do you only have the guts to do it anonymously from a computer? 
*
"*But then heaps of Germanics (esp Goths) would have died of during Justinians ”reconquista”
Even if some Italian patricians were allied with them; they did little fighting; and often readily joined whomever was winning
... kinda like WW1 :)"

You miserable excuse for a man.

----------


## blevins13

> I'm going to steal this. It's from Razib Khan, and goes for pop gen sites too:
> 
> "the democratization enabled by twitter of many voices means the really stupid get to talk too. my model for why online discourse is dumb: the dumb are online now."


This is too much.


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum

----------


## Tutkun Arnaut

> I'm going to steal this. It's from Razib Khan, and goes for pop gen sites too:
> 
> "the democratization enabled by twitter of many voices means the really stupid get to talk too. my model for why online discourse is dumb: the dumb are online now."


Some people just cant handle different point of view, with arguments, As such they use vulgarity to despise the other. Of course online you have disrupters, provocateurs and demagogues but no one can monopolize the truth. An argument with facts will be more helpful.

----------


## Jovialis

> *Romans and Italians*
> 
> An interactive table in google with all samples
> 
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ZpoaWEgKWeKgxdrs0jemndT_CRwiatuhdEzOGFWTXrQ/htmlview?fbclid=IwAR2EAHgnZSB2RDJ7sD9cPESECT7zRSUF hPTPbX2EyNqF8pOZ4mZHocjPsBw#
> 
> Antonio (2019) Romans and Italians
> 
> Table S2 Sample InformationMales onlyTable S1 SitesTable S3 Sample AMS DatingTable S4 Published Reference Sa


Thanks for the list:

_omitted_.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> Thanks for the list:



The Villanovan is an Etruscan, the Proto-Villanovan is a Proto-Italic (eastern Italics).

----------


## Jovialis

> The Villanovan is an Etruscan, the Proto-Villanovan is a Proto-Italic (eastern Italics).


Thanks,

I'll modify it when I get a chance later.

----------


## kingjohn

Angela why are you so rage /mad 
On polako ... 
he is not my cup of tee also 
But it his own blog(eurogenes) and can write 
Whstever he wants..... 
In the end of the day we know the truth....

----------


## Carlos

People can say what they want because even what we know least about all this we do not believe anything and well they are countries that already have a great international prestige and have changed the course of humanity having a deserved position in History with capital letters, a country could get the genetic value of an elf that wasn't going to change my idea about that country, say, Italy, Spain, France, England, Portugal, etc. Be criticized by one or the other there are the facts and that can not be erased by anyone.

----------


## kingjohn

i now notice that i joked about r1a before the paper 
went out it turn out 
in the imperial remains 
R1548

27 BCE - 300 CE
Imperial
Imperial
Roman Imperial
H2a
R-F1345
Monterotondo


*R-1548 imperial 27bc-300ad MONTEROTONDO* *R-F1345*

----------


## Aaron1981

One of the most interesting takeaways from this study is the presence of our first L51(xL11) found in ancient DNA. Of all the groups, I am not terribly surprised that it was found in Italy, among the Latins, as that country is most certainly a hotspot for it today.

Some food for thought thought. How could the Etruscans and Latins truly derive from the same groups? Is there anything in the Etruscan mythos that would suggest they derived from the steppes, or the CWC/BB cultures? At least with the Latin language there is a connection to the Celtic groups which would place them in a hypothetical central European homeland. It would also fit the R1b haplogroup as central Europe was most definitely a bifurcation point during the Bronze Age. That said, the similarity could be the results of centuries of mixing between Etruscan and Latins, or alternatively that one group of Latins adopted a preceeding Neolithic culture of what would become the Etruscans. This has been hypothesized for the Basque and Iberian languages, and what may be considered proto-Gauls or proto-Celtiberians moving south from adjacent France.

----------


## Angela

I neither forgive nor forget insults against me, my family, my friends, or my country. I make the best and most loving and loyal friend in the world, but I make a terrible enemy. 

You think I would forgive someone writing that we're mongrels who should be kicked out of Europe? That we're all descendants of slaves and are untermenschen? This, about a country and a people which have given so much to Europe and the world? I could make some comparisons, but I won't stoop to his level.

He also had the effrontery to come on this site and tell me to shut up or I'd be sorry. What, I'm supposed to forget that he threatened me with his East European White Nationalist Goons? A prior moderator here had to call the authorities because they somehow found out his address and phone number.

Well, I've never released enough info for them to find me. Plus, I don't scare easy, and I have my own contacts, legitimate ones, and let them try. How these Storm Front type people think they're invisible to the FBI is beyond me.

He's also the one who had better watch out. I've saved tons of screenshots from the bad old days. He threatens me again and I'll publish them all. We'll see who leaks data to him then to protect him from egregious errors like the ones he made about the Mycenaeans.

That's all over and above the fact that his mispredictions and misstatements are enough to fill the directory of a small city, and that in the bad old days he used to actually post how you can massage the data. 

So, now you had me repeat it, when I'm sure you already knew it. Fine. 

Now, back to the paper, and the remarkable about face we've now seen. 

Whatever will you guys at anthrogenica do now?

----------


## Jovialis

> The Villanovan is an Etruscan, the Proto-Villanovan is a Proto-Italic (eastern Italics).

----------


## blevins13

> Well, well, the Reich Lab must be leaking like a sieve. 
> 
> It must be nice, Polako, to have someone in your pocket who's willing to talk to a White Nationalist Skinhead like yourself and also has contacts in the right places. 
> 
> So, ergo, the guy who told me he was going to prove to me that all Italians were descendants of slaves from North Africa and the Levant is now posting this:
> 
> "The Germanic and East Med admixtures were definitely important factors in the formation of the modern Italian gene pool, but I feel that they were overstated in the paper, which, in my mind, made it out as if there were a couple of total population replacements in the Italian Peninsula since the Bronze Age.
> 
> I think it's obvious that modern Italians largely derive from the Iron Age and even Bronze Age peoples of the area just by looking at their Y-haplogroups."
> ...


IMG_3951.jpg

From what I saw in this picture, the population change from the fathers of the Roman Republic seems drastic. Is this correct or you have a different opinion about it. Here the discussion is Rome not Italians.


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum

----------


## kingjohn

he doesn't act like nazi in his site 
there was a member who cursed jews 
and he expelled him 
i don't believe he is nazi 
he has an agenda for sure on this i agree ...........

p.s
and even if he was 
*people can change over the years* ......
i am sorry if he offended your country

----------


## Angela

> IMG_3951.jpg
> 
> From what I saw in this picture, the population change from the fathers of the Roman Republic seems drastic. Is this correct or you have a different opinion about it. Here the discussion is Rome not Italians.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum


Blevins, I've gone over this and over this, with analogies to modern western cities. 

Why don't you read my posts again, and if I wasn't clear about something I'll try to clear it up.

----------


## Ailchu

> Whatever will you guys at anthrogenica do now?


i don't think anthrogenica guys are really that much against italians or more precise against near easterners. looking through the threads there, it's actually not that bad, considering that such genetics sites are a magnet for racism, and people who try to find a piece of identity in their genes. 
for those who thought that possible near eastern ancestry in italians and other europeans is something bad, did the fact that most europeans derive from EEF/CHG from near east stop hating them on other people from near east and north africa? nope. they just started to make a difference between these people from near east and those other people from near east. hating a group of people/population is always irrational and ignorant. you can't do something against this with rational arguments.

----------


## Angela

> i don't think anthrogenica guys are really that much against italians or more precise against near easterners. looking through the threads there, it's actually not that bad, considering that such genetics sites are a magnet for racism, and people who try to find a piece of identity in their genes. 
> *for those who thought that possible near eastern ancestry in italians and other europeans is something bad, did the fact that most europeans derive from EEF/CHG from near east stop hating them on other people from near east and north africa? nope. they just started to make a difference between these people from near east and those other people from near east. hating a group of people/population is always irrational and ignorant. you can't do something against this with rational arguments.*


Your bolded comments are wise indeed.

----------


## Jovialis

> you can't do something against this with rational arguments.


I fully-agree.

----------


## Tutkun Arnaut

> I neither forgive nor forget insults against me, my family, my friends, or my country. I make the best and most loving and loyal friend in the world, but I make a terrible enemy. 
> 
> You think I would forgive someone writing that we're mongrels who should be kicked out of Europe? That we're all descendants of slaves and are untermenschen? This, about a country and a people which have given so much to Europe and the world? I could make some comparisons, but I won't stoop to his level.
> 
> He also had the effrontery to come on this site and tell me to shut up or I'd be sorry. What, I'm supposed to forget that he threatened me with his East European White Nationalist Goons? A prior moderator here had to call the authorities because they somehow found out his address and phone number.
> 
> Well, I've never released enough info for them to find me. Plus, I don't scare easy, and I have my own contacts, legitimate ones, and let them try. How these Storm Front type people think they're invisible to the FBI is beyond me.
> 
> He's also the one who had better watch out. I've saved tons of screenshots from the bad old days. He threatens me again and I'll publish them all. We'll see who leaks data to him then to protect him from egregious errors like the ones he made about the Mycenaeans.
> ...


I did not see anyone insulting you in this Rome forums. But even if somebody does the best way to counter it is politeness and hard facts. Of course would be provocateurs, disrupters but insulting anyone would not change the minds of one who think differently, or have an agenda. Its not that I am teaching you something you don't know, but I felt obligated to comment in relation to comments you directed to the person that was arguing about J2b presence in Etruscans. He had a valid point of partial connections of Etruscans with Illyrians based on common J2b clade. He was not been disruptive, or anthrogenics, he had an opinion. If we all had the same opinions would be no need for discussions. 
Peole try to

----------


## Tutkun Arnaut

> Blevins, I've gone over this and over this, with analogies to modern western cities. 
> 
> Why don't you read my posts again, and if I wasn't clear about something I'll try to clear it up.


Its known fact that Rome imported many people from middle east to construct their projects. Middle east was known for having world class architects for the time, or artisans, or engineers, shipbuilders and they were brought to Rome to advance Rome. Most were from Greece but Syrians were not far behind. I always think that genetic history of Rome made Italy a powerhouse of art and architecture

----------


## Pax Augusta

> One of the most interesting takeaways from this study is the presence of our first L51(xL11) found in ancient DNA. Of all the groups, I am not terribly surprised that it was found in Italy, among the Latins, as that country is most certainly a hotspot for it today.
> 
> Some food for thought thought. How could the Etruscans and Latins truly derive from the same groups? Is there anything in the Etruscan mythos that would suggest they derived from the steppes, or the CWC/BB cultures? At least with the Latin language there is a connection to the Celtic groups which would place them in a hypothetical central European homeland. It would also fit the R1b haplogroup as central Europe was most definitely a bifurcation point during the Bronze Age. That said, the similarity could be the results of centuries of mixing between Etruscan and Latins, or alternatively that one group of Latins adopted a preceeding Neolithic culture of what would become the Etruscans. This has been hypothesized for the Basque and Iberian languages, and what may be considered proto-Gauls or proto-Celtiberians moving south from adjacent France.


The Etruscan sample from Veio (R1015, date range: 900 BCE - 800 BCE), which is labeled as Villanovan, already shows a similarity between Etruscans and Latins. So if there was a mix between the two populations, it is plausible that it happened much earlier, during the Bronze age. Before Iron Age ethnos were formed.

Archaeologically, there are no significant differences in the processes that then lead to the formation of the two ethnos, the Etruscan and the Latin. Only the former speak a pre-Indo-European language and the latter a Indo-European one. The most marked differences emerge later and are cultural (an orientalising phase exists in both Etruria and Latium Vetus, but in Etruria it has a stronger impact, especially in southern Etruria). But this is true, to some extent, even if you compare Rome with the rest of Italy.

Myths about the origins were born much later and are influenced by the Greeks and the Greek mindset and culture. 

Some Roman authors report that the Etruscans dated the birth of the "Etruscan nation" to the eleventh or tenth century BC, which coincides with the archaeological hypothesis based on very long research, which was made from the '70s and '80s, and which was discussed throughout the '90s, that the Proto-Etruscans emerge right around the eleventh century BC within a local facies of Protovillanovan culture in Etruria.

It is important to underline that there are no chronological differences in the formation of the Etruscans, the Latins, Osco-Umbrians and even the ancient Veneti. The formation of all these ethnos takes place in parallel. The difference is due to the contacts with the Greeks of southern Italy. And those who had more contacts, especially initially, with the Greeks were the Etruscans, followed by the Latins who later became Romans.

To complete the picture, we must also mention the role of the Phoenicians, who were the link between the Levant, North Africa, Italy (including Sardinia) and the Iberian world, and also the role of the Nuragics of Sardinia, who had long and prolonged commercial relations with the eastern Mediterranean as far as Cyprus, should also be remembered and their cultural contribution to the early stages of Etruscan civilization.

----------


## Angela

@Tutkun

No one in their right mind would deny any of that. The Imperial Era samples plot where they plot; their autosomal make up is what it is. I don't find it at all surprising.

What doesn't seem to make an impression on Blevins or your mind is that there is no way of knowing who these Imperial Age people were. Were they Southern Italians already impacted by Bronze Age and Iron Age migrations perhaps mostly by way of Greece and the Balkans? Were they temporary traders from all over the Empire, but mostly from the East and, say, Egypt, because that was where the wealth was? Did they stay, maybe even for a few generations and then leave, or did they stay forever and intermingle? Even if they stayed, what happened to all these urban inhabitants?

Do many of them look rather similar to the samples we have of ancient Greeks because they were Southern Italians who moved north and who not only had CHG/Iran Neo from the Neolithic, but from the Greeks of Magna Graecia, whom, one would assume, would still have the CHG/Iran Neo found in Mycenaeans. Did some of that ancestry perhaps come from Bronze Age movements, not forgetting that this would have arrived in combination with more Anatolian Neo, only the ratios being different? 

On the other hand, could some of them have been actual Greeks? Of course they could. They were the most prized slaves in the empire, certainly more prized than Illyrian gladiators, and those who were not enslaved still were given commissions, came to trade, etc. The same would have been true to some extent of the people of Asia Minor.

Would some of them, living cheek by jowl in the huge crowded urban centers, and particularly Rome, or in port cities, have married? I'm sure some did. 

So, how many were just Southern Italians and how many came from Greece and the Greek islands or perhaps parts of Asia Minor under and not under Greek influence? Will we ever be able to tell the difference?

Then there's the fact of the disappearance of this "tail" into the Levant. A related question is why, during Late Antiquity, did J1 disappear, but not J2? Lack of subsequent migrations might be one reason. Another reason might be that a lot of them were Jews who were periodically expelled. A third reason is that a lot of them were perhaps merchants and entrepreneurs, and toward the end of the Empire Rome and other cities like it began to decline terribly.

The larger reason is that the cities of the Western Empire began to decline, partly because of disease, which spreads quicker in crowded urban centers when systems start to fail, partly because the Western Emperors weren't as good at buying off the barbarians as the Eastern Emperors were. Trade moved elsewhere, and traders of foreign descent moved elsewhere. In terms of Rome, in particular, it had declined so much that the capital of the western Empire was moved to Ravenna. That later emperors never set foot in Rome. Then, came the plague and the sacks by the Goths, and then the Gothic War with the Byzantines. They tried to take back at least Italy, even if the rest of the West was gone, but they couldn't, for reasons too complicated to explain here, but the result was an even more devastated Italy. 

Those who stayed in the cities were the poor, and they died. 

Then, who repopulated Rome and the other major cities? When someone shows me all this Germanic and British y Dna in Central Italy in Late Antiquity, and the Early Medieval period and then in Modern Central Italy, I'll believe the paper that there was a mass migration to Central Italy. Oh, and be sure to show me all the evidence for Northwestern and North/Central European migration into the depths of Calabria and Basilicata. 

Hell, there wasn't even a mass migration to Northern Italy. How much freaking I1 and U-106 is there???? That's a rhetorical question. The answer is not much. I'm sure there were more Gauls from the first millennium BC than from the Germanics of the invasions period. 

You people have always treated everything posted at eurogenes as gospel: well, now you have it from your apostle: Italian genetics was mostly complete in the Bronze and Iron Age, which Ralph and Coop said YEARS ago. 

]

Oh, and the new PCA posted at the eurogenes site:

----------


## dominique_nuit

> Some of it is pure, outright racism against any Europeans who carry CHG/Iran Neo which arrived at the wrong time for their liking, and with the wrong people, i.e. not with steppe people, but from Neolithic, Bronze and Iron Age people who went to Greece, the Balkans, Italy, and further west in the Mediterranean from the east. Do I have to repeat that Polako said Southern Italians should be kicked out of Europe, or that he permits racist posts on his site from maniacs who say they're not "European" because they have too much of that ancestry? What, precisely, is too much ancestry from the Near East? If you add up all the Anatolian Neo and CHG and Iran Neo in Europe, even northern Europe is at 50=60%. Is that going to be the cut off?


Elementary question. Isn't Steppe ancestry itself roughly 50% CHG/Iran Neo, with the balance Ancient North Eurasian and EHG? And isn't ANE found in Native Americans?

My impression is that the only thing that distinguishes Southern Italians and Greeks from other Europeans is that they--or to speak in the first-person, "we"--carry more CHG and only a small fraction of EHG and ANE. And perhaps "we" also have some small percentage of North African admixture. But for the most part, all Europeans, including Southern Italians, are comprised of Anatolian Neolithic, CHG/Iranian Neolithic, and WHG.

Do I at least have the fundamentals correct?

And in reference to Angela's comments elsewhere in this thread, it would be nice if 23andme and other testing companies used the same nomenclature as academic scientists to describe various genetic components. So rather than say that Calabrians have lots of Middle Eastern ancestry (which is very vague and confusing), they should use terms like Anatolian Neolithic and CHG/Iranian Neolithic.

----------


## blevins13

> @Tutkun
> 
> No one in their right mind would deny any of that. The Imperial Era samples plot where they plot; their autosomal make up is what it is. I don't find it at all surprising.
> 
> What doesn't seem to make an impression on Blevins or your mind is that there is no way of knowing who these Imperial Age people were. Were they Southern Italians already impacted by Bronze Age and Iron Age migrations perhaps mostly by way of Greece and the Balkans? Were they temporary traders from all over the Empire, but mostly from the East and, say, Egypt, because that was where the wealth was? Did they stay, maybe even for a few generations and then leave, or did they stay and intermingle? Even if they stayed, what happened to all these urban inhabitants?
> 
> Do many of them look rather similar to Greeks because they were Southern Italians who moved north and who not only had CHG/Iran Neo from the Neolithic, but from the Greeks of Magna Graecia, whom, one would assume, would still have the CHG/Iran Neo found in Mycenaeans. Did some of that ancestry perhaps come from Bronze Age movements, not forgetting that this would have arrived in combination with more Anatolian Neo, only the ratios being different. 
> 
> On the other hand, could some of them have been actual Greeks or Anatolians? Of course they could. They were the most prized slaves in the empire, certainly more prized than Illyrian gladiators and those who were not enslaved still were given commissions, came to trade, etc. 
> ...


Never read eurogenes, but to tell you the truth I never expected this huge change from Roman Republic to Imperial Rome. It seems that based on this study the former citizens of Rome have become a minority considering also the sample limitations mentions by Angela. 


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum

----------


## Angela

Sorry, it seems to me you haven't read the post all that closely, or prior ones in this thread. Also take a look at the newest PCA, and see where modern Italian samples fall, where Iron Age samples fall, and where some of the Imperial samples fall. 

For someone who has lived in and near an international city for a few decades, the "internationality" of the Imperial Age samples is not a surprise at all. Half the people walking down the street around me are speaking a language I don't understand and don't look anything like me. Yet, someday, some archaeologists may dig up their bones and try to understand what the heck was going on.

Let's see the genetic make-up of southern Italy in the Bronze and Iron Age and what that tells us.

----------


## Angela

> Elementary question. Isn't Steppe ancestry itself roughly 50% CHG/Iran Neo, with the balance Ancient North Eurasian and EHG? And isn't ANE found in Native Americans?
> 
> My impression is that the only thing that distinguishes Southern Italians and Greeks from other Europeans is that they--or to speak in the first-person, "we"--carry more CHG and only a small fraction of EHG and ANE. And perhaps "we" also have some small percentage of North African admixture. But for the most part, all Europeans, including Southern Italians, are comprised of Anatolian Neolithic, CHG/Iranian Neolithic, and WHG.
> 
> Do I at least have the fundamentals correct?
> 
> And in reference to Angela's comments elsewhere in this thread, it would be nice if 23andme and other testing companies used the same nomenclature as academic scientists to describe various genetic components. So rather than say that Calabrians have lots of Middle Eastern ancestry (which is very vague and confusing), they should use terms like Anatolian Neolithic and CHG/Iranian Neolithic.


Indeed, you do have it right. 

So, what's the big deal you might say, to put it another way?

Why does it matter if some parts of Europe have more of some WHG/EHG ancestry than others?

It isn't a big deal. It's only a big deal to people with warped minds full of unscientific and illogical nonsense. Don't ask me to explain it. I don't understand minds like that. I don't know how some people can look at data and just refuse to see it's relevance because it interferes with some racist rigamarole dreamed up by "writers" of the past to explain why they're superior to all other people on earth because they're fairer. 

Worse still, what kind of person would distort data to prove some unscientific point? I don't know what kind of mind can come up with something as stupid and even evil as that. Yet, we see it all around us. Paper after paper being retracted, especially in the social sciences, where "scientists" distorted the data to prove some theory dear to their hearts.

It's really disillusioning.

----------


## Dianatomia

Analyzing the evolution of DNA of a metropolitan city will surely show more turbulent results than that of the whole peninsula. The genetic mainframe of a people as a whole remains more intact due to numerical superiority and genetic drift. I am sure you will find similar results in cities such as Constantinople and Alexandria.

----------


## Carlos

It reminded me of the case of the SSA in Andalusia in the Iberia papers. With samples from the Hospital of Huelva and how they had been resized for all of Andalusia and also at a time that was impossible due to socio-political, cultural, religious, e.t.c. In a historical moment in Andalusia and Spain, do not forget that slavery in Spain was abolished on February 13, 1880, so that the attempt to fit the results sought in a historical situation in a region probably showed nothing more than a great ignorance of the country and the region. For someone who is on the ground, native was definitely going to strain something like this:


Phone call:
*Is your husband?*
No, no it is not.
*What time will he be at home?*
No, he won't come home
*How it won't come?*
No, he's a slave, he works 24 hours, he won't come home
*Ok excuse me*


A Christian, closed Catholic society, I imagine that still with the stress of Jewish and blackberry expulsions and with socio-religious complexes even perhaps more than racial ones.


Too little shame is what you have to have to pretend to fit something like that. And I say it because I hate the lie, not for another reason.

----------


## matadworf

> Indeed, you do have it right. 
> 
> So, what's the big deal you might say, to put it another way?
> 
> Why does it matter if some parts of Europe have more of some WHG/EHG ancestry than others?
> 
> It isn't a big deal. It's only a big deal to people with warped minds full of unscientific and illogical nonsense. Don't ask me to explain it. I don't understand minds like that. I don't know how some people can look at data and just refuse to see it's relevance because it interferes with some racist rigamarole dreamed up by "writers" of the past to explain why they're superior to all other people on earth because they're fairer. 
> 
> Worse still, what kind of person would distort data to prove some unscientific point? I don't know what kind of mind can come up with something as stupid and even evil as that. Yet, we see it all around us. Paper after paper being retracted, especially in the social sciences, where "scientists" distorted the data to prove some theory dear to their hearts.
> ...


It's all a load of bunk to make people who have "no life' feel secure in their dismal state. Genetically the component makeup of Europeans varies (as you note) between minute proportions of WHG, CHG, EHG, ENF, which if you think about it is really pretty incidental. Are we going to argue which component is more "valuable" to European culture/civilization or openly acknowledge differences as significant to the creation of the Euro ethos. I wonder if this whole northern=fairer notion may also be debunked since there is evidence that Anatolian farmers (7000 bce) may have introduced the "light" skinned allele into Europe.

----------


## Salento

Pockets of mid-strength Italian Genes far from Italy, some maybe Roman Related, I think.





EDIT: 

Off Topic 

It’s all a matter of interpretation, 
the AncestryDNA map shows, that in the last 23andme update, they could have allocated to Cyprus and others: Italy, if they wanted to, and not the other way around.

Back to Topic.

----------


## I1a3_Young

Very cool, once again showing mostly genetic continuity in a region. Aside from the neolithic and steppe events, most places in Europe were genetically stable.

I saw some comments about Lombards being only U106 - I would like to point out that CL63 from Collegno and R110 from Crypta Balbi were both Lombards with I1-Z63. These Z63 had a common ancestor almost 2000 years before their time, so they were not closely related on the paternal line.

There was also non-U106 in the Lombards in Szolad. Granted, the ruling family in Collegno was U106.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Eupedia Forum mobile app

----------


## Angela

> Very cool, once again showing mostly genetic continuity in a region. Aside from the neolithic and steppe events, most places in Europe were genetically stable.
> 
> I saw some comments about Lombards being only U106 - I would like to point out that CL63 from Collegno and R110 from Crypta Balbi were both Lombards with I1-Z63. These Z63 had a common ancestor almost 2000 years before their time, so they were not closely related on the paternal line.
> 
> There was also non-U106 in the Lombards in Szolad. Granted, the ruling family in Collegno was U106.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935V using Eupedia Forum mobile app


If you check my posts, I1, you'll see I usually mention the relative lack of U-106 "and" I1. :)

I've always held out the possibility that some of the invading tribes might have carried some U-152, which would change things a bit, but so far it hasn't shown up in them.

----------


## Jovialis

> Pockets of mid-strength Italian Genes far from Italy, some maybe Roman Related, I think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EDIT: 
> 
> Off Topic 
> ...


Probably more related to the same CHG/Iran_N+Anatolian migration(s) that have been trickling into mainland Italy since the Neolithic.

Also:

_The medieval history of several populations often suffers from scarcity of contemporary records resulting in contradictory and sometimes biased interpretations by historians. This is the situation with the population of the island of Crete, which remained relatively undisturbed until the Middle Ages when multiple wars, invasions, and occupations by foreigners took place. Historians have considered the effects of the occupation of Crete by the Arabs (in the 9th and 10th centuries C.E.) and the Venetians (in the 13th to the 17th centuries C.E.) to the local population. To obtain insights on such effects from a genetic perspective, we studied representative samples from 17 Cretan districts using the Illumina 1 million or 2.5 million arrays and compared the Cretans to the populations of origin of the medieval conquerors and settlers. Highlights of our findings include (1) small genetic contributions from the Arab occupation to the extant Cretan population, (2) low genetic contribution of the Venetians to the extant Cretan population, and (3) evidence of a genetic relationship among the Cretans and Central, Northern, and Eastern Europeans, which could be explained by the settlement in the island of northern origin tribes during the medieval period. Our results show how the interaction between genetics and the historical record can help shed light on the historical record._
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...1111/ahg.12328

----------


## Angela

> Probably more related to the same CHG/Iran_N+Anatolian migration(s) that have been trickling into mainland Italy since the Neolithic.
> 
> Also:
> 
> _The medieval history of several populations often suffers from scarcity of contemporary records resulting in contradictory and sometimes biased interpretations by historians. This is the situation with the population of the island of Crete, which remained relatively undisturbed until the Middle Ages when multiple wars, invasions, and occupations by foreigners took place. Historians have considered the effects of the occupation of Crete by the Arabs (in the 9th and 10th centuries C.E.) and the Venetians (in the 13th to the 17th centuries C.E.) to the local population. To obtain insights on such effects from a genetic perspective, we studied representative samples from 17 Cretan districts using the Illumina 1 million or 2.5 million arrays and compared the Cretans to the populations of origin of the medieval conquerors and settlers. Highlights of our findings include (1) small genetic contributions from the Arab occupation to the extant Cretan population, (2) low genetic contribution of the Venetians to the extant Cretan population, and (3) evidence of a genetic relationship among the Cretans and Central, Northern, and Eastern Europeans, which could be explained by the settlement in the island of northern origin tribes during the medieval period. Our results show how the interaction between genetics and the historical record can help shed light on the historical record._
> https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...1111/ahg.12328


.
Thanks.

There used to be a lot of talk on these forums as to how every invasion or military occupation or change of elites must have had a huge impact on the local gene pool. 

It ain't always so.

----------


## MOESAN

> I think that the Basque language would come from WHG and the Etruscan language from NorthEastEuropeHG.
> 
> 
> 
> I found this map. A rough way is a little what I want to say about the HG origin of the Basque and the Etruscan, I had no idea that the thing was like that, but look where it is good to stage my hypothesis. The Basques in a matter of language would have been the redoubt of the orange color on the map and the Etruscans the redoubt of the green color, as an idiomatic trunk because there would have been a multitude of derived dialects.


Could you explain us what this map signifies? Colours and stars? And where you found it? To me it's a bit confuse.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> Could you explain us what this map signifies? Colours and stars? And where you found it? To me it's a bit confuse.


It's a map of the Bell Beaker phenomenon (not completely accurate in my humble opinion) from "Jan Turek 2016: _The Beaker World and Otherness of the Early Civilizations_., Musaica Archaeologica, Vol. 1, Issue 1, pp. 155-162"


https://www.academia.edu/27129003/Ja..._1_pp._155-162

----------


## Carlos

> Could you explain us what this map signifies? Colours and stars? And where you found it? To me it's a bit confuse.


Just the link that Pax Augusta has put. I do not know if it is accurate or not, but it very well exemplified my hypothesis about the origin of the Basque and Etruscan language. The stars I thought were decorative, I did not take too much notice, neighboring territories influenced, it may be.

----------


## Angela

Wonders never cease. :)

Sam has the guts and the integrity to point out to Polako that his models are incorrect and that the sample from the Latin Prenestini tribe does NOT in fact show Levant ancestry, and that's using Polako's own G25, which is suspect in and of itself. I highly doubt the Ardea 850 sample does either, not that it would matter to me.

This should be a wake up call for everyone; you can get these "models" to show whatever you want or "think" they should show. The authors of this paper did the same thing, although hopefully not out of malice. 

He just won't let it go. Does his hatred of Jews and the Levant in general extend this far? He's like those white American southerners who used to see hidden "Negroid" ancestry in every other person they met. I guess it just sticks in his craw that Italians, people unlike him, have given so much to the world. The fact that I'm the only one who seemingly has the guts to call him out doesn't help, I'm sure, but his tirades against not only Southern Italians but Southern Europeans in general go back for years.

Then there's his clique of Eastern Europeans. Maybe his old buddies from Stormfront. Did you know that the Latins were Corded Ware people from Poland? Yup, that's why they were so great. :) Then those dastardly people from Asia Minor and the Levant arrived and mucked everything up.

Of course, the Latins were a bunch of shepherds in huts on those seven hills, and the Etruscans weren't much better until they started to come in contact with those Greeks and Anatolians and began to get civilized. I guess the idea should have been steal their culture, the fruits of their genius, but don't for God's sake marry them? 

Does anyone else see the logical disconnect there? If they created these wonders, it must be in part the product of their genes. So why wouldn't you want them?

The same thing happened with the Jews in Germany and Eastern Europe. Is there anyone who doesn't acknowledge that Ashkenazi Jews are, on average, very intelligent and talented? So how did they wind up being untermenschen, and their hosts the ubermensch? Where did all of that come from? Fear they couldn't compete? Or was it atavistic, lizard brain hatred of anyone "different" as well. Re-read some of their old myths. They're highly enlightening. 

Why, also, do analogies have to be drawn to current problems with immigration in Europe, or the U.S. for that matter? My issue with mass immigration in our own time is that it is predominantly people with no education, skills or training who will burden industrialized and post industrialized societies already dealing with their own problems of inequality. You can't take in the whole world of needy people. Our own societies would collapse. 

How could that possibly compare with what was happening in Europe during the classical age? These people brought trade, commerce, and learning. Their arrival made the achievements of Rome possible, a Rome which formed western and southern Europe. 

There is no comparison. 

All Empires eventually fade and die, and there were intrinsic problems within the Roman Empire. However, it wasn't immigration from the East which brought it to the breaking point; it was the constant strain of barbarians at its border fleeing from climate change, hunger, and the Huns. The Eastern Empire also faded eventually, but it didn't collapse; order, trade, learning, didn't disappear there, millions didn't die.

I just cannot believe the ignorance of ancient history which is so often on display, or, in some cases, the distortion of it.

----------


## kingjohn

There is nothing wrong about having levant genes..... 
if davidski or other white nationalist think it is bad it there problem not mine and yours....
by the way 
_the ancient iberian paper_ 
noticed a levant bronze age ancestery 6-7% 
in 200-400 Ad in south east iberia ....
it is very cool .....

----------


## Carlos

The point is that when some try to imitate those who have intervened in the destiny of humanity everything has ended up being much more sordid and sad. They have to learn from the greats and admire them, imitating them is impossible because that is why it has to be born. Ah! and Europe is not a monopoly of any nationality, race or whatever you want to call exclusivity, Europe is of all the countries that compose it and all its stories and inclusions are Europe, that no Elf is forgotten.

----------


## Angela

Sickeliot (what an apt name) is no better. All that Levantist posturing is fake; he was known as a notorious anti-Semite at his university.

No modeling by Polako and his clique or Sikeliot and his socks is worthy of the slightest consideration.


Bravo, Carlos.

----------


## MOESAN

> Just the link that Pax Augusta has put. I do not know if it is accurate or not, but it very well exemplified my hypothesis about the origin of the Basque and Etruscan language. The stars I thought were decorative, I did not take too much notice, neighboring territories influenced, it may be.


OK, thanks to you and Pax Augusta. But your proper hypothesis about Etruscan and Basque languages doesn't convince me at all. We need more solid basis. And BB phenomenon is not entirely ethnic, we cannot be sure it did not include diverse pops sources.

----------


## Dema

There is incredibly high percentage of J (J1+J2) haplogroups in Imperial Romans, 13 out of 24 samples belong to haplogroups J1 or J2. However haplogroup J1 distribution percentage seems to fade in later periods.

Interestingly there is not a single I2a-L621, which is today one of main Balkan Y lineages. Strongly associated with a Early Medieval Slavic migrations towards Balkans.
Also haplogroup R1a (https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-F1019/) is represented only in one Imperial Roman sample in subclade that seems to be none-existent in modern Balkans but rather found in Caucasus/Anatolia.
There is also absence in haplogroups N and Q, which are at least in most cases, also connect with Early Medieval migrations towards Balkans.

There is lower percentage of haplogroup E-v13 then expected, only one Imperial Roman and one Renaissance sample is probably not what many people where expecting (me included).

Haplogroups G2a and R1b were found in expected percentage. There was even found Neolithic R1b, but in subclade typical for Sub-Saharan Africa and Middle East, but also in Yfull as can be seen found in Sardinia so probably it belong to this Sardinian branch.

----------


## Angela

> There is incredibly high percentage of J (J1+J2) haplogroups in Imperial Romans, 13 out of 24 samples belong to haplogroups J1 or J2. However haplogroup J1 distribution percentage seems to fade in later periods.
> 
> Interestingly there is not a single I2a-L621, which is today one of main Balkan Y lineages. Strongly associated with a Early Medieval Slavic migrations towards Balkans.
> Also haplogroup R1a (https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-F1019/) is represented only in one Imperial Roman sample in subclade that seems to be none-existent in modern Balkans but rather found in Caucasus/Anatolia.
> There is also absence in haplogroups N and Q, which are at least in most cases, also connect with Early Medieval migrations towards Balkans.
> 
> There is lower percentage of haplogroup E-v13 then expected, only one Imperial Roman and one Renaissance sample is probably not what many people where expecting (me included).
> 
> Haplogroups G2a and R1b were found in expected percentage. There was even found Neolithic R1b, but in subclade typical for Sub-Saharan Africa and Middle East, but also in Yfull as can be seen found in Sardinia so probably it belong to this Sardinian branch.


The current speculation is that R1b V88 went from either Sardinia/Sicily or Spain to North Africa and then into the heart of Africa.

Fwiw, I've already speculated as to why J1 lineages disappeared.

As to the J2, we really need to track each one of them back, because some J2 was in Neolithic Anatolia, and some was in Europe very early indeed, while others might have come late.

One size doesn't fit all with J2.

----------


## kingjohn

Also was suprising at least to me
was the( 2 E-v12 samples) and not to found 
The more middle eastern E types E-v22 and E-m123 in remains.
but thats what is so cool in ancient dna 😉

----------


## Dema

> As to the J2, we really need to track each one of them back, because some J2 was in Neolithic Anatolia, and some was in Europe very early indeed, while others might have come late.
> 
> One size doesn't fit all with J2.



Majority J2a-M410 in various subclades, and some J2b-L283 and some J2b-M205.

However, nevertheless, according to this study Imperial Romans had over 50 % of J haplogroups. Of course various subclades and various origins but still..



J2a
300-700 CE

PF5008>L581*
Late Antiquity

J2a
400-600 CE

L26>PF5087>PF5116>PF5119>L558>Y5014>M319
Late Antiquity

J2a
5345-5221 BCE
J-S11842* Y15913- Z6271-
M67>Z1847>Y4036>Z467>S11842*
Neolithic

J2a1a
100-300 CE
R68 J-Y13534* Y23159- Y14696-
L25>F3133>Z7706>Y13534
Imperial Rome

J2a1a
55-211 CE
R-Z30677
M67>Z1847>Z7671>CTS900>Z7661>Y3020>Y11200>Z30677
Imperial Rome

J2a1a
27 BCE-300 CE
J-Z6264* Z28602-
M67>Z1847>Z500>Y6240>PF7394>Z6264*
Imperial Rome

J2a1a
1600-1700 CE

M67>Z1847>Z500>Y6240>PF7394
Renaissance

J2a1a
0-200 CE
J-PH672 Y150774-
M67>Z1847>Z500>M92>Z508>Z504>PF7412>Z515>PH672*
Imperial Rome

J2a1a
1-400 CE
J-Z6271
L26>PF5087>PF5116>PF5119>L558>M67>Z1847>Y4036>Z467 >S11842>Z6271
Imperial Rome

J2a1a
0-200 CE
J-Y47649
L26>PF5087>PF5160>PF5197>PF5172>Y154816>Y47649*
Imperial Rome

J2a1a
300-500 CE
J-Z40772 FGC58752-
L25>Z438>Z387>L70>Z435>Z2148>CTS3601>PF5456>Y24651 >Z40772*
Late Antiquity

J2a1a
1480-1490 CE

L25>Z438>Z387>L70>Z435>Z2148>Z2177>PH185>FGC32147
Renaissance

J2a1a
1600-1700 CE
J-Z435
L26>PF5087>PF5160>L24>Y22662>L25>Z438>Z387>L70>Z43 5*
Renaissance

J2b1
771-947 CE
J-PF7321 Y45447- YP51- FT45018- Y134194- Y22037-
M205>PF7321*
Medieval

J2b1
135-244 CE
J-Y134194
M205>PF7321>Y134194
Imperial Rome

J2b2a
700-600 BCE
J-CTS6190
M241>L283>Z600>Z585>Z615>Z597>Z2507>Y15058>Z38240> CTS6190
Etruscan_IA

J2b2a
0-200 CE

M241>L283>Z600>Z585>Z615>Z597>Z2507>Z638>Z1297>Z12 95>Z8421>Z631
Imperial Rome

J2b2a
1280-1430 CE

M241>L283>Z600>Z585>Z615>Z597>Z2507>Z638>Z1297>Y27 522>Y23094*
Medieval

----------


## Angela

> Majority J2a-M410 in various subclades, and some J2b-L283 and some J2b-M205.
> 
> However, nevertheless, according to this study Imperial Romans had over 50 % of J haplogroups. Of course various subclades and various origins but still..
> 
> 
> 
> J2a
> 300-700 CE
> 
> ...


And your point is?



Something wrong with yDna J2, whether J2b or J2a?

If one could make accurate predictions from maps of modern frequencies it looks to me like either an arrival through Greece and the area around Albania or directly from places like Crete, Cyprus, or Asia Minor. They might have gone directly to Rome or after some hundreds of years in Southern Italy.

My question was whether you have any pertinent information of where those subclades each are most frequent and when they might have arrived, i.e. the dating. For example, how about Crete? The Peloponnesus? Coastal Anatolia?

That's what we're trying to do, yes? Figure out how all of the migrations which make up Europeans occurred?

----------


## Dema

> And your point is? Something wrong with yDna J2, whether J2b or J2a?


Absolutely not, as you see i am J haplogroup myself, when i say Imperial Romans had over 50 % of J haplogroup, its a fact that i am proud on : ) 





> If one could make accurate predictions from maps of modern frequencies it looks to me like either an arrival through Greece and the area around Albania or directly from places like Crete, Cyprus, or Asia Minor. 
> 
> My question was whether you have any pertinent information of where those subclades each are most frequent and when they might have arrived, i.e. the dating.
> 
> That's what we're trying to do, yes? Figure out how all of the migrations which make up Europeans occurred?



Each of these can be checked in Yfull where modern samples are found today and TMRCA and upward genetic tree can be seen.
Most of these have already Yfull link included. As it can be seen J2a-M410 is in various branches and its a mess to try to make a sense out of all of them even tho its not that hard if anyone has free time.
While J2b-M205 and J2b-L283 have lower TMRCA therefore we can look at them as branches that expanded from same place. J2b-L283 most likely picked up by Bronze Age Indo-Europeans somewhere in North Caucasus and spread throughout Europe while J2-M205 had Bronze Age Fertile Crescent expansion therefore likely arrived thru Phoenicians or later Roman Empire.

----------


## Angela

> Absolutely not, as you see i am J haplogroup myself, when i say Imperial Romans had over 50 % of J haplogroup, its a fact that i am proud on : ) 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Each of these can be checked in Yfull where modern samples are found today and TMRCA and upward genetic tree can be seen.
> Most of these have already Yfull link included. As it can be seen J2a-M410 is in various branches and its a mess to try to make a sense out of all of them even tho its not that hard if anyone has free time.
> While J2b-M205 and J2b-L283 have lower TMRCA therefore we can look at them as one branch from same origin. J2b-L283 most likely picked up by Indo-Europeans and spread throughout Europe while J2-M205 had Bronze Age Fertile Crescent expansion therefore likely arrived thru Phoenicians or later Roman Empire.


My husband is G2a2. I wish he'd get it further refined, but he's not interested enough. He just wants the highlights!:)

----------


## Dema

> My husband is G2a2. I wish he'd get it further refined, but he's not interested enough. He just wants the highlights!:)



Here is situation within G2a:


G2a2a
5607-5485 BCE
G-Z42565
PF3147>PF3148>PF3177>L91>Z42565
Neolithic

G2a2a
1070-1150 CE
G-Z6228
PF3147>PF3148>PF3177>L91>Z6484>Z6128>PF3239>Z6802> Z6228
Medieval

G2a2a
1280-1430 CE
G-Z6228
PF3147>PF3148>PF3177>L91>Z6484>Z6128>PF3239>Z6802> Z6228
Medieval

G2a2b
3500-900 BCE
G-PF3378
PF3359>F1193>PF3369>F872>PF3378
Chalcolithic/BA

G2a2b
2950-2880 BCE
pre-G-F807
PF3359>F1193>PF3369>F872>F2572>F2214>pre-F807
Chalcolithic

G2a2b
0-200 CE
G-L14* Z45043- FGC5185-
M406>M3317>FGC5089>FGC5081>L14*
Imperial Rome

G2a2b
232-333 CE
G-S9591
M406>M3317>PF3293>PF3316>Z6029>S9591
Imperial Rome

G2a2b
100-300 CE
G-P303
P303*
Imperial Rome

G2a2b
300-700 CE
G-L140 PF3346- (Z31254- Z31256- Z31258-)
P303>L140*
Late Antiquity

G2a2b
136-326 CE
G-Z6434* (Z3571- FGC295- Z6993- Z6994- Z6996-)
CTS342>Z724>Z1903>CTS7045>Z3408>Z3428>YP4752>Z6434
Imperial Rome

G2a2b
1-400 CE
pre-G-Z6764
U1>L13>Z2022>Z6759>pre-Z6764
Imperial Rome

G2a2b
400-600 CE
G-S2808 S23438- Y31000- S18765-
L497>Z1815>Y7538>Z1816>Z1823>Z726>CTS4803>S2808
Late Antiquity

G2a2b
1280-1430 CE
G-S2808 S23438- Y31000- S18765-
L497>Z1815>Y7538>Z1816>Z1823>Z726>CTS4803>S2808
Medieval

G2a2b
1480-1490 CE
G-S18765
L497>Z1815>Y7538>Z1816>Z1823>Z726>CTS4803>S2808>S2 3438>S18765
Renaissance

----------


## Angela

> Here is situation within G2a:
> 
> 
> G2a2a
> 5607-5485 BCE
> G-Z42565
> PF3147>PF3148>PF3177>L91>Z42565
> Neolithic
> 
> ...


Thanks, Dema.

Now, if I could just get him to test it with FTDNA or something. :)

He likes the idea it could be an original Neolithic lineage in Italy, I think. Actually, the first thing he asked was if anybody famous carried it. I told him Stalin was G2a, but not G2a2. He wouldn't have been happy to share Stalin's clade, although I'm sure there are a lot of wonderful men who carry that particular lineage.

As you can tell, I'm the only one in my family who has any real interest in population genetics. 

It took forever to find out my Dad carried U-152.

I'm afraid I don't have very much interest in my own U2e mtDna. It's so old and so spread all over the world that it's hard to identify with it. Plus, it accounts for so little of my total genetic make-up.

Well, I care about the health implications bound up with mtDna, but not from an "identification" standpoint.

----------


## Dema

> Thanks, Dema.
> 
> Now, if I could just get him to test it with FTDNA or something. :)
> 
> He likes the idea it could be an original Neolithic lineage in Italy, I think. Actually, the first thing he asked was if anybody famous carried it. I told him Stalin was G2a, but not G2a2. He wouldn't have been happy to share Stalin's clade, although I'm sure there are a lot of wonderful men who carry that particular lineage.
> 
> As you can tell, I'm the only one in my family who has any real interest in population genetics. 
> 
> It took forever to find out my Dad carried U-152.
> ...


Hehe i guess he is right handed towards politics if he didnt like Stalin : )
Who knows he probably has some of these G2a samples close. Best would be BigY-700. 

Except BigY test + Yfull upload, best gift woman can give a man is baby boy that will carry on Y-DNA and tradition : ) 

I am joking a bit, daughters are excellent also : )

----------


## Dema

Also i forgot haplogroup I1 was pretty much absent in ancient Romans, but appeared later:

I1
400-600 CE
I-Y7234
DF29>Z63>BY151>FGC81364>S2078>S2077>Y2245>Y7234
 Late Antiquity

I1
1411-1447CE
I-Y4115
P109>FGC16695>Y3662>S14887>Y4115*
 Medieval

----------


## Ailchu

> Elementary question. Isn't Steppe ancestry itself roughly 50% CHG/Iran Neo, with the balance Ancient North Eurasian and EHG? And isn't ANE found in Native Americans?
> 
> My impression is that the only thing that distinguishes Southern Italians and Greeks from other Europeans is that they--or to speak in the first-person, "we"--carry more CHG and only a small fraction of EHG and ANE. And perhaps "we" also have some small percentage of North African admixture. But for the most part, all Europeans, including Southern Italians, are comprised of Anatolian Neolithic, CHG/Iranian Neolithic, and WHG.
> 
> Do I at least have the fundamentals correct?
> 
> And in reference to Angela's comments elsewhere in this thread, it would be nice if 23andme and other testing companies used the same nomenclature as academic scientists to describe various genetic components. So rather than say that Calabrians have lots of Middle Eastern ancestry (which is very vague and confusing), they should use terms like Anatolian Neolithic and CHG/Iranian Neolithic.





> It's all a load of bunk to make people who have "no life' feel secure in their dismal state. Genetically the component makeup of Europeans varies (as you note) between minute proportions of WHG, CHG, EHG, ENF, which if you think about it is really pretty incidental. Are we going to argue which component is more "valuable" to European culture/civilization or openly acknowledge differences as significant to the creation of the Euro ethos. I wonder if this whole northern=fairer notion may also be debunked since there is evidence that Anatolian farmers (7000 bce) may have introduced the "light" skinned allele into Europe.


correct, now we only need to take the focus away from europe. you see, the hate southern europe gets from some nordicist racists from all over europe, is based on the believe in possible near eastern, "non-european" ancestry in the south. so the aversion is actually against near east and everything that could be tied to modern near eastern populations. only discussing european genetics and thier differences here feels as if the nazis ring at the door to deport "untermenschen" but you explain there are none in your house then close the door and silently let the nazis continue their thing.

all westeurasian populations have only very small differences. an exception are maybe some north africans with significiant sub saharan african. but even there, those who are not having significant admixture are extremely similar. and that is concidering, that all human populations are already very similar.
it's ridiculous how many people still can't understand this eventhough they have all the data to know it better. there is so much denial.

----------


## Angela

> Hehe i guess he is right handed towards politics if he didnt like Stalin : )
> Who knows he probably has some of these G2a samples close. Best would be BigY-700. 
> 
> Except BigY test + Yfull upload, best gift woman can give a man is baby boy that will carry on Y-DNA and tradition : ) 
> 
> I am joking a bit, daughters are excellent also : )


He's conservative by American standards, which means very conservative indeed, but it's the fact Stalin was a homicidal butcher who killed millions of people that created the aversion. I've rarely met anyone as compassionate toward other people. Certain behaviors are beyond his comprehension.

Cultures differ. I can't imagine my husband ever caring about passing on his "y line". He wasn't one of those men who was dying to have children at all, but if he had a preference, it was for girls. My father was the same way. There's a saying: a son's a son till he takes a wife, a daughter's a daughter till the end of her life. I think that's very often true. He does care about passing on his family's culture to a degree, but not as much as I do. When push comes to shove he's an American. I'm hanging out somewhere in the Atlantic. Anyway, there's a wide variety of yDna in Italy as you yourself have pointed out.

----------


## Dema

So here is all samples so far, also thanks to whoever put them together in excel file. 


SAMPLE ID
Y-HAPLOGROUP
DATE
TERMINAL Y-SNP
PERIOD/CULTURE
LOCATION
mtDNA

R11
I2a2
10100-9816 BCE
M436
Mesolithic
Grotta Continenza
U5b1

R7
I2a2a
8821-8642 BCE
pre-M223
Mesolithic
Grotta Continenza
U5b1

R15
I2a2a
7284-7065 BCE
pre-M223
Mesolithic
Grotta Continenza
U5b3

R26
I2a2a
3500-900 BCE
M223>CTS616>Y3721>Y3670>Y7240
Chalcolithic/BA
Su Crocefissu
H1j9

R27
I2a2a
3500-900 BCE
M223>CTS616>Y3721>Y3670>Y7240
Chalcolithic/BA
Su Crocefissu
H1e1a

R32
I2a2a
300-700 CE
M223>CTS616
Late Antiquity
Mausoleo di Augusto
H2a1

R104
I2a1a
400-600 CE
L158>Y3992>Z2049>L160>PF4088
Late Antiquity
Crypta Balbi
U5b3a1a

R63
I2a1b
970-1010 CE
M423>Y3104>L161.1>S2639>L1498>Y3749
Medieval
Villa Magna
K1a2a

R110
I1
400-600 CE
DF29>Z63>BY151>FGC81364>S2078>S2077>Y2245>Y7234
Late Antiquity
Crypta Balbi
H1e

R1286
I1
1411-1447 CE
P109>FGC16695>Y3662>S14887>Y4115*
Medieval
Cancelleria
H1g1

R9
G2a2a
5607-5485 BCE
PF3147>PF3148>PF3177>L91>Z42565
Neolithic
Grotta Continenza
K1a4a1

R64
G2a2a
1070-1150 CE
PF3147>PF3148>PF3177>L91>Z6484>Z6128>PF3239>Z6802> Z6228
Medieval
Villa Magna
HV0a

R52
G2a2a
1280-1430 CE
PF3147>PF3148>PF3177>L91>Z6484>Z6128>PF3239>Z6802> Z6228
Medieval
Villa Magna
T1a1

R29
G2a2b
3500-900 BCE
PF3359>F1193>PF3369>F872>PF3378
Chalcolithic/BA
Su Crocefissu
J2b1a

R4
G2a2b
2950-2880 BCE
PF3359>F1193>PF3369>F872>F2572>F2214>pre-F807
Chalcolithic
Grotta Continenza
K1a+195

R131
G2a2b
0-200 CE
M406>M3317>FGC5089>FGC5081>L14*
Imperial Rome
Via Paisiello, Necropoli Salaria
T1a12

R47
G2a2b
232-333 CE
M406>M3317>PF3293>PF3316>Z6029>S9591
Imperial Rome
Centocelle
J1c1c

R70
G2a2b
100-300 CE
P303*
Imperial Rome
Azienda Nazionale Autonoma delle Strada
T1a

R30
G2a2b
300-700 CE
P303>L140*
Late Antiquity
Mausoleo di Augusto
L4a2

R132
G2a2b
136-326 CE
CTS342>Z724>Z1903>CTS7045>Z3408>Z3428>YP4752>Z6434
Imperial Rome
Marcellino & Pietro
R0a2j

R1545
G2a2b
1-400 CE
U1>L13>Z2022>Z6759>pre-Z6764
Imperial Rome
Mazzano Romano
H8c

R108
G2a2b
400-600 CE
L497>Z1815>Y7538>Z1816>Z1823>Z726>CTS4803>S2808
Late Antiquity
Crypta Balbi
T2b+150

R55
G2a2b
1280-1430 CE
L497>Z1815>Y7538>Z1816>Z1823>Z726>CTS4803>S2808
Medieval
Villa Magna
J2b1a

R1224
G2a2b
1480-1490 CE
L497>Z1815>Y7538>Z1816>Z1823>Z726>CTS4803>S2808>S2 3438>S18765
Renaissance
Cancelleria
T2b4f

R6
R1b
5242-5177 BCE
V2219>V88>Y7777>G72+C51:G68+F50+C51:G68+M52f*
Neolithic
Grotta Continenza
K1a1

R1016
R1b
900-700 BCE
Z2103
Latin_IA
Castel di Decima
H1aj1a

R123
R1b
77-213 CE
Z2103
Imperial Rome
Casale del dolce
T2a1b

R1021
R1b
700-600 BCE
L51>Z2118*
Latin_IA
Boville Ernica
U4a1a

R111
R1b
0-200 CE
L51>Z2118>Z2116*
Imperial Rome
Via Paisiello, Necropoli Salaria
H

R61
R1b
1280-1430 CE
L51>Z2118
Medieval
Villa Magna
HV

R33
R1b
300-700 CE
U152>L2>DF110
Late Antiquity
Mausoleo di Augusto
K1a

R1220
R1b
1480-1490 CE
DF27>Y30754>Y85515
Renaissance
Cancelleria
T2f1a1

R851
R1b
800-500 BCE
U152>L2>DF90>F14641>F29470
Latin_IA
Ardea
H2a

R437
R1b
400-200 BCE
U152>L2>ZZ48>ZZ56>F10530>PR5365
Latin_IA (Prenestini Tribe)
Palestrina Selciata
H10

R435
R1b
600-200 BCE
U152>Z56>Z43>Z145>CTS6389>FT152016
Latin_IA (Prenestini Tribe)
Palestrina Colombella
H11a

R36
R1b
400-600 CE
U152>Z56>Z43>Z145>CTS6389>FT152016
Late Antiquity
Celio
T1a1

R1287
R1b
1411-1447 CE
U152
Medieval
Cancelleria
T2b

R31
R1b
332-419 CE
P312>DF19>Z302>Z8193*
Late Antiquity
Mausoleo di Augusto
K1c1

R58
R1b
700-1500 CE
U106>S263>S264>S497>Y24836>Y28640*
Medieval
Villa Magna
H1c3

R1548
R1a
27 BCE-300 CE
Z93>Z94>Z2124>Z2122>F1345>F2935>F1019
Imperial Rome
Monterotondo
H2a

R66
R2a
100-300 CE
Y3399>Y3370
Imperial Rome
Azienda Nazionale Autonoma delle Strada
T2

R17
J
5324-5223 BCE
PF5008>L581>Z37823>PF5000>pre-Y29673
Neolithic
Ripabianca di Monterado
U8b1b

R81
J
0-200 CE
M67>Z1847>Y4036>Z467>S11842>Y15913
Imperial Rome
Viale Rossini, Necropoli Salaria
K1b1c

R105
J1
400-600 CE
Z2331>Z2324>Z2317>Z2313>YSC0000234>Z1884>FGC12834> PF4876>L829
Late Antiquity
Crypta Balbi
T1a

R1547
J1a
27 BCE-300 CE
Z2331>Z2324>Z2317>Z2313>YSC0000234>Z1884>Y2919>Y60 94
Imperial Rome
Monterotondo
K1a7

R1549
J1a
27 BCE-300 CE
Z2331>Y15152>ZS4336 (xZS4312,Y154827)
Imperial Rome
Monterotondo
U5b2b3

R128
J1a
0-400 CE
Z1828>Z1842>Y4423 (xZS3042,BY100,CTS1460a,Y83506)
Imperial Rome
Casale del dolce
HV+16311

R130
J1a
300-500 CE
P58>Y4067>L817>pre-L818
Late Antiquity
Marcellino & Pietro
H107

R835
J1a
27 BCE-300 CE
Z2331>Z2324>Z2317>Z2313>YSC0000234>Y3081
Imperial Rome
Civitanova Marche
H2a5

R34
J2a
300-700 CE
PF5008>L581*
Late Antiquity
Mausoleo di Augusto
H+195+146

R117
J2a
400-600 CE
L26>PF5087>PF5116>PF5119>L558>Y5014>M319
Late Antiquity
San Ercolano
T2b

R19
J2a
5345-5221 BCE
M67>Z1847>Y4036>Z467>S11842*
Neolithic
Ripabianca di Monterado
U5b3a1

R68
J2a1a
100-300 CE
L25>F3133>Z7706>Y13534
Imperial Rome
Azienda Nazionale Autonoma delle Strada
U7a4a1a

R1551
J2a1a
55-211 CE
M67>Z1847>Z7671>CTS900>Z7661>Y3020>Y11200>Z30677
Imperial Rome
Monterotondo
H

R1550
J2a1a
27 BCE-300 CE
M67>Z1847>Z500>Y6240>PF7394>Z6264*
Imperial Rome
Monterotondo
T2c1c

R969
J2a1a
1600-1700 CE
M67>Z1847>Z500>Y6240>PF7394
Renaissance
Tivoli Palazzo Cianti
U5b

R115
J2a1a
0-200 CE
M67>Z1847>Z500>M92>Z508>Z504>PF7412>Z515>PH672*
Imperial Rome
Via Paisiello, Necropoli Salaria
U4

R44
J2a1a
1-400 CE
L26>PF5087>PF5116>PF5119>L558>M67>Z1847>Y4036>Z467 >S11842>Z6271
Imperial Rome
Isola Sacra
T2

R76
J2a1a
0-200 CE
L26>PF5087>PF5160>PF5197>PF5172>Y154816>Y47649*
Imperial Rome
Viale Rossini, Necropoli Salaria
T2c1a

R136
J2a1a
300-500 CE
L25>Z438>Z387>L70>Z435>Z2148>CTS3601>PF5456>Y24651 >Z40772*
Late Antiquity
Marcellino & Pietro
T2d2

R1221
J2a1a
1480-1490 CE
L25>Z438>Z387>L70>Z435>Z2148>Z2177>PH185>FGC32147
Renaissance
Cancelleria
H1e2

R970
J2a1a
1600-1700 CE
L26>PF5087>PF5160>L24>Y22662>L25>Z438>Z387>L70>Z43 5*
Renaissance
Tivoli Palazzo Cianti
J1b3

R1283
J2b1
771-947 CE
M205>PF7321*
Medieval
Cancelleria
H12

R50
J2b1
135-244 CE
M205>PF7321>Y134194
Imperial Rome
Centocelle
H5

R474
J2b2a
700-600 BCE
M241>L283>Z600>Z585>Z615>Z597>Z2507>Y15058>Z38240> CTS6190
Etruscan_IA
Civitavecchia
H

R116
J2b2a
0-200 CE
M241>L283>Z600>Z585>Z615>Z597>Z2507>Z638>Z1297>Z12 95>Z8421>Z631
Imperial Rome
Via Paisiello, Necropoli Salaria
U3a2

R54
J2b2a
1280-1430 CE
M241>L283>Z600>Z585>Z615>Z597>Z2507>Z638>Z1297>Y27 522>Y23094*
Medieval
Villa Magna
H4a1

R113
E1b1b
0-200 CE
V12>Y2863>CTS693>Y6730>FGC7703>CTS1239>CTS6667>Y28 62>BY8432>pre-BY8536
Imperial Rome
Via Paisiello, Necropoli Salaria
H26a1

R59
E1b1b
820-990 CE
V12>Y2863>CTS693>Y6730>FGC7703>CTS1239>CTS6667>Y21 919>Y21918*
Medieval
Villa Magna
N1b1a

R107
E1b1b
400-600 CE
V13>Z1057>CTS1273>BY3880>Z5018>S2979>Z16659>L241>Z 38770*
Late Antiquity
Crypta Balbi
T2h

R1219
E1b1b
1417-1463 CE
V13>Z1057>CTS1273
Renaissance
Cancelleria
H11a

R53
E1b1b
1280-1430 CE
L19>PF2431>Z21068>PF2438>Y10541>Y10561>pre-FGC19010
Medieval
Villa Magna
U2e1c1

R850
T1a1a
800-500 BCE
L162>L208*
Latin_IA
Ardea
T2c1f

R1543
T1a1a
1-400 CE
L162>L208>CTS11451>Y4119>CTS2214>Z709>Y9109>Y18004 *
Imperial Rome
Mazzano Romano
H1e

R120
T1a2b
400-600 CE
L131>Y6033>pre-FGC23008
Late Antiquity
San Ercolano
I1c

R1014
H
3500-2500 BCE
P96*
Chalcolithic (Rinaldone Gaudo)
Monte San Biagio
N1a1a1a3

R118
H2
400-600 CE
P96>Y21618>Y19962>Y20838>Y20839>Y21598
Late Antiquity
San Ercolano
H1e1a

R1285
C1a2
974-1035 CE
V20>V86>V182>V222
Medieval
Cancelleria
T2c1a

----------


## davef

> He's conservative by American standards, which means very conservative indeed, but it's the fact Stalin was a homicidal butcher who killed millions of people that created the aversion. I've rarely met anyone as compassionate toward other people. Certain behaviors are beyond his comprehension.
> 
> Cultures differ. I can't imagine my husband ever caring about passing on his "y line". He wasn't one of those men who was dying to have children at all, but if he had a preference, it was for girls. My father was the same way. There's a saying: a son's a son till he takes a wife, a daughter's a daughter till the end of her life. I think that's very often true. He does care about passing on his family's culture to a degree, but not as much as I do. When push comes to shove he's an American. I'm hanging out somewhere in the Atlantic. Anyway, there's a wide variety of yDna in Italy as you yourself have pointed out.


I'm too mixed to even have a cultural identity, i see myself as a living breathing thing who contributes to this world with my tech saviness who will eventually die and be eaten by worms, just like my ancestors did

----------


## halfalp

Do anybody has clues about Steppe ancestry in Etruscans and Italics? I've read here and there that some samples choose Yamnaya ancestry before BB ancestry, while others look like BB's. Does that mean that in overall, BB ancestry is the sole and unique " Steppe " ancestry in Western Europe? In the mean that, if we accept the hypothesis that IE languages came from the Steppe, BB's were probably the sole and unique speakers of it until it collapsed in different dialects? 

This would mean that, anybody IE or Not at some point could have had BB ancestry, but that all IE speakers had it too. Making it very difficult to say who spoked what ( a part from already known hypothesis ) even with Steppe ancestry. So we could say at some point, virtually all Western Europe had BB ancestry, but in this whole, not all of them were IE speakers.

----------


## Jovialis

> *I'm too mixed to even have a cultural identity*, i see myself as a living breathing thing who contributes to this world with my tech saviness who will eventually die and be eaten by worms, just like my ancestors did


You're an American; more specifically a mix of the second wave of immigrants that came over in the 20 century. I think that would be a viable cultural identity. You were born in the _American Century (post-WWII 20th century)_ a time when the United States reached the zenith of power and prestige; truly becoming a new Roman empire.

But also, there's quite a lot of Irish/Italians; almost every Italian-American I know is either marrying an Irish person, or is partly Irish. They can pretty much be an ethnicity on to themselves, imo 

Jewish people I know tend to stay with each other. But they will also consort and sometimes marry other groups primarily from the second wave of working-class immigrants.

----------


## halfalp

> So here is all samples so far, also thanks to whoever put them together in excel file. 
> 
> 
> SAMPLE ID
> Y-HAPLOGROUP
> DATE
> TERMINAL Y-SNP
> PERIOD/CULTURE
> LOCATION
> ...



Thanks, i always found interesting that, G2a2a and G2a2b were found together in European Neolithic and later phases. While G2a1 is almost solely in the Caucasus Mountains as we know. I wonder when and where G2a2 and G2a1 splited and how they started to spread. It's interesting that for now, no Mesolithic samples from Anatolia or the Caucasus have shown neither of them.

----------


## Jovialis

> So here is all samples so far, also thanks to whoever put them together in excel file. 
> 
> 
> SAMPLE ID
> Y-HAPLOGROUP
> DATE
> TERMINAL Y-SNP
> PERIOD/CULTURE
> LOCATION
> ...


Interesting, so R437 is U152

_R437	R1b	400-200 BCE	U152>L2>ZZ48>ZZ56>F10530>PR5365	Latin_IA (Prenestini Tribe)	Palestrina Selciata	H10
_

----------


## kingjohn

Mtdna H10 was found in alemanni tribe remains in germany ������
interesting that this latin dude carry it������

p.s
by the way a little update 
in* my true* *ancestry* total genetic similarity 
shortest distance  :Good Job: 
https://i.imgur.com/lZTyglQ.png

P.S
so i guess _western jews which acquired a lot of southern european blood 
cluster with some of these imperial romans
mainly the ones in -cluster C5 from the paper_ 
i am not surprised by my results of total austosomaly

----------


## [email protected]

> You're an American; more specifically a mix of the second wave of immigrants that came over in the 20 century. I think that would be a viable cultural identity. You were born in the _American Century (post-WWII 20th century)_ a time when the United States reached the zenith of power and prestige; truly becoming a new Roman empire.
> 
> But also, there's quite a lot of Irish/Italians; almost every Italian-American I know is either marrying an Irish person, or is partly Irish. They can pretty much be an ethnicity on to themselves, imo 
> 
> Jewish people I know tend to stay with each other. But they will also consort and sometimes marry other groups primarily from the second wave of working-class immigrants.


This, I suppose, is my problem making sense of autosomal DNA results. Pieces of my family have been in America since the 17th century, and since then they've been mixing with other immigrants from most every nation in Europe. All my DNA results show is that I'm related to everyone, though with a shading towards northwest Europe.

----------


## Joey37

My father wishes we were G2a, good farmer lines, one thing we have in common is the desire to emulate our maternal grandfathers; his being a first generation Sicilian-American cattle rancher in southern California and mine being a New England Yankee of 100% Colonial English stock, descended from Samuel Gorton and Anne Hutchinson and a direct male-line descendant of the last man in England to be burned to death for his religious beliefs, very Anglophile and a history buff. So my dad has a nice little farm in eastern Connecticut, with chickens and cows (my niece loves the cows, which I call her 'beef puppies') while I research the family tree and absorb myself in historical minutiae. I told my father that we, being R1a, are steppe invaders, not peaceful farmers, although I do have farmer mtdna and he may have it as well.

----------


## [email protected]

> My father wishes we were G2a, good farmer lines, one thing we have in common is the desire to emulate our maternal grandfathers; his being a first generation Sicilian-American cattle rancher in southern California and mine being a New England Yankee of 100% Colonial English stock, descended from Samuel Gorton and Anne Hutchinson and a direct male-line descendant of the last man in England to be burned to death for his religious beliefs, very Anglophile and a history buff. So my dad has a nice little farm in eastern Connecticut, with chickens and cows (my niece loves the cows, which I call her 'beef puppies') while I research the family tree and absorb myself in historical minutiae. I told my father that we, being R1a, are steppe invaders, not peaceful farmers, although I do have farmer mtdna and he may have it as well.


Well, my paternal line is G2a and they were good farmers, coming from Yorkshire c1686, and moving through west Jersey, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and on into Iowa. My father was the last farm boy. My mother's line is also descended from Neolithic farmers, K1a4h, from Holstein, Germany, but later, in the early 1850's.

Both Y-DNA and mtDNA are easy to understand and somehow satisfying because you can tie them to identifiable individuals.

----------


## Tutkun Arnaut

> And your point is?
> 
> 
> 
> Something wrong with yDna J2, whether J2b or J2a?
> 
> If one could make accurate predictions from maps of modern frequencies it looks to me like either an arrival through Greece and the area around Albania or directly from places like Crete, Cyprus, or Asia Minor. They might have gone directly to Rome or after some hundreds of years in Southern Italy.
> 
> My question was whether you have any pertinent information of where those subclades each are most frequent and when they might have arrived, i.e. the dating. For example, how about Crete? The Peloponnesus? Coastal Anatolia?
> ...


I saw another map where Western Turkey, around Bosporus channel, Asian side, has autosomal similar with Italians. This creates the impression that people from this area migrated to Italy through sea ways, not necessary through Greece, but circumventing it. That's entirely possible since those people were navigating keeping the land in their sight, not necessary stellar navigation. That could be the source of Italian J///

----------


## binx

> I saw another map where Western Turkey, around Bosporus channel, Asian side, has autosomal similar with Italians. This creates the impression that people from this area migrated to Italy through sea ways, not necessary through Greece, but circumventing it. That's entirely possible since those people were navigating keeping the land in their sight, not necessary stellar navigation. That could be the source of Italian J///


It's very unlikely that Western Turks are autosomally similar to to Italians.

----------


## Jovialis

> It's very unlikely that Western Turks are autosomally similar to to Italians.


West _Anatolians (Copper Age & Bronze-Age)_ more so for Southern Italians made a contribution.

----------


## Angela

> I saw another map where Western Turkey, around Bosporus channel, Asian side, has autosomal similar with Italians. This creates the impression that people from this area migrated to Italy through sea ways, not necessary through Greece, but circumventing it. That's entirely possible since those people were navigating keeping the land in their sight, not necessary stellar navigation. That could be the source of Italian J///


On ancestry.com, that slice of northwestern Turkey and the western coastal areas and the islands off them are considered part of "Greece". So the people must be very "Greek like". 

That area was settled by Greeks and they established a lot of city states there. A few city states from there set up colonies in Italy. Just look at Ionic Greece, and the areas in Magna Graecia which spoke Ionic dialects.

I've posted about this often.






So, I don't think we need any convoluted scenarios. 

Of course, some probably arrived in the Bronze Age. We'll have to wait and see.

----------


## Jovialis

> On ancestry.com, that slice of northwestern Turkey and the western coastal areas and the islands off them are considered part of "Greece". So the people must be very "Greek like". 
> 
> That area was settled by Greeks and they established a lot of city states there. A few city states from there set up colonies in Italy. Just look at Ionic Greece, and the areas in Magna Graecia which spoke Ionic dialects.
> 
> I've posted about this often.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Especially not an absurd scenario, like saying R850, and R437 are half-"Phoenician"-like. Which is probably why the paper never suggested something like that.

----------


## Angela

> Especially not an absurd scenario, like saying R850, and R437 are half-"Phoenician"-like. Which is probably why the paper never suggested something like that.


I thought the paper said R850 was half Bronze Age Anatolian like or something? The Ydna was T1a1a, right? Totally unremarkable Neolithic lineage. Who knows, maybe there was mixture on the female side with an Ionian Greek or someone with that kind of ancestry from Southern Italy . They might have presented as having something approximating that profile. That's a long way from Phoenicia or Carthage. One of their dubious "models" says different, and we're supposed to believe them when they've cheated before?

I'll have to look up R437. The yDna is U152, right?


They just are obsessed with Semites and making every sample Semitic and therefore every Southern Italian Semitic. Honestly, it all comes down to that. These people are sick you know whats.

----------


## Salento

R850 Y T-L208 - mtDNA T2c1f
R437 Y R-P312 - mtDNA H10

R850 Y line is a “Remarkable” line, there aren't many of us, but we are everywhere :) 

R850 is a y T1a1... - I’m a y T1a2...

Nobody shares more DNA with R850 than me (as of now), though I share even more with R437.

----------


## davef

> You're an American; more specifically a mix of the second wave of immigrants that came over in the 20 century. I think that would be a viable cultural identity. You were born in the _American Century (post-WWII 20th century)_ a time when the United States reached the zenith of power and prestige; truly becoming a new Roman empire.
> 
> But also, there's quite a lot of Irish/Italians; almost every Italian-American I know is either marrying an Irish person, or is partly Irish. They can pretty much be an ethnicity on to themselves, imo 
> 
> Jewish people I know tend to stay with each other. But they will also consort and sometimes marry other groups primarily from the second wave of working-class immigrants.


That is correct and a very interesting and smart perspective. I know I was being overly harsh with that post (I can be very self deprecating at times though I don't usually show it, especially here in this forum) and i over did it with the vodka so I wasn't thinking straight

----------


## Carlos

You have Ardea and Prenestrini. The 100 with Ardea by the sea, I don't know what to think, Ardea, Ardea... I mean the moves that might have been there, not the remote origins, they wouldn't even know. 

The mood is very hot. In any case, these are first studies, more will come and eventually things will be clarified, the lies will have a short life and the truth will end up being known sooner or later.

They have also said that there is a sample of an Etruscan pseudo-African woman. I understand with some ancestor of North Africa I suppose. In a culture as developed as Etruscan with imports and exports should have relations with other peoples. I don't see what the problem would be?

----------


## davef

> I thought the paper said R850 was half Bronze Age Anatolian like or something? The Ydna was T1a1a, right? Totally unremarkable Neolithic lineage. Who knows, maybe there was mixture on the female side with an Ionian Greek or someone with that kind of ancestry from Southern Italy . They might have presented as having something approximating that profile. That's a long way from Phoenicia or Carthage. One of their dubious "models" says different, and we're supposed to believe them when they've cheated before?
> 
> I'll have to look up R437. The yDna is U152, right?
> 
> 
> They just are obsessed with Semites and making every sample Semitic and therefore every Southern Italian Semitic. Honestly, it all comes down to that. These people are sick you know whats.


I read the paths the Phoenicians took across the Mediterranean and they landed in some corner of western Sicily but other than that they never touched Italy. And I don't see why they would travel miles to climb steep mountains to find women to have sex with

----------


## Salento

> That is correct and a very interesting and smart perspective. I know I was being overly harsh with that post (I can be very self deprecating at times though I don't usually show it, especially here in this forum) and i over did it with the vodka so I wasn't thinking straight


Lose the booze, take some Calcium instead to Fortify your Bones, 

Who knows, in a few thousand years a scientist in search for an Ancient New Yorker, might Sample your Bones. You'll be known as: NY_Davef  :Grin: 

Stay Strong :)

----------


## Tutkun Arnaut

> On ancestry.com, that slice of northwestern Turkey and the western coastal areas and the islands off them are considered part of "Greece". So the people must be very "Greek like". 
> 
> That area was settled by Greeks and they established a lot of city states there. A few city states from there set up colonies in Italy. Just look at Ionic Greece, and the areas in Magna Graecia which spoke Ionic dialects.
> 
> I've posted about this often.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I was talking about this scientific map, not the one drawn in Athens you just published. It is not Romans who spread Italian genes, its this people from this areas who emigrated to Italy in antiquity using land sight navigation. Romans founded Istanbul, had Romans left genetic imprint Istanbul should have had traces but it does not. Had this DNA being Greek mainland Greece should have had some. At the time dna samples are taken in this are there are only Turks living since Greeks were expelled.

----------


## Angela

> I was talking about this scientific map, not the one drawn in Athens you just published. It is not Romans who spread Italian genes, its this people from this areas who emigrated to Italy in antiquity using land sight navigation. Romans founded Istanbul, had Romans left genetic imprint Istanbul should have had traces but it does not. Had this DNA being Greek mainland Greece should have had some. At the time dna samples are taken in this are there are only Turks living since Greeks were expelled.


That makes absolutely no sense, and I'm restraining myself in responding. Perhaps you should get glasses or learn how to comprehend maps. To begin with, the first map is from Woodward et al. So, get your facts straight before mouthing off. Also, get over your Albanian nationalistic hatred of everything Greek. It makes everything you post immediately suspect. 

The areas in Turkey from the second map are areas of Greek colonization. People went from there to Southern Italy/Sicily. Learn some history before opining. Or is everyone who has written about Greek Colonization for the last one hundred years secretly Greek?

Now, have you embarrassed yourself enough for one day?

----------


## Jovialis

> Well, my paternal line is G2a and they were good farmers, coming from Yorkshire c1686, and moving through west Jersey, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and on into Iowa. My father was the last farm boy. My mother's line is also descended from Neolithic farmers, K1a4h, from Holstein, Germany, but later, in the early 1850's.
> 
> Both Y-DNA and mtDNA are easy to understand and somehow satisfying because you can tie them to identifiable individuals.


In many ways, Germany is considered the _Heartland of Europe._ The upcoming paper by David Reich and Isolf Lazaridis models Germans as predominately Paleolithic Caucasian, which is similar to Anatolian_Neolthic:

----------


## Tutkun Arnaut

> That makes absolutely no sense, and I'm restraining myself in responding. Perhaps you should get glasses or learn how to comprehend maps. To begin with, the first map is from Woodward et al. So, get your facts straight before mouthing off. Also, get over your Albanian nationalistic hatred of everything Greek. It makes everything you post immediately suspect. 
> 
> The areas in Turkey from the second map are areas of Greek colonization. People went from there to Southern Italy/Sicily. Learn some history before opining. Or is everyone who has written about Greek Colonization for the last one hundred years secretly Greek?
> 
> Now, have you embarrassed yourself enough for one day?


I am a class B surveyor, from Gulfport Mississippi, surveying school. I can post you a copy of my diploma if you request it. That means not only I can read maps, but I can make them for others to read. The map I showed you is the areas where Italian autosomal is strong. It does not quite look Greek related. There is no history of Roman or Italian settlement in those areas. So it could be people from those areas visited Italy sometimes in the past. I don't quite get your aggravation. I know you don't do anything on purpose, but the first map you published (whoever produce it) is false.

----------


## Jovialis

Greeks are rich in Iran-like admixture, and would have brought this ancestry with them to Italy. In addition to the Iran-like ancestry that has been has been coming to Italy since the Neolithic.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> You have Ardea and Prenestrini. The 100 with Ardea by the sea, I don't know what to think, Ardea, Ardea... I mean the moves that might have been there, not the remote origins, they wouldn't even know. 
> 
> The mood is very hot. In any case, these are first studies, more will come and eventually things will be clarified, the lies will have a short life and the truth will end up being known sooner or later.
> 
> They have also said that there is a sample of an Etruscan pseudo-African woman. I understand with some ancestor of North Africa I suppose. In a culture as developed as Etruscan with imports and exports should have relations with other peoples. I don't see what the problem would be?



The necropolis from which three Etruscan samples come is right on the sea, and had trade relations with Sardinia and Sardinia was home to the Phoenician colonies. So, archeoligically, it's possible to find someone with Phoenician ancestry. Obviously only further samples tested can tell us how common it was.

For the two Latin outliers, however, it does not seem to me that the study suggests that they had Phoenician ancestry.

----------


## Angela

> R850 Y T-L208 - mtDNA T2c1f
> R437 Y R-P312 - mtDNA H10
> 
> R850 Y line is a “Remarkable” line, there aren't many of us, but we are everywhere :) 
> 
> R850 is a y T1a1... - I’m a y T1a2...
> 
> Nobody shares more DNA with R850 than me (as of now), though I share even more with R437.


As to sample 850 (650 BC), it seems to be, as I said, a Neolithic line in Europe. The mtDna is found in Central Europe and Iran. The paper finds it to be half local Copper Age, and half Anatolian/Armenian Late Bronze/Iron Age. Cumae, near Capua and Naples, was founded by Greeks in the 8th century.

The conclusions of the paper make sense.

Sample 437 has a U-152 yDna. Unremarkable for a Latin tribe. The mtdna is H10:
"*H10[edit]*

Haplogroup H10 is subclade which came into existence between 6,300 and 10,900 years ago. Its descendant branches are H10a H10b H10c H10d H10e H10f H10g and H10h.[37]
Haplogroup *H10e* has been found at a neolithic site, namely the Bom Santo cave near Lisbon. This is the oldest sample of H10 which has ever been found and it has been dated to 3735 BCE (+- 45 years).[38] "

The paper models the sample as half "Iron Age Croatian", which means one of the samples mta calls "Illyrian" or local Copper Age and half, again, Anatolian Bronze/Iron whatever. 

Again, it makes sense.

The paper didn't find any "Phoenician", and none of the data we have would support that.

As for 475, no doubt there's some North African in her, but using Ibero-Maurisian to model her is silly. 

Per Carlos' post, is it so surprising that trade centers like Civitavecchia picked up some foreign ancestry? What's the big deal here??? That makes all Etruscans Carthaginians or Phoenicians?

----------


## Angela

> In many ways, Germany is considered the _Heartland of Europe._ The upcoming paper by David Reich and Isolf Lazaridis models Germans as predominately Paleolithic Caucasian, which is similar to Anatolian_Neolthic:


It's a whole different way of looking at European ethnicities, isn't it?

What strikes me the most is that the differences between countries in central and western Europe, including Germany and Italy, are so small.

----------


## Angela

Does anyone have a complete list of the samples from this paper which are in what the authors call the Near Eastern cluster?

I've pulled some sample numbers from the PCA, and my husband, who couldn't be more Southern Italian, has hits on only two, and not at a close distance at all, and both are labeled as close to Hittites and Cretans by mta.

----------


## Tutkun Arnaut

Is that Mbuti suppose to be African? 
How come Albania and slavic countries dont have it, but every other country does?

----------


## Jovialis

> As to sample 850 (650 BC), it seems to be, as I said, a Neolithic line in Europe. The mtDna is found in Central Europe and Iran. The paper finds it to be half local Copper Age, and half Anatolian/Armenian Late Bronze/Iron Age. Cumae, near Capua and Naples, was founded by Greeks in the 8th century.
> 
> The conclusions of the paper make sense.
> 
> Sample 437 has a U-152 yDna. Unremarkable for a Latin tribe. The mtdna is H10:
> "*H10[edit]*
> 
> Haplogroup H10 is subclade which came into existence between 6,300 and 10,900 years ago. Its descendant branches are H10a H10b H10c H10d H10e H10f H10g and H10h.[37]
> Haplogroup *H10e* has been found at a neolithic site, namely the Bom Santo cave near Lisbon. This is the oldest sample of H10 which has ever been found and it has been dated to 3735 BCE (+- 45 years).[38] "
> ...

----------


## Jovialis

> Is that Mbuti suppose to be African? 
> How come Albania and slavic countries dont have it, but every other country does?


_Extended Data Figure 6: Modeling present-day and ancient West-Eurasians. Mixture364 proportions computed with qpAdm (Supplementary Information section 4). The proportion of365 ‘Mbuti’ ancestry represents the total of ‘Deep’ ancestry from lineages that split prior to the366 split of Ust’Ishim, Tianyuan, and West Eurasians and can include both ‘Basal Eurasian’ and367 other (e.g., Sub-Saharan African) ancestry. (a) ‘Conservative’ estimates. Each population368 cannot be modeled with fewer admixture events than shown. (b) ‘Speculative’ estimates. The369 highest number of sources (≤5) with admixture estimates within [0,1] are shown for each370 population. Some of the admixture proportions are not significantly different from 0371 (Supplementary Information section 4).

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/earl...23079.full.pdf

_Also,

Do you not see the red in the Slavic countries? Because it is there:

----------


## alais

> how siceliot is posting in anthrogenica 
> and i am not allowed
> go figure .....


There are many good users who have been banned on Anthrogenica for no real reason, many bad users on Anthrogenica who are allowed to continue to post.

----------


## Jovialis

> how siceliot is posting in anthrogenica 
> and i am not allowed
> go figure .....


Anthrogenica is a garbage dump of lies. There is no shortage of stupidity in the world, and anthrogenica is a shining example of that. The only place with a lower-average IQ must be on Eurogenes.

Now let's get back on topic. We don't have to be concerned with insignificant actors, trying to obfuscate the facts.

----------


## Angela

> _Extended Data Figure 6: Modeling present-day and ancient West-Eurasians. Mixture364 proportions computed with qpAdm (Supplementary Information section 4). The proportion of365 ‘Mbuti’ ancestry represents the total of ‘Deep’ ancestry from lineages that split prior to the366 split of Ust’Ishim, Tianyuan, and West Eurasians and can include both ‘Basal Eurasian’ and367 other (e.g., Sub-Saharan African) ancestry. (a) ‘Conservative’ estimates. Each population368 cannot be modeled with fewer admixture events than shown. (b) ‘Speculative’ estimates. The369 highest number of sources (≤5) with admixture estimates within [0,1] are shown for each370 population. Some of the admixture proportions are not significantly different from 0371 (Supplementary Information section 4).
> 
> https://www.biorxiv.org/content/earl...23079.full.pdf
> 
> _Also,
> 
> Do you not see the red in the Slavic countries? Because it is there:


One of the amusing things about the graphic is that Sicilians get less than Spaniards (or North Italians). Do you remember the unlamented Spanish Stormfront Nordicists from a few years ago who used to post here? Oh dear. :)

This may be related to Neolithic gene flows into Europe.

----------


## Angela

> Anthrogenica is a garbage dump of lies. There is no shortage of stupidity in the world, and anthrogenica is a shining example of that. The only place with a lower-average IQ must be on Eurogenes.
> 
> Now let's get back on topic. We don't have to be concerned with insignificant actors, trying to obfuscate the facts.


Indeed. Let's do the analysis! :)

----------


## Jovialis

Not to mention all of the Anatolian BA found in Iberia. By the time the Romans colonized Iberia, it must have been transformed genetically, partly by these Latins who can be modeled as half ABA-like, like 850.


_We assembled genome-wide data from 271 ancient Iberians, of whom 176 are from the largely unsampled period after 2000 BCE, thereby providing a high-resolution time transect of the Iberian Peninsula. We document high genetic substructure between northwestern and southeastern hunter-gatherers before the spread of farming. We reveal sporadic contacts between Iberia and North Africa by ~2500 BCE and, by ~2000 BCE, the replacement of 40% of Iberia’s ancestry and nearly 100% of its Y-chromosomes by people with Steppe ancestry. We show that, in the Iron Age, Steppe ancestry had spread not only into Indo-European–speaking regions but also into non-Indo-European–speaking ones, and we reveal that present-day Basques are best described as a typical Iron Age population without the admixture events that later affected the rest of Iberia. Additionally, we document how, beginning at least in the Roman period, the ancestry of the peninsula was transformed by gene flow from North Africa and the eastern Mediterranean.

_https://science.sciencemag.org/conte.../1230.abstract

----------


## kingjohn

*bronze age levant* ancestry 
detected in south east iberia 
start coming in* roman period 

*https://i.imgur.com/XM0bknp.png

*source* : the ancient iberia paper 
https://science.sciencemag.org/conte..._Olalde_SM.pdf

p.s
maybe romans ? or Phoenicians?  :Thinking:

----------


## Jovialis

> *bronze age levant* ancestry 
> detected in south east iberia 
> start coming in* roman period 
> 
> *https://i.imgur.com/XM0bknp.png
> 
> *source* : the ancient iberia paper 
> https://science.sciencemag.org/conte..._Olalde_SM.pdf
> 
> ...


Latins (including 850, and 437) did not have Bronze-Age Levantine admixture.

----------


## kingjohn

> Latins (including 850, and 437) did not have Bronze-Age Levantine admixture.


i know 
this is for davidski 
if he read it 
since angela said he is obsessed with levant :)
just to show that *levant* *ancestry* started in roman period in south east iberia .....

p.s
*i understand that near eastern ancestry in the outlier latins* is not* levant bronze age but* *Anatolian bronze age  which is different*

----------


## Faunus

As a person whose E-V13 ydna comes from Trevi nel Lazio, I'd like to know how such dna arrived in such a small town, in the mountains. We thought E-V13 arrived in Italy with bell beakers, but the first E-V13 samples are from imperial age.

Did southern people migrate from Magna Graecia to small towns in Lazio too? Or is it more likely that such small towns were populated after Rome got sacked by fleeing people, or something similar

----------


## Angela

> i know 
> this is for davidski 
> if he read it 
> since angela said he is obsessed with levant :)
> just to show that *levant* *ancestry* started in roman period in south east iberia .....
> 
> p.s
> *i understand that near eastern ancestry in the outlier latins* is not* levant bronze age but* *Anatolian bronze age  which is different*


I heard you the first time, but didn't think it worthwhile responding. 

If it is indeed there, I don't know why, with all the Carthaginians around, it would need to have been brought by Romans. 

Carthaginian Spain before the First Punic War.



Then, of course, we have all the Greek influence along the Mediterranean coast. Wasn't the Empuries sample very Mycenaean like? 

I'm sure somebody could figure out a way to make him part Levant Bronze Age. :)



Plus, my husband, who is very Southern Italian indeed, and extremely proud of it, gets ONE match on mta with someone from Spain. I'm the one with half my matches still coming from Spain, even with all these new Italian samples, which indicates to me that maybe a lot of them came from Rome north. Perhaps Southern Italians would have been closer to and more inclined to go to Greece, the Balkans etc.

Indeed, the first legions that went to Spain were the following. You should know that after serving their time, legionnaires were given land. A lot of them do seem to have liked Spain, though not precisely "Southeast" Spain from what I can see. 




The Victris or “Victorious Sixth Legion” and its "twin" "Ferrata Legion) were founded by the general Octavian (who later went on to become Emperor Augustus). They were recruited in Cisalpine Italy. Those are my stomping grounds. :)

"The Victrix then went on to assist Augustus in his war against the Cantabrians that continued for almost 10 years starting in 29 BC. By 19 BC, imperial Rome had conquered the whole of Hispania, and the Iberian peninsula was also now under Roman rule. The legion was then stationed in freshly conquered contemporary Spain where it stayed for nearly a century. During this time, the city of Legio was founded (known as Leon in the present day)."

The Legio IX Hispana, which also served in Spain, was already formed before the Empire, fighting as early as the Social Wars, so I would think mostly "Italic", although perhaps with a bit of more "southern" influence.

The Legio Germanica served in Spain. The troops were from the Italian peninsula. It's unclear where precisely the troops were recruited, but I'm sure some from Cisalpine Gaul were included. The same is true of the Augusta, formed in 26 BC.

So, it escapes me why these troops, formed so early on any part of the Italian peninsula from free citizens, would be awash with Levantine ancestry.


Some more "creative" modeling, I guess. :) Does it ever occur to some people to check the history and context before doing the "modeling"?

----------


## Pax Augusta

> As a person whose E-V13 ydna comes from Trevi nel Lazio, I'd like to know how such dna arrived in such a small town, in the mountains. We thought E-V13 arrived in Italy with bell beakers, but the first E-V13 samples are from imperial age.
> 
> Did southern people migrate from Magna Graecia to small towns in Lazio too? Or is it more likely that such small towns were populated after Rome got sacked by fleeing people, or something similar



E-V13 exists everywhere in Italy, even in northern Italy. We need more ancient samples analyzed to draw conclusions.

----------


## kingjohn

> I heard you the first time, but didn't think it worthwhile responding. 
> 
> If it is indeed there, I don't know why, with all the Carthaginians around, it would need to have been brought by Romans. 
> 
> Carthaginian Spain before the First Punic War.
> 
> 
> 
> Then, of course, we have all the Greek influence along the Mediterranean coast. *Wasn't the Empuries sample very Mycenaean like? 
> ...



but what i posted is from the paper 
not calculation by davidski 
have little faith angela ....... :)

have a look 

https://i.imgur.com/hGkJRjB.png

----------


## Carlos

In the municipal district of Ubrique there are vestiges of the Roman road, from the 1st century BC, which linked *Lacilbula* (Grazalema), *Ocuri* (Ubrique), *Iptuci* (Prado del Rey) and *Acinipo* (Ronda la Vieja).

Legio X Equestris military camp



_There was no other image._


*Founding*

The Tenth was created in Hispania by César in 61 a. C

When Gaius Julius Caesar arrived as Governor in the province of Baetica or Hispania Ulterior (modern Andalusia), as it was in 61 BC, he immediately decided to subdue the west and northwest areas (modern day Portugal). He already had two legions based in the province, the 8th and 9th Legions, which had been enlisted by Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus (Pompey the Great) in 65 BC. Caesar needed a third legion for his planned campaign and so he immediately enlisted a new legion, the 10th Legion. Enlisted in March, the legion took as its emblem the bull,[4] an emblem which proved popular with other legions such as Legio V _Alaudae_ (_Larks_), Legio XI, Legio XII _Victrix_, and Legio XIII _Gemina_.
The campaign in the summer of 61 BC was very successful and the 10th Legion showed itself to be brave and loyal to Julius Caesar.

Legio X saved the day in the battle of the Sabis in 57 a. C. Together with the IX Hispanic, the Tenth defeated the ababates, moved back against the Belgians on the other side of the river and captured the enemy camp. From that position, the Tenth could see how desperate the situation was for the XII Victrix as well as the VII. So they quickly loaded down the hill, crossed the river and attacked the nerves from behind, trapping them so that there was little hope of survival.

In 45 a. C. the legion was licensed, and veterans obtained land in Narbonne, southern Gaul.

The Tenth was formed in Hispania, what is known today by Andalusia, but neither English or Spanish wikipedia makes it clear that it was native, it is understood, but they do not say it clearly. Does anyone know more exactly?

If so, I see that a tactic or modus operandis perhaps for security was to retire in other lands, not in those of origin, so it would have been a great mechanism of genetic exchange in Europe or the colonies without it having been a long-term risk for the Empire itself.

----------


## Angela

> In the municipal district of Ubrique there are vestiges of the Roman road, from the 1st century BC, which linked *Lacilbula* (Grazalema), *Ocuri* (Ubrique), *Iptuci* (Prado del Rey) and *Acinipo* (Ronda la Vieja).
> 
> Legio X Equestris military camp
> 
> 
> 
> _There was no other image._
> 
> 
> ...


I've never been able to find anything on where he raised the troops for the Legio Equestris. From what I can tell, he didn't trust certain of his Gallic allies. Whether it was formed partly from Spaniards, partly from other Gallic troops, or from his other favorites, the Cisalpine Italians, or a combination of all three I don't know. I would think there would have been some Spaniards definitely, as he made allies there.

A great legion, without question. I've read it was his favorite legion.

It's difficult to know from the naming. For example, The Legio Germanica was all Italian, but named for its victories in Germania.

----------


## Angela

> but what i posted is from the paper 
> not calculation by davidski 
> have little faith angela ....... :)
> 
> have a look 
> 
> https://i.imgur.com/hGkJRjB.png


You're making quite a leap there which is not at all supported by the facts. 

Yes, there's a bit of Levant there. So what?

There was African y and mtDna (by way of North Africa) in Iberia before the Romans arrived, which would have contained some Levant like ancestry and some arrived after as well. 

Where does it say it came from Roman legionnaires and settlers from Italy? Most particularly, how could people from Cisalpine Italy or around Rome have brought it, since most of them would have been attached to the legions and they didn't have Levantines in those legions. Where's the EVIDENCE for that? 

What we have are samples found in Spain at certain periods. They're not labeled 100% Roman legionnaire or settler. The ancestry could come from various groups and eras and filtered down.

For crying out loud, didn't you read my post? Southeast Iberia in the Classical Age is Carthaginian territory, and partly Greek territory, and it's right across the strait from Morocco. I'd have to check it but mounted troops from North Africa did serve there for a time, as well as in Britain. I'd have to check it. 

Now, some of it could have come from later settlers from all over the Roman world. Who says it all or even mostly came from the Italian peninsula?

That conclusion is YOURS, not the paper's.

You're going to have to do a lot better than that, Azzurro or Sickeliot or whoever you are.

----------


## kingjohn

> You're making quite a leap there which is not at all supported by the facts. 
> 
> Yes, there's a bit of Levant there. So what?
> 
> There was African y and mtDna (by way of North Africa) in Iberia before the Romans arrived, which would have contained some Levant like ancestry and some arrived after as well. 
> 
> Where does it say it came from Roman legionnaires and settlers from Italy? Most particularly, how could people from Cisalpine Italy or around Rome have brought it, since most of them would have been attached to the legions and they didn't have Levantines in those legions. Where's the EVIDENCE for that? 
> 
> What we have are samples found in Spain at certain periods. They're not labeled 100% Roman legionnaire or settler. The ancestry could come from various groups and eras and filtered down.
> ...



lol 
*i never said he was a a roman* 
i only *assumed*  :Thinking: and *some* of the *roman auxiliaries were in fact syrian units*
the romans were not such a great archers 
and they used syrians as archers in many of there campaigns against barbarian tribes  
the last thing you said is so funny i can't breath from laugh :Laughing:

----------


## Tutkun Arnaut

> One of the amusing things about the graphic is that Sicilians get less than Spaniards (or North Italians). Do you remember the unlamented Spanish Stormfront Nordicists from a few years ago who used to post here? Oh dear. :)
> 
> This may be related to Neolithic gene flows into Europe.


why Albanians dont have mbuti?
we are suppose to be similar with Greeks and south Italians
or the data are not that accurate?

----------


## Angela

> why Albanians dont have mbuti?
> *we are suppose to be similar with Greeks and south Italians*
> or the data are not that accurate?


Indeed you are, and to Tuscans to some extent; all the genetic analyses agree with that.

Isolated populations experience drift, with some minority alleles or slivers of ancestry drifting out of the gene pool. I think that's probably the most likely explanation.

It makes sense that it's something to do with Basal Eurasian. It's just too old for the calculators. They can't compare it to anything except a very old lineage.

----------


## Angela

> lol 
> *i never said he was a a roman* 
> i only *assumed* and *some* of the *roman auxiliaries were in fact syrian units*
> the romans were not such a great archers 
> and they used syrians as archers in many of there campaigns against barbarian tribes  
> the last thing you said is so funny i can't breath from laugh


Anyone who "assumes" that Levantine ancestry only started arriving in Iberia after the Romans took over doesn't know very much about Iberia's history.

As I said, perhaps you should re-read my post.

There are at least two, no three, groups with which it could have arrived.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> By the way, is there any proof of a mass migration from the Levant into Italy during the Iron Age? Or is it that many lede cannot but think that all the northern samples were northerner übermenschen whereas the samples who cluster with southern italians were just the result of miscegenation of the former and pesky semites that flocked into Italy, if not pesky semites themselves?



This paper doesn't state there was a mass migration from the Levant into Italy during the Iron Age.

----------


## Jovialis

This is how the paper models 850. It seems that _some people_ are more into the hobby of propaganda, instead of reading and discussing *facts* from the actual source material:

----------


## Carlos

At this point in the movie someone can make an accurate, concise and quasi-schematic description of how the thing is or only Manciamo knows how to do it?

----------


## dominique_nuit

> Here is situation within G2a:
> 
> 
> G2a2a
> 5607-5485 BCE
> G-Z42565
> PF3147>PF3148>PF3177>L91>Z42565
> Neolithic
> 
> ...


Hi Dema -- Thanks for the G2a info. A few remarks.

First, I am surprised to see the U1 branch represented in Rome (circa 1-400 CE). Although Pip was banned, I found his discussion of the L140 lines very persuasive, with U1 lines heading east from Cuceteni Tripolye, and L497 and CTS342 heading west into Central Europe and Italy.

Second, it looks like the early G2a2a lines, associated with Otzi, were thoroughly eclipsed by G2a2b lines (with due allowance for small number of samples).

Third, I am also surprised to see two M-406 individuals in the Imperial period, but no L497 or CTS342 (again, perhaps this reflects small number of samples?). According to Pip, both L497 and CTS342 expanded in conjunction with R1b-U152, and therefore should have been present at the founding of Rome, well before Imperial times. However, it is worth noting that the Olalde study from earlier this year partially contradicts Pip's account, as CTS342>Z1903 individuals were found in both Southern Spain and Western Sicily with no signs of Steppe admixture, circa 1500 to 1000 BCE. Therefore, it seems possible that CTS342 took path from Balkans to Spain to Sicily to Southern Italy, and only appeared in Rome in Imperial times.

----------


## Angela

> Hi Dema -- Thanks for the G2a info. A few remarks.
> 
> First, I am surprised to see the U1 branch represented in Rome (circa 1-400 CE). Although Pip was banned, I found his discussion of the L140 lines very persuasive, with U1 lines heading east from Cuceteni Tripolye, and L497 and CTS342 heading west into Central Europe and Italy.
> 
> Second, it looks like the early G2a2a lines, associated with Otzi, were thoroughly eclipsed by G2a2b lines (with due allowance for small number of samples).
> 
> Third, *I am also surprised to see two M-406 individuals in the Imperial period, but no L497 or CTS342 (again, perhaps this reflects small number of samples?)*. According to Pip, both L497 and CTS342 expanded in conjunction with R1b-U152, and therefore should have been present at the founding of Rome, well before Imperial times. However, it is worth noting that the Olalde study from earlier this year partially contradicts Pip's account, as CTS342>Z1903 individuals were found in both Southern Spain and Western Sicily with no signs of Steppe admixture, circa 1500 to 1000 BCE. *Therefore, it seems possible that CTS342 took path from Balkans to Spain to Sicily to Southern Italy, and only appeared in Rome in Imperial times.*


Good information, thanks. As to the first speculation, that may indeed me the case.

As to the second, is it possible that some got picked up later in the Balkans or perhaps, say, Hungary?

With autosomal dna you need far fewer samples to come to reasonable conclusions than with uniparentals, given all the sub-lineages.

----------


## Jovialis

I paid for access to the paper, and I'm going over it with a fine-tooth comb. Interestingly, the authors suggest that it is plausible that rather than additional source population of CHG/IN; Neolthic Italian Farmers could be from a different source population different from Central European, and Iberian farmers. Rather, they may have come directly from Central Anatolia, or Northern Greece.

----------


## dominique_nuit

> But also, there's quite a lot of Irish/Italians; almost every Italian-American I know is either marrying an Irish person, or is partly Irish. They can pretty much be an ethnicity on to themselves, imo


ha ha, guilty as charged ---> somehow the latest Ancestry.com results have me as more Irish (42%) than Italian (38%, plus another 8% Greece & Balkans). I should be a quarter English, but somehow only got 6%. And mysteriously I am now suddenly 5% French, which I believe is perhaps better understood as Western Mediterranean ancestry, supporting my growing sense that G2a-CTS342 moved to Spain before heading back east to Italy via Sicily and Sardinia. Ahem, not that it is any way scientific to extrapolate from one's own narrow experience

----------


## Angela

> I paid for access to the paper, and I'm going over it with a fine-tooth comb. Interestingly, the authors suggest that it is plausible that rather than additional source population of CHG/IN; Neolthic Italian Farmers could be from a different source population different from Central European, and Iberian farmers. Rather, they may have come directly from Central Anatolia, or Northern Greece.


Yes, but it decreases in the Copper Age, so I don't know how much would have survived in Northern/Central Italy. (I don't recall them saying it was all from the Neolithic, but maybe I missed it somehow. I'll go back over the paper.) It might be different in Southern Italy, of course, which is why, as you know so well, we so desperately need Bronze and Iron Age samples from there. 

Then, the levels increase in Southern Italy, so I doubt the Neolithic could be responsible for it all. The question is, when did it arrive, yes? Did some arrive in the Copper Age, in the Bronze Age, in the Iron Age, In the days of the Republic and Empire, all, or just some, and what was the ydna like at each time? I can't imagine that there wasn't a boost at least in the Iron Age from Greek migration. Modern mainland Greeks may be slightly different, but ancient Greeks must have been pretty Mycenaean like going by the Empuries sample. 

What we do know is that the Hellenthal group and the usual suspects were completely wrong about it arriving during the Post Imperial Age with some supposed mass migration from Byzantine areas. 

Amazing, isn't it, how not only the amateurs, but even some of the scholars who buy into cliches have gotten it wrong?

Btw, if you join the magazine, which is free, you get access to certain papers without having to pay for them. It took me a long while to figure it out. :)

As to your post 443, that will be the second or third time that material was quoted to them. I guess if they don't want to acknowledge what it says in black and white, they just won't. Maybe I'm wrong that combatting nonsense with facts works.

----------


## Angela

> You're making quite a leap there which is not at all supported by the facts. 
> 
> Yes, there's a bit of Levant there. So what?
> 
> There was African y and mtDna (by way of North Africa) in Iberia before the Romans arrived, which would have contained some Levant like ancestry and some arrived after as well. 
> 
> Where does it say it came from Roman legionnaires and settlers from Italy? Most particularly, how could people from Cisalpine Italy or around Rome have brought it, since most of them would have been attached to the legions and they didn't have Levantines in those legions. Where's the EVIDENCE for that? 
> 
> What we have are samples found in Spain at certain periods. They're not labeled 100% Roman legionnaire or settler. The ancestry could come from various groups and eras and filtered down.
> ...


@KingJohn,

I can't seem to find the post where you accused me of having a problem with Italians or Southern Europeans in general having Levante like/Semitic ancestry, and I don't want to let that go unanswered, so I'll put it here, which is what led to your comment.

For the record, as I've alluded to before, and yes, I know it's a cliche or an excuse some times, but most of my best friends and my husband's partner and best friends are Jews. I nursed my best friend, Ruth, who died of breast cancer way too early, through the last grueling and horrific six months of her life and was there when she passed. Her absence is a loss, a whole in my heart which I feel every day of my life. No family member could have been closer. That someone could accuse me of disrespecting her ancestry is like someone stabbing me in the heart. 

I have no problem with some Levant ancestry having entered the Italian gene pool. I'm sure some did. If my husband doesn't have at least a bit I'd be surprised. 
ri
What I object to is Anti-Semites and anti-Levant, or even actual people from the Levant trying to find it in Italians where it doesn't exist, or exaggerating the amount of it where it does for their own psychiatric or racist reasons. The same goes for North African ancestry.

I also, as anyone who frequents this board should know, detest deceit, cheating, fraud, call it what you will. It's one the reasons for my choice of profession. I'll expose it on any topic wherever I can.

Period.

That's the last I'll say on the subject.

----------


## Jovialis

> Yes, but it decreases in the Copper Age, so I don't know how much would have survived in Northern/Central Italy. (I don't recall them saying it was all from the Neolithic, but maybe I missed it somehow. I'll go back over the paper.) It might be different in Southern Italy, of course, which is why, as you know so well, we so desperately need Bronze and Iron Age samples from there. 
> 
> Then, the levels increase in Southern Italy, so I doubt the Neolithic could be responsible for it all. The question is, when did it arrive, yes? Did some arrive in the Copper Age, in the Bronze Age, in the Iron Age, In the days of the Republic and Empire, all, or just some, and what was the ydna like at each time? I can't imagine that there wasn't a boost at least in the Iron Age from Greek migration. Modern mainland Greeks may be slightly different, but ancient Greeks must have been pretty Mycenaean like going by the Empuries sample. 
> 
> What we do know is that the Hellenthal group and the usual suspects were completely wrong about it arriving during the Post Imperial Age with some supposed mass migration from Byzantine areas. 
> 
> Amazing, isn't it, how not only the amateurs, but even some of the scholars who buy into cliches have gotten it wrong?
> 
> Btw, if you join the magazine, which is free, you get access to certain papers without having to pay for them. It took me a long while to figure it out. :)
> ...


Facts can be inconvenient. But also, I don't think they can perform the mental gymnastics to understand, anyway. Maybe they should get a new hobby, perhaps working at a Heaven's Gate-style cult would better suit the mentality.

----------


## dominique_nuit

> Interestingly, the authors suggest that it is plausible that rather than additional source population of CHG/IN; Neolthic Italian Farmers could be from a different source population different from Central European, and Iberian farmers. Rather, they may have come directly from Central Anatolia, or Northern Greece.


Jovialis, could you elaborate on this point? Or did you want to go over Moots with a fine-tooth comb first?

Certainly it appears that G2a2b lines moved from Balkans during Copper Age to Western Europe (by which routes is debatable, most likely multiple routes), replacing earlier G2a2a lines in places like Italy

So maybe G2a2a comes from different area of Anatolia than G2a2b, each division having its own autosomal make-up, with G2a2a more mixed with CHG/Iranian Neolithic (in particular J2a populations) than the G2a2b-dominated populations. G2a2a-led group then takes a more southern route into Italy, via Greece & the Islands, while G2a2b-led group initially goes up the Danube.

Somewhat off topic, but have there been any studies of post-Neolithic Iranian populations, say from the time of Cyrus the Great?

----------


## Jovialis

> Jovialis, could you elaborate on this point? Or did you want to go over Moots with a fine-tooth comb first?
> 
> Certainly it appears that G2a2b lines moved from Balkans during Copper Age to Western Europe (by which routes is debatable, most likely multiple routes), replacing earlier G2a2a lines in places like Italy
> 
> So maybe G2a2a comes from different area of Anatolia than G2a2b, each division having its own autosomal make-up, with G2a2a more mixed with CHG/Iranian Neolithic (in particular J2a populations) than the G2a2b-dominated populations. G2a2a-led group then takes a more southern route into Italy, via Greece & the Islands, while G2a2b-led group initially goes up the Danube.
> 
> Somewhat off topic, but have there been any studies of post-Neolithic Iranian populations, say from the time of Cyrus the Great?


Thus far, it doesn't say much more than that. But at Angela pointed out, there was a decrease of Iran-Neo, based on the three Central Italian Copper Age samples. As well as a resurgence of WHG, probably from Early European Farmers who retained more WHG in their own ancestry. This increase of WHG happened in many other parts of Europe around this time as well. However, I suspect that the situation was different in other parts of Italy, like in the south.

----------


## dominique_nuit

> In many ways, Germany is considered the _Heartland of Europe._ The upcoming paper by David Reich and Isolf Lazaridis models Germans as predominately Paleolithic Caucasian, which is similar to Anatolian_Neolthic:


So when Angela says, "this is a whole new way of looking at European ancestry" ---> the point is that Reich et al are going to look at modern European populations as different blends of six different paleolithic populations???

If so, this seems like a long overdue move. The "Native Hunter-Gatherer versus Early European Farmer versus Steppe Conqueror" paradigm seems to have exhausted much of its explanatory power

----------


## Jovialis

> So when Angela says, "this is a whole new way of looking at European ancestry" ---> the point is that Reich et al are going to look at modern European populations as different blends of six different paleolithic populations???
> 
> If so, this seems like a long overdue move. The "Native Hunter-Gatherer versus Early European Farmer versus Steppe Conqueror" paradigm seems to have exhausted much of its explanatory power


It also is a bit confusing, for example, in the Iron Age samples, the Steppe Eneolthic within an of itself is modeled as (60% EHG + 40% CHG/IN) and/or (50% EHG + 50% CHG/IN). That is in addition to the Iran Neo that increases, and is modeled as the separate gray component from that subsumed amount of Iran-like ancestry of Steppe Eneolthic.

----------


## Jovialis

> It also is a bit confusing, for example, in the Iron Age samples, the Steppe Eneolthic within an of itself is modeled as (60% EHG + 40% CHG/IN) and/or (50% EHG + 50% CHG/IN). That is in addition to the Iran Neo that increases, and is modeled as the separate gray component from that subsumed amount of Iran-like ancestry of Steppe Eneolthic.




Ergo, we do see a jump in Iran-Neo from the copper age, to the Iron age. Which is comparable, or even more than Steppe Eneolithic. However, some of these Iron Age samples plot where they do on the PCA partly due to the copper-age resurgent WHG (Probably by EEF that retained this ancestry) that was brought to the region in a time that preceded the arrival of Steppe-like ancestry.

----------


## Angela

The CHG/Iran Neo like ancestry from the steppe is indeed included in the steppe number.

What we're, and the paper, are talking about is a separate flow of genes ultimately from the Caucasus, which, after a certain point was mixed with Anatolian Neo, and eventually mixed with more Anatolian Neo before reaching either Greece or Italy. We now know it started in the Neolithic, but I highly doubt there weren't other flows of that or similar ancestry.

I would be extremely surprised if some migrations high in Caucasus/Iran Neo like ancestry, emanating from the Near East, probably Asia Minor, either via Greece or both via Greece and the Balkans, and places like Crete or Cyprus, for example, didn't increase the amount of that ancestry in Italy. 

The amount in the Neolithic, about 10%, is quite a bit smaller than what is currently present in some areas, or, I would bet, than what was present in the Middle to Late first millennium, for example.

----------


## Angela

> So when Angela says, "this is a whole new way of looking at European ancestry" ---> the point is that Reich et al are going to look at modern European populations as different blends of six different paleolithic populations???
> 
> If so, this seems like a long overdue move. The "Native Hunter-Gatherer versus Early European Farmer versus Steppe Conqueror" paradigm seems to have exhausted much of its explanatory power


Since I said it, I'll answer, if Jovialis and you don't object. :)

That's exactly what I think, and I agree with your conclusion. 

I had forgotten about that graphic, and I'm very glad Jovialis didn't, and posted it.

Also, you might take a look at my post number 449.

Maybe even 450, since that might have gotten lost too. I have no agenda here, and no biases. I'm just looking for the truth.

----------


## dosas

What about those Z2103s, any more info on them?

----------


## Jovialis

The paper states that there was "deep demographic change" in Late Antiquity; facilitated by the changing political and social situation in the Western Roman Empire (i.e. shift of capital to Constantinople, war, disease, collapse of the empire). The result was a population that was roughly 30% C7 European, 30% Eastern Mediterranean (C5), 38% Mediterranean (C6). Basically, it meant the loss of the Near eastern populations, and an expansion of C7.

----------


## Carlos

> romans were very mixed so Southern Europe is very mixed


Like you,,,,

----------


## Jovialis

> romans were very mixed so Southern Europe is very mixed


@Carlos, indeed

All of Europe is a mix of different source populations, including eastern Europe and Scandinavia.

----------


## Jovialis

> romans were very mixed so Southern Europe is very mixed





> war-burzum




Please don't tell me that you believe you are 99.7% Neanderthal. :)

----------


## Jovialis

> lol being German/Hungarian ancestry


What is your point? You're still from a mix of different source populations. Take a look at the admixture chart I posted; Germans, and Hungarians are no exception. As a matter of fact, Hungarians are listed among them. A large amount of LBK (Neolthic Farmers), relatively large amount of Yamnaya which is half Iranian/half EHG, a minority of WHG, and a small amount of post-bronze age nganasan-like admixture. At any rate, this thread is not about teaching the basics of human population genetics. It is for us to discuss the paper on ancient Rome. Superficial and ignorant statements like "romans were very mixed so Southern Europe is very mixed", only serves to reduce your integrity among the serious and genuine enthusiasts.

----------


## Salento

> lol being German/Hungarian ancestry


You could have some Roman in you, our Roman Ancestors got around ...

Take a DNA test and find out, ... if you did, please share your results in the appropriate thread.

----------


## Ack

> Is this the Italian Nordicist perspective? 
> 
> I haven't looked at each of those samples individually yet, but the majority of the Iron Age/Republican Rome Era samples are at least one third Indo-European, which makes them Southern European.
> 
> That's not good enough for you?
> 
> What did you expect? Scandinavians? Germans?
> 
> Honestly, what planet do some of you internet pop gen people come from? You're not playing with a full deck.
> ...


You threw the facts on the table. I don't understand why some people are obsessed with northern europe or the steppe. Southern Europe and the near east are amazing on their own merits and are not behind anyone.

----------


## Angela

> You threw the facts on the table. I don't understand why some people are obsessed with northern europe or the steppe. Southern Europe and the near east are amazing on their own merits and are not behind anyone.


I couldn't agree more. That's why I get so irritated with certain posters and sites. I don't understand it.

----------


## davef

Smart move taking the downvote away, now t-rolls have one less weapon in their arsenal

----------


## Joey37

Screen Shot 2019-11-16 at 3.11.35 PM.pngAncestry DNA must be obsessed with steppe, too, because THEY TOOK AWAY ALL TRACE OF MY 100% SICILIAN GREAT-GRANDFATHER! My Nana is half Sicilian, for crying out loud, her paternal grandparents were born in Palazzo Adriano! Well, schmucks, I was named after him, so you can't take that away!

----------


## Carlos

I have spoken with Ancestry and they do not sell their kit for Spain.

----------


## Jovialis

Interestingly, the Near eastern cluster (C4) is explicitly modeled as 30%-50% North African in qpAdm. After going extinct by Late Antiquity, it is only reasonable to believe that the majority, if not all, trace-North African ancestry comes from the Moors. Not Jewish populations, who were ethnically cleansed from many parts of Italy, or fled, throughout the ages.

----------


## Ack

[CITAÇÃO = Angela; 590886] Não concordo mais. É por isso que fico tão irritado com certos pôsteres e sites. Eu não entendo isso. 

I'm not Italian, but I always think of Italy's cultural history as amazing in every way. I have no interest in disparaging others, but it is a fact that the cultural construction of Greeks and Italians for Europe was truly phenomenal. The fact that there is much Greek descent in southern Italy should be a source of pride, never a shame. I don't understand how anyone who claims to be proud of being 'European' can disparage the descendants of those who have been responsible for most of European cultural development for thousands of years.


Accepting that one of Europe's largest military, cultural, and land-based empires has more genetic affinity for southern Europe and the near east must also be difficult to accept for those who find themselves more special because they are from the north. No disrespect for the north on my part, the north also has its history and importance - especially in the modern context. But it would be important to put regionalisms a bit aside and simply accept the facts as they are. Each people has had its moments of grandeur and this need not be turned into sentimental and identity disputes to the point of falling into absurd theorizing and resentment.

----------


## Jovialis

> I paid for access to the paper, and I'm going over it with a fine-tooth comb. Interestingly, the authors suggest that it is plausible that rather than additional source population of CHG/IN; Neolthic Italian Farmers could be from a different source population different from Central European, and Iberian farmers. Rather, they may have come directly from Central Anatolia, or Northern Greece.


What I also find interesting is that they qpAdm model the Central Italian Neolithic ancestry in a two-way mixture as 5% WHG + 95% Neolithic Central Anatolian Farmer/Northern Greece Farmer. With this study as a citation:




> *The genomic history of southeastern Europe*
> 
> Abstract
> 
> Farming was first introduced to Europe in the mid-seventh millennium BC, and was associated with migrants from Anatolia who settled in the southeast before spreading throughout Europe. Here, to understand the dynamics of this process, we analysed genome-wide ancient DNA data from 225 individuals who lived in southeastern Europe and surrounding regions between 12000 and 500 BC. We document a west–east cline of ancestry in indigenous hunter-gatherers and, in eastern Europe, the early stages in the formation of Bronze Age steppe ancestry. We show that the first farmers of northern and western Europe dispersed through southeastern Europe with limited hunter-gatherer admixture, but that some early groups in the southeast mixed extensively with hunter-gatherers without the sex-biased admixture that prevailed later in the north and west. We also show that southeastern Europe continued to be a nexus between east and west after the arrival of farmers, with intermittent genetic contact with steppe populations occurring up to 2,000 years earlier than the migrations from the steppe that ultimately replaced much of the population of northern Europe.
> 
> https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25778


Discussed here:

https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...athiesen-et-al

----------


## Jovialis

> What I also find interesting is that they qpAdm model the Central Italian Neolithic ancestry in a two-way mixture as 5% WHG + 95% Neolithic Central Anatolian Farmer/Northern Greece Farmer. With this study as a citation:
> 
> 
> 
> Discussed here:
> 
> https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...athiesen-et-al


_ We also show that southeastern Europe continued to be a nexus between east and west after the arrival of farmers, with intermittent genetic contact with steppe populations occurring up to 2,000 years earlier than the migrations from the steppe that ultimately replaced much of the population of northern Europe._

Perhaps my paternal-lineage PF7562 has something to do with this migration.

----------


## bigsnake49

> R850 Y T-L208 - mtDNA T2c1f
> R437 Y R-P312 - mtDNA H10
> 
> R850 Y line is a “Remarkable” line, there aren't many of us, but we are everywhere :) 
> 
> R850 is a y T1a1... - I’m a y T1a2...
> 
> Nobody shares more DNA with R850 than me (as of now), though I share even more with R437.


Holy crap Salento, it's like R437 is your 3rd-4th cousin!

----------


## Angela

The only samples where I get such high IBD are...



*Protovillanovia Martinsicuro**930 BC** R1
*
mtDNA: U5a2b
Total cM=63.76
Largest segment=48.54 cM (2 shared. Sample quality: 94) - (Sample is too new for user comparison)

Chr. 8

15.22 cM









Chr. 16

48.54 cM











My second highest is...
*Scythian Moldova**290 BC** scy311
*
mtDNA: T2b
Total cM=25.04
Largest segment=12.0 cM (6 shared. Sample quality: 23) - Your raw DNA is *99*% closer than other matching users

Chr. 3

2.57 cM









Chr. 5

6.38 cM













Chr. 6

1.95 cM









Chr. 16

12.0 cM









Chr. 17

2.13 cM









I have to say, though, that I'm a little leery of getting such high, familial like levels of IBD with such ancient samples.

Overall genetic distance is different. I think it's quite possible to be fairly close to a sample even 3000 years old in some countries.

----------


## Carlos

My highest matches. Even one 100% compared to other users. Now when I publish I can see even better how they share segments on the same chromosomes.

----------


## Angela

> On what basis do you think you have inherited from thousand of years ago, tens of cM ?


You may have missed it. I said I'm leery of these IBD numbers, although they're clearly related to genetic similarity. 

I have more confidence in the distance estimates. Now, the numbers may not be exact, but they make absolute sense given my ancestry and everyone else's whose results I've seen, whether from northwestern, eastern, or southern Europe.

----------


## Carlos

> On what basis do you think you have inherited from thousand of years ago, tens of cM ?


On the ground basis. On the basis that although there is currently a super population, we logically descend from tribes, ethnic groups with fewer members. And on the basis of art since a relative of mine who I am sure did not know what Cogotas carved bulls with the same stop and style as the ancients. I made elementary rams myself for a portal in Bethlehem with 9 years with the same stop as the old ones, the teacher asked me if I had made them. 

And for more inri we have a toponymic surname of the area where Cogotas was. And those bulls and cockles were not imported.

I sincerely believe it. I will not go into the minute because it is not my thing, but if I saw something strange or incredible I would have enough intuition to detect it, and all this I believe, there is truth in all of it

And the final question if this is denied, where would it descend from? Of the Australians, Eskimos? Is it more incoherent and hard to believe stepping on the ground than floor that descends from Cógotas, isn't it?

I hope you have a good evening


Very kind, he greets you carefully this is:


Carlos

----------


## Duarte

> My highest matches. Even one 100% compared to other users. Now when I publish I can see even better how they share segments on the same chromosomes.


All my direct matches on MTA: 




> All my direct matches on MTA:

----------


## Carlos

^^^^

Duarte

We agree in more than 95% I would say. But my list is not complete I had based on the highest percentages that have coincided with Etruscans and Iberians. I will have a job now with so many kits to rejoin all segments and not lose any. BUF.

----------


## Carlos

> On what basis do you think you have inherited from thousand of years ago, tens of cM ?


It is more before the end of the year I will get a new sample with an approximation of approximately four and you will stay with your mouth open.

----------


## MOESAN

> So when Angela says, "this is a whole new way of looking at European ancestry" ---> the point is that Reich et al are going to look at modern European populations as different blends of six different paleolithic populations???
> 
> If so, this seems like a long overdue move. The "Native Hunter-Gatherer versus Early European Farmer versus Steppe Conqueror" paradigm seems to have exhausted much of its explanatory power


It depends on studies. I'm a bit tired by all these variations in admixtures labellings occurred since the beginnings.
We have mixes of true populations with "pure" preceding componants themselves formed on older populations mixes, when they are not less drifted ones.
And every scientists team or every paper has its proper references to distinguish "basic"components.
But as a whole I think the older* the references pops, the better the sketch concerning allover auDNA distances, but it says little about historical pops moves of already mixed people, without other tools. *: but with pops of roughly the same time -

----------


## Salento

> Smart move taking the downvote away, now t-rolls have one less weapon in their arsenal


I understand that the downvote was getting abused, but ... it kept members like you and me more considerate and conscious of the impact that our Posts could have on others.


I share DNA Segments with these samples from the Moots Ancient-Roman Paper:



from the top, 3 samples only:
got many more: https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...l=1#post590486 



fyi Since my Grandma’s name was Eva, my cM are absolutely real  :Grin:

----------


## Jovialis

In regards to the introduction of Steppe-like ancestry in Ancient Rome:

The paper says that due to the lack of data from between the copper age and Iron age, they are unable to determine when it arrived. Though they suggest it may have arrived through genetic exchange, via intermediary groups, and was supplemented by later migrations. By the Iron-Age, it could be modeled in qpAdm as a 30%-40% genetic-shift. I should also add, that a jump in Iran Neo (separate from the ancestry brought by Steppe Eneolithic), was also accounted for in this period. Furthermore, the Iron age is when the genetic approximation of modern Mediterranean populations had taken place.

I think this is especially interesting considering the non-Indo-European speaking Etruscans possibly brought steppe-ancestry with them too. Perhaps they were one of these intermediary or supplemental groups for steppe ancestry.

----------


## Angela

The Reich Lab didn't do a very good job on Sardinian genetics in their Fernandes et al paper, imo. They just assumed that the ancestry they saw in Late Antiquity had a big effect on Sardinian genetics.

The paper by Marcus et al imo did a better job. 
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/583104v1


We discussed it here:
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...al%3A+Sardinia

"First off, it's a much better organized and written paper than the one from the Reich Lab by Fernandes. Second, it pays much better attention to the details of the substructure in Sardinia.

It's true that they don't have an Iron Age sample or four Late Antiquity samples, like the Reich Lab has, but I think the Reich Lab may be inferring too much from those samples in terms of the effect on modern Sardinian populations. I'm thinking particularly of the fact that this paper finds more "Levantine" in the southwest where we find evidence of Phoenician settlement, and more "northern" ancestry including Tuscan ancestry, in Olbia in the northeast and the large city of Sassari, while there is the least change in Ogliastra."


This is the Fernandes/Reich paper:
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/584714v1

This is the discussion thread:
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...an+genetics%3F

I sure hope the Reich Lab doesn't get it wrong again, which they might, since Fernandes got it wrong.

----------


## Dema

> I understand that the downvote was getting abused, but ... it kept members like you and me more considerate and conscious of the impact that our Posts could have on others.
> 
> 
> I share DNA Segments with these samples from the Moots Ancient-Roman Paper:
> 
> 
> 
> from the top, 3 samples only:
> got many more: https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...l=1#post590486 
> ...



I guess you have to pay for this. 


This is best i can get out of free acc:

1. Central Roman (590 AD) *..... 7.945*
Top *99*% match vs all users


3. Central Roman (590 AD) *..... 9.299*
Top *99*% match vs all users




5. Protovillanovia Martinsicuro (930 BC) *..... 10.31*
Top *98*% match vs all users




7. Late Roman Empire Crypta Balbi (500 AD) *..... 11.78*
Top *98*% match vs all users


9. Gallo-Roman (590 AD) *..... 12.57*
Top *95*% match vs all users


11. Visigoth Mixed Slav Girona (550 AD) *..... 13.84*
Top *89*% match vs all users




13. North Roman Warrior (590 AD) *..... 14.56*
Top *94*% match vs all users




15. Medieval Italy Abbadia SS Plague (1348 AD) *..... 15.04*
Top *96*% match vs all users




17. Cisalpine Gaul (590 AD) *..... 15.27*
Top *77*% match vs all users


19. Thracian Bulgaria (450 BC) *..... 15.35*
Top *92*% match vs all users







Roman (7.945)
Gaul + Roman (8.253)
Gallo-Roman + Roman (8.802)
Gallo-Roman (12.57)
Gaul (15.27)


*Protovillanovia Martinsicuro*


*930 BC*


*[Upgrade for sample details]*




mtDNA: [Upgrade to see]
Total cM=127.08
Largest segment=53.86 cM (6 shared. Sample quality: 94) - (Sample is too new for user comparison)




*Crusader Knight Tuscan / Lebanon*


*mtDNA Haplogroup: V19*

*Y-DNA Haplogroup: R1b1a2a1a2a*


*Genetic Distance: 18.843*
*Sample Match! 92% closer than others users


**Crusader Knight Tuscan / Lebanon*


*mtDNA Haplogroup: T2*

*Y-DNA Haplogroup: R1b1a2a1a2c2*


*Genetic Distance: 17.005*
*Sample Match! 97% closer than others users


**Ptolemaic Egypt*


*mtDNA Haplogroup: U6a2*

*Y-DNA Haplogroup: E1b1b1a1b2-V22*


*Deep Dive Match! 79% closer than others who share this deep dive sample

*

----------


## Angela

> I guess you have to pay for this. 
> 
> 
> This is best i can get out of free acc:
> 
> 1. Central Roman (590 AD) *..... 7.945*
> Top *99*% match vs all users
> 
> 
> ...


Did they give you sample numbers?

Anyway, here are mine, half Emilian and half Eastern Ligurian/Tuscan so you can compare:

Roman (3.568)
Roman + Illyrian (4.064)
Gallo-Roman + Roman (4.779)
Gallo-Roman (9.491)
Illyrian (10.35)

These are the ones which are ten and under in terms of fit:
1. Central Roman (590 AD) *..... 3.568* - SZ43 -  (Click for more info)
Top *99*% match vs all users

2. Central Roman (670 AD) *..... 4.975* - CL36 - ?  (Click for more info)
Top *99*% match vs all users

3. Medieval Villa Magna Italy (905 AD) *..... 6.017* - R60 -  (Click for more info)
Top *99*% match vs all users

4. Protovillanovia Martinsicuro (930 BC) *..... 6.279* - R1 -  (Click for more info)
Top *99*% match vs all users

5. Central Roman (590 AD) *..... 7.029* - SZ36 -  (Click for more info)
Top *99*% match vs all users

6. Late Roman Empire Crypta Balbi (500 AD) *..... 8.294* - R107 -  (Click for more info)
Top *99*% match vs all users

7. Gallo-Roman (590 AD) *..... 9.491* - SZ28 - ?  (Click for more info)
Top *99*% match vs all users

8. Byzantine Roman Warrior (605 AD) *..... 9.723* - NS3b - ?  (Click for more info)
Top *99*% match vs all users

9. Imperial Rome Marche CN (165 AD) *..... 9.778* - R835 -  (Click for more info)
Top *99*% match vs all users

10. Medieval Italy Abbadia SS Plague (1348 AD) *..... 9.816* - BSS31  (Click for more info)
Top *99*% match vs all users

11. Scythian Southern Moldova (270 BC) *..... 9.865* - scy192 -  (Click for more info)
Top *99*% match vs all users

12. Central Roman (670 AD) *..... 10.07* - CL121 -  (Click for more info)
Top *99*% match vs all users

13. Illyrian / Dalmatian (1200 BC) *..... 10.35* - I3313 -  (Click for more info)
Top *97*% match vs all users

14. North Roman Warrior (590 AD) *..... 10.45* - NS3c - ?  (Click for more info)
Top *98*% match vs all users

15. Iberian Taifa of Valencia (1100 AD) *..... 10.51* - I2515  (Click for more info)
Top *97*% match vs all users

16. Spaniard Cordoba Caliphate (1050 AD) *..... 10.68* - I12515 -  (Click for more info)
Top *97*% match vs all users

17. Central Roman (590 AD) *..... 10.77* - SZ32 - ?  (Click for more info)
Top *98*% match vs all users

18. Imperial Rome San Ercolano (100 AD) *..... 10.85* - R117 -  (Click for more info)
Top *99*% match vs all users

19. Medieval Villa Magna Italy (905 AD) *..... 10.87* - R59 -  (Click for more info)
Top *99*% match vs all users

----------


## Dema

> Did they give you sample numbers?
> 
> Anyway, here are mine, half Emilian and half Eastern Ligurian/Tuscan so you can compare:




No sample numbers just this info i posted here. 

However we match almost the same samples just you have much closer matches. GD 3.5 and 4.9 are really close matches, i match these same samples so Central Romans but GD 7 being my closest. 
I think any match closer then GD 10 is somewhat close. Your two Central Roman samples are really close. 


I wonder how your Modern PCA Plot looks like, we should essentially not be too far one from another. I match Kosovars at GD 3.5 which is fairy close and normal. 

I would like that their Modern PCA Plot map had more nationalities included in picture.

----------


## Angela

> No sample numbers just this info i posted here. 
> 
> However we match almost the same samples just you have much closer matches. GD 3.5 and 4.9 are really close matches, i match these same samples so Central Romans but GD 7 being my closest. 
> I think any match closer then GD 10 is somewhat close. Your two Central Roman samples are really close. 
> 
> 
> I wonder how your Modern PCA Plot looks like, we should essentially not be too far one from another. I match Kosovars at GD 3.5 which is fairy close and normal. 
> 
> I would like that their Modern PCA Plot map had more nationalities included in picture.


There's no Kosovan or Greeks or Bulgarians on mine because they really zero in, so it's hard to tell.

I'm north of Tuscans and south of Bergamo Lombards if that helps.

I plot exactly concordant with geography: between Spaniards and Balkanites/Greeks.

----------


## Jovialis

Has anyone uploaded the samples from this paper to Gedmatch yet?

----------


## Jovialis

> Has anyone uploaded the samples from this paper to Gedmatch yet?


https://web.stanford.edu/group/pritc...DNA/index.html

Is it me, or does the link not work?

----------


## Salento

> https://web.stanford.edu/group/pritc...DNA/index.html
> 
> Is it me, or does the link not work?


The genotype-data download link is NOT working (Object not found!)

----------


## Salento

Maybe the server limits the number of visitors/downloads.
if that’s the case try again later.

----------


## MOESAN

contribution to dream (or to nightmare)

Etruscans Italics


It's partially off topic 'spite evocated in this very thread) but I think Etruscans could have been pre-IE Central Europeans (Balkans?). This position could explain possible moves towards West (Italy at Urnfields/IA times, maybe Switzerland/Baviera), along diverse Italics tribes, and towards East (Sth-Balkans, where they could have been in contact to people like Dardani who passed into West Anatolia). The list of the Sea People is confusing because it mixes names of tribes (maritime/coastal for the most) we find TODAY linked to central-western Mediterranean as well as Egea Sea and coastal western Anatolia. Plus the "tribes" cited among the Sea People were in fact only mercenaries bands and not complete ethnies. ATW, it seems « Egyptian » 'shardana' were from W-Syria by origin, near Ugarit, and we can think that Trs, Teresh, Tiruisha, Tyrsenoi were the same one people, not ‘Shardana’ but Etruscans maybe, people situated by Hittits north to Assuwa, close to Troiad. Troyans were Dardani (at least for a big part), supposed to be of Moeso-Dacian origin as today Albanians and based in Sth-Central Balkans (Sth Serbia) but who colonized W-Anatolia. Concerning Shardana as well as Tyrsenoi, it’s possible their settlements in coastal Anatolia-Near-East were only counters, how to be sure ? But my above (timid) hypothesis of an inland presence in Sth Balkans is not completely basurd, at least with the poor knowledge I have.




An amateur’s work made by an Anthrogenica « boarder », made on G-25 autosomes groupings, spite not scientific, is interesting nevertheless, spite very often the differences ar tiny :
1- The Bulgarian IA person a bit closer to modern Greeks and Southern Italians than to North Italians, when the Croatian IA person is a bit more akin to North Italians, and at a lower level, closer to Iberians as a whole, but more to Eastern Iberians.
2- The Proto-Villanovan person seems very close to the Croatian IA one. The distance from East-Balkans and Carpathians, Romania, Bulgaria) seems less than in subsequent stages. 
3- The Villanovan person shows greater differences : he(she) is the closest to modern Corsicans and Iberians, mostly to Nth-Nth-East Castile Spanyards and to Valencia Spanyards ; in Italy, it peaks in Toscane Latium, Veneto and Peri-Tyrol regions (+ parts of Switzerland), all that in a spotty way, without too soft gradiants; some links with Southern France appear too. As a whole he/she shares less ties with Southern Italians and Greeks, and is more Iberia oriented. All the way, he/she seems less « Italian » than 1, 2 & 4 !!!
4- the Etruscan or so called person shows in return a more conventional set of affinities with preceding periods, coming back closer to Southern Italians, to Greeks spite an evident preference for Northern and North-Central Italy, the gradiants are smoother ; it remains that some proximity to Spanyards is still here, but more general and level, not so spotty, and again some proximity to France.
5- The Ardea Latini IA person is not too far from the Etruscan, but it gets away a bit from Southern Italians and Greeks, and shows same attraction towards Northern Italians, Southern French people and Iberians, even a bit stronger. 
Concerning Sardigna, the distances are always great. The Proto-Villanovan appears the most distant from the dominant regions of Italy, spite it seems very « pan-Italian », Sicily comprised in the sketch. The Ardea Latini IA person is the LESS far from modern Sardinians. This last case could be explained by a beginning of colonization by continental Romans ?


How can we link all this to History ? (if we rely on this amateur ‘s work accuracy for details, what I do in some part and because it’s easier to me than studying detailed data of scientific works)
- It seems he IA Bulgarian is less ‘old-EEF’ than IA Croatian, as he is geographically closer to Anatolia roads and post-neolithic new partial inputs of CHG or ‘iranianlike’ elements. BTW he’s a bit closer th modern Alabnians than to Greeks, what is not in contradiction.
- The allover ressemblance of IA Croatian and Proto-Villanovan is striking ! Both seem ‘PAN-ITALICS’ ! The Villanovan could be the most Etruscan, It doesn’t exclude some contacts with Italian BB’s. 
- The Villanovan is the black swan in the game : very more Western, less « common » in general ; curiously, no stronger ties elsewhere, only a bit more with Balts and Bela-Russians, a little bit with Sardinians, and at the opposite, less ties with modern Anatolians (Turcs) and Yougoslavs - some kind of Central Europe pop with some drift by relative isolation rather than by geographical distance, maybe caused by langage barriers ? ! Could he be the true proto-Etruscan, or just an outlier with a curious mix ? The so called Etruscan is rather on the way to IA Ardea Latini : what remains is some similarity with what will be the Northern Italians : weight of Spanyard-like affinities, less affinities to Greece and lesser affinities to Anatolia than preceding times. Maybe the result of Etruscans mixing with Italics and Pre-Italics ? 
A striking contrast with Rome Imperial times !
It think the Proto-Villanovan person could be the closer to Italics tribes : if Italics made Rome, and their descendants present in every part of the Republic, he is the best candidate (confirmed by presence even in Sardigna, spite weak). And he proximity to IA Croatian seems a confirmation of the supposed history of Italics, at least the ones who came first into Italy.
The not too strong differences between IA Bulgarian and IA Croatian plaids for Balkans as a shaker of ethnies at those times ; when we know the exogenic matings of IE elites (and surely some females grabbing of commoners), we can imagine some tribes having kept the males lineages habits (Y-haplo’s) when their autosomal makings were arrived almost level, before subsequent times.
The IA pop of Italy (I know I have’nt the allover Italy pop here), Greek colonies kept aside, a bit more « northern » but mostly more « western » (EEF remnants) than today Italy mean._ If Etruscans were come from Hungary or Balkans, pushed by IE tribes, thay had already_ _a mix close enough to these North-Balkans/Central Danube IE descendants. If they had kept the « philosophy » of ancient Tell pops of farmers-southeastern bronzers origin, they would have accepted more diverse foreign male lineages (so Y-haplo’s) than did the c__lannic_ _pops of steppic origin, I think._  
Aside but not completley out of topic, it seems Hallstatt is today divided into three groups : 2 options : Italics cut down a Celtic-Illyrian group of exchanges, or Illyrians cut down a Celtic-Italic contact. It seems the last solution would have more supporters. Perhaps the Venetics are the last para-Italics members to join N-E Italy after the rupture caused by supposed Illyrians ? 
OR as we know now that true, Illyrians were settled more southwards, what was called the « Illyrians » in Austria was in fact the para-Italics (Venetics) come from North, some of them stayed in S-W Poland to form the Lusacian culture ?.
Just a bunch of bets for people who cannot sleep in the evening. A game, when new facts are not yet come to distroy imagination.




Phillistins : para-Italics ! Sea people also !

----------


## Archetype0ne

> contribution to dream (or to nightmare)
> 
> Etruscans Italics
> 
> 
> It's partially off topic 'spite evocated in this very thread) but I think Etruscans could have been pre-IE Central Europeans (Balkans?). This position could explain possible moves towards West (Italy at Urnfields/IA times, maybe Switzerland/Baviera), along diverse Italics tribes, and towards East (Sth-Balkans, where they could have been in contact to people like Dardani who passed into West Anatolia). The list of the Sea People is confusing because it mixes names of tribes (maritime/coastal for the most) we find TODAY linked to central-western Mediterranean as well as Egea Sea and coastal western Anatolia. Plus the "tribes" cited among the Sea People were in fact only mercenaries bands and not complete ethnies. ATW, it seems « Egyptian » 'shardana' were from W-Syria by origin, near Ugarit, and we can think that Trs, Teresh, Tiruisha, Tyrsenoi were the same one people, not ‘Shardana’ but Etruscans maybe, people situated by Hittits north to Assuwa, close to Troiad. Troyans were Dardani (at least for a big part), supposed to be of Moeso-Dacian origin as today Albanians and based in Sth-Central Balkans (Sth Serbia) but who colonized W-Anatolia. Concerning Shardana as well as Tyrsenoi, it’s possible their settlements in coastal Anatolia-Near-East were only counters, how to be sure ? But my above (timid) hypothesis of an inland presence in Sth Balkans is not completely basurd, at least with the poor knowledge I have.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Very interesting read.
Do you mind sharing the Anthrogenica data (graphs, maps whatever they may be) that you base the above paragraphs on?

----------


## brick

> contribution to dream (or to nightmare)
> 
> Etruscans Italics
> 
> 
> It's partially off topic 'spite evocated in this very thread) but I think Etruscans could have been pre-IE Central Europeans (Balkans?). This position could explain possible moves towards West (Italy at Urnfields/IA times, maybe Switzerland/Baviera), along diverse Italics tribes, and towards East (Sth-Balkans, where they could have been in contact to people like Dardani who passed into West Anatolia). The list of the Sea People is confusing because it mixes names of tribes (maritime/coastal for the most) we find TODAY linked to central-western Mediterranean as well as Egea Sea and coastal western Anatolia. Plus the "tribes" cited among the Sea People were in fact only mercenaries bands and not complete ethnies. ATW, it seems « Egyptian » 'shardana' were from W-Syria by origin, near Ugarit, and we can think that Trs, Teresh, Tiruisha, Tyrsenoi were the same one people, not ‘Shardana’ but Etruscans maybe, people situated by Hittits north to Assuwa, close to Troiad. Troyans were Dardani (at least for a big part), supposed to be of Moeso-Dacian origin as today Albanians and based in Sth-Central Balkans (Sth Serbia) but who colonized W-Anatolia. Concerning Shardana as well as Tyrsenoi, it’s possible their settlements in coastal Anatolia-Near-East were only counters, how to be sure ? But my above (timid) hypothesis of an inland presence in Sth Balkans is not completely basurd, at least with the poor knowledge I have.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't want to be offensive, but it's a very amateurish work that confuses and doesn't clarify. It is impossible to see all these indications in Etruscan and Latin samples, using Global 25 or any other amateur tool.

The ones about Sea People are just fantasies.

Even if we admit that the Etruscans were one of the Sea People, their results strongly exclude a provenance from Bronze age Anatolia.

----------


## MOESAN

> I don't want to be offensive, but it's a very amateurish work that confuses and doesn't clarify. It is impossible to see all these indications in Etruscan and Latin samples, using Global 25 or any other amateur tool.
> 
> The ones about Sea People are just fantasies.
> 
> Even if we admit that the Etruscans were one of the Sea People, their results strongly exclude a provenance from Bronze age Anatolia.





You didn't readd accutely.
My words:
_'contribution to dream (or to nightmare) ..._
... _Just a bunch of bets for people who cannot sleep in the evening. A game, when new facts are not yet come to distroy imagination.'_
No pretention to scientific value.
But the Sea People is a reality, an obscure one, but one.
I don't accept four or five hazardous coincidence in people names, found in two or three languages speaking of the same period and place. My pleasant (?) hypothesis was an amateurish post (by me) based on partly amateurish work or rather map representation (of another).
Where did you read I ever said Eruscans were from recent or BA Anatolia extraction? I was trying to link them to Villanovans by opposition to proto-Villanovans (even if this opposition is not total), and I spoke of their proximity to Iberians! Not to more recent Anatolians: they were even less close to Anatolians than Bulgarian IA. In my disgression about Sea People, I precised we cannot be sure of the geographical origin of some of them we (perhaps) see after in Central-Western Mediterranea, and that even their previous geographical origin is not clear because we had (in my opinion) to deal with mercenaries, I add here: surely good seafarers.
My point was an origin of Etruscans in Central Europe and the possibility to have forked into two directions; hypothesis only. We can also imagine Etruscans had only a basis, in Italy, but were good sailors, and colonized after some places of the Mediterranean shores (see Lemnian). The Villanovan DNA put on map seems showing spotty ties with some today pops, unleven, and this could be the mark of partial isolation and drift; some ties in N-W Alps too (interesting: some tribes of Rhaetia?).
I don't abuse of these personal hypothesises and put it here as a matter of reflexion, for the fun and because it has to do with Italy story.
Just a word: DO read more seriously the posts. Without contemption: it occurs to me sometimes to pass to quickly on posts, but before answer, the most of the time, I re-read.

----------


## MOESAN

> Very interesting read.
> Do you mind sharing the Anthrogenica data (graphs, maps whatever they may be) that you base the above paragraphs on?


Have you a mail address I could send (skan) the maps (I have not graphs) I based my analysis on them (amateurish work on G25, made by an Anthrogenica forumer)?. It's to do without to congest this thread.
Let's keep in mind these maps cannot say us all we need about pops relations. They help a bit, only this.

----------


## halfalp

I have a question, i have a read a lot about " Amateur " tools especially going against Anthrogenica or Eurogenes. But how actually Amateurs can know whether Amateur or Professionnal Tools are Corrects? This would make them Professionnals right? 

I really hate that situation where only the " Professionnals " can be right, it makes me think to the middle-ages where only a Cleric was right on Religious matters, and his words mattered too much. What if Professionnals are wrong in their logic or the interpretation / use of their own tools? What about Bias? What about Cheating even? Can we really just blindly accept things because it's " professionnal science "? Science is right, but a Scientific is not always right nor he always says the truth or his truthfull with himself. If it was the case, all studies on a said subject would always bring the same results.

All roads lead to Rome.

----------


## MOESAN

> I have a question, i have a read a lot about " Amateur " tools especially going against Anthrogenica or Eurogenes. But how actually Amateurs can know whether Amateur or Professionnal Tools are Corrects? This would make them Professionnals right? 
> 
> I really hate that situation where only the " Professionnals " can be right, it makes me think to the middle-ages where only a Cleric was right on Religious matters, and his words mattered too much. What if Professionnals are wrong in their logic or the interpretation / use of their own tools? What about Bias? What about Cheating even? Can we really just blindly accept things because it's " professionnal science "? Science is right, but a Scientific is not always right nor he always says the truth or his truthfull with himself. If it was the case, all studies on a said subject would always bring the same results.
> 
> All roads lead to Rome.


I rather agree. Personally, I 'm an amateur for DNA. I don't think your post is against me. If I should not put any worth into "amateurs" opinions, I should not base (partly) my discussions on the tools or opinions they provide. I take some gain sometimes from things I find in Anthrogenica and Eurogenes. I say when my sources are not from scientific teams only to be honest to readers.That said, I tend as a whole to put more credit into scientific surveys even if as you say, some scientists are not always so loyal to objectivity. Sometimes too, they pass over a detail, or show disequilibrated knowledges. But as you (I suppose), I never discard any reasoning or affirmation by basing me on official status.
Good evening.

----------


## Angela

> I have a question, i have a read a lot about " Amateur " tools especially going against Anthrogenica or Eurogenes. But how actually Amateurs can know whether Amateur or Professionnal Tools are Corrects? This would make them Professionnals right? 
> 
> I really hate that situation where only the " Professionnals " can be right, it makes me think to the middle-ages where only a Cleric was right on Religious matters, and his words mattered too much. What if Professionnals are wrong in their logic or the interpretation / use of their own tools? What about Bias? What about Cheating even? Can we really just blindly accept things because it's " professionnal science "? Science is right, but a Scientific is not always right nor he always says the truth or his truthfull with himself. If it was the case, all studies on a said subject would always bring the same results.
> 
> All roads lead to Rome.


There are amateurs and amateurs. No one here, especially seeing the relatively low levels of steppe in Bronze Age Balkans populations, was stupid enough to predict, one week before the paper on the Mycenaeans came out, mind you, that the Mycenaeans would be extremely steppe like, probably almost identical to Corded Ware samples. That was Eurogenes, in case you'd forgotten. Of course, once you get an inside person to leak you papers or data about samples, it cuts down your error rate.

He also said that Corded Ware came into Europe on their fierce horses. Leaving aside that the horses were "little", there are almost no horse remains in Corded Ware. They came by wagon, probably pulled mostly by oxen.

He said that the ancient samples would show that Caucasus/Iran Neo only entered Italy in the Roman period, not the Neolithic/Bronze Age as I had long maintained.

His famous or "infamous" modeling showed huge amounts of "steppe" in Pakistanis and northwest Indians, indeed all Indians. That is absolutely not borne out by the samples.

I could go on for pages. Indeed, I once said they'd fill the telephone directory of a small city. It's only gotten worse with time.

In all these cases, this site got it right.

You really want to talk about Anthrogenica, which accused us of Nordicism because we followed the archaeology and maintained that the Etruscans were "local", and not a migration from Anatolia in the first millennium BC? Even the academic geneticists got that wrong. Agamemnon posting a lot about the Etruscans and the Etruscan language lately? How about Sikeliot and all his socks, Sikeliot who on theapricity, along with all the other Nordicists, said it was obvious the Etruscans were dark skinned "wogs" from the Middle East? Hell, some of them had the Etruscans coming from Egypt.

I could fill an even larger phone book with the complete nonsense they've written which has been contradicted by ancient dna.

The reason for all these errors boils down to two things: 

1)Agenda driven analysis or even distortions of the data.

2)Complete lack of knowledge of the history and pre-history of the Italian peninsula.

----------


## halfalp

> There are amateurs and amateurs. No one here, especially seeing the relatively low levels of steppe in Bronze Age Balkans populations, was stupid enough to predict, one week before the paper on the Mycenaeans came out, mind you, that the Mycenaeans would be extremely steppe like, probably almost identical to Corded Ware samples. That was Eurogenes, in case you'd forgotten. Of course, once you get an inside person to leak you papers or data about samples, it cuts down your error rate.
> 
> He also said that Corded Ware came into Europe on their fierce horses. Leaving aside that the horses were "little", there are almost no horse remains in Corded Ware. They came by wagon, probably pulled mostly by oxen.
> 
> He said that the ancient samples would show that Caucasus/Iran Neo only entered Italy in the Roman period, not the Neolithic/Bronze Age as I had long maintained.
> 
> His famous or "infamous" modeling showed huge amounts of "steppe" in Pakistanis and northwest Indians, indeed all Indians. That is absolutely not borne out by the samples.
> 
> I could go on for pages. Indeed, I once said they'd fill the telephone directory of a small city. It's only gotten worse with time.
> ...


In the case of Davidski and is wrong predictions. I think is reputation is playing against him, a lot of scientists had their intuitions show'ed to be wrong if we think about it, but in case of Davidski, it's playing against him for people that already do not like him. As for is Steppe ancestry results in South Asians, i dont really know anything about it. Is it about modern SA populations with Steppe ancestry vs prehistoric SA populations? I have hard time to believe he invents results from scrap, this has to be matter of calculators. Like i know he use Chimp instead of M'Buti in is runs.

And i'm not really talking about amateur Communities, obviously there is a lot of weird specimen in them, myself included. I'm just wondering what's the idea of such forum communities if in the end we only try to account on what scientists are serving us. 

If we take the recent Italian study, already there is " scandals ", Morocco_Neo Ancestry, J2b in Etruscans, Etruscans and Latins being kinda similar etc... People will try to build a story driven to themselves with it. But we dont really know anything to be honest. I think to me the most strange result of this study, is the late sample C1a2 of Middle-Age or Renaissance, so old lineage and one of the youngest of the study, sounds like a one-time scenario.

----------


## halfalp

> I rather agree. Personally, I 'm an amateur for DNA. I don't think your post is against me. If I should not put any worth into "amateurs" opinions, I should not base (partly) my discussions on the tools or opinions they provide. I take some gain sometimes from things I find in Anthrogenica and Eurogenes. I say when my sources are not from scientific teams only to be honest to readers.That said, I tend as a whole to put more credit into scientific surveys even if as you say, some scientists are not always so loyal to objectivity. Sometimes too, they pass over a detail, or show disequilibrated knowledges. But as you (I suppose), I never discard any reasoning or affirmation by basing me on official status.
> Good evening.


I believe most scientists have hard-driven bias to be honest. They are hiding them by omission, but each time a hot study about their bias is released, it's like the waking of the dragon, and the behavior and words used are different than in general. In general i try to omit details of studies especially % of ancestry of the samples, because they can be modeled and interpreted in many ways.

----------


## Jovialis

> In the case of Davidski and is wrong predictions. I think is reputation is playing against him, a lot of scientists had their intuitions show'ed to be wrong if we think about it, but in case of Davidski, it's playing against him for people that already do not like him. As for is Steppe ancestry results in South Asians, i dont really know anything about it. Is it about modern SA populations with Steppe ancestry vs prehistoric SA populations? I have hard time to believe he invents results from scrap, this has to be matter of calculators. Like i know he use Chimp instead of M'Buti in is runs.
> 
> And i'm not really talking about amateur Communities, obviously there is a lot of weird specimen in them, myself included. I'm just wondering what's the idea of such forum communities if in the end we only try to account on what scientists are serving us. 
> 
> If we take the recent Italian study, already there is " scandals ", Morocco_Neo Ancestry, J2b in Etruscans, Etruscans and Latins being kinda similar etc... People will try to build a story driven to themselves with it. But we dont really know anything to be honest. I think to me the most strange result of this study, is the late sample C1a2 of Middle-Age or Renaissance, so old lineage and one of the youngest of the study, sounds like a one-time scenario.


Not all Latins:




> My distance of affinity to 850, and 437 is comparable to my affinity to the Myceneans. From what I've seen from other users, for these samples, this is _relatively_ close:
> 
> 34. Mycenaean (1350 BC) ..... 14.52 - I9041 - 
> Top 98% match vs all users
> 
> 35. Mycenaean (1350 BC) ..... 14.54 - I9033 - 
> Top 98% match vs all users
> 
> 43. Mycenaean (1350 BC) ..... 15.26 - I9006 - 
> ...

----------


## Aaron1981

The most interesting question from this study is whether central-southern Italians had all this "oriental" prior to the building of Rome. My first inclination is that the answer is probably no, as I suspect the original inhabitants were BBC + Copper/Neo Italians for lack of a better word. So when we say Romans were east Mediterranean shifted, I'd like more information on the necropolises and when exactly this ancestry arrived. I know that the Italian Neolithic had more Iran_Neo ancestry, but it seems considerably lower than at the time of the Imperial Roman capital/empire. Hopefully that other study is forthcoming.

EDIT: I don't think there is such thing as a "Levanticist", certainly not in this study. That's just a fuzzy word to cloud racism against Jews.

----------


## Aaron1981

> In the case of Davidski and is wrong predictions. I think is reputation is playing against him, a lot of scientists had their intuitions show'ed to be wrong if we think about it, but in case of Davidski, it's playing against him for people that already do not like him. As for is Steppe ancestry results in South Asians, i dont really know anything about it. Is it about modern SA populations with Steppe ancestry vs prehistoric SA populations? I have hard time to believe he invents results from scrap, this has to be matter of calculators. Like i know he use Chimp instead of M'Buti in is runs.
> 
> And i'm not really talking about amateur Communities, obviously there is a lot of weird specimen in them, myself included. I'm just wondering what's the idea of such forum communities if in the end we only try to account on what scientists are serving us. 
> 
> If we take the recent Italian study, already there is " scandals ", Morocco_Neo Ancestry, J2b in Etruscans, Etruscans and Latins being kinda similar etc... People will try to build a story driven to themselves with it. But we dont really know anything to be honest. I think to me the most strange result of this study, is the late sample C1a2 of Middle-Age or Renaissance, so old lineage and one of the youngest of the study, sounds like a one-time scenario.


There are some obvious pre-WHG lineages scattered around Europe today, some of the C-V20 public samples available at FTDNA are from southern Europe. It's just luck that it happened to pop up in a sample.

----------


## Jovialis

> The most interesting question from this study is whether central-southern Italians had all this "oriental" prior to the building of Rome. My first inclination is that the answer is probably no, as I suspect the original inhabitants were BBC + Copper/Neo Italians for lack of a better word. So when we say Romans were east Mediterranean shifted, I'd like more information on the necropolises and when exactly this ancestry arrived. I know that the Italian Neolithic had more Iran_Neo ancestry, but it seems considerably lower than at the time of the Imperial Roman capital/empire. Hopefully that other study is forthcoming.
> 
> EDIT: I don't think there is such thing as a "Levanticist", certainly not in this study. That's just a fuzzy word to cloud racism against Jews.


The study says that steppe, and Iran show increase by the Iron age, with a blank spot in the data/timeline during the Bronze-Age.

Neolithic Italians can be modeled as 5% WHG, and 95% Northern Greece/Central Anatolian Neolithic, which had the Iran Neolithic ancestry. The three copper age samples show a resurgence of WHG, brought to them, most likely from Early European Farmers that were richer in WHG. By the Iron age, there is a jump in Steppe Eneolithic (about 50% CHG/IN + 50% EHG) as well as straight-up Iran Neo in roughly equal proportions. Thus, during the Bronze-Age, we can see that there is an increase of Iran Neo. We see by the Iron Age that 850 can form a clade with Copper Age Anatolia (60% Anatolian_Neo + 40% CHG).




I'm sure if we get samples from southern Italy, during the Iron age, and Bronze age, we will see a lot more Iran neo. Which was re-enforced by Greek colonization.

----------


## Jovialis

I think it is very curious, that some hobbyists are not forthcoming with heat maps of samples like 850, and 437. Why no heat maps, or Gedmatch kit numbers posted? I would like to analyze the data myself, but unfortunately the original files have been removed from the Stanford site.

----------


## Angela

> In the case of Davidski and is wrong predictions. I think is reputation is playing against him, a lot of scientists had their intuitions show'ed to be wrong if we think about it, but in case of Davidski, it's playing against him for people that already do not like him. As for is Steppe ancestry results in South Asians, i dont really know anything about it. Is it about modern SA populations with Steppe ancestry vs prehistoric SA populations? I have hard time to believe he invents results from scrap, this has to be matter of calculators. Like i know he use Chimp instead of M'Buti in is runs.
> 
> And i'm not really talking about amateur Communities, obviously there is a lot of weird specimen in them, myself included. I'm just wondering what's the idea of such forum communities if in the end we only try to account on what scientists are serving us. 
> 
> If we take the recent Italian study, already there is " scandals ", Morocco_Neo Ancestry, J2b in Etruscans, Etruscans and Latins being kinda similar etc... People will try to build a story driven to themselves with it. But we dont really know anything to be honest. I think to me the most strange result of this study, is the late sample C1a2 of Middle-Age or Renaissance, so old lineage and one of the youngest of the study, sounds like a one-time scenario.


Academics have made mistakes. I think David Anthony made quite a few. In the last five years, with the real coming to fruition of the ability to analyze ancient dna, none of them has made such egregious and arrogant ones. They know better, for one thing. Who the hell, going on the evidence available from the Balkan Bronze Age, would claim Mycenaeans would be just like Corded Ware??? Please.

As for whom I like and dislike, I have this peculiarity: I don't like racists. Sue me.

As for your comments about the Italian study, it is full of erroneous comments and fallacious reasoning. Why on earth would it be a *SCANDAL* that one Etruscan from a port city has some North African, or that J2b, either a straight up Neolithic farmer lineage or a farmer lineage picked up by the Indo-Europeans in Europe and spread by them, is in Etruscans?




> we dont really know anything to be honest.


The fact that we don't know EVERYTHING doesn't mean that we know NOTHING. That's completely fallacious reasoning. We know a lot about the Etruscans now from that data: we know that regardless of the fact that they didn't speak an Indo-European language they were Indo-European, steppe admixed people, like the Basques, similar to the early Italics, and similar to modern Spaniards and Northern Italians. 

The Herodotus theory is dead in the water. Somebody fish it out and bury it.

----------


## Angela

> The study says that steppe, and Iran show increase by the Iron age, with a blank spot in the data/timeline during the Bronze-Age.
> 
> Neolithic Italians can be modeled as 5% WHG, and 95% Northern Greece/Central Anatolian Neolithic, which had the Iran Neolithic ancestry. The three copper age samples show a resurgence of WHG, brought to them, most likely from Early European Farmers that were richer in WHG. By the Iron age, there is a jump in Steppe Eneolithic (about 50% CHG/IN + 50% EHG) as well as straight-up Iran Neo in roughly equal proportions. Thus, during the Bronze-Age, we can see that there is an increase of Iran Neo. We see by the Iron Age that 850 can form a clade with Copper Age Anatolia (60% Anatolian_Neo + 40% CHG).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure if we get samples from southern Italy, during the Iron age, and Bronze age, we will see a lot more Iran neo. Which was re-enforced by Greek colonization.


Amazing that the paper has to be quoted and re-quoted. It just doesn't make a dent in certain people's conclusions.

We also have the results from Sardinia and Sicily, which are also ignored.

Incredible. Some people just will NOT follow the evidence if it leads somewhere they don't want to go.

Now, did levels increase in the South during the Roman period? Hopefully, we'll soon find out.

----------


## Jovialis

> Amazing that the paper has to be quoted and re-quoted. It just doesn't make a dent in certain people's conclusions.
> 
> We also have the results from Sardinia and Sicily, which are also ignored.
> 
> Incredible. Some people just will NOT follow the evidence if it leads somewhere they don't want to go.
> 
> Now, did levels increase in the South during the Roman period? Hopefully, we'll soon find out.


I hope that the David Reich paper will answer these questions:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0txUv9ei5I

----------


## Angela

> I hope that the David Reich paper will answer these questions:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0txUv9ei5I


Well, I hope his colleagues don't make the mistakes they made in the Sardinia paper, where they didn't pay enough attention to Sardinian substructure, and assumed that the Late Antiquity samples "necessarily" had a big impact on the genetics of all modern Sardinians.

----------


## halfalp

> Academics have made mistakes. I think David Anthony made quite a few. In the last five years, with the real coming to fruition of the ability to analyze ancient dna, none of them has made such egregious and arrogant ones. They know better, for one thing. Who the hell, going on the evidence available from the Balkan Bronze Age, would claim Mycenaeans would be just like Corded Ware??? Please.
> 
> As for whom I like and dislike, I have this peculiarity: I don't like racists. Sue me.
> 
> As for your comments about the Italian study, it is full of erroneous comments and fallacious reasoning. Why on earth would it be a *SCANDAL* that one Etruscan from a port city has some North African, or that J2b, either a straight up Neolithic farmer lineage or a farmer lineage picked up by the Indo-Europeans in Europe and spread by them, is in Etruscans?
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that we don't know EVERYTHING doesn't mean that we know NOTHING. That's completely fallacious reasoning. We know a lot about the Etruscans now from that data: we know that regardless of the fact that they didn't speak an Indo-European language they were Indo-European, steppe admixed people, like the Basques, similar to the early Italics, and similar to modern Spaniards and Northern Italians. 
> ...


I dont have any conclusions or thoughts about Etruscans, you didn't understand what i meant by scandals. People jumped on the J2b sample to say, it proves Etruscans were from Balkans or Anatolia. Or that the little North African ancestry could make them from Africa. Other users created those scandals or i may say, hypothesis. Not the study itself.

As for Steppe or Iran ancestry, my thought on this wich i have already expressed, is that in the case of Steppe, Steppe will always be " Bell-Beaker-Like " with maybe some samples closer to Yamnaya, but BB ancestry will be the core Steppe ancestry found in futur samples of most europe and for all epoch, there was no multiple IE migrations from Steppe only the BBC. This mean that we will hardly know anything about who spoked IE or not looking at Steppe ancestry. We will see appearance and disappearance of Steppe ancestry here and there but it will always be from the core BB ancestry.

----------


## Angela

> I dont have any conclusions or thoughts about Etruscans, you didn't understand what i meant by scandals. People jumped on the J2b sample to say, it proves Etruscans were from Balkans or Anatolia. Or that the little North African ancestry could make them from Africa. Other users created those scandals or i may say, hypothesis. Not the study itself.
> 
> As for Steppe or Iran ancestry, my thought on this wich i have already expressed, is that in the case of Steppe, Steppe will always be " Bell-Beaker-Like " with maybe some samples closer to Yamnaya, but BB ancestry will be the core Steppe ancestry found in futur samples of most europe and for all epoch, there was no multiple IE migrations from Steppe only the BBC. This mean that we will hardly know anything about who spoked IE or not looking at Steppe ancestry. We will see appearance and disappearance of Steppe ancestry here and there but it will always be from the core BB ancestry.


Fair enough. 

My advice would be to just ignore the posts of stupid or agenda driven people.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> I have a question, i have a read a lot about " Amateur " tools especially going against Anthrogenica or Eurogenes. But how actually Amateurs can know whether Amateur or Professionnal Tools are Corrects? This would make them Professionnals right? 
> 
> I really hate that situation where only the " Professionnals " can be right, it makes me think to the middle-ages where only a Cleric was right on Religious matters, and his words mattered too much. What if Professionnals are wrong in their logic or the interpretation / use of their own tools? What about Bias? What about Cheating even? Can we really just blindly accept things because it's " professionnal science "? Science is right, but a Scientific is not always right nor he always says the truth or his truthfull with himself. If it was the case, all studies on a said subject would always bring the same results.
> 
> All roads lead to Rome.



In the case of the Etruscans, I would say on the basis of a fairly long experience of observation, amateurs have always contributed very little to the knowledge of the Etruscans.

Even many professionals who were not specialized in etruscology have made huge mistakes.

----------


## Carlos

https://elcombatedeneville.blogspot....gQq6vOSFiAthEE

I was so calm surfing the internet, I was trying to forget the papers of Rome, not because I was not interested but to take a breath, when suddenly I could not believe what I saw. The news was already in Spain, my God, what have I done, I could not resist it and began to read:

Monday, November 25, 2019


"THE ITALIANS DO NOT EXIST": the DNA of Imperial Rome comes from Syria and Lebanon

"It's hard to say what New York was like today. That was Rome two thousand years ago," explains Guido Barbujani, one of the great Italian geneticist experts. Barbujani speaks of his land, if Rome, the imperial, was of someone. Because a novel study published by the journal Science states, after genetically analyzing 127 bone remains from 12,000 BC to 300 AD collected from various archaeological remains of the eternal city, that the Romans, like today's New Yorkers, are genetically from everywhere.

The remains say that the Romans mixed with what would now be inhabitants of the lands of Lebanon, Syria, Greece and North Africa. If we Romans are all, since their right or culture is the basis of most of the western world, we are all partly Syrians, Maghreb and Lebanese too.

The study, conducted by scientists of various nationalities, shows the genetic change of the Italian Peninsula and what led to the appearance of the so-called Roman Empire. Between 10,000 and 7,000 BC, the bones of the three collecting hunters would be almost identical to others analyzed on the other side of the Alps. "There is a genetic pattern that usually makes them more similar to those that are close than those that are far away. Studying the Etruscans in Tuscany we have found two areas where individuals maintain an almost identical DNA, but 50 kilometers further south are different. Sometimes it also happens that two villages half an hour away by car have more differences than locations that are 500 kilometers away, "says Barbujani.

When Rome was New York

However, the pole of attraction that supposed the great Rome changes its genetics. Between 900 and 200 BC the Romans begin to differentiate themselves from Western Europeans and become more like the inhabitants of the Middle East and the Maghreb. Of 48 genomes studied, only two individuals show pure traits of Western Europe. "The diversity was absolutely overwhelming," said Ron Pinhasi, one of the researchers at the University of Vienna study.

Why did that genetic mixture exist in Rome? By power, money, influx of slaves, sexual and commercial relations ... Exactly for the same reason that New York is probably today one of the most genetically varied cities in the world.

When the barbarian invasion arrived and the empire broke, the city went from having one million inhabitants to one hundred thousand and it was Constantinople, the new capital of the western world, that became a host city for immigrants. "When the flows of immigrants went elsewhere, the greatness of Rome began to decline," concludes the interesting article entitled 'Rome open city' in which the author, Pietro Grieco, makes a journey through Italian history and genetics. "For many centuries the city was an open city. It welcomed migrants, free or forced, in large numbers. And this pollution, we repeat, coincided with its success," the text said.

Migration, a phenomenon since ancient times

The Science article also reveals something that is on everyone's lips today, especially in Italy: migratory flows. "I promised that I would do my best to defend the borders and stop the invasion of our country and I am doing it," said the leader of the Lega, Matteo Salvini, on September 7, 2018.




Y lo que enseña el reportaje es que la historia viene a confirmar de nuevo que todo lo vivido hoy no es más que un repetición de hechos ya pasados: "Es una constante del ser humano. Siempre se migró mucho en todos los momentos históricos. En Roma, mucha gente vino del sur y del este", explica Barbujani. "La gente puede imaginar que el nivel de inmigración de hoy en día es algo nuevo, pero los ADNs antiguos muestran que los seres humanos llevan mezclándose fuertemente durante mucho tiempo", afirma el genetista Jonathan Pritchard, de la Universidad de Stanford.

Sardinia's exception


"We Italians do not exist. It is only a geographical aggregation. We have different genetic identities, linked to various historical processes," explained Davide Pettener, anthropologist of the department of biological science at the University of Bologna and creator of a DNA sample bank. to track the genetic history of the Italians. This study, generated with 3,000 blood samples from Italians from all regions, shows that transalpine today have a strong genetic load of "Germans, Greeks, Lombards, Normans, Suevos and Arabs."

There is only one Italian region that retains a DNA almost intact and without mixtures: Sardinia. "Sardines differ from all European Italian populations. While Sicily has been a center for all Mediterranean populations, Sardinia retains the oldest footprints that have not suffered invasions and has differentiated itself from all European populations along with Basques and lapones, "Luigi Ripamonti collects in his article 'Italians do not exist, we are a great genetic mix less Sardines'.

The false Aryan race of Benito Mussolini

However, Benito Mussolini's Italian fascism used the past and genetics as two essential elements of his ideology. Il Duce proclaimed himself heir to Emperor Augustus and brought to Italy the 'romanitá', a kind of return to the values of Greater Rome that would return greatness to the country. On the other hand, Mussolini also used the race component and rejection abroad as part of his propaganda.

In the famous manifesto of the race of 1938, in which Mussolini laid the foundations of his racial politics, he said in point six: "There is now a pure Italian race. This statement is not based on the confusion of the biological concept of race with the historical-linguistic concept of people and nation, but in the very pure blood relationship that unites today's Italians to the generations that inhabit Italy for millennia.This ancient blood purity is the greatest title of nobility of the Italian nation ". In point eight, the manifesto assured that: "Theories that support the African origin of some European peoples and that include a common Mediterranean race to Camitas and Semitic peoples must be considered dangerous, establishing absolutely unacceptable ideological relations and sympathies."

Today genetics has shown that both statements were false. The imperial Rome that Mussolini liked so much and many of his current followers had a huge mix and confluence with the towns he denies in point eight. "Our ambition now is to start from scientific and cultural evidence, two aspects that should never be separated, to face our own actuality such as, for example, the racial problem. We are a people who have achieved important results precisely because we have mixed together," explained the anthropologist Giovanni Destro Bisol during the presentation of another extensive study on the genetics of the country conducted by various Italian universities. This work concluded by stating that "we Italians are the people with the greatest genetic diversity in Europe."

_THE COMMENT_
_This study reveals the real cause of the collapse of the Roman Empire. The East knocked him down ideologically - Christianity, Judaism - and biologically. He survived by mutating the Gallic Empire and to a lesser extent Ilirio by the composition of commanders and troops and finally tried to Germanize him desperately. Once the genuinely Italian-Roman component Italy was eliminated, it became the objective of all the dominators there were and for having. He had become a great mass of East and North African slaves, Mussolini tried to redeem them by ignoring these facts to some extent as he intuited them and logically his mission was impossible. The phenomenon of the Reconquest and the Repopulation in the Peninsula badly called Iberian propitious instead a completely different scenario to what happened in Italy and Greece until the nineteenth century in which Spain loses its Atlantic projection and begins the process of debasement that reaches today even with the increasingly Mediterranean orientation. At this point the independence of the entire Mediterranean facade may be the key to the Spanish regeneration and its Monarchy._
_ Poor Duce, poor Duce. No wonder he ended up hanging upside down while the enraged mass sang to him: "We are made of mud and not of stone, created to make love and not war."_

----------


## Angela

Whoever wrote that article is a complete moron.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> https://elcombatedeneville.blogspot....gQq6vOSFiAthEE
> 
> I was so calm surfing the internet, I was trying to forget the papers of Rome, not because I was not interested but to take a breath, when suddenly I could not believe what I saw. The news was already in Spain, my God, what have I done, I could not resist it and began to read:
> 
> Monday, November 25, 2019
> 
> 
> "THE ITALIANS DO NOT EXIST": the DNA of Imperial Rome comes from Syria and Lebanon
> 
> ...



What you posted is a good example of how, for different reasons, right and left propaganda have much more in common than they think, and are roughly the same thing.


What you posted is the mix of a copy and paste from various different sources, that Italians don't exist is an old article from an Italian newspaper referring to an old studio. Funny that to confirm that Italians do not exist is David Pettener, an Italian biologist who does not even have an Italian surname. 


Given how obsessed the rest of the world is with us Italians, because there is no doubt that the rest of the world is obsessed with our history when the average Italian generally doesn't give a damn about what exists outside of Italy, I begin to believe that maybe we really do exist. I had some doubts until a few years ago, but now I have less doubts about this.

----------


## Carlos

> Whoever wrote that article is a complete moron.


I was dead when I saw the treatment he had been given to the article.

----------


## Archetype0ne

That article had me laughing from the very first line... Comic, bordering ridiculous. 
Surely that was the aim of the writer starting with "_"THE ITALIANS DO NOT EXIST": the DNA of Imperial Rome comes from Syria and Lebanon" "
_I mean who writes like that without the aim of triggering people, tr0ll style.


Using the same analogy the writer used, it would be like stating _"THE AMERICANS DO NOT EXIST": the DNA of the USA comes from Bangladesh and India._
I hope the writer does not take himself seriously, and the editor was drunk when he let that through.

Edit: Clicked the link... its a blogpost, doubt there was even an editor, or editing for that matter...

----------


## Carlos

> What you posted is a good example of how, for different reasons, right and left propaganda have much more in common than they think, and are roughly the same thing.
> 
> 
> What you posted is the mix of a copy and paste from various different sources, that Italians don't exist is an old article from an Italian newspaper referring to an old studio. Funny that to confirm that Italians do not exist is David Pettener, an Italian biologist who does not even have an Italian surname. 
> 
> 
> Given how obsessed the rest of the world is with us Italians, because there is no doubt that the rest of the world is obsessed with our history when the average Italian generally doesn't give a damn about what exists outside of Italy, I begin to believe that maybe we really do exist. I had some doubts until a few years ago, but now I have less doubts about this.


Well, what you said has sounded very familiar to me because that happens in Andalusia, they don't really criticize anyone, they are watching their lives and they don't talk about those from outside and if they do it is positive, unlike other places that are constantly talking about others but always negative, so when you have made that comment I thought it should be an inheritance because that is also the case.

----------


## Duarte

We are living the age of fake news. Lies are propagated as absolute truths and many unwary people believe them. Joseph Goebbels, German Nazi Party Propaganda Minister said: “A lie repeated a thousand times becomes true.” This sentence summarizes the tragic consequence of the spread of illegitimate news.

----------


## LTG

The paper represents a decent preliminary effort but much more needs to be done. I think we need a good deal of samples from the Bronze Age, as well as from the more rural areas of Italy during the Imperial Age. It is bizarre that the researchers would decide to focus so heavily on the city of Rome and its immediate surroundings such as the port towns. These areas would have been the pinnacle of cosmopolitan life and heavily populated with foreign merchants, tradesmen and slaves from across the Mediterranean during the height of the Roman Empire; we know this from the writings of the Romans themselves, as well as observing modern migration patterns in the West, where you have "international cities" like London, New York and Toronto that have a disproportionate number of foreign citizens compared to the nation as a whole. I find it hard to believe that they would not retroactively understand that the legitimacy of the Imperial Age findings would be called into question because of these location choices.

It is satisfying to finally put the Etruscan origin theories to bed for good. I always found them to be manifestations of questionable sentiments among many people i.e. assuming that the locals were incapable of their own prosperity, and thus had to have been physically subdued by a foreign Asiatic elite who were the real Etruscans. This turned out to be completely false. The Italic tribes were ultimately of very similar stock to the Etruscans; both groups being heavily Indo-European in their genetic origins irrespective of ethnolinguistics. Romans being the progressive evolution of Latins were also grass-roots and indigenous to the Italian Peninsula. That now places the Minoan, Mycenaean, Classical & Hellenistic Greek, Etruscan and Roman peoples and cultures as indigenous to their respective regions of Southern Europe. This must be excruciatingly painful for those interlopers who always try to insert themselves into the narrative of European civilization. 

Rome is a good example of the cycle most civilizations inevitably experience. It was founded by men who resembled Northern Italians and Spaniards, and who from the Kingdom, to the Republic, to the early Empire established Roman civilization and its many gifts to us in the realms of law, politics, philosophy, art, civil engineering and warfare. Sometime after Augustus Caesar there appears to have been an influx of foreigners who became overrepresented demographically in the city of Rome relative to the Italian Peninsula. They likely arrived from across the Roman Empire, but the genetics point strongly towards an Eastern Mediterranean origin for most migrants as their profile is similar to Greeks and Bronze Age Anatolians. The Roman population of the city was either displaced, or moved to the countryside of their own volition; their genetic profile persisting in large part throughout the Imperial Age in rural farms and villages. 

[1] "distance%=0.7252"

*ITA_Rome_Imperial*

Cypriot,40.6
Greek_Crete,33.4
Anatolia_Kaman-Kalehoyuk_MLBA,15.6
ITA_Latini_IA,10.4

Rome declines in Late Antiquity due to war, disease and general stagnation. There is emigration of merchants to Constantinople and other trading hubs; the city experiences a 90% drop in population. This hurts the bourgeoisie, city dwelling Eastern Mediterranean population in a massively disproportionate way due to their over reliance on the megalopolis and its many comforts and vices. The rural folk who are more traditional, healthy and fertile, begin to repopulate Rome en masse now that the ethnic balance has tipped in their favor; they absorb most of the leftover residents leading to a significant resurgence of Latin admixture in the city; the study proxies this using Basques. There also exists a minor input from Germanic tribes after the Fall of the Western Roman Empire. 

[1] "distance%=0.8182"

*ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity*

ITA_Rome_Imperial,57
ITA_Latini_IA,37.6
Germany_MA,5.4

This increase in both Latin and Northern European admixture continues into the Middle Ages and Renaissance where the full variation of the modern Central Italian genome is formed as a result of various compounding historical events.

[1] "distance%=1.2671"

*ITA_Rome_MA*

ITA_Rome_Imperial,47.6
ITA_Latini_IA,42.2
Germany_MA,10.2

That's my take on the results, anyway. I see that many people, including Davidski, have stated that the Prenestini outlier is half Phoenician; this is nonsense. This individual almost certainly derives their eastern half from the Balkans and Anatolia. Here is how they come back when running them against the full modern G25 datasheet. Could it be any more obvious?

[1] "distance%=1.8397"

*ITA_Prenestini_tribe_IA_o*

Greek_Central_Anatolia,42
Sardinian,19.8
Spanish_La_Rioja,13.8
Italian_Piedmont_o,12.2
Greek,8.6
Italian_Umbria,3.6

----------


## torzio

> What you posted is a good example of how, for different reasons, right and left propaganda have much more in common than they think, and are roughly the same thing.
> 
> 
> What you posted is the mix of a copy and paste from various different sources, that Italians don't exist is an old article from an Italian newspaper referring to an old studio. Funny that to confirm that Italians do not exist is David Pettener, an Italian biologist who does not even have an Italian surname. 
> 
> 
> Given how obsessed the rest of the world is with us Italians, because there is no doubt that the rest of the world is obsessed with our history when the average Italian generally doesn't give a damn about what exists outside of Italy, I begin to believe that maybe we really do exist. I had some doubts until a few years ago, but now I have less doubts about this.


Pettener surname originates in padova, and was first recorded initially spelt petenar in the year 1138 ,....it means " to have combed"......the bulk of the 95 households in in friuli italy now.....about 70% of the 95

----------


## torzio

> What you posted is a good example of how, for different reasons, right and left propaganda have much more in common than they think, and are roughly the same thing.
> 
> 
> What you posted is the mix of a copy and paste from various different sources, that Italians don't exist is an old article from an Italian newspaper referring to an old studio. Funny that to confirm that Italians do not exist is David Pettener, an Italian biologist who does not even have an Italian surname. 
> 
> 
> Given how obsessed the rest of the world is with us Italians, because there is no doubt that the rest of the world is obsessed with our history when the average Italian generally doesn't give a damn about what exists outside of Italy, I begin to believe that maybe we really do exist. I had some doubts until a few years ago, but now I have less doubts about this.


Pettener surname originates in padova, and was first recorded initially spelt petenar in the year 1138 ,....it means " to have combed"......the bulk of the 95 households live in friuli italy now.....about 70% of the 95

How do you think it is not an italian surname?

----------


## Angela

Any need to write two virtually identical posts, Torzio????

----------


## torzio

> Any need to write two virtually identical posts, Torzio????


Unsure what happened, i opened it up to add the last sentence abd when i saved it came out as it is....

----------


## Pax Augusta

> Pettener surname originates in padova, and was first recorded initially spelt petenar in the year 1138 ,....it means " to have combed"......the bulk of the 95 households live in friuli italy now.....about 70% of the 95
> 
> How do you think it is not an italian surname?



Pettener are from Istria, modern-day Slovenia, later moved to Trieste.

----------


## Jovialis

> I see that many people, including Davidski, have stated that the Prenestini outlier is half Phoenician; this is nonsense.


Most importantly, the authors of the paper did not say that. He is the only one I have seen say that, actually. The others parroting that, must get their interpretation straight from him.

----------


## Jovialis

> I think it is very curious, that some hobbyists are not forthcoming with heat maps of samples like 850, and 437. Why no heat maps, or Gedmatch kit numbers posted? I would like to analyze the data myself, but unfortunately the original files have been removed from the Stanford site.


I bet they would show an affinity to southern Italian populations.

----------


## brick

The averages of Rome_Imperial, Rome_Late_Antiquity, Rome_MA, Rome_Renaissance, and Tivoli_Renaissance, in the PCA with modern populations.

I'm using the G25 because it's the only one available.

----------


## Angela

> Most importantly, the authors of the paper did not say that. He is the only one I have seen say that, actually. The others parroting that, must get their interpretation straight from him.


Does anyone want to tell me again that his "interpretations" aren't agenda driven?

To deny general access to the two samples he's virtually lied about even going by his own tools is really a new low, however.

I think we've also seen that you have to be careful who you read on the internet. People who write the kind of garbage found on that blog are not just racists; they're certifiably insane.

----------


## Jovialis

I found this: 

https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/data/view/PRJEB32566

850:

https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/data/view/ERS3573760

437:

https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/data/view/ERS3573767

I'm not sure how it works to convert the files to gedmatch-friendly format. However, I see there is a VCF converter on DNAkit Studio.

----------


## Angela

Even well intentioned, honest analysis of ancient samples using these tools has to be undertaken and interpreted cautiously. 

Let's take a look at one analysis published upthread.

*ITA_Prenestini_tribe_IA_o*

Greek_Central_Anatolia,42
Sardinian,19.8
Spanish_La_Rioja,13.8
Italian_Piedmont_o,12.2
Greek,8.6
Italian_Umbria,3.6

This does clear up the absurd assertion that the sample is "half Phoenician", but then what are we to conclude from this about the "Latin" Prenestini? In terms of modern populations were they adjusted percentages of Sardinian, Spanish La Rioja, Piemontese, Greeks and Umbrians?

Sounds fine to me for what it's worth, although I'm sure it's not the "Latin" tribes signature for which Stormfront was waiting.

As for Rome Imperial, I'm assuming this is an average?

*ITA_Rome_Imperial*

Cypriot,40.6
Greek_Crete,33.4
Anatolia_Kaman-Kalehoyuk_MLBA,15.6
ITA_Latini_IA,10.4

Right off the bat, whether this is an average or a particular sample, I think it's difficult to determine how "accurate" it is when it's a mixture of modern and ancient samples. 

What we really need to understand these changes is not only Bronze Age but Iron Age and post Greek colonization samples from southern Italy. 

Even going with the samples we have, did anyone try to model this group using the Sicily non Beaker "Beaker" sample, for example, or samples from Sardinia?

Some Szolad samples (Langobard cemetery in Hungary), in addition to the expected "Germanic" samples, or in some cases admixed samples that look a bit western shifted in modern terms, are described as "Tuscan like"( in a 1000 genomes context) in the Amorim paper. Now, that particular area had been a late hold out of local "Romans", and then re-taken by the Byzantines, so there is that to consider, but could it have anything to do with the older paper on the Bronze and Iron Age in the Balkans which found some people there who were still "Tuscan like" after the arrival of the Indo-Europeans and admixture with them?

Does anyone have gedmatch numbers for those samples? Otherwise, I'll have to go digging through all my files for at least the link to the paper and to our threads of numbers for ancient kits. 

My question is: how much "Anatolia" would that sample get just from Neolithic, Bronze Age and Iron Age migrations?

A related question would be about the similarity of this "Tuscan like" sample to the Szolad "Tuscan" samples, and perhaps then to actual Tuscans.

Let's see how much "Anatolian"these programs assign to the Balkan and Hungarian samples versus modern Tuscans.


I think these tools have a very difficult time separating out the Neolithic data with its already perhaps 10% CHG/Iran Neo ancestry, the Bronze Age data which may have more, the Iron Age data which may have more yet, and the Imperial Age data which may owe something to more recent migrations. 

Even the Reich Lab, imo, did not do a sterling job with that in their Sardinian paper, so I hope they do better this time around.

----------


## brick

> Even well intentioned, honest analysis of ancient samples using these tools has to be undertaken and interpreted cautiously. 
> 
> Let's take a look at one analysis published upthread.


A plausible model could be this. nMonte with G25 is not very precise although and if inappropriate models are used the results can be very misleading. 


All the samples from Rome and the surrounding area, from Proto-Villanovan to the Renaissance period.




The ancient Greek samples. The first two are two Greeks found at Empuries.








> Right off the bat, whether this is an average or a particular sample, I think it's difficult to determine how "accurate" it is when it's a mixture of modern and ancient samples. 
> 
> What we really need to understand these changes is not only Bronze Age but Iron Age and post Greek colonization samples from southern Italy. 
> 
> Even going with the samples we have, did anyone try to model this group using the Sicily non Beaker "Beaker" sample, for example, or samples from Sardinia?
> 
> Some Szolad samples (Langobard cemetery in Hungary), in addition to the expected "Germanic" samples, or in some cases admixed samples that look a bit western shifted in modern terms, are described as "Tuscan like"( in a 1000 genomes context) in the Amorim paper. Now, that particular area had been a late hold out of local "Romans", and then re-taken by the Byzantines, so there is that to consider, but could it have anything to do with the older paper on the Bronze and Iron Age in the Balkans which found some people there who were still "Tuscan like" after the arrival of the Indo-Europeans and admixture with them?
> 
> Does anyone have gedmatch numbers for those samples? Otherwise, I'll have to go digging through all my files for at least the link to the paper and to our threads of numbers for ancient kits. 
> ...



What Anatolia? Anatolia BA?

all samples from Bronze Age Anatolia

----------


## MOESAN

> The fact that we don't know EVERYTHING doesn't mean that we know NOTHING. That's completely fallacious reasoning. We know a lot about the Etruscans now from that data: we know that regardless of the fact that they didn't speak an Indo-European language they were Indo-European, steppe admixed people, like the Basques, similar to the early Italics, and similar to modern Spaniards and Northern Italians. 
> 
> The Herodotus theory is dead in the water. Somebody fish it out and bury it.


Agree for the most.
Just to come back to Herodotus, here is maybe some facts or old writings which could excuse him?
my translation from NK Sandars about Sea People:
Sorry for the english:
"An Hittit text of *Tuddaliyas* (1520-1220?) mentions *Tar(u)i-sa' ('Taruisha')*, maybe the* 'Teresh'* who took part in the attack against *Merneptah* in 1220 BC, maybe_ (again)_ the *Tyrsenoi* well known in the Greeks world. THe name is new in the Egyptians texts. But, in opposition to the *'Ekwesh'*s case, the *'Teresh'* would have been present in the attack of 1186 BC. Ramses III doesn't mention them expressly, but a 'Teresh' chief is among the prisoniers. The Hittits placed the *'Taruishi'* in the North of *Assuwa*, close to the *Troad*, but they have been localized also near the country which become *Lydia*. [...] where, according to Herodotus, the *Tyrrhenians* migrated towards Central Italy. This hypothesis should show a link between the 'Teresh'/'Taruisha'/'Tyrsenoi' and the Etruscans. On the relief of *Medinet Habu* dated to Ramses III the *'Teresh'* prince distinguishes himself from the other prisoniers by a very different physical look. The sculptor has gaven him a short and thick nose, thick lips, a beard and no helmet."
I know we have firstly to be sure of the identity between these diverse names in *T-R-S* with *Etruscan/'Rasenna'*. Some "maybe's" I avow.
Just to say, we know little: even if "autochtones" in Italy, these seemingly good sailors could have had some "bridges heads" or small settlements in West coastal Anatolia at some stage of History. 
Their mt-DNA showed some ancient links with Anatolia (since 5000 years): either a MN to LN central European heritage as a lot of European tribes, + in some case some females taken here and there on travels?

Other question (always the same): were the commoners the same as the elites? ATW the social transformation between Proto-Villanovans and Villanovans is rather fast and strong. The very same people? I have no answer. If external influence, I does not seem come from the first Italics of Rome.
My proper post which "amused" a forumer here was just kind of fancy. But some things are still curious in the links of Italy and its Islands and Western Anatolia/Egea at the Sea People's time.

----------


## torzio

> Pettener are from Istria, modern-day Slovenia, later moved to Trieste.


Istria was italian for 1000 plus years
Until 1975 treaty between italy and yugoslavia...treaty of osimo...
Istria then returned to italy in 1991 and slovenia and croatia paid the remaining fee to italy that remained because yugoslavia defaulted on their payments

----------


## davef

> A plausible model could be this. nMonte with G25 is not very precise although and if inappropriate models are used the results can be very misleading. 
> 
> 
> All the samples from Rome and the surrounding area, from Proto-Villanovan to the Renaissance period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ancient Greek samples. The first two are two Greeks found at Empuries.


These models are some of the most logical models I've seen on Ancient Greeks and Romans using this tool. 
And I knew the Greek Empuries had more Iran than the Mycenaean average bc it seemed to plot a bit eastward in
that study and it shows in its high Armenia score of 25 percent. Some Greeks may have had more Caucasus 
than others (and most or all of it from Bronze Age/copper age Anatolian ancestry)

----------


## torzio

> Agree for the most.
> Just to come back to Herodotus, here is maybe some facts or old writings which could excuse him?
> my translation from NK Sandars about Sea People:
> Sorry for the english:
> "An Hittit text of *Tuddaliyas* (1520-1220?) mentions *Tar(u)i-sa' ('Taruisha')*, maybe the* 'Teresh'* who took part in the attack against *Merneptah* in 1220 BC, maybe_ (again)_ the *Tyrsenoi* well known in the Greeks world. THe name is new in the Egyptians texts. But, in opposition to the *'Ekwesh'*s case, the *'Teresh'* would have been present in the attack of 1186 BC. Ramses III doesn't mention them expressly, but a 'Teresh' chief is among the prisoniers. The Hittits placed the *'Taruishi'* in the North of *Assuwa*, close to the *Troad*, but they have been localized also near the country which become *Lydia*. [...] where, according to Herodotus, the *Tyrrhenians* migrated towards Central Italy. This hypothesis should show a link between the 'Teresh'/'Taruisha'/'Tyrsenoi' and the Etruscans. On the relief of *Medinet Habu* dated to Ramses III the *'Teresh'* prince distinguishes himself from the other prisoniers by a very different physical look. The sculptor has gaven him a short and thick nose, thick lips, a beard and no helmet."
> I know we have firstly to be sure of the identity between these diverse names in *T-R-S* with *Etruscan/'Rasenna'*. Some "maybe's" I avow.
> Just to say, we know little: even if "autochtones" in Italy, these seemingly good sailors could have had some "bridges heads" or small settlements in West coastal Anatolia at some stage of History. 
> Their mt-DNA showed some ancient links with Anatolia (since 5000 years): either a MN to LN central European heritage as a lot of European tribes, + in some case some females taken here and there on travels?
> 
> ...


There is no linguistic association between the etruscans and lydians of anatolia......the lydians where still in anatolia circa 500bc fighting against phyrgians.....still no association with etruscans......we should expect something berween the 2 if they are linked

----------


## Angela

> A plausible model could be this. nMonte with G25 is not very precise although and if inappropriate models are used the results can be very misleading. 
> 
> 
> All the samples from Rome and the surrounding area, from Proto-Villanovan to the Renaissance period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ancient Greek samples. The first two are two Greeks found at Empuries.
> ...


The non-Imperial samples look pretty reasonable, with a few exceptions, don't you think? 

I don't know what's up with the Renaissance Roman sample, however: 41% Yamnaya? Maybe it's just an individual aberration, or someone with an origin in more northern places.

That's an awful lot of steppe in Proto-Villanovan. I'm quite close to that sample, and my highest steppe is about 25-30%. I don't know why Villanovan might be pulling so much more WHG. The lower Yamnaya, slightly higher WHG in Spaniards might account for the Spanish matches with some of the Spaniards/Portuguese?

Maybe they're pretty close, maybe they're not. I don't know. 

Of course, those are far from proximate sources, but they have the advantage of clarity because of that. 

Much better than a lot of the stuff people have been throwing at the wall to see what sticks. 

I think there's a real problem using an average for the Imperial samples. It's the same problem I've been pointing out since the first leaks about this paper came out.

The whole point about these Imperial samples is that some of them may have been descendants of people moving up from Cumae to Rome, or Calabria to Rome, etc. and already "perhaps" heavily admixed with "additional" CHG/Iran Neo i.e. in addition to that which arrived with the Italics. The Greek colonization had already taken place by this time, after all, as well as Neolithic and Bronze Age migrations. Until we know what those people looked like this is too much like shooting darts in the dark imo.

Other samples might be directly from Anatolia or places in the Levant who arrived twenty years before. Not all the samples were tested to see if they were born and raised locally. Some of them might be Syrians or Jews, merchants temporarily in the city or not. How the hell would we know???

You can't, imo, average samples from the capital city of what was for its time an international empire, and then make predictions about changes or not in the genomes of people living there 2,000 years later.

Why don't we average out some Chinese and Koreans from Flushing, some Puerto Ricans from the Bronx, some Hasidic Jews from Brooklyn, some Italians from Bay Ridge, some Irish people from Bayside, and some WASPS and JEWS from the upper east side and come up with a prediction for what future inhabitants of this area will look like in 2000 years, and after a near apocalyptic collapse to a population of about 100,000.

It just doesn't work. 

The Greek samples are very interesting, especially the "Iranian" percentages of 17%-24%. So, some additional input to the mainland after the Mycenaeans, or are these Greeks from the Islands, Ionia? It will be very interesting to compare them to Greek Colonization Era samples in Southern Italy and Sicily. Very interesting, indeed, Brick.

The Anatolian samples are interesting too. I've been saying for years now that part of Anatolia would have had "Levant" type admixture, and so if migration was from Anatolia, it might pick up Levant-ish admixture as well, and there it is. You can see it in the people of Hatay province in Turkey today, the Cilicia of the Classical World, with its capital of Antioch, even after the "Turkic" migrations. St. Paul knew it well. :)

I hope I can find a lead to that "Tuscan like" sample from the Iron Age Balkans, and maybe you could try it.

Have you ever done this for the more "Italian" like samples from the Langobard paper? 

It's cheeky of me, I know, but it would be interesting.


Maybe they're pretty close, maybe they're not. I don't know.

----------


## LTG

> Even well intentioned, honest analysis of ancient samples using these tools has to be undertaken and interpreted cautiously. 
> 
> Let's take a look at one analysis published upthread.
> 
> *ITA_Prenestini_tribe_IA_o*
> 
> Greek_Central_Anatolia,42
> Sardinian,19.8
> Spanish_La_Rioja,13.8
> ...


Yes, these tools are certainly not a complete replacement for the more rigorous methods used in the professional studies. That said, they're pretty good as far as the amateur world goes; much better than the more binary "oracles" in my opinion. The model itself simply indicates that the Latin side of this individual was something like a mixture of those populations but it's never going to be perfect. The Latin samples are quite varied in general but the pattern is firmly Western Mediterranean i.e. Spanish, Northern Italian and French populations. We already know that Neolithic and Copper Age Italians are close to Sardinians so this model is something of a crude calculation with some underlying logic. The best course of action for samples that are mixed is to find two points of ancient ancestry and model them as simply as possible.

[1] "distance%=2.4179"

*ITA_Prenestini_tribe_IA_o*

Anatolia_Kaman-Kalehoyuk_MLBA,60.6
ITA_Prenestini_tribe_IA,39.4

Keep in mind that ITA_Prenestini_tribe_IA is the most northern shifted of all the Iron Age & Republic samples and is closest to French_South. This may result in the outlier coming across as more Anatolian than they would if ran against some of the other Latins, but it made sense to use the other non-outlying Prenestini. 




> As for Rome Imperial, I'm assuming this is an average?
> 
> *ITA_Rome_Imperial*
> 
> Cypriot,40.6
> Greek_Crete,33.4
> Anatolia_Kaman-Kalehoyuk_MLBA,15.6
> ITA_Latini_IA,10.4
> 
> ...




This is indeed the average. The heterogeneity of these Imperial Roman samples makes it hard to model the average, or come to any concrete conclusions about their genetic structure. They have such a genetic range that it's obvious which ones are native to Italy (those that cluster like Italians) and those that are from the Middle East (those that cluster like Iraqi Jews/Lebanese). The problem lies in the fact that the majority of them have a centroid of clustering around Greek_Kos. I imagine we will need to "organize" them into further distinguishable clusters; not only between Romans and foreigners, but also Aegean, Anatolian and Middle Eastern foreigners. It's a complete mess, in other words.

The samples we currently have of Ancient Greeks indicate a strong continuation from the Bronze Age. The Mycenaean samples are all homogeneous and strongly overlap with the Empuries samples who were themselves Ionian Greeks from Western Anatolia. So we know that Greeks were still much like their Bronze Age ancestors both in Greece and Western Anatolia throughout the Archaic, Classical and Hellenistic Periods, and according to Olalde et al. also well into the Roman Empire. The colonists who settled Southern Italy from the Greek world would have almost certainly clustered like Mycenaeans, and by extension Southern Italians, as a result of this (for the most part). I would expect some samples to look like Cypriots/Bronze Age Anatolians because those regions were part of the Hellenic world but I doubt they formed a majority in Southern Italy. Perhaps they were the natural merchant class among the Greek population of Rome; that would explain why the Isola Sacra necropolis has Greek inscriptions but the people seem to cluster tightly around Cypriots rather than Mycenaeans. There are many possibilities; I focus on the Republic and Late Antiquity because port towns during the height of the Imperial Era are simply too messy to deal with using our current tools.

The Sicilian Beakers were removed from the datasheet a while ago for being "low quality".

----------


## Angela

> LTG;591548]Yes, these tools are certainly not a complete replacement for the more rigorous methods used in the professional studies. That said, they're pretty good as far as the amateur world goes; much better than the more binary "oracles" in my opinion. The model itself simply indicates that the Latin side of this individual was something like a mixture of those populations but it's never going to be perfect. The Latin samples are quite varied in general but the pattern is firmly Western Mediterranean i.e. Spanish, Northern Italian and French populations. We already know that Neolithic and Copper Age Italians are close to Sardinians so this model is something of a crude calculation with some underlying logic. The best course of action for samples that are mixed is to find two points of ancient ancestry and model them as simply as possible.
> 
> [1] "distance%=2.4179"
> 
> *ITA_Prenestini_tribe_IA_o*
> 
> Anatolia_Kaman-Kalehoyuk_MLBA,60.6
> ITA_Prenestini_tribe_IA,39.4
> 
> ...



How "low quality"? Are there other samples on the datasheet of similar or "lower" quality?

Is there access to them for independent modeling?




> The problem lies in the fact that the majority of them have a centroid of clustering around Greek_Kos. I imagine we will need to "organize" them into further distinguishable clusters; not only between Romans and foreigners, but also Aegean, Anatolian and Middle Eastern foreigners. It's a complete mess, in other words.


So I've been saying until I'm blue in the face. 

Still, it would be informative, imo, to list the Imperial Era samples by sample number in clusters: Aegean, Anatolian, Middle Eastern, Italian Peninsula. If they have been uploaded to gedmatch people can compare their own data to the samples. 

As to the Greeks from Empuries, the post from LTG using G25 seems to indicate that one of the Empuries' samples has more "Iranian" type ancestry than the Mycenaeans, doesn't it? Unless you mean that it's still roughly in the same range. I had already speculated that the more Iranian heavy sample might be from Ionian Greece.

----------


## brick

> I hope I can find a lead to that "Tuscan like" sample from the Iron Age Balkans, and maybe you could try it.



Bulgaria_IA? Croatia_IA?




> That's an awful lot of steppe in Proto-Villanovan. I'm quite close to that sample, and my highest steppe is about 25-30%. I don't know why Villanovan might be pulling so much more WHG. The lower Yamnaya, slightly higher WHG in Spaniards might account for the Spanish matches with some of the Spaniards/Portuguese?


Maybe nMonte/G25 inflates WHG, I don't know. However yes, the higher WHG is the reason why the Latins and some Etruscans go in the direction of Iberia/South France. 





> The whole point about these Imperial samples is that some of them may have been descendants of people moving up from Cumae to Rome, or Calabria to Rome, etc. and already "perhaps" heavily admixed with "additional" CHG/Iran Neo i.e. in addition to that which arrived with the Italics. The Greek colonization had already taken place by this time, after all, as well as Neolithic and Bronze Age migrations. Until we know what those people looked like this is too much like shooting darts in the dark imo.
> 
> Other samples might be directly from Anatolia or places in the Levant who arrived twenty years before. Not all the samples were tested to see if they were born and raised locally. Some of them might be Syrians or Jews, merchants temporarily in the city or not. How the hell would we know???
> 
> You can't, imo, average samples from the capital city of what was for its time an international empire, and then make predictions about changes or not in the genomes of people living there 2,000 years later.
> 
> Why don't we average out some Chinese and Koreans from Flushing, some Puerto Ricans from the Bronx, some Hasidic Jews from Brooklyn, some Italians from Bay Ridge, some Irish people from Bayside, and some WASPS and JEWS from the upper east side and come up with a prediction for what future inhabitants of this area will look like in 2000 years, and after a near apocalyptic collapse to a population of about 100,000.
> 
> It just doesn't work.



Later I post all the individual results from Imperial samples.





> Have you ever done this for the more "Italian" like samples from the Langobard paper? 
> 
> It's cheeky of me, I know, but it would be interesting.
> 
> Maybe they're pretty close, maybe they're not. I don't know.



The more "Italian" like samples from the Langobard paper 





The G25 Italian averages




The G25 Balkans averages (including Greece and Crete)






PCA

SZ43 plots in the Tuscan cluster (the yellow one), Z36 more with Marche, CL23 with Lombardy/Bergamo.

----------


## brick

> These models are some of the most logical models I've seen on Ancient Greeks and Romans using this tool. 
> And I knew the Greek Empuries had more Iran than the Mycenaean average bc it seemed to plot a bit eastward in
> that study and it shows in its high Armenia score of 25 percent. Some Greeks may have had more Caucasus 
> than others (and most or all of it from Bronze Age/copper age Anatolian ancestry)


Agreed. The ancient Greeks had colonies in Anatolia and will have mixed very much with the local Anatolia_BA-like population. Probably the ancient Greeks are among the main sources of CHG/Iran_N in Italy.

----------


## Angela

> Bulgaria_IA? Croatia_IA?
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe nMonte/G25 inflates WHG, I don't know. However yes, the higher WHG is the reason why the Latins and some Etruscans go in the direction of Iberia/South France. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It was Bulgaria in the Iron Age, but only one of the samples was "Tuscan like". I'll try to find the paper, but who the heck knows if he put it on the list. 

Where are you estimating placement for CL36? It looks a little "north" of Toscana, but not Lombardia. 

Thank you to both LTG and Brick for sharing all of this data. These definitely go in my files.

----------


## brick

> It was Bulgaria in the Iron Age, but only one of the samples was "Tuscan like". I'll try to find the paper, but who the heck knows if he put it on the list.



HRV_IA:I3313 might be Croatia IA, and BGR_IA:I5769 might be Bulgaria Iron Age.







> Where are you estimating placement for CL36? It looks a little "north" of Toscana, but not Lombardia.


Most likely Liguria, even if CL36 plots in the Piedmont cluster that is currently the northern Italian sample closest to the Tuscany. It's doesn't look so distant from Tuscany and there is no Emilia-Romagna and Liguria has only one individual (ALP099).

For a complete picture, G25 Spanish and Portuguese averages. 



What Iberomaurusian is.

----------


## Carlos

There is a displacement, something fails, none are correct. It's the only thing I can say: Oracle

----------


## Jovialis

> HRV_IA:I3313 might be Croatia IA, and BGR_IA:I5769 might be Bulgaria Iron Age.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most likely Liguria, even if CL36 plots in the Piedmont cluster that is currently the northern Italian sample closest to the Tuscany. It's doesn't look so distant from Tuscany and there is no Emilia-Romagna and Liguria has only one individual (ALP099).
> 
> ...


How is Levant_Natufian modeled in this program? I know they already had some Anatolain_N in them.

----------


## Angela

> HRV_IA:I3313 might be Croatia IA, and BGR_IA:I5769 might be Bulgaria Iron Age.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most likely Liguria, even if CL36 plots in the Piedmont cluster that is currently the northern Italian sample closest to the Tuscany. It's doesn't look so distant from Tuscany and there is no Emilia-Romagna and Liguria has only one individual (ALP099).
> 
> ...


The "Piedmont" cluster and the Ligurian cluster are almost identical because those "Piedmont" samples are mountain Ligures. They only became "part" of Piemonte very recently, they speak a Ligurian dialect, and every town has "Ligure" in its name. They're also pretty close to Apennine Emilians. So, yes, CL36 is probably closest to mountain Ligures, and therefore to eastern Liguria. It makes absolute sense I'd get a 4.5 similarity to CL36, since my father's family comes from that adjoining area of Apennine Emilia. I get almost the same "fit" on calculators to that Piedmont sample when it's on calculators, although actually a bit higher. 

As for SZ43, my highest match at 3.4, it has absolutely no Iran related ancestry, and Marche with its 12%, plus 5% Levant/Natufian seems too "southern" to me, so I don't think Marche is quite right, and it might be closer to Romagna, but I won't quibble because we have no sample from there, and there's the whole Northern Marche vs Southern Marche thing as well. :)

It doesn't look to me like he included the "Tuscan like" Iron Age sample, of course. 

As for the Spanish samples, they may plot near the Northern Italians, but the mix is different: less Indo-European (about 30%, down to 26% among the Basques), but more WHG. It makes perfect sense: it's always been clear from the ancient samples that there was more surviving WHG there. That probably explains the affinity to the Etruscan samples they have, because their WHG is a bit elevated as well. 

It still amazes me how ancient dna can just put to bed questions that have generated debate for so long. 

From a personal point of view I'm amazed that I can end up with a mix so close to an ancient sample. 

The miracle of ancient genomics.

----------


## Angela

> How is Levant_Natufian modeled in this program? I know they already had some Anatolain_N in them.


Yes, excellent question.

----------


## brick

> How is Levant_Natufian modeled in this program? I know they already had some Anatolain_N in them.


It's the average of two Levant_Natufian samples, Levant_Natufian:I0861 and Levant_Natufian:I1072. It might be not completely accurate.

MAR_Iberomaurusian is instead the average of five ancient samples.





> As for SZ43, my highest match at 3.4, it has absolutely no Iran related ancestry, and Marche with its 12%, plus 5% Levant/Natufian seems too "southern" to me, so I don't think Marche is quite right, and it might be closer to Romagna, but I won't quibble because we have no sample from there, and there's the whole Northern Marche vs Southern Marche thing as well.



The position in a 2D PCA may depend on many reasons, not necessarily an ancient sample that plots in the cluster of a modern sample has exactly the same percentages of ancestral components.

The average of Marche is based on 16 individuals.

----------


## Jovialis

Here are figures from the Raveane et al 2019 paper, that was referenced in the Moots paper. 

One of the Anatolian Bronze Age samples plots right on top of Southern Italians. Does anyone know which sample that one is? There seems to be a noticeable difference from the others, on the PCA. It is also close to the Mycenaean samples.

Also, according to Antonio et al, 850 can form a clad with an Anatolian Copper Age individual. I recall from the qpAdm modeling from de Barros Damgaard et al 2018, that Copper Age Anatolian are modeled as 60% Anatolian_N + 40% CHG




> PCA (Fig. 2B) indicates that all the Anatolian genome sequences from the Early Bronze Age (~2200 BCE) and Late Bronze Age (~1600 BCE) cluster with a previously sequenced Copper Age (~3900 to 3700 BCE) individual from Northwestern Anatolia and lie between Anatolian Neolithic (Anatolia_N) samples and CHG samples but not between Anatolia_N and EHG samples. A test of the form D(CHG, Mbuti; Anatolia_EBA, Anatolia_N) shows that these individuals share more alleles with CHG than Neolithic Anatolians do (_Z_ = 3.95), and we are not able to reject a two-population qpAdm model in which these groups derive ~60% of their ancestry from Anatolian farmers and ~40% from CHG-related ancestry (_P_ = 0.5). This signal is not driven by Neolithic Iranian ancestry, because the result of a similar test of the form D(Iran_N, Mbuti; Anatolia_EBA, Anatolia_N) does not deviate from zero (_Z_ = 1.02). Taken together with recent findings of CHG ancestry on Crete (_58_), our results support a widespread CHG-related gene flow, not only into Central Anatolia but also into the areas surrounding the Black Sea and Crete. The latter are not believed to have been influenced by steppe-related migrations and may thus correspond to a shared archaeological horizon of trade and innovation in metallurgy (_59_).
> 
> https://science.sciencemag.org/conte.../6396/eaar7711

----------


## Jovialis

Here is a closer look, there seems to be some significant differences between Natufian, and Anatolian_BA. With the exception of the yellow component, which exists across the board for most of the other populations.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> One of the Anatolian Bronze Age samples plots right on top of Southern Italians. Does anyone know which sample that one is? There seems to be a noticeable difference from the others, on the PCA. It is also close to the Mycenaean samples.



In Raveane 2019 the ancient samples labeled as Anatolia_BA are I2495, I2499, I2683 from Lazaridis 2017 on Mycenaeans and Minoans.

----------


## Jovialis

> In Raveane 2019 the ancient samples labeled as Anatolia_BA are I2495, I2499, I2683 from Lazaridis 2017 on Mycenaeans and Minoans.


This is my affinity to those samples:

78. Anatolia Bronze Age (1625 BC) *..... 18.73* - I2495 - 
Top *98*% match vs all users
81. Bronze Age Anatolia (2050 BC) *..... 18.98* - I2683 - 
Top *98*% match vs all users
89. Bronze Age Anatolia (2650 BC) *..... 20.18* - I2499 - 
Top *98*% match vs all users

----------


## Jovialis

> This is my affinity to those samples:
> 
> 78. Anatolia Bronze Age (1625 BC) *..... 18.73* - I2495 - 
> Top *98*% match vs all users
> 81. Bronze Age Anatolia (2050 BC) *..... 18.98* - I2683 - 
> Top *98*% match vs all users
> 89. Bronze Age Anatolia (2650 BC) *..... 20.18* - I2499 - 
> Top *98*% match vs all users


50. Copper Age Anatolia (3800 BC) *..... 15.88* - I0184
Top *99*% match vs all users

However, I get a closer affinity to the copper age sample.

----------


## Angela

> It's the average of two Levant_Natufian samples, Levant_Natufian:I0861 and Levant_Natufian:I1072. It might be not completely accurate.
> 
> MAR_Iberomaurusian is instead the average of five ancient samples.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The position in a 2D PCA may depend on many reasons, not necessarily an ancient sample that plots in the cluster of a modern sample has exactly the same percentages of ancestral components.
> ...


Well, I highly doubt any of them are zero "CHG/Iran Neo" like admixture. 

We'll have to agree to disagree.

----------


## Angela

> 50. Copper Age Anatolia (3800 BC) *..... 15.88* - I0184
> Top *99*% match vs all users
> 
> However, I get a closer affinity to the copper age sample.


Those Anatolian Bronze Age individuals don't appear on my husband's list of 60, but he's still shy of a fit of 16 at that point, so I'm sure they'd show up at some point. I just don't know the exact fit. 

His fit with the Copper Age Anatolian:
49. Copper Age Anatolia (3800 BC) *..... 14.79* - I0184
Top *99*% match vs all users

----------


## Angela

Eurogenes' analysis of these samples is also dead in the water. Time to fish that out too. 

What's that old saying? "After three days guests and fish start to stink"? This one stunk to high heaven the FIRST day. :)

----------


## Salento

Almost last:

98. Copper Age Anatolia (3800 BC) ..... 20.79 - I0184 
Top 95% match vs all users

----------


## halfalp

Moesan hypothesis about Tyrrhenians / Etruscans relationship in terms of Ethnonymy is not necessarily wrong. It's a bit awkward in terms of Linguistic considering Lydians were Indo-Europeans and Etruscans not, but an Ethnonym dont necessarily have to do with Linguistic. Also, Tyrrhenian being a Xenonym coming from the Greek, it could have described originally a ethne unrelated with Ethnic Etruscans and adopted by Italics. Dont forget that Etruscans called themselves *Rasenna*. Now, let's not think too much that ancient people were stupid or that they did not encounter the peoples they talk about to know a little bit about them. After all, Greeks called themselves Acheans, Danaans, Dorians, Eolians, Ionians, Hellens... Maybe Tyrrhenian effectively was a synonym related with Etruscan ( ethnically speaking ), but will we ever know one day?

----------


## Pax Augusta

The Greeks from Empúries in Spain are probably Phocaeans, so Ionian Greeks, who lived in Mainland Greece and Anatolia. The Phocaeans are also credited with founding colonies in southern France and Corsica.

Many Ionian Greeks founded colonies in southern Italy, and certainly many of them took refuge in Italy (Southern Etruria, Magna Grecia) after the Persian conquest of Anatolia.

Greek Herodotus born in Halicarnassus himself was half Carian-Anatolian and spent the last years of his life in Thurii, Magna Grecia, modern-day Calabria.




> Agree for the most.
> Just to come back to Herodotus, here is maybe some facts or old writings which could excuse him?
> my translation from NK Sandars about Sea People:


We still know little or nothing about the Sea People. In any case, the Sea People are long before the formation of the Iron Age ethnic groups. 

I no longer know how to say it, the story told by Herodotus, which he attributes to the Lidyans themselves, is no longer considered plausible since many years by etruscologists. Only a few non-etruscologists and amateur scholars have proposed it again.

Even for the ancient Veneti and the ancient Romans there are stories of Anatolian origins, but they are not taken seriously.

These stories reflect the mentality of the time and are written many centuries after the ethnogenesis of the Etruscans. 

There is nothing on the archaeological, historical, linguistic, and, now even, genetic level that connects the Etruscans to the Lidyans. All possible matches took place long after the ethnogenesis of the Etruscans, both directly and indirectly in the orientalizing and archaic periods also through the many Ionian Greeks that settled in southern Eturia and Magna Grecia after the Persian conquest of Anatolia.

----------


## Angela

Should samples from a rich, elite Etruscan burial from an early enough period ever be available, and show lots of Anatolian in a number of them, then let me know. 

Until then, it's dead. 

Plus, that "small elite" idea is not what Herodotus was talking about, and not what all the pop gen "experts" on anthrofora were talking about. That was all about a whole scale migration of Lydians coming to the area just north of Rome, despite the fact that the Lydians spoke an Indo-European language.

Why, also, was Dionysius not as worthy of belief? That's a rhetorical question. It's because for some people Herodotus built the narrative they preferred. Let's not be any more naive than we have to be.

----------


## halfalp

> Should samples from a rich, elite Etruscan burial from an early enough period ever be available, and show lots of Anatolian in a number of them, then let me know. 
> 
> Until then, it's dead. 
> 
> Plus, that "small elite" idea is not what Herodotus was talking about, and not what all the pop gen "experts" on anthrofora were talking about. That was all about a whole scale migration of Lydians coming to the area just north of Rome, despite the fact that the Lydians spoke an Indo-European language.
> 
> Why, also, was Dionysius not as worthy of belief? That's a rhetorical question. It's because for some people Herodotus built the narrative they preferred. Let's not be any more naive than we have to be.


At this point, we cannot be sure Western Anatolians ( Aegean Anatolia ) of Iran Age were either Anatolian-like or Iran-like related and not Myceneans. If it turns out to be the third option, then it would make a huge links between Mycenean-related ancestry and ancient Italy.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> The "Piedmont" cluster and the Ligurian cluster are almost identical because those "Piedmont" samples are mountain Ligures. They only became "part" of Piemonte very recently, they speak a Ligurian dialect, and every town has "Ligure" in its name. They're also pretty close to Apennine Emilians. So, yes, CL36 is probably closest to mountain Ligures, and therefore to eastern Liguria. It makes absolute sense I'd get a 4.5 similarity to CL36, since my father's family comes from that adjoining area of Apennine Emilia. I get almost the same "fit" on calculators to that Piedmont sample when it's on calculators, although actually a bit higher. 
> 
> As for SZ43, my highest match at 3.4, it has absolutely no Iran related ancestry, and Marche with its 12%, plus 5% Levant/Natufian seems too "southern" to me, so I don't think Marche is quite right, and it might be closer to Romagna, but I won't quibble because we have no sample from there, and there's the whole Northern Marche vs Southern Marche thing as well. :)



Many of the Italian G25 samples are those released by the Raveane 2019 study, although those released are only a fraction of those used in the Raveane study. In Raveane's study new samples were collected, particularly for the northernmost areas of northern Italy, and from areas not yet covered by previous Italian studies. 

In fact, many samples of Raveane 2019 come from previous studies of the University of Pavia. For example, among Tuscans, in addition to TSI, there is some old sample from Murlo and Volterra, and those from the Marche region are all from Ancona and come from an old study, not by chance, realized by the University of Pavia in 2011. The labels coincide perfectly in this case. In the northern area of the Marche (Pesaro-Urbino) a Gallo-Italic language is spoken. Starting from Ancona, the local language of the Marche region, which is a median dialect, begins to be spoken.



https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ar...l.pone.0021029


Certainly Italian Piedmont is from Val Borbera and in this case does not come from Raveane 2019, which has not released samples from Emilia-Romagna and Piedmont.





> At this point, we cannot be sure Western Anatolians ( Aegean Anatolia ) of Iran Age were either Anatolian-like or Iran-like related and not Myceneans. If it turns out to be the third option, then it would make a huge links between Mycenean-related ancestry and ancient Italy.



There is no migration from western Anatolia to Etruria attested archeologically towards the end of the Bronze Age and the beginning of the Iron Age.


The documented contacts are with the Mycenaeans in the second half of Bronze, and do not concern only Etruria.

----------


## halfalp

> The Greeks from Empúries in Spain are probably Phocaeans, so Ionian Greeks, who lived in Mainland Greece and Anatolia. The Phocaeans are also credited with founding colonies in southern France and Corsica.
> 
> Many Ionian Greeks founded colonies in southern Italy, and certainly many of them took refuge in Italy (Southern Etruria, Magna Grecia) after the Persian conquest of Anatolia.
> 
> Greek Herodotus born in Halicarnassus himself was half Carian-Anatolian and spent the last years of his life in Thurii, Magna Grecia, modern-day Calabria.
> 
> 
> 
> We still know little or nothing about the Sea People. In any case, the Sea People are long before the formation of the Iron Age ethnic groups. 
> ...



I agree with the last point, but it's maybe more subtle. Let's imagine a little scenario, if originally Etruscans were from the Aegea / Western Anatolia near the Lydians, if they migrated at some point with Sea Peoples, then the Greeks could have assimilated their origin, with the contemporary situation. Like in a different situation, calling Eastern Germans Prussians when they have nothing to do with the Baltic Prussians, instead of saying Tyrrhenians came from Tyrrhenia in actual Lydia, they assimilated the two ethnogenesis, as " _[Tyrrhenians were Lydians] ( by meaning ) coming from contemporary Lydia_ ".

----------


## torzio

> Bulgaria_IA? Croatia_IA?
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe nMonte/G25 inflates WHG, I don't know. However yes, the higher WHG is the reason why the Latins and some Etruscans go in the direction of Iberia/South France. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Barcin is in ancient thracian Bithniya province...a anatolian province which was thracian since the late bronze age or earlier...........the only region in anatolia which was thracian.

CL23 from the paper was noted as born in Bulgaria, raised in Pannonia and died in Lombardy ........................yet for some reason has some "iberian" markers

I have no issue with your data though

----------


## torzio

> I agree with the last point, but it's maybe more subtle. Let's imagine a little scenario, if originally Etruscans were from the Aegea / Western Anatolia near the Lydians, if they migrated at some point with Sea Peoples, then the Greeks could have assimilated their origin, with the contemporary situation. Like in a different situation, calling Eastern Germans Prussians when they have nothing to do with the Baltic Prussians, instead of saying Tyrrhenians came from Tyrrhenia in actual Lydia, they assimilated the two ethnogenesis, as " _[Tyrrhenians were Lydians] ( by meaning ) coming from contemporary Lydia_ ".


you need to treat the etruscans like the basques .........the etruscans have been in Italy a very long time, spoke a non indo european language....where divided into 12 kingdoms which only got together once a year for a religious ceremony........traded with Greeks and eventually kicked the Greeks out of corsica to get the olive plantations, traded in the aegean and set up some colonies there
If these 12 cities ever got together under 1 leader, they would have done more conquering

The baltic prussians where one many tribes of a west-baltic people called prusi and lived where the nogat river meets the baltic sea ................the Junkers of saxony and thurnigia germans took over there lands, eventually the settlement of these saxons and thuringians absorbed what was left of these west-baltic people into germans

----------


## Pax Augusta

> I agree with the last point, but it's maybe more subtle. Let's imagine a little scenario, if originally Etruscans were from the Aegea / Western Anatolia near the Lydians, if they migrated at some point with Sea Peoples, then the Greeks could have assimilated their origin, with the contemporary situation. Like in a different situation, calling Eastern Germans Prussians when they have nothing to do with the Baltic Prussians, instead of saying Tyrrhenians came from Tyrrhenia in actual Lydia, they assimilated the two ethnogenesis, as " _[Tyrrhenians were Lydians] ( by meaning ) coming from contemporary Lydia_ ".



You are trying to find a plausible reading to a story like that of Herodotus that does not contain historical facts. Herodotus is the first to attribute it to others.

You can't discuss these things without having read what etruscologists and classicists have written in more than 100 years.

The stories about the Etruscan origins are symbolic and reflect the Greek mentality of the time. Writing that the Etruscans were of Lydian origin to the Greeks meant that Etruscans came from a world similar to their own. The first to be oriental are the Greeks themselves, as they are also physically closer to Anatolia than to Etruria. Greeks had colonies in Anatolia and lived in close contact with the Anatolian peoples, with whom they shared many things, starting with the Indo-European language. The Lydia of Herodotus' time is strongly Hellenized and at the same time under Persian rule, while the Etruscans had dominated Rome for centuries, and were the most powerful in Italy, or among the most powerful in the centuries before when the story of Herodotus is written.

The story of the Pelasgian origins of the Etruscans was also a way of trying to connect the Etruscans to the Greeks. When Dionysius finally tells the truth (his history on the Etruscans is the only one to contain information that has proved to be true), he does not do so in a disinterested manner. In fact, the Etruscans are recognized for their antiquity and autochthony, while Dionysius this time connects ethnically the Romans to the Greeks. Why does Dionysius do so? Because the Etruscans had now completely lost their power, while Rome was about to become one of the most powerful empires ever. The Greeks now had an interest in connecting themselves directly to the Romans and no longer to the Etruscans.

----------


## Tutkun Arnaut

> You are trying to find a plausible reading to a story like that of Herodotus that does not contain historical facts. Herodotus is the first to attribute it to others.
> 
> You can't discuss these things without having read what etruscologists and classicists have written in more than 100 years.
> 
> The stories about the Etruscan origins are symbolic and reflect the Greek mentality of the time. Writing that the Etruscans were of Lydian origin to the Greeks meant that Etruscans came from a world similar to their own. The first to be oriental are the Greeks themselves, as they are also physically closer to Anatolia than to Etruria. Greeks had colonies in Anatolia and lived in close contact with the Anatolian peoples, with whom they shared many things, starting with the Indo-European language. The Lydia of Herodotus' time is strongly Hellenized and at the same time under Persian rule, while the Etruscans had dominated Rome for centuries, and were the most powerful in Italy, or among the most powerful in the centuries before when the story of Herodotus is written.
> 
> The story of the Pelasgian origins of the Etruscans was also a way of trying to connect the Etruscans to the Greeks. When Dionysius finally tells the truth (his history on the Etruscans is the only one to contain information that has proved to be true), he does not do so in a disinterested manner. In fact, the Etruscans are recognized for their antiquity and autochthony, while Dionysius this time connects ethnically the Romans to the Greeks. Why does Dionysius do so? Because the Etruscans had now completely lost their power, while Rome was about to become one of the most powerful empires ever. The Greeks now had an interest in connecting themselves directly to the Romans and no longer to the Etruscans.


Made no sense Etruscans be from Anatolia. At that time one's world was as much as one can travel on horse back for one week. Etruria was way far one can reach on horse back or sailing ship. At the time Greeks wrote the story about Etruscans there was no free travelling. You had to fight the way to occupy new lands. Pellasgian theory seems to be true for southern Italy. There is genetic similarity between Balkans and southern Italy

----------


## Angela

> Barcin is in ancient thracian Bithniya province...a anatolian province which was thracian since the late bronze age...........the only region in anatolia which was thracian.
> 
> CL23 from the paper was noted as born in Bulgaria, raised in Pannonia and died in Lombardy ........................yet for some reason has some "iberian" markers
> 
> I have no issue with your data though


The Barcin from which the data was taken is THOUSANDS of years older than that. It's Neolithic, hence the N. The gene pool we're talking about has nothing to do with Thracians.

On a slightly different note, I believe most of the "Greek" mainland samples are from Thessaly. Of course, no Peloponnese samples are included as a separate category in any of Eurogenes' analyses. 

As for the Sea Peoples, if anything, Etruscans might have been Sea Peoples leaving their genes in the Levant, not Anatolian Sea Peoples leaving their genes in Etruria but no trace of their arrival in the archaeology.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> Istria was italian for 1000 plus years
> Until 1975 treaty between italy and yugoslavia...treaty of osimo...
> Istria then returned to italy in 1991 and slovenia and croatia paid the remaining fee to italy that remained because yugoslavia defaulted on their payments


Your motion is sustained, torzio.


I should have said "who doesn't even have a traditional/mainstream/common Italian surname".


Deal?

----------


## Angela

Sorry. I put it in the other post.

----------


## torzio

> The Barcin from which the data was taken is THOUSANDS of years older than that. It's Neolithic, hence the N. The gene pool we're talking about has nothing to do with Thracians.
> 
> On a slightly different note, I believe most of the "Greek" mainland samples are from Thessaly. Of course, no Peloponnese samples are included as a separate category in any of Eurogenes' analyses. 
> 
> As for the Sea Peoples, if anything, Etruscans might have been Sea Peoples leaving their genes in the Levant, not Anatolian Sea Peoples leaving their genes in Etruria but no trace of their arrival in the archaeology.


on Barcin , we need to consult hittite texts as they note a people which indicate thracians........but I understand what you say

on Sea peoples......I believe they are the from the collapse of the hittite nation, same time period...........be these people Luwian, hittite or hatti linguistically ...........IMO, the etruscans where already in italy at the time of this hittite collapse

I have been following this below for some time , which seems to have no conclusion
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart...ubt-180965244/

----------


## davef

> on Barcin , we need to consult hittite texts as they note a people which indicate thracians........but I understand what you say
> 
> on Sea peoples......I believe they are the from the collapse of the hittite nation, same time period...........be these people Luwian, hittite or hatti linguistically ...........IMO, the etruscans where already in italy at the time of this hittite collapse
> 
> I have been following this below for some time , which seems to have no conclusion
> https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart...ubt-180965244/


The samples labeled Barcin are prehistoric Neolithic farmers who lived in what's now "Barcin". They spread and introduced agriculture from Anatolia to Europe.

----------


## Jovialis

> What you posted is a good example of how, for different reasons, right and left propaganda have much more in common than they think, and are roughly the same thing.
> 
> 
> What you posted is the mix of a copy and paste from various different sources, that Italians don't exist is an old article from an Italian newspaper referring to an old studio. Funny that to confirm that Italians do not exist is David Pettener, an Italian biologist who does not even have an Italian surname. 
> 
> 
> Given how obsessed the rest of the world is with us Italians, because there is no doubt that the rest of the world is obsessed with our history when the average Italian generally doesn't give a damn about what exists outside of Italy, I begin to believe that maybe we really do exist. I had some doubts until a few years ago, but now I have less doubts about this.


Political forces of both sides weaponize ignorance. Far-leftists use the 19th, and 20th century Nordicist standard of race, to make their arguments. It is an outmoded straw man only used by people that don't know anything about human population genetics. They have to use the most extreme rhetoric, to make their own stupid ideas pale in comparison, I guess. The scientific community has long known that all people are on a gradient of mix of different source populations. But all of the sudden, just certain groups are a _mix of immigration_. All of these social scientists, and benighted journalists are just catching up, while trying to put their useless sociology degrees to work. Obviously, they want to shoehorn a pro- or anti- immigration argument, depending on who is looking at the data.* Ironically, the study in fact shows that there were Northern, and Southern Italian-like people in Italy since at least the Iron age, and they have consistently lived there since.* Before, and after all of these overblown events, that these ignorant ideologues try to use for their own perverse agendas.

----------


## Carlos

We are in a perverse era where everyone uses things as they please and dares to share identities in the same way.

You are the Moors

Take a test: look in the mirror; That olive complexion, that dark brown hair, don't you think it's suspicious?

Spend one of these days in any North African city and tell me if its inhabitants could not be your first cousins. Who do you look more like? A Moroccan or a Norwegian? Those curly mane, those carob-colored eyes, aren't they the same ones we found on the southern shore? I know that you have a vocation of the European extreme right, essentialist and supremacist, but if you look in the mirror you will see that you are walking a little short with blue eyes and blond hair, that your skin holds the sun much better than its counterparts from further north .

Those curly mane, those carob-colored eyes, aren't they the same ones we found on the southern shore? I know that you have a vocation of the European extreme right, essentialist and supremacist, but if you look in the mirror you will see that you are walking a little short with blue eyes and blond hair, that your skin holds the sun much better than its counterparts from farther north .

No, you are not pure and carry in the blood and in the culture and in the language that foreigner that you paint like the devil.



https://www.elperiodico.com/es/opini...hachmi-7084418

Well, this is what we have to put up with, our democracy can allow even this, but it seems very dirty that obsession that everyone has with Spain and its Muslim era when for us it is a paragraph of our history or better something that happened in Our soil is not even considered ours.

----------


## bicicleur

> We are in a perverse era where everyone uses things as they please and dares to share identities in the same way.
> 
> You are the Moors
> 
> Take a test: look in the mirror; That olive complexion, that dark brown hair, don't you think it's suspicious?
> 
> Spend one of these days in any North African city and tell me if its inhabitants could not be your first cousins. Who do you look more like? A Moroccan or a Norwegian? Those curly mane, those carob-colored eyes, aren't they the same ones we found on the southern shore? I know that you have a vocation of the European extreme right, essentialist and supremacist, but if you look in the mirror you will see that you are walking a little short with blue eyes and blond hair, that your skin holds the sun much better than its counterparts from further north .
> 
> Those curly mane, those carob-colored eyes, aren't they the same ones we found on the southern shore? I know that you have a vocation of the European extreme right, essentialist and supremacist, but if you look in the mirror you will see that you are walking a little short with blue eyes and blond hair, that your skin holds the sun much better than its counterparts from farther north .
> ...


maybe Vox is wrong, but this author is worse

she is identifying todays North Africans with the Moors
the Moors are something of the past, they are neither todays Spaniards nor todays North Africans
their cultural identity was something completely different
and I am not an expert in history, but there even is not such thing like 'The Moors', because the Moors of the 8th century were quite different from the Moors of the 14th century

----------


## Carlos

^^
I agree.
But this we have to endure constantly used by each other and always related to current policy or that makes it even more dirty. And many times even Spaniards and other Europeans support these hypotheses if it can be called that bypassing the danger they entail as if it were a fun game like innocent provocation, but you have to be careful with these things because they can be more dangerous than what they apparently represent.

We need reinforcements because these things are not as innocent as they represent.

----------


## Angela

Guys, could we leave the politics behind and get back to the paper?

----------


## LTG

> How "low quality"? Are there other samples on the datasheet of similar or "lower" quality?





> Is there access to them for independent modeling?


If I remember correctly they couldnt function properly in GEDmatch; lacking in the required SNPs. There are other samples of lower quality but they are normally marked in the data sheet as such, and are very rarely used. I have no idea just how bad each of them is though. 




> As to the Greeks from Empuries, the post from LTG using G25 seems to indicate that one of the Empuries' samples has more "Iranian" type ancestry than the Mycenaeans, doesn't it? Unless you mean that it's still roughly in the same range. I had already speculated that the more Iranian heavy sample might be from Ionian Greece.




It looks like one of the Greeks does indeed show slightly elevated levels of Caucasus admixture relative to Mycenaeans. However, this does not take into account the Anatolian Neolithic admixture within Kura-Araxes; in reality, this 6% increase from Mycenaean to Empuries:l8208 may account to as little as 3% CHG-related admixture all things considered. Empuries:l8215 has less Kura-Araxes admixture than the Mycenaeans even though he is likely Ionian so it's not cut and dry. The level of genetic continuity is quite impressive when you consider the stretch of time between the Late Helladic to Roman Empire.

----------


## LTG

I ran a K-means cluster analysis on the Imperial Romans in PAST (data program for PCAs, neighbor joining trees and other analysis). I removed the obvious outlier samples that fell somewhere long the MENA cline. I then asked the program to divide the remaining samples into 4 distinct clusters based on their genetic correlation before working out the average of these different cluster groups. Once the centroid had been found I ran those coordinates against the Global 25 datasheet to find their closest population representatives; they happened to coincide with certain genetic locations for the most part. 

*C1) West Mediterranean*
RMPR37, RMPR111, RMPR116

*C2) Aegean*
RMPR39, RMPR40, RMPR41,RMPR43, RMPR44, RMPR50, RMPR51, RMPR66, RMPR69, RMPR72, RMPR75, RMPR78, RMPR81, RMPR114, RMPR115, RMPR123, RMPR126, RMPR1543, RMPR1545

*C3) Anatolia*
RMPR38, RMPR128, RMPR76

*C4) South Italy*
RMPR45, RMPR47, RMPR49, RMPR73, RMPR80, RMPR113, RMPR125, RMPR131, RMPR132, RMPR436, RMPR835, RMPR836, RMPR1544, RMPR1548, RMPR1549

----------


## Angela

> I ran a K-means cluster analysis on the Imperial Romans in PAST (data program for PCA�s, neighbor joining trees and other analysis). I removed the obvious outlier samples that fell somewhere long the MENA cline. I then asked the program to divide the remaining samples into 4 distinct clusters based on their genetic correlation before working out the average of these different cluster groups. Once the centroid had been found I ran those coordinates against the Global 25 datasheet to find their closest population representatives; they happened to coincide with certain genetic locations for the most part. 
> 
> *C1) West Mediterranean*
> RMPR37, RMPR111, RMPR116
> 
> *C2) Aegean*
> RMPR39, RMPR40, RMPR41,RMPR43, RMPR44, RMPR50, RMPR51, RMPR66, RMPR69, RMPR72, RMPR75, RMPR78, RMPR81, RMPR114, RMPR115, RMPR123, RMPR126, RMPR1543, RMPR1545
> 
> *C3) Anatolia*
> ...


Thanks.

Could you list the sample numbers for the ones you removed, i.e. the ones in the Middle Eastern cline?

----------


## Pax Augusta

> Political forces of both sides weaponize ignorance. Far-leftists use the 19th, and 20th century Nordicist standard of race, to make their arguments. It is an outmoded straw man only used by people that don't know anything about human population genetics.


Exactly so, same arguments for apparently different reasons.





> We are in a perverse era where everyone uses things as they please and dares to share identities in the same way.


The issue of identity can be painful for some migrants, especially the first generations, and I fully understand that. Their identity is no longer that of their countries of origin and not yet that of the countries where they were born and raised. I think she lacks complete self-awareness of what she is, and she is using exactly the same arguments as the nordicists. 

In any case, it is wrong to manipulate ancient history to give an answer to the problems of contemporary society, and this applies to both far-right propaganda and its opposite. So let's get back to the topic.

----------


## LTG

> Thanks.
> 
> Could you list the sample numbers for the ones you removed, i.e. the ones in the Middle Eastern cline?


They look like they have origins in Lebanon and Syria. 

It's pretty funny how the media jumped all over the apparent fact that Romans were very similar to people from this region. These guys compromised a mere 14.5% of Imperial Roman samples, and that is after the researchers purposefully excavated the most cosmopolitan areas that they could possibly find. 

*C5) Middle East*
RMPR1551, RMPR67, RMPR68, RMPR42, RMPR1547, RMPR1550, RMPR70

----------


## Pax Augusta

> They look like they have origins in Lebanon and Syria. 
> 
> It's pretty funny how the media jumped all over the apparent fact that Romans were very similar to people from this region. These guys compromised a mere 14.5% of Imperial Roman samples, and that is after the researchers purposefully excavated the most cosmopolitan areas that they could possibly find. 
> 
> *C5) Middle East*
> RMPR1551, RMPR67, RMPR68, RMPR42, RMPR1547, RMPR1550, RMPR70



They're most likely from here. Do you have exact information about the date of these samples? It is not surprising that there were also migrants to Rome from this part of the Empire. 



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


Edit: found.


Monterotondo
Date range: 26 BCE - 300 CE
Individuals: R1551, R1547, R1550


ANAS (Azienda Nazionale Autonoma delle Strade)
Date range: 100 - 300 CE
Individuals: R67, R68, R70


Isola Sacra necropolis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isola_Sacra_Necropolis

Date Range: 1 CE - 400 CE
Individuals: R42

----------


## Ailchu

> Exactly so, same arguments for apparently different reasons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The issue of identity can be painful for some migrants, especially the first generations, and I fully understand that. Their identity is no longer that of their countries of origin and not yet that of the countries where they were born and raised. I think she lacks complete self-awareness of what she is, and she is using exactly the same arguments as the nordicists. 
> 
> In any case, it is wrong to manipulate ancient history to give an answer to the problems of contemporary society, and this applies to both far-right propaganda and its opposite. So let's get back to the topic.


be aware of the fact that many people in the new country do not even want to give her the same identity even if she was born and raised there. see the thread of angela about turks in germany.

when i read her text, yes it sounds somehow wrong but she is right in some way. and it looks like it is adressed at spanish nordicists and racists, the core of the article is true and is something that purists don't want to realize. consider a german author who wrote exactly the same thing adressing german racists, but instead of the moors the author writes about balkans, italy or greece. 
yes it would be a bit of a lie because the dark features in germans did not necessarily come from those people but they shared the same source populations and thus they have similar features, and they really just aren't pure.




> Far-leftists use the 19th, and 20th century Nordicist standard of race, to make their arguments. It is an outmoded straw man only used by people that don't know anything about human population genetics.


same goes for the far-right.

----------


## Carlos

> be aware of the fact that many people in the new country do not even want to give her the same identity even if she was born and raised there. see the thread of angela about turks in germany.
> 
> when i read her text, yes it sounds somehow wrong but she is right in some way. and it looks like it is adressed at spanish nordicists and racists, the core of the article is true and is something that purists don't want to realize. consider a german author who wrote exactly the same thing adressing german racists, but instead of the moors the author writes about balkans, italy or greece. 
> yes it would be a bit of a lie because the dark features in germans did not necessarily come from those people but still they shared the same source populations and thus they have similar features, and they really just aren't pure.


I will not answer, I do not feel like an infraction. I am very pacified. You are going to eat what Cain ate.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> be aware of the fact that many people in the new country do not even want to give her the same identity even if she was born and raised there. see the thread of angela about turks in germany.
> 
> when i read her text, yes it sounds somehow wrong but she is right in some way. and it looks like it is adressed at spanish nordicists and racists, the core of the article is true and is something that purists don't want to realize. consider a german author who wrote exactly the same thing adressing german racists, but instead of the moors the author writes about balkans, italy or greece. 
> yes it would be a bit of a lie because the dark features in germans did not necessarily come from those people but still they shared the same source populations and thus they have similar features, and they really just aren't pure. same goes for the far-right.



Identity is not something that is given and often social identity also depends on self-identity. You have just demonstrated that the subject is extremely complex and often based, on both sides, on very superficial personal opinions. There are many fully native Germans who could pass unnoticed in southern Europe and not in the most Nordic range of the spectrum. Precisely for this reason, it is better to return to the topic.

----------


## LTG

> They're most likely from here. Do you have exact information about the date of these samples? It is not surprising that there were also migrants to Rome from this part of the Empire. 
> 
> Edit: found.
> 
> Monterotondo
> Date range: 26 BCE - 300 CE
> Individuals: R1551, R1547, R1550
> 
> ANAS (Azienda Nazionale Autonoma delle Strade)
> ...


 RMPR42, RMPR1550, RMPR1547 and RMPR70 overlap with the Roman Lebanese samples. RMPR1551, RMPR67, RMPR68 are more like Syrians but still very similar. 

These guys were obviously of very similar ethnic origins because they lived, worked and died in the same vicinity across space and time. They likely belonged to a small ethnic enclave of merchants or tradespeople from the Levant that migrated to work in the cosmopolitan areas of the Rome. The samples who cluster like Aegeans, Anatolians and South Italians are so numerous in comparison to them that it would make sense that J2 would persist into Late Antiquity whilst J1 fizzles out.

----------


## torzio

> maybe Vox is wrong, but this author is worse
> 
> she is identifying todays North Africans with the Moors
> the Moors are something of the past, they are neither todays Spaniards nor todays North Africans
> their cultural identity was something completely different
> and I am not an expert in history, but there even is not such thing like 'The Moors', because the Moors of the 8th century were quite different from the Moors of the 14th century


Moors are just Berbers that have been arabanized from after the end of the Roman and Vandal periods

----------


## torzio

> They look like they have origins in Lebanon and Syria. 
> 
> It's pretty funny how the media jumped all over the apparent fact that Romans were very similar to people from this region. These guys compromised a mere 14.5% of Imperial Roman samples, and that is after the researchers purposefully excavated the most cosmopolitan areas that they could possibly find. 
> 
> *C5) Middle East*
> RMPR1551, RMPR67, RMPR68, RMPR42, RMPR1547, RMPR1550, RMPR70



Where will sample R1 fit.....a proto-villanovan

----------


## LTG

> Where will sample R1 fit.....a proto-villanovan


The Proto-Villanovan is part of the West Mediterranean cluster (C1). 

Distance to:
ITA_Proto-Villanovan

0.02247622
Italian_Lombardy

0.02469763
Italian_Piedmont

0.02693698
Italian_Bergamo

0.02854606
Italian_Liguria

0.02981491
Italian_Trentino-Alto-Adige

0.03032773
Italian_Veneto

0.03042507
Greek_Thessaly

0.03150689
Swiss_Italian

0.03187754
Italian_Tuscany

0.03430165
Italian_Northeast

----------


## torzio

> The Proto-Villanovan is part of the Western Mediterranean cluster (C1). 
> 
> Distance to:
> ITA_Proto-Villanovan
> 
> 0.02247622
> Italian_Lombardy
> 
> 0.02469763
> ...


thanks .....i cannot tick you as it keeps saying I am a guest

I wonder if you can match this R1 ( picene) sample with I3313 ( dalmatian ) as these are my top 2 matches...with R1 a full 2 points clear

----------


## brick

> The Proto-Villanovan is part of the West Mediterranean cluster (C1). 
> 
> Distance to:
> ITA_Proto-Villanovan
> 
> 0.02247622
> Italian_Lombardy
> 
> 0.02469763
> ...



Where does Greek Thessaly's value come from? The Greeks in the G25 are certainly mostly from Northern Greece but there is no Greek Thessaly label anywhere in G25.

----------


## brick

> Where will sample R1 fit.....a proto-villanovan


In the PCA Proto-Villanovan plots in Italian_Piedmont's cluster, a little bit to the east.



Distances. Distances are never exactly the same as the PCA because the G25 is based on coordinates and this PCA is 2D.

----------


## LTG

> Where does Greek Thessaly's value come from? The Greeks in the G25 are certainly mostly from Northern Greece but there is no Greek Thessaly label anywhere in G25.


They were updated today.

----------


## brick

> They were updated today.


I didn't know that. Davidski's always changing his averages, who knows why.

He didn't update them, he just changed the labels, those three samples from Thessaly had already been uploaded into the Greek cluster.

----------


## brick

The PCA with all individual results of ITA_Rome_Imperial. In the second PCA the cluster of ITA_Rome_Imperial.

individual results




cluster

----------


## LTG

> I ran a K-means cluster analysis on the Imperial Romans in PAST (data program for PCA�s, neighbor joining trees and other analysis). I removed the obvious outlier samples that fell somewhere long the MENA cline. I then asked the program to divide the remaining samples into 4 distinct clusters based on their genetic correlation before working out the average of these different cluster groups. Once the centroid had been found I ran those coordinates against the Global 25 datasheet to find their closest population representatives; they happened to coincide with certain genetic locations for the most part. 
> 
> *C1) West Mediterranean*
> RMPR37, RMPR111, RMPR116
> 
> *C2) Aegean*
> RMPR39, RMPR40, RMPR41,RMPR43, RMPR44, RMPR50, RMPR51, RMPR66, RMPR69, RMPR72, RMPR75, RMPR78, RMPR81, RMPR114, RMPR115, RMPR123, RMPR126, RMPR1543, RMPR1545
> 
> *C3) Anatolia*
> ...


This is what these clusters look like on the PCA:

Roman PCA.jpg

----------


## Jovialis

Thanks for the info LTG, this is what I get for the imperial samples:

C1) West Mediterranean:

0


C2) Aegean:

8. Imperial Rome Empire Via Paisiello (100 AD) ..... 10.81 - R114 - 
Top 98% match vs all users


22. Imperial Rome Centocelle (200 AD) ..... 12.66 - R51 - 
Top 98% match vs all users


24. Imperial Rome ANAS (200 AD) ..... 12.77 - R69 - 
Top 99% match vs all users


29. Hellenic Roman Empire VP (100 AD) ..... 13.72 - R115 - 
Top 98% match vs all users


32. Imperial Rome Centocelle (190 AD) ..... 14.51 - R50 - 
Top 97% match vs all users


33. Anatolian Roman Necropolis MR (200 AD) ..... 14.51 - R1543 - 
Top 97% match vs all users


36. Hellenic Roman Necropolis MR (200 AD) ..... 14.6 - R1545 - 
Top 98% match vs all users


47. Imperial Rome Viale Rossini (100 AD) ..... 15.42 - R75 - 
Top 98% match vs all users


48. Anatolian Roman Isola Sacra (200 AD) ..... 15.55 - R43 - 
Top 99% match vs all users


68. Anatolian Roman Casale del Dolce (288 AD) ..... 17.19 - R126 - 
Top 98% match vs all users


72. Imperial Rome Isola Sacra (99 AD) ..... 17.31 - R39 - 
Top 98% match vs all users


76. Hellenic/Anatolian Roman ANAS (200 AD) ..... 18.65 - R66 - 
Top 98% match vs all users


84. Anatolian Roman Viale Rossini (100 AD) ..... 19.23 - R78 - 
Top 98% match vs all users


86. Anatolian Roman ANAS (200 AD) ..... 19.39 - R72 - 
Top 98% match vs all users


C3) Anatolian:


54. Anatolian Roman Viale Rossini (100 AD) ..... 16.11 - R76 - 
Top 98% match vs all users


65. Roman Empire Casale del Dolce (200 AD) ..... 17.15 - R128 - 
Top 98% match vs all users


93. Anatolian Roman Isola Sacra (200 AD) ..... 20.58 - R38 - 
Top 97% match vs all users


C4) Southern Italian:


*1. Hellenic Roman Monterotondo (165 AD) ..... 6.842 - R1548 -* 
*Top 99% match vs all users*


6. Roman Imperial Palestrina (100 AD) ..... 10.29 - R436 - 
Top 99% match vs all users


11. Hellenic Roman ANAS (200 AD) ..... 11.47 - R73 - 
Top 98% match vs all users


15. Imperial Rome Centocelle (200 AD) ..... 12.2 - R49 - 
Top 97% match vs all users


16. Imperial Rome Centocelle (282 AD) ..... 12.28 - R47 - 
Top 98% match vs all users


23. Central Roman Casale del Dolce (200 AD) ..... 12.7 - R125 - 
Top 99% match vs all users


26. Central Roman Necropolis MR (200 AD) ..... 13.32 - R1544 - 
Top 99% match vs all users


27. Imperial Rome Marche CN (165 AD) ..... 13.46 - R835 - 
Top 97% match vs all users


66. Imperial Rome Isola Sacra (200 AD) ..... 17.17 - R45 - 
Top 96% match vs all users


74. Imperial Rome Via Paisiello (100 AD) ..... 17.63 - R131 - 
Top 95% match vs all users




C5) Middle Eastern:


62. Roman Outlier Monterotondo (165 AD) ..... 17.03 - R1550 - 
Top 97% match vs all users


91. Canaanite Roman Empire Monterotondo (165 AD) ..... 20.35 - R1547 - 
Top 96% match vs all users

----------


## Jovialis

Of the Imperial samples ( I get more from other eras) these are the ones I match with Deep Dive. Just Aegean, and Southern Italian samples, which makes perfect sense.:

C1) West Mediterranean:

0

C2) Aegean: 9 total matches

*8. Imperial Rome Empire Via Paisiello (100 AD) ..... 10.81 - R114 -
Top 98% match vs all users

*22. Imperial Rome Centocelle (200 AD) ..... 12.66 - R51 -
Top 98% match vs all users

*24. Imperial Rome ANAS (200 AD) ..... 12.77 - R69 -
Top 99% match vs all users

*32. Imperial Rome Centocelle (190 AD) ..... 14.51 - R50 -
Top 97% match vs all users

*33. Anatolian Roman Necropolis MR (200 AD) ..... 14.51 - R1543 -
Top 97% match vs all users

*36. Hellenic Roman Necropolis MR (200 AD) ..... 14.6 - R1545 -
Top 98% match vs all users

*47. Imperial Rome Viale Rossini (100 AD) ..... 15.42 - R75 -
Top 98% match vs all users

*48. Anatolian Roman Isola Sacra (200 AD) ..... 15.55 - R43 -
Top 99% match vs all users

*72. Imperial Rome Isola Sacra (99 AD) ..... 17.31 - R39 -
Top 98% match vs all users

C3) Anatolian:

0

C4) Southern Italian: 6 total matches

*1. Hellenic Roman Monterotondo (165 AD) ..... 6.842 - R1548 -
Top 99% match vs all users

*6. Roman Imperial Palestrina (100 AD) ..... 10.29 - R436 -
Top 99% match vs all users

*11. Hellenic Roman ANAS (200 AD) ..... 11.47 - R73 -
Top 98% match vs all users

*16. Imperial Rome Centocelle (282 AD) ..... 12.28 - R47 -
Top 98% match vs all users

*26. Central Roman Necropolis MR (200 AD) ..... 13.32 - R1544 -
Top 99% match vs all users

*66. Imperial Rome Isola Sacra (200 AD) ..... 17.17 - R45 -
Top 96% match vs all users

C5) Middle Eastern:

0

----------


## Angela

West Med cluster
R37 11.47

Aegean cluster:
R114 14.17 (Using K=15, mta says it’s closest modern pop. Is Abruzzo)
R51 13.0 (mta says closest is West Sicilian, then Tuscan)

No hits in the Anatolia cluster

South Italy cluster:
R47 13.49 (mta says Tuscan is closest)
R835-7.875 (mta says Tuscans are the closest


What happened to the following samples?
R1540 9.166 (mta says Tuscan)
R117 10.85 (mta says West Sicilian then Tuscan)
R136 Hellenic Roman Italian 13.52 (mta says Abruzzo)
R118 14.49 (mta says North Italian, but at quite a distance)

----------


## Pax Augusta

> West Med cluster
> R37 11.47
> 
> Aegean cluster:
> R114 14.17 (Using K=15, mta says it’s closest modern pop. Is Abruzzo)
> R51 13.0 (mta says closest is West Sicilian, then Tuscan)
> 
> No hits in the Anatolia cluster
> 
> ...



14.17, 13.0, 13.49, 9.166, 10.85... are still significant distances which means that there is no best fit on MTA. 

MTA is nothing more than Eurogenes K15 with the old spreadsheet of K15, to which MTA is adding the ancient samples.

----------


## Regio X

> 14.17, 13.0, 13.49, 9.166, 10.85... are still significant distances which means that there is no best fit on MTA. 
> MTA is nothing more than Eurogenes K15 with the old spreadsheet of K15, to which MTA is adding the ancient samples.


They claim the modern pop labels were borrowed from K15 for comparison, but that the similarities end here, i.e., that it's not based on it. We supposedly could notice it by checking the results for anyone with partial non-European backgrounds, who would get more accurate ones. However, I wonder if it was not just a matter of dividing certain K15 clusters and adding pop references. Anyway, it seems they're working on new and better tools. We'll see.

Finally, all that said, being based on a calculator such K15 wouldn't be so bad in my opinion. Even if the clusters are not de per si that informative, they can be used as a whole for clues on general similarities (not necessarily direct ancestry only), and, importantly, that's actually how a simple Oracle works. It tries to identify your closest pop using your own results and also references, based on relevant clusters. Of course, here we're talking also on ancient (and low coverage) individuals, so this "MTA Oracle" seems more subjected to "convergences", or accidental (super)approximations, as noticed in my own results but not in my parents' (for the same ancient individual). I mean, this "Illyrian continuity" would be impossible. The fact we're too close evidences we're not that close, je je, given all movements in N. Italy in the last 3000 years. Which doesn't mean the results are totally off, or that there is not a general (relative) similarity between us, due to direct ancestry, shared ancestry or both. I say "relative" because the references are still modern, and the calculator will try to do the fitting anyway. I just think the distances should not be seen in "absolute sense", nor against moderns. They seem more informative in their own context, against other ancients', especially when the distances are too different. Seen this way, they'd look more informative, which is shown by the somewhat "coherent" results people from different areas get. But I agree the results should not be taken "literaly", as any other Autosomal test (for example, I'm certainly not x% NW European, Greek or Iberian in ancestry, as some commercial tests could suggest). At the end, MTA is one more tool for clues, and particularly I have a more limited interest on it (so much so I haven't bought it yet). And it's certainly fun.
PS: I'd prefer K36 for this job, but unfortunately it's associated to certain "overfits". Perhaps it'd be better in some cases, but this "K15-like calculator" (lol) probably works better than K36 "in general".

----------


## Angela

> 14.17, 13.0, 13.49, 9.166, 10.85... are still significant distances which means that there is no best fit on MTA. 
> 
> MTA is nothing more than Eurogenes K15 with the old spreadsheet of K15, to which MTA is adding the ancient samples.


Yes, so I've heard numerous times.

The point is that LTG's analysis puts, for example, R47 and R835 in Southern Italy, whereas the K15 is putting them in Tuscany. 

So, there is no agreement between methods.

Plus, why were some samples not included? 

On a related topic, do the rest of us really have to be at the mercy of someone who includes or doesn't include samples, changes labels, changes the numbers for reasons unknown to anyone else, who has a documented history for bias and massaging the data?

No one else in the amateur community is capable of creating a program like the G25? Someone who inspires more confidence? Is that really true? Even in terms of mta, there was no option but to use the K=15? That's why I don't take those numbers as gospel. I only have to take a look at the horrible fit they give me in the modern populations section to North Italians and Tuscans to know that. I get much better fits in other calculators.

Ed. @Regio.

We cross posted. :)

Well, mta may be denying they're using K=15, but the modern fits they give for me are the same as I get for K=15, and they're among the worst I've gotten in any of the calculators. 

I realize none of these numbers is meant to be carved in stone, but you'd expect a few differences if they're really different methods.

As for the comparison between the analysis of LTG and mta, I quite understand there will be differences between methods, but placing Tuscans in Southern Italy is not exactly minor. 

Nor is the absence of certain samples going to help. I'm going to check those again. I was in a food coma from too much turkey and fat and carbs, so maybe there's some obvious reason they're not included which I missed. :) Or it may be an oversight. 

If they actually should be included, I would think the analysis has to be redone.

Ed.#2

I pointed out way back in post #62 that the authors should have at least divided up the samples by burial site and checked for similarity in autosomal composition. That would have alerted them to the fact that they might be getting samples from an "ethnic" enclave. If you're sampling in the Bronx 1500 years from now, you're going to get all Amerindian(maybe), all Dutch and English, pockets of Italian, Jewish, Irish, and then mostly Puerto Rican. If you're sampling in the Upper East Side you'd find a completely different mix. 

Some of the burial sites in the paper definitely look like that, whereas others are more local or a mix.

No excuse for leaving it to the amateur community to figure that out.

----------


## LTG

> West Med cluster
> R37 11.47
> 
> Aegean cluster:
> R114 14.17 (Using K=15, mta says it’s closest modern pop. Is Abruzzo)
> R51 13.0 (mta says closest is West Sicilian, then Tuscan)
> 
> No hits in the Anatolia cluster
> 
> ...


This may be a result of me just using K=4 to categorize the samples. I also used population individuals rather than averages unlike this oracle, which could create a situation where, say, six of the top ten closest matches are Cretans and the other four are South Italians leading to the sample being placed in the "Aegean" cluster. The distances here suggest that the Roman samples are going to be really hard to categorize without upgrading the amount of clusters in the analysis.

I searched for those samples listed in the datasheet and they are from Late Antiquity.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> Yes, so I've heard numerous times.
> 
> The point is that LTG's analysis puts, for example, R47 and R835 in Southern Italy, whereas the K15 is putting them in Tuscany. 
> 
> So, there is no agreement between methods.



These are all certainly imprecise tools and I totally agree with you that there is no agreement between methods but on the basis of the distances I would not say that MTA is putting R47 and R835 in Tuscany. 

The Italian breakdown of MTA (which is identical to that of K15) is incomplete and so the results of MTA should also be interpreted on the basis of distances. 

If LGT puts them in the south of Italy, it is because in the G25 these samples come out closer to the south of Italy, I think.

----------


## MOESAN

> There is no linguistic association between the etruscans and lydians of anatolia......the lydians where still in anatolia circa 500bc fighting against phyrgians.....still no association with etruscans......we should expect something berween the 2 if they are linked


Akways this way of reading only isolated words in a post (No offense, not only you, helas!)! This rots the threads. Have you read what I wrote?
Are you thinkng I'm so ignorant that I did not know this. Here we are speaking of ancient localizations of pops or tribes or bands, not of their language. I was trying to find an excuse for Herodotus, not saying what he wrote in his time was gospel! It seams that at those times of "Sea people", a lot of bands could have had settlements on the shores, for some time at least. I don't make a link between supposed Etruscans and Lydians who spoke anI-E language. Do read correctly!
Phillistins were not Jews nor Canaanians or who else, but they settled some time the shores of Levant, spite they were I-E speaking and surely come from around today Macedonia or not too far from there (maybe through Creta, according to some opinions).

----------


## brick

> West Med cluster
> R37 11.47
> 
> Aegean cluster:
> R114 14.17 (Using K=15, mta says it’s closest modern pop. Is Abruzzo)
> R51 13.0 (mta says closest is West Sicilian, then Tuscan)
> 
> No hits in the Anatolia cluster
> 
> ...


They are a mix of Imperial age samples and Late Antiquity samples.

In G25 PCA Rome_Imperial:RMPR37 plots with the Basques. Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR118 plots between Lazio and Umbria.

The rest instead plot with Southern Italy: Rome_Imperial:RMPR114, Rome_Imperial:RMPR51, Rome_Imperial:RMPR47, Rome_Imperial:RMPR835, Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR117, Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR136, Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR118.

I didn't find R1540.









Their distances 

Rome_Imperial:RMPR37




Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR118




Rome_Imperial:RMPR114




Rome_Imperial:RMPR51




Rome_Imperial:RMPR47




Rome_Imperial:RMPR835




Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR117




Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR136

﻿﻿

----------


## Angela

OK, I guess it was too much tryptophan. :) Apologies.

Do you know of any reason why 1540 would not be in the G25?
8. Roman Empire Monterotondo (165 AD) *..... 8.697* - R1540
Ancient GroupModern GroupSimiliar SamplesHaplogroups (NEW!)PCA AncientPCA ModernResearch Link
1. Tuscan (9.676)
2. North_Italian (11.30)
3. West_Sicilian (12.40)
4. Italian_Abruzzo (14.23)
5. Spanish_Murcia (15.43)
6. Spanish_Extremadura (16.02)
7. Spanish_Andalucia (16.54)
8. Portuguese (16.89)



This is what I meant...
11. Imperial Rome Marche CN (165 AD) *..... 9.561* - R835 - 
Ancient GroupModern GroupSimiliar SamplesHaplogroups (NEW!)PCA AncientPCA ModernResearch Link
1. Tuscan (7.875)
2. West_Sicilian (10.61)
3. Italian_Abruzzo (11.29)
4. North_Italian (11.81)
5. East_Sicilian (13.82)
6. South_Italian (13.88)
7. Central_Greek (13.94)
8. Greek_Thessaly (15.00)

----------


## Pax Augusta

> OK, I guess it was too much tryptophan. :) Apologies.
> 
> Do you know of any reason why 1540 would not be in the G25?
> 8. Roman Empire Monterotondo (165 AD) *..... 8.697* - R1540




I suppose because there is no R1540 at all from Monterotondo in the paper. Something is wrong here at the start (wrong labelling? Or also something else?). We see many mistakes in the academic papers, so let alone in these amateur tools.









> This is what I meant...
> 11. Imperial Rome Marche CN (165 AD) *..... 9.561* - R835 - 
> Ancient GroupModern GroupSimiliar SamplesHaplogroups (NEW!)PCA AncientPCA ModernResearch Link



That's probably a mistake too or a lack of accuracy.

----------


## Regio X

> Ed. @Regio.
> 
> We cross posted. :)
> 
> Well, mta may be denying they're using K=15, but the modern fits they give for me are the same as I get for K=15, and they're among the worst I've gotten in any of the calculators. 
> 
> I realize none of these numbers is meant to be carved in stone, but you'd expect a few differences if they're really different methods.
> 
> As for the comparison between the analysis of LTG and mta, I quite understand there will be differences between methods, but placing Tuscans in Southern Italy is not exactly minor. 
> ...


I completely understand the bias which you usually refer to. It's relevant, and the calculator matters, as my post suggests. But I was more focused on the methodology per se, on how the tool supposedly works. Being based on K15 wouldn't necessarily mean it's not a good tool. That was the main point.

Yes, it's likely an "adaptation" of K15, but it could be based on an adaptation of Dodecad v3, or whatever. :) It should supposedly work at least in a similar way. See those "similarity maps" based on K36. I get high %s precisely with N. Italians. That's kind of an Oracle too, and it worked decently for "similarities".

If my memory serves, I don't get good Oracle results with v3, btw, but I suppose the problem may be just the abscence of more "populations", as North Italians (my closest in K15).

----------


## MOESAN

> Moesan hypothesis about Tyrrhenians / Etruscans relationship in terms of Ethnonymy is not necessarily wrong. It's a bit awkward in terms of Linguistic considering Lydians were Indo-Europeans and Etruscans not, but an Ethnonym dont necessarily have to do with Linguistic. Also, Tyrrhenian being a Xenonym coming from the Greek, it could have described originally a ethne unrelated with Ethnic Etruscans and adopted by Italics. Dont forget that Etruscans called themselves *Rasenna*. Now, let's not think too much that ancient people were stupid or that they did not encounter the peoples they talk about to know a little bit about them. After all, Greeks called themselves Acheans, Danaans, Dorians, Eolians, Ionians, Hellens... Maybe Tyrrhenian effectively was a synonym related with Etruscan ( ethnically speaking ), but will we ever know one day?


 I was trying to put some bits of testimonies in the game, but look at an answer I made to Torzio. I never said Etrsucans/Tyrsenoi was the same thing as Luwians (even drunk I would not say that), I just said they could have been "neighbours" (in what kind of contacts,???) or have occupied close regions in W-Anatolia at some stage of history. But it's a marginal side of the topic.

----------


## MOESAN

> You are trying to find a plausible reading to a story like that of Herodotus that does not contain historical facts. Herodotus is the first to attribute it to others.
> 
> You can't discuss these things without having read what etruscologists and classicists have written in more than 100 years.
> 
> The stories about the Etruscan origins are symbolic and reflect the Greek mentality of the time. Writing that the Etruscans were of Lydian origin to the Greeks meant that Etruscans came from a world similar to their own. The first to be oriental are the Greeks themselves, as they are also physically closer to Anatolia than to Etruria. Greeks had colonies in Anatolia and lived in close contact with the Anatolian peoples, with whom they shared many things, starting with the Indo-European language. The Lydia of Herodotus' time is strongly Hellenized and at the same time under Persian rule, while the Etruscans had dominated Rome for centuries, and were the most powerful in Italy, or among the most powerful in the centuries before when the story of Herodotus is written.
> 
> The story of the Pelasgian origins of the Etruscans was also a way of trying to connect the Etruscans to the Greeks. When Dionysius finally tells the truth (his history on the Etruscans is the only one to contain information that has proved to be true), he does not do so in a disinterested manner. In fact, the Etruscans are recognized for their antiquity and autochthony, while Dionysius this time connects ethnically the Romans to the Greeks. Why does Dionysius do so? Because the Etruscans had now completely lost their power, while Rome was about to become one of the most powerful empires ever. The Greeks now had an interest in connecting themselves directly to the Romans and no longer to the Etruscans.


Interesting post.
But it'snot so complicated here.
only valid questions:
-Have Trs/Teresh/Tyrsenoi a link with CNW Italy (Toscane and around)?
- Are Hittits writings and Egyptians writings withot any value concerning the same people + Shardana, and their supposed locations?
Here we don't speak of Greek legends.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> Interesting post.
> But it'snot so complicated here.
> only valid questions:
> -Have Trs/Teresh/Tyrsenoi a link with CNW Italy (Toscane and around)?
> - Are Hittits writings and Egyptians writings withot any value concerning the same people + Shardana, and their supposed locations?
> Here we don't speak of Greek legends.


CNW Italy you meant Central-North-Western Italy? Right?

It's not known for sure if Trs/Teresh/Tyrsenoi are all the same people, there is also a suspicion that Tyrsenoi in Greek sources may not always refer to the Etruscans. This issue has been discussed for many years.

The Sea People are a highly speculative argument, because archaeologically there is little or nothing, beyond that line of research carried out by some archaeologists according to which we can actually assume raids from Italy to the Aegean and the Levant in the second half of the Bronze Age. There is a growing consensus that many of these Sea People came from Italy. But from here on to the Etruscans, it's a good jump, although one of the Bronze Age weapons found in the Aegean and Levant, comes from one of the Bronze Age facies that belongs to the ethnogenesis of the Proto-Etruscans. But once again also in this case the Etruscans do not differ much from the other peoples of northern and central Italy, because this type of findings also exist for others. 


We talked about it here


https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...he-Sea-Peoples


This is also a worth reading

A Sword of Naue II Type from Ugaritand the Historical Significance of Italian-type Weaponry in the Eastern Mediterranean


https://www.academia.edu/225687/M._M...8_2008_111_136

----------


## torzio

> Akways this way of reading only isolated words in a post (No offense, not only you, helas!)! This rots the threads. Have you read what I wrote?
> Are you thinkng I'm so ignorant that I did not know this. Here we are speaking of ancient localizations of pops or tribes or bands, not of their language. I was trying to find an excuse for Herodotus, not saying what he wrote in his time was gospel! It seams that at those times of "Sea people", a lot of bands could have had settlements on the shores, for some time at least. I don't make a link between supposed Etruscans and Lydians who spoke anI-E language. Do read correctly!
> Phillistins were not Jews nor Canaanians or who else, but they settled some time the shores of Levant, spite they were I-E speaking and surely come from around today Macedonia or not too far from there (maybe through Creta, according to some opinions).


I did not try to offend ...........but people migrated and sometimes they changed the culture of where they arrived and sometimes they did not..........but people think that the european system of when people moved, is that they completed abandoned their original settlement, they did not...........so for lydians to be associated with etruscans as per herodutus, then we need to find some link as they both existed circa 500BC, there is no link
I understand that new migrants merged into people in new areas and ruled these areas but did not change anything ........example the Danes, took over Normandy, but accepted the Norman language and culture circa 900AD

We have Goths from the baltic sea, migrated to the black sea, migrated to the west over 700 plus years, but still some goths remained where they began or first moved even after they arrived in italy and iberia

It is tiring to listen to people ...think that ...migration means abandoning the old settlement and everyone moving to a new one

----------


## torzio

> They are a mix of Imperial age samples and Late Antiquity samples.
> 
> In G25 PCA Rome_Imperial:RMPR37 plots with the Basques. Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR118 plots between Lazio and Umbria.
> 
> The rest instead plot with Southern Italy: Rome_Imperial:RMPR114, Rome_Imperial:RMPR51, Rome_Imperial:RMPR47, Rome_Imperial:RMPR835, Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR117, Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR136, Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR118.
> 
> I didn't find R1540.
> 
> 
> ...



Can we get a split of only republican or earlier samples and leave roman empire samples or later for another thread/post?

----------


## Angela

We're discussing the entire paper on this thread.

----------


## halfalp

> I was trying to put some bits of testimonies in the game, but look at an answer I made to Torzio. I never said Etrsucans/Tyrsenoi was the same thing as Luwians (even drunk I would not say that), I just said they could have been "neighbours" (in what kind of contacts,???) or have occupied close regions in W-Anatolia at some stage of history. But it's a marginal side of the topic.


I get what you mean. I dont think Herodotus was necessarily wrong, he only lived 700-800 years after the times of the bronze collapse and sea peoples. He was closer to them in age that us from Charlemagne. Contrasted with Plato and the Atlantid, Herodotus was a man of History and Geography, he lived short after Cresus King of Lydia wich Kingdom probably was big and up the the Aegean Sea and Greek world, ancient legends and contemporary to him, could have influence his jugement. The fact that we have the decency to say " he lied, he was wrong, modern historian [ knows ] what He said and Why he said it " are a little bit pretentious. I think there can be a link between Etruscans and Tyrrhenians, i mean this study even shows that ancient Italians had huge impact of a population close to Mycaneans, and nobody makes the link with Aegean Sea, Lemnian Language, Western Anatolia.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> I get what you mean. I dont think Herodotus was necessarily wrong, he only lived 700-800 years after the times of the bronze collapse and sea peoples. He was closer to them in age that us from Charlemagne. Contrasted with Plato and the Atlantid, Herodotus was a man of History and Geography, he lived short after Cresus King of Lydia wich Kingdom probably was big and up the the Aegean Sea and Greek world, ancient legends and contemporary to him, could have influence his jugement. The fact that we have the decency to say " he lied, he was wrong, modern historian [ knows ] what He said and Why he said it " are a little bit pretentious. I think there can be a link between Etruscans and Tyrrhenians, i mean this study even shows that ancient Italians had huge impact of a population close to Mycaneans, and nobody makes the link with Aegean Sea, Lemnian Language, Western Anatolia.


You haven't even read Herodotus' text, nor the comments of contemporary scholars on what Herodotus wrote. It has nothing to do with Herodotus being right or wrong, it is not Herodotus' opinion nor his judgment. Herodotus reports what "Lydians" say. While in the case of Dionysius of Halicarnassus that's really his opinion.

The island of Lemnos is part of the Greek world, the names in the inscriptions in the Lemnian language belong mainly to Greek onomastics. The guy in the Lemnos stele is a Greek Phocean. The alphabet used in Lemnos to write inscriptions is the most common in Greece and Italy and not the one used in Asia Minor. 

The connection between Etruscans and Tyrrhenians has nothing to do with the Lydians, as the Lydians are never called Tyrrhenian. It is the Pelasgians who are sometimes associated and confused with the Tyrrhenians, this is just another story line. 

Following the chronology of the story reported by Herodotus, which is based on the classic narrative model of Greek colonial foundation, we can date the facts to before 1200 BC. The problem is that there is no archaeological evidence of this mass migration. 

It is really unlikely that the Lydians kept memory of events that happened 800 years ago, events never mentioned before by other authors and ignored even by Lydian historians. This people migrated from Lydia did not even speak the Lydian, since there is now enormous linguistic consensus that the Etruscan language and Lydia language are not related.

----------


## Angela

This is the kind of filth we have to deal with day after day. This deranged Romanian is a perfect example of it.

I'm leaving it up so you can see the kind of ethnic slurs and racism that come bubbling up when people can hide behind sock accounts on the internet.

----------


## halfalp

> You haven't even read Herodotus' text, nor the comments of contemporary scholars on what Herodotus wrote. It has nothing to do with Herodotus being right or wrong, it is not Herodotus' opinion nor his judgment. Herodotus reports what "Lydians" say. While in the case of Dionysius of Halicarnassus that's really his opinion.
> 
> The island of Lemnos is part of the Greek world, the names in the inscriptions in the Lemnian language belong mainly to Greek onomastics. The guy in the Lemnos stele is a Greek Phocean. The alphabet used in Lemnos to write inscriptions is the most common in Greece and Italy and not the one used in Asia Minor. 
> 
> The connection between Etruscans and Tyrrhenians has nothing to do with the Lydians, as the Lydians are never called Tyrrhenian. It is the Pelasgians who are sometimes associated and confused with the Tyrrhenians, this is just another story line. 
> 
> Following the chronology of the story reported by Herodotus, which is based on the classic narrative model of Greek colonial foundation, we can date the facts to before 1200 BC. The problem is that there is no archaeological evidence of this mass migration. 
> 
> It is really unlikely that the Lydians kept memory of events that happened 800 years ago, events never mentioned before by other authors and ignored even by Lydian historians. This people migrated from Lydia did not even speak the Lydian, since there is now enormous linguistic consensus that the Etruscan language and Lydia language are not related.


The story line is that Tyrrhenus wich was a Lydian, went to Italy with his people called Tyrrhenians. The whole point of the hypothesis is the mythical or historical ( for modern pov ) pov of ancient greeks about Etruscans and the similar language of etruscans and lemnians. It's even wrote somewhere that the language of Lemnos was not Greek. The fact that Lydian language and Etruscan language are not similar is kinda clear, but it doesn't really mean anything, Neustrian Franks spoked Gallo-Roman and Austrasian Franks spoked Old Frankish, but they where all Franks. We are visualing an epoch ( -1200 / -1100 ) where ethnogenesis and indoeuropeanization were probably not complete. In the exemple of Pelasgians wich were probably not IE speaking peoples, would be related with peoples who are IE speaking peoples, because all people of a geographic area are related. Why would it be unlikely that Lydians lost memory??? This is highly speculative, has they already used Writing by this time. You make too much of a difference between Aegean World and Whole Anatolia, they might have been closer in ancestry and culture that with the most Central and Eastern Anatolians. If we should write ancient history only by the sole fragments that we have from the past, then we can wright everything and nothing. I trust ancient authors way more than modern scientists, Colonial Rethoric doesn't equal Probably Made Up. It's just a POV that we can accept or refute. 

How notice the high prevalence of Aegean Ancestry in ancient Italy is not a clue about " mass migration " wich the mass part is not even needed in this case.

----------


## MOESAN

> CNW Italy you meant Central-North-Western Italy? Right?
> 
> It's not known for sure if Trs/Teresh/Tyrsenoi are all the same people, there is also a suspicion that Tyrsenoi in Greek sources may not always refer to the Etruscans. This issue has been discussed for many years.
> 
> The Sea People are a highly speculative argument, because archaeologically there is little or nothing, beyond that line of research carried out by some archaeologists according to which we can actually assume raids from Italy to the Aegean and the Levant in the second half of the Bronze Age. There is a growing consensus that many of these Sea People came from Italy. But from here on to the Etruscans, it's a good jump, although one of the Bronze Age weapons found in the Aegean and Levant, comes from one of the Bronze Age facies that belongs to the ethnogenesis of the Proto-Etruscans. But once again also in this case the Etruscans do not differ much from the other peoples of northern and central Italy, because this type of findings also exist for others. 
> 
> 
> We talked about it here
> 
> ...


I prefer this answer of yours than the first one you made about Greek legends.

----------


## Jovialis

Interesting similarities to other ancient samples.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> The story line is that Tyrrhenus wich was a Lydian, went to Italy with his people called Tyrrhenians.


The first Greek source to mention the Tyrrhenians is Hesiod, many centuries before Herodotus. Hesiod makes no mention of an eastern origin of the Tyrrhenians and places them exactly in central Italy close to the Latins. There is no other ancient source before Herodotus that associates the Tyrrhenians with the Lydians. Also for the Herodotus' story, the Tyrrhenians are those who are in Italy, not in Lydia.

As reported by Dionysius, Xantos of Lydia, the historian considered the highest authority in the history of the Lydians, makes no mention of Tyrrhenus as son of Atis, or of a Lydian colonization in Italy. As many scholars have pointed out, the Herodotus' story is based on false etymologies. It is not Herodotus' fault, since he reports what others had said.

In fact, according to Xantos of Lydia, Atis' sons were Lydus and Torebus and they, "having divided the kingdom they had inherited from their father, both remained in Asia, and from them the nations over which they reigned. (...) _"From Lydus are sprung the Lydians, and from Torebus the Torebians. There is little difference in their language and even now each nation scoffs at many words used by the other, even as do the Ionians and Dorians."

_By mistake, Torebus and the Torebians have become Tyrrhenus and the Tyrrhenians. But Torebus and the Torebians were clearly not Tyrrhenus and the Tyrrhenians.

Xantos of Lydia reported by Dionysius:

_"__But Xanthus of Lydia, who was as well acquainted with ancient history as any man and who may be regarded as an authority second to none on the history of his own country, neither names Tyrrhenus in any part of his history as a ruler of the Lydians nor knows anything of the landing of a colony of Maeonians in Italy; nor does he make the least mention of Tyrrhenia as a Lydian colony, though he takes notice of several things of less importance. He says that Lydus and Torebus were the sons of Atys; that they, having divided the kingdom they had inherited from their father, both remained in Asia, and from them the nations over which they reigned received their names. His words are these: "From Lydus are sprung the Lydians, and from Torebus the Torebians. There is little difference in their language and even now each nation scoffs at many words used by the other, even as do the Ionians and Dorians."_





> The whole point of the hypothesis is the mythical or historical ( for modern pov ) pov of ancient greeks about Etruscans and the similar language of etruscans and lemnians. It's even wrote somewhere that the language of Lemnos was not Greek. The fact that Lydian language and Etruscan language are not similar is kinda clear, but it doesn't really mean anything, Neustrian Franks spoked Gallo-Roman and Austrasian Franks spoked Old Frankish, but they where all Franks. We are visualing an epoch ( -1200 / -1100 ) where ethnogenesis and indoeuropeanization were probably not complete. In the exemple of Pelasgians wich were probably not IE speaking peoples, would be related with peoples who are IE speaking peoples, because all people of a geographic area are related.


So you're basically turning the whole thing and claiming that the migration from Lydia to Etruria is the one that brought DNA from the steppes. Am I hearing you correctly? Really weird this ethnogenesis of the Etruscans, huh. By magic the Etruscans did not speak Lydian but another language, even pre-Indo-European, which at this point came from the sky. 

There is not a single inscription found in Anatolia that resembles the Lemnian language and then there is the insurmountable problem that there is also the Rhaetian language spoken in the Alps that resembles the Etruscan language, and perhaps even the Camunic language. It is very unlikely that all these languages have come from Anatolia, when in Anatolia there is no inscription similar to these languages and when in Anatolia IE languages are attested long before in Europe, and when Pre-Indoeuropean ancestry constitutes the majority in southern Europe, and also in the rest of Europe remains a very important part. 

Not to mention the fact, that archaeologically it is now widely demonstrated that the Etruscans do not differ from other peoples of pre-Roman Italy, and there is no evidence of the arrival of the Lydians, while there's evidence of contacts with the Mycenaeans.





> Why would it be unlikely that Lydians lost memory??? This is highly speculative, has they already used Writing by this time. You make too much of a difference between Aegean World and Whole Anatolia, they might have been closer in ancestry and culture that with the most Central and Eastern Anatolians. If we should write ancient history only by the sole fragments that we have from the past, then we can wright everything and nothing.


If the Lydians are the among the first to learn to write, why then do the Etruscans learn to write only after the Greeks arrive in Italy? As soon as they arrived in Italy, did the Lydians unlearnt to write?

For the sake of precision, the Lydian language is attested long after the Etruscan language in Italy. It is the Luvian language, among the languages of the Anatolian family, which is the first to be attested using the Anatolian hieroglyphs, a script of which there is no trace in Italy.





> I trust ancient authors way more than modern scientists, Colonial Rethoric doesn't equal Probably Made Up. It's just a POV that we can accept or refute.


I perfectly understand that legends have a greater influence on the public's opinion than specialist readings, also because legends are easier to understand, but this is your personal choice. You are obviously free to believe all the fairy tales you want, even in the historical existence of Santa Claus.

If we believe more in ancient authors, why not also believe in the ancient stories about the origins of other peoples? I think it is odd, to say the least, that only with the Etruscans is it believed that the ancient sources are true.





> How notice the high prevalence of Aegean Ancestry in ancient Italy is not a clue about " mass migration " wich the mass part is not even needed in this case.



Can you show me where this paper speak of high prevalence of Aegean Ancestry in ancient Italy?





> I prefer this answer of yours than the first one you made about Greek legends.



I appreciate it. It should be stressed that Greek legends have most likely nothing do to with the Sea People.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> Interesting similarities to other ancient samples.



Why did MTA label the sample from Villa Magna in Lazio as Tuscan?

I find that this lack of accuracy in the MTA's labels, some are just invented, is indicative of a great ineptitude of those who manage MTA.

In Italy we have a word that gives a good idea: cialtroneria. 

Jovialis, do you know the real name of the person who runs the MTA?

It's a shame, because a tool that could be useful is being managed with such shallowness, as if after all they were interested in earning only a few coins.

----------


## Jovialis

> Why did MTA label the sample from Villa Magna in Lazio as Tuscan?
> 
> I find that this lack of accuracy in the MTA's labels, some are just invented, is indicative of a great ineptitude of those who manage MTA.
> 
> In Italy we have a word that gives a good idea: cialtroneria. 
> 
> Jovialis, do you know the real name of the person who runs the MTA?
> 
> It's a shame, because a tool that could be useful is being managed with such shallowness, as if after all they were interested in earning only a few coins.


I do not, but if I did I wouldn't post it in a public forum.

----------


## Angela

> Why did MTA label the sample from Villa Magna in Lazio as Tuscan?
> 
> I find that this lack of accuracy in the MTA's labels, some are just invented, is indicative of a great ineptitude of those who manage MTA.
> 
> In Italy we have a word that gives a good idea: cialtroneria. 
> 
> Jovialis, do you know the real name of the person who runs the MTA?
> 
> It's a shame, because a tool that could be useful is being managed with such shallowness, as if after all they were interested in earning only a few coins.


Do you mean this one? All the others I match get Tuscans as the closest modern population.


23. Tuscan Medieval Villa Magna Italy (1110 AD) *..... 10.77* - R64 - 
Ancient GroupModern GroupSimiliar SamplesHaplogroups (NEW!)PCA AncientPCA ModernResearch Link
1. Italian_Abruzzo (10.43)
2. Tuscan (10.47)
3. West_Sicilian (10.55)
4. Maltese (12.42)
5. South_Italian (13.62)
6. East_Sicilian (13.86)
7. Central_Greek (14.21)
8. North_Italian (15.11)

3. Tuscan Medieval Villa Magna Italy (905 AD) *..... 6.017* - R60 - 
Ancient GroupModern GroupSimiliar SamplesHaplogroups (NEW!)PCA AncientPCA ModernResearch Link
1. Tuscan (5.034)
2. Italian_Abruzzo (7.080)
3. West_Sicilian (8.330)
4. East_Sicilian (10.69)
5. Central_Greek (10.77)
6. North_Italian (11.17)
7. Greek (11.32)
8. Kosovan (11.35)



It's the same reason they label some of the samples from Cordoba Spaniard from Cordoba, or the ones from the Visigothic site either Slavic Visigothic or Spaniard Visigothic. 

Actually, I think it's probably helpful for people who don't know the samples. They're trying to show the "ethnic" composition of the samples. Clearly, there were a lot of Tuscan like people in that particular burial in that particular era, versus Aegean like people or Spanish like people or on and on .

Some of them are not great matches, of course. All that it indicates, I think, is that people in Lazio might have been closer to Tuscans in the Middle Ages. Migration from Abruzzo and other southern regions might have changed them so that now they skew further south. Of course, who knows, it could have been a bunch of southern Tuscans.

Without more context from the burials everything is speculative to one degree or another.

----------


## Angela

I don't think anyone has ever posted this graphic from the paper:


Through the Copper Age 45A2 was still at 50%. That seems awfully low for the LP gene, given they eat so much cheese, but I guess that's a bit different, with cheeses having less lactose.

The changes related to fatty acid metabolism may have begun in the Mesolithic, but they shot up during the Neolithic, as expected.

Odd that GRM5 was studied. It's almost never used, and it's questionable how much effect it has. They had to go all the way back to Beleza et al for that one.

I don't get this one either:

Ergothioneine has antioxidant properties _in vitro_.[2][23] Under laboratory conditions, it scavenges hydroxyl radicals and hypochlorous acid, inhibits production of oxidants by metal ions,[24][25] and may participate in metal ion transport and regulation of metalloenzymes.[25]
Although potential effects of ergothioneine are under preliminary research, its physiological role _in vivo_ is unknown.[5]

----------


## halfalp

> The first Greek source to mention the Tyrrhenians is Hesiod, many centuries before Herodotus. Hesiod makes no mention of an eastern origin of the Tyrrhenians and places them exactly in central Italy close to the Latins. There is no other ancient source before Herodotus that associates the Tyrrhenians with the Lydians. Also for the Herodotus' story, the Tyrrhenians are those who are in Italy, not in Lydia.
> 
> As reported by Dionysius, Xantos of Lydia, the historian considered the highest authority in the history of the Lydians, makes no mention of Tyrrhenus as son of Atis, or of a Lydian colonization in Italy. As many scholars have pointed out, the Herodotus' story is based on false etymologies. It is not Herodotus' fault, since he reports what others had said.
> 
> In fact, according to Xantos of Lydia, Atis' sons were Lydus and Torebus and they, "having divided the kingdom they had inherited from their father, both remained in Asia, and from them the nations over which they reigned. (...) _"From Lydus are sprung the Lydians, and from Torebus the Torebians. There is little difference in their language and even now each nation scoffs at many words used by the other, even as do the Ionians and Dorians."
> 
> _By mistake, Torebus and the Torebians have become Tyrrhenus and the Tyrrhenians. But Torebus and the Torebians were clearly not Tyrrhenus and the Tyrrhenians.
> 
> Xantos of Lydia reported by Dionysius:
> ...


1) My point was never to make a link between Anatolians Lydians and Italians Etruscans and Tyrrhenians if this is what you understood. My point was to make a deal between modern hypothesis like linking Lemnian, Rhaetian and Etruscan languages with ancient greek myths, like a kind of syncretic legend between an ancient tribe mainly Tyrrhenians and Etruscans. Like this roman idea that germanic tribes were all originally Suebii, then later different tribe of this ethnogenesis came with different ethnonyms. To me the Lydians in this scenario do only matter because of Geography, old and contemporary myths are overlapping with the conclusion _Ancient Tyrrhenians ancestors of contemporary Etruscans came from Lydia = Near Lydia not Lydians._

2) I have no idea what Steppe ancestry is doing here. You are putting way too much value to those ancestries. Steppe signal will only show us " there was a migration linked to the Steppe ", it doesn't tell us the contemporary political applications. We already knows that Mycanean Greeks and " Anatolians [ if those samples matters ] " did not have much Steppe ancestry even tho they spoked IE languages. Etruscans had their Steppe ancestry from Bell Beaker ancestry in Italy, only by interactions and SEX. What is Mycanean Culture? Why do we assume it was originally a Greek-Speaking Culture, and not a Pelasgian, non-indo european one at some point being lead by IE/Steppe peoples? Bell Beakers were a fusion of steppe and central european neolithic peoples right? And their culture came from Spain, wich had peoples with different genetic ( even tho still linked to EEF ) ancestry right? We have no clue if in the Mycaenean period, the Aegea was populated only by IE and not non-IE speaking people and that Tyrrhenian / Etruscan were not one of them.

3) The point here is that ancient people Do Not Forgot that much history, especially if they have a Writing system. Why did Lydians believed that Etruscans and Tyrrhenians were coming from Lydia as Lydians in the name of Herodotus Lydians 800 years after the Bronze Age Collapse and the eventual departure of Tyrrhenians to Italy. Was that made up by Herodotus or did Lydians had ancient records of it? As for why Etruscans would have lost the ability to write, probably because if we follow the idea of the Sea Peoples, ancestors of Etruscans were like Mediterranean " Steppe people ", young men in a männerbund trying to found new home by the Sea. And not some kind of elite or scholar that new all those intellectualities.

4) To be honest, i do not believe in " legends " but in words. To me, Herodotus, if he was wrong ( if he lied that's a shame ), is in the same position as a modern scholar to say anything. Rationality here plays the role that there is absolutely nothing a modern scholar can do to say what's true or not. We can argue about " _modernly analyzed ancient rethoric used by ancient authors and their absolut rethorical goal_ ". Wich sounds as pedantic as i can imagine it. But no Etruscologist or specialist of Anatolia / Aegea really can have a clue about it, they only have point-of-views. I think every myths of ethnogenesis is somewhere right. To what extent? is not known. 

5) To be honest², i have no clue. I just read what everyone is saying, the study shows mostly Anatolia and Iran Neolithic ancestry and little Steppe and what not Morocco Neolithic. But then people are arguing that the ancestry namely Anatolia and Iran Neolithic is actually similar and linked with some Myceaneans samples. I guess some " runs " were made, and people comparing their own ancestry with those samples, it's all up to you, but then i had the self conclusion that ancient italian samples mostly looked like coming from the Aegea. My bad if i got that wrong.

Conclusion: I dont have any conviction in all this topic. I'm talking about it, because it's still an interesting idea. To imagine that Bronze Age Collapse and movement of populations would made the Aegean world go by the sea in all direction for their survival.

----------


## Angela

> 1) My point was never to make a link between Anatolians Lydians and Italians Etruscans and Tyrrhenians if this is what you understood. My point was to make a deal between modern hypothesis like linking Lemnian, Rhaetian and Etruscan languages with ancient greek myths, like a kind of syncretic legend between an ancient tribe mainly Tyrrhenians and Etruscans. Like this roman idea that germanic tribes were all originally Suebii, then later different tribe of this ethnogenesis came with different ethnonyms. To me the Lydians in this scenario do only matter because of Geography, old and contemporary myths are overlapping with the conclusion _Ancient Tyrrhenians ancestors of contemporary Etruscans came from Lydia = Near Lydia not Lydians._
> 
> 2) I have no idea what Steppe ancestry is doing here. You are putting way too much value to those ancestries. Steppe signal will only show us " there was a migration linked to the Steppe ", it doesn't tell us the contemporary political applications. We already knows that Mycanean Greeks and " Anatolians [ if those samples matters ] " did not have much Steppe ancestry even tho they spoked IE languages. Etruscans had their Steppe ancestry from Bell Beaker ancestry in Italy, only by interactions and SEX. What is Mycanean Culture? Why do we assume it was originally a Greek-Speaking Culture, and not a Pelasgian, non-indo european one at some point being lead by IE/Steppe peoples? Bell Beakers were a fusion of steppe and central european neolithic peoples right? And their culture came from Spain, wich had peoples with different genetic ( even tho still linked to EEF ) ancestry right? We have no clue if in the Mycaenean period, the Aegea was populated only by IE and not non-IE speaking people and that Tyrrhenian / Etruscan were not one of them.
> 
> 3) The point here is that ancient people Do Not Forgot that much history, especially if they have a Writing system. Why did Lydians believed that Etruscans and Tyrrhenians were coming from Lydia as Lydians in the name of Herodotus Lydians 800 years after the Bronze Age Collapse and the eventual departure of Tyrrhenians to Italy. Was that made up by Herodotus or did Lydians had ancient records of it? As for why Etruscans would have lost the ability to write, probably because if we follow the idea of the Sea Peoples, ancestors of Etruscans were like Mediterranean " Steppe people ", young men in a männerbund trying to found new home by the Sea. And not some kind of elite or scholar that new all those intellectualities.
> 
> 4) To be honest, i do not believe in " legends " but in words. To me, Herodotus, if he was wrong ( if he lied that's a shame ), is in the same position as a modern scholar to say anything. Rationality here plays the role that there is absolutely nothing a modern scholar can do to say what's true or not. We can argue about " _modernly analyzed ancient rethoric used by ancient authors and their absolut rethorical goal_ ". Wich sounds as pedantic as i can imagine it. But no Etruscologist or specialist of Anatolia / Aegea really can have a clue about it, they only have point-of-views. I think every myths of ethnogenesis is somewhere right. To what extent? is not known. 
> 
> 5) To be honest², i have no clue. I just read what everyone is saying, the study shows mostly Anatolia and Iran Neolithic ancestry and little Steppe and what not Morocco Neolithic. But then people are arguing that the ancestry namely Anatolia and Iran Neolithic is actually similar and linked with some Myceaneans samples. I guess some " runs " were made, and people comparing their own ancestry with those samples, it's all up to you, but then i had the self conclusion that ancient italian samples mostly looked like coming from the Aegea. My bad if i got that wrong.
> ...


You don't understand the topic. You seem not to be interested in science. So, I don't know why you're posting or on this site at all.

Really, some people just belong on ignore.

----------


## Jovialis

> Do you mean this one? All the others I match get Tuscans as the closest modern population.
> 
> 
> 23. Tuscan Medieval Villa Magna Italy (1110 AD) *..... 10.77* - R64 - 
> Ancient GroupModern GroupSimiliar SamplesHaplogroups (NEW!)PCA AncientPCA ModernResearch Link
> 1. Italian_Abruzzo (10.43)
> 2. Tuscan (10.47)
> 3. West_Sicilian (10.55)
> 4. Maltese (12.42)
> ...




Actually, I think it may have been an opposite trajectory. People from Lazio were more Southern-Italian-like on average in the Middle Ages, and were pulled more _northern_ towards the position of modern Central Italy. However, some of them were in fact Tuscan-like, according to figure C.

----------


## torzio

> The story line is that Tyrrhenus wich was a Lydian, went to Italy with his people called Tyrrhenians. The whole point of the hypothesis is the mythical or historical ( for modern pov ) pov of ancient greeks about Etruscans and the similar language of etruscans and lemnians. It's even wrote somewhere that the language of Lemnos was not Greek. The fact that Lydian language and Etruscan language are not similar is kinda clear, but it doesn't really mean anything, Neustrian Franks spoked Gallo-Roman and Austrasian Franks spoked Old Frankish, but they where all Franks. We are visualing an epoch ( -1200 / -1100 ) where ethnogenesis and indoeuropeanization were probably not complete. In the exemple of Pelasgians wich were probably not IE speaking peoples, would be related with peoples who are IE speaking peoples, because all people of a geographic area are related. Why would it be unlikely that Lydians lost memory??? This is highly speculative, has they already used Writing by this time. You make too much of a difference between Aegean World and Whole Anatolia, they might have been closer in ancestry and culture that with the most Central and Eastern Anatolians. If we should write ancient history only by the sole fragments that we have from the past, then we can wright everything and nothing. I trust ancient authors way more than modern scientists, Colonial Rethoric doesn't equal Probably Made Up. It's just a POV that we can accept or refute. 
> 
> How notice the high prevalence of Aegean Ancestry in ancient Italy is not a clue about " mass migration " wich the mass part is not even needed in this case.


The first people on lemnos where the thracian Sintian tribe from late bronze-age....there are no Lydians in lemnos and etruscans used the island of lemnos as a trading stopover circa 500BC.....thats more than 400 years after the etruscans where already settled in Italy

The etruscans where never noted as Asiatics ( from Asia Minor ...Anatolia ) .......the Liburnians where 
https://www.academia.edu/33029236/_L...cal_Stereotype

----------


## torzio

There needs to be clarity on what is Goth in this thread and mytueancestry thread

There are Visigoths ( pure Goths ) .....no steppe admixture ..........and then there are Ostrogoths ( eastern Goths ) which have some steppe admixture

I am not 100% sure , but visigoths ended up in Spain and ostrogoths ended up in Italy 

I just need some more clarity on this

----------


## Carlos

> There needs to be clarity on what is Goth in this thread and mytueancestry thread
> 
> There are Visigoths ( pure Goths ) .....no steppe admixture ..........and then there are Ostrogoths ( eastern Goths ) which have some steppe admixture
> 
> I am not 100% sure , but visigoths ended up in Spain and ostrogoths ended up in Italy 
> 
> I just need some more clarity on this


When I read history soon I have a substrate, but I don't remember the details. Let's see I remember that the Goths are divided and those who enter Spain are called Visigoths and those of Italy do not remember anymore. A few years ago I was talking to a biologist and he told me that these people are all the same despite their names, they would refer to their most ancestral origin, I don't know.


With regard to the Visigoths or Goths in Spain, it acquires all the epic and historical significance as something of ours in perceiving the situation as soon as they are part of us, we are going to mix. Bone as they are part of the Spanish genetic heritage so that we understand each other, as with the rest of the ethnic groups that have to do with the history of Spain. We do not have a vision of the typical "pure" goth in reference to our history or as part of us. It is like any historical event of a Norwegian princess who travels to the court of Castile to marry, it is like drinking a glass of water, but her descendant or knowing that El Cid disdained Goths, Latinos or whatever it is when we acquire all the relevance for putting an imaginary example. I don't know if I have understood. So when it is part of us, what is known by history, archeology e.t.c. It is when it makes sense for a migration to our historic country and won by hand that integrates into the whole contributing.


I hope it is understood, it is not about idolizing a blonde hair and blue eyes riding towards Spain, it is the history of a country, it is beyond that.

In the sample that I obtained from the hillock of the pig at the beginning it appeared as vascones e.t.c. Well, now he's like Iberian, Latin ...
The ilergetes also appeared at the beginning as Vascones / ilergetes

I think there were people who would tell you something and they may be super bundled. If the term vascones refers to the Iberian peninsula in times of the bronze age, it would be an appropriate term for samples of the entire peninsula provided that the results correspond. It is not about modern Basques.


I think we are going to waste a lot of time today if in MTA they begin to pay attention to current socio-political issues because in a matter of 10 years all this will be clarified almost 100% I imagine when the calculators are ready. So why waste time today if in a few years the whole truth is going to be known? We lose the current time.

In the case of the Moorish era, for example, there are other totally different circumstances when it comes to sociology, religion, e.t.c. There are Spaniards who do not show their results because the small percentage of North Africa is not seen, but even that I think has a socio-political motive, historical religious or whatever you want to call it. Even when the news came out that the percentage of Spaniards in North Africa could be that it did not respond to the Muslim era, I saw that they still did not show their results, I do not understand it sincerely, sharing snp with Moors or Goths does not make you moro or goth, it It is about what I explained above, it is about knowing our Spanish genetic heritage, one thing or the other will not make us more Spanish or less modern Spanish.

In some forum to get from the Red Sea I think or North East Africa another Spanish said it was black, then you could only answer: Eat my cock, you think: what do you care about and ignore it like a jerk. And yet these types of people do not show their results, it is what I do not see proportional in the forums, some give everything and others comfortably allow themselves to judge others by their ethnical results that obviously does not show so that they insult him but for the general knowledge, beyond politics etc. In short, the truth that will be found sooner or later.

----------


## Angela

> Actually, I think it may have been an opposite trajectory. People from Lazio were more Southern-Italian-like on average in the Middle Ages, and were pulled more _northern_ towards the position of modern Central Italy. However, some of them were in fact Tuscan-like, according to figure C.


You may be right. I should have gone back to the graphic in the paper.

Still a difference between the categorizations in terms of similarity to Tuscans, however. 

These samples from Medieval Villa Magna, to which I get hits, are all labeled as closest to modern Tuscans by mta, but the paper has them in the South Italian cluster: 60, 57, 59, 54, 52.

Normally, I'd say that of course the academic paper has to have it more right than something based on K=15, but this paper is so disappointing in so many ways that I'm not sure.

----------


## Jovialis

> You may be right. I should have gone back to the graphic in the paper.
> 
> Still a difference between the categorizations in terms of similarity to Tuscans, however. 
> 
> These samples from Medieval Villa Magna, to which I get hits, are all labeled as closest to modern Tuscans by mta, but the paper has them in the South Italian cluster: 60, 57, 59, 54, 52.
> 
> Normally, I'd say that of course the academic paper has to have it more right than something based on K=15, but this paper is so disappointing in so many ways that I'm not sure.


These are the samples I get; I get deep dive with 4 of them:

15. Tuscan Medieval Cancelleria Basilica (1350 AD) ..... 12.13 - R1290 - 


1. Tuscan (6.839)
2. West_Sicilian (7.269)
3. Italian_Abruzzo (9.541)
4. East_Sicilian (11.36)
5. South_Italian (11.55)
6. Central_Greek (11.99)
7. North_Italian (12.51)
8. Greek (13.32)


Top 96% match vs all users


18. Tuscan Medieval Villa Magna Italy (905 AD) ..... 12.45 - R60 - 


1. Tuscan (5.034)
2. Italian_Abruzzo (7.080)
3. West_Sicilian (8.330)
4. East_Sicilian (10.69)
5. Central_Greek (10.77)
6. North_Italian (11.17)
7. Greek (11.32)
8. Kosovan (11.35)


Top 96% match vs all users


21. Tuscan Late Medieval Villa Magna Italy (1355 AD) ..... 12.59 - R54 - 




1. Tuscan (8.612)
2. West_Sicilian (9.976)
3. Italian_Abruzzo (10.72)
4. East_Sicilian (11.97)
5. South_Italian (12.22)
6. Central_Greek (12.57)
7. North_Italian (13.75)
8. Greek_Thessaly (14.61)


Top 98% match vs all users


26. Tuscan Late Medieval Villa Magna Italy (1355 AD) ..... 13.28 - R56 - 




1. West_Sicilian (8.118)
2. Tuscan (10.29)
3. South_Italian (11.31)
4. Italian_Abruzzo (11.42)
5. Maltese (12.27)
6. East_Sicilian (12.32)
7. Central_Greek (13.14)
8. Italian_Jewish (13.43)


Top 97% match vs all users


40. Tuscan Medieval Villa Magna Italy (1110 AD) ..... 14.69 - R64 - 




1. Italian_Abruzzo (10.43)
2. Tuscan (10.47)
3. West_Sicilian (10.55)
4. Maltese (12.42)
5. South_Italian (13.62)
6. East_Sicilian (13.86)
7. Central_Greek (14.21)
8. North_Italian (15.11)


Top 97% match vs all users


44. Tuscan Medieval Villa Magna Italy (1110 AD) ..... 15.14 - R57 - 




1. Tuscan (9.781)
2. Italian_Abruzzo (11.51)
3. West_Sicilian (12.69)
4. North_Italian (13.42)
5. Central_Greek (14.03)
6. East_Sicilian (14.32)
7. South_Italian (14.46)
8. Greek (15.09)


Top 97% match vs all users

----------


## Angela

Here are mine:

3. Tuscan Medieval Villa Magna Italy (905 AD) *..... 6.017* - R60 - 
Ancient GroupModern GroupSimiliar SamplesHaplogroups (NEW!)PCA AncientPCA ModernResearch Link
1. Tuscan (5.034)
2. Italian_Abruzzo (7.080)
3. West_Sicilian (8.330)
4. East_Sicilian (10.69)
5. Central_Greek (10.77)
6. North_Italian (11.17)
7. Greek (11.32)
8. Kosovan (11.35)

18. Tuscan Medieval Villa Magna Italy (1110 AD) *..... 10.37* - R57 - 
Ancient GroupModern GroupSimiliar SamplesHaplogroups (NEW!)PCA AncientPCA ModernResearch Link
1. Tuscan (9.781)
2. Italian_Abruzzo (11.51)
3. West_Sicilian (12.69)
4. North_Italian (13.42)
5. Central_Greek (14.03)
6. East_Sicilian (14.32)
7. South_Italian (14.46)
8. Greek (15.09)

25. Medieval Villa Magna Italy (905 AD) *..... 10.87* - R59 - 
Ancient GroupModern GroupSimiliar SamplesHaplogroups (NEW!)PCA AncientPCA ModernResearch Link
1. Tuscan (10.70)
2. West_Sicilian (11.21)
3. Italian_Abruzzo (13.10)
4. Maltese (13.70)
5. North_Italian (13.98)
6. South_Italian (15.72)
7. East_Sicilian (16.12)
8. Central_Greek (16.71)




31. Tuscan Late Medieval Villa Magna Italy (1355 AD) *..... 12.19* - R54 - 
Ancient GroupModern GroupSimiliar SamplesHaplogroups (NEW!)PCA AncientPCA ModernResearch Link
1. Tuscan (8.612)
2. West_Sicilian (9.976)
3. Italian_Abruzzo (10.72)
4. East_Sicilian (11.97)
5. South_Italian (12.22)
6. Central_Greek (12.57)
7. North_Italian (13.75)
8. Greek_Thessaly (14.61)

37. Late Medieval Villa Magna Italy (1355 AD) *..... 12.76* - R52 - 
Ancient GroupModern GroupSimiliar SamplesHaplogroups (NEW!)PCA AncientPCA ModernResearch Link
1. Tuscan (11.30)
2. West_Sicilian (12.07)
3. North_Italian (13.82)
4. Maltese (15.23)
5. Italian_Abruzzo (15.41)
6. South_Italian (16.62)
7. East_Sicilian (16.94)
8. Spanish_Andalucia (17.33)

----------


## Stuvanè

> When I read history soon I have a substrate, but I don't remember the details. Let's see I remember that the Goths are divided and those who enter Spain are called Visigoths and those of Italy do not remember anymore. A few years ago I was talking to a biologist and he told me that these people are all the same despite their names, they would refer to their most ancestral origin, I don't know.
> 
> 
> With regard to the Visigoths or Goths in Spain, it acquires all the epic and historical significance as something of ours in perceiving the situation as soon as they are part of us, we are going to mix. Bone as they are part of the Spanish genetic heritage so that we understand each other, as with the rest of the ethnic groups that have to do with the history of Spain. We do not have a vision of the typical "pure" goth in reference to our history or as part of us. It is like any historical event of a Norwegian princess who travels to the court of Castile to marry, it is like drinking a glass of water, but her descendant or knowing that El Cid disdained Goths, Latinos or whatever it is when we acquire all the relevance for putting an imaginary example. I don't know if I have understood. So when it is part of us, what is known by history, archeology e.t.c. It is when it makes sense for a migration to our historic country and won by hand that integrates into the whole contributing.
> 
> 
> I hope it is understood, it is not about idolizing a blonde hair and blue eyes riding towards Spain, it is the history of a country, it is beyond that.
> 
> In the sample that I obtained from the hillock of the pig at the beginning it appeared as vascones e.t.c. Well, now he's like Iberian, Latin ...
> ...



I would confirm that the difference between the Visigoths and the Ostrogoths was essentially nothing, an ancient division based mostly on the respective dominant dynasties, where the Thervingi (predecessors of the Visigoths) were led by the Balts, and the Greutungi (the pre-Ostrogoths) ruled by the Amali by which Theoderic the Great would have descended.
The Goths in many ways were a sort of nebula in Eastern Europe, a centripetal group assimilating with relative ease the neighbours, nor should we forget that - although more secluded - even the Gepids were "Goths". Certainly the eastern branch of the Goths was more exposed to the influences of the steppe civilizations, assimilating protoslavs and even more sarmatic groups, to the point that Byzantine military treaty at the beginning of the VIIth century as the "Strategikon" by Mauritius didn't classify the Goths anymore between the Germans (the so-called "blond peoples" / "Xantha Ethne"), but among the "Huns", given their acquired and brilliant ability to fight on horseback. Even if it will certainly be updated, the study by Vernadsky remains fundamental: 

https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/sae...1.2.jg.340.xml


Now I don't remember which other scholar affirmed it, if Wolfram or Heather, in any case the members of the two groups - at least until the first half of the IVth century - moved rather freely from one tribe to another. The event that broke and fractured the Goth macro-group was the advent of the Huns. The Goths who managed to escape definitively became the Visigoths, while most of Greutungi, which was blocked by the Asian invaders and became a vassal for at least 70-80 years, until the death of Attila in the middle of the Vth century, would have become the Ostrogoths, with a long gestation that would have ended after a few decades, bringing together several Eastern Germans scattered along the Danube and in Balkan area

----------


## halfalp

> You don't understand the topic. You seem not to be interested in science. So, I don't know why you're posting or on this site at all.
> 
> Really, some people just belong on ignore.


That is extremely mean and pretentious. One could ask himself if you actually are a good human being with some of your response to other beings.

----------


## torzio

> I would confirm that the difference between the Visigoths and the Ostrogoths was essentially nothing, an ancient division based mostly on the respective dominant dynasties, where the Thervingi (predecessors of the Visigoths) were led by the Balts, and the Greutungi (the pre-Ostrogoths) ruled by the Amali by which Theoderic the Great would have descended.
> The Goths in many ways were a sort of nebula in Eastern Europe, a centripetal group assimilating with relative ease the neighbours, nor should we forget that - although more secluded - even the Gepids were "Goths". Certainly the eastern branch of the Goths was more exposed to the influences of the steppe civilizations, assimilating protoslavs and even more sarmatic groups, to the point that Byzantine military treaty at the beginning of the VIIth century as the "Strategikon" by Mauritius didn't classify the Goths anymore between the Germans (the so-called "blond peoples" / "Xantha Ethne"), but among the "Huns", given their acquired and brilliant ability to fight on horseback. Even if it will certainly be updated, the study by Vernadsky remains fundamental: 
> 
> https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/sae...1.2.jg.340.xml
> 
> 
> Now I don't remember which other scholar affirmed it, if Wolfram or Heather, in any case the members of the two groups - at least until the first half of the IVth century - moved rather freely from one tribe to another. The event that broke and fractured the Goth macro-group was the advent of the Huns. The Goths who managed to escape definitively became the Visigoths, while most of Greutungi, which was blocked by the Asian invaders and became a vassal for at least 70-80 years, until the death of Attila in the middle of the Vth century, would have become the Ostrogoths, with a long gestation that would have ended after a few decades, bringing together several Eastern Germans scattered along the Danube and in Balkan area


I think there are genetic differences , especially since the ostrogoths where in the area of black sea Ukraine, Moldova ( and crimea) for over 500 years.........clearly, plenty of time to get some steppe admixture into their society

----------


## Angela

We have only one sample from an Ostrogoth burial, and he was a chieftain. 

He was not, however, very steppe like. He was like a Pontic Greek.

That's why having "Gothic" samples in your country doesn't necessarily tell you what you might expect in terms of "ethnic" composition or impact.

The "Gothic" samples from Spain are either more "Slavic-like" according to mta, or "Spaniard like". So, if that's correct, they picked up some "Slavic" as well, and they intermarried so much so quickly that many "lost" their "Germanic" signature very, very early.

That makes complete sense according to the history of the period as I understand it, which always postulated they were a small, mostly male dominated group, not like the Langobards, who were family groups, and at least 60-100,000 of them arrived on the Italian peninsula. 

Has anyone run these "Spanish" Goths with the programs used above for comparison?

----------


## Carlos

> I would confirm that the difference between the Visigoths and the Ostrogoths was essentially nothing, an ancient division based mostly on the respective dominant dynasties, where the Thervingi (predecessors of the Visigoths) were led by the Balts, and the Greutungi (the pre-Ostrogoths) ruled by the Amali by which Theoderic the Great would have descended.
> The Goths in many ways were a sort of nebula in Eastern Europe, a centripetal group assimilating with relative ease the neighbours, nor should we forget that - although more secluded - even the Gepids were "Goths". Certainly the eastern branch of the Goths was more exposed to the influences of the steppe civilizations, assimilating protoslavs and even more sarmatic groups, to the point that Byzantine military treaty at the beginning of the VIIth century as the "Strategikon" by Mauritius didn't classify the Goths anymore between the Germans (the so-called "blond peoples" / "Xantha Ethne"), but among the "Huns", given their acquired and brilliant ability to fight on horseback. Even if it will certainly be updated, the study by Vernadsky remains fundamental: 
> 
> https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/sae...1.2.jg.340.xml
> 
> 
> Now I don't remember which other scholar affirmed it, if Wolfram or Heather, in any case the members of the two groups - at least until the first half of the IVth century - moved rather freely from one tribe to another. The event that broke and fractured the Goth macro-group was the advent of the Huns. The Goths who managed to escape definitively became the Visigoths, while most of Greutungi, which was blocked by the Asian invaders and became a vassal for at least 70-80 years, until the death of Attila in the middle of the Vth century, would have become the Ostrogoths, with a long gestation that would have ended after a few decades, bringing together several Eastern Germans scattered along the Danube and in Balkan area


If you're right, it had been commented more times, I think Angela. Nothing changes, more or less Germanic, if they were mixed with Eastern Europe or much more we still like them more because of the historical events that led them to us, contributing undoubtedly to the creation of modern Spanish.


It is really very complicated and sometimes we don't know each other very well among Europeans, there is one out there that is surprising that Spanish regions appear in their Germanic lists of modern populations, possibly think we are pure Iberians, I wonder the Iberians were a pure ethnic group ...


As soon as there are more samples and the calculators are improving, I think that many history books will be rewritten and those who do not like or do not like certain results will have to endure. I think it's seeing a lot, but maybe in a few years from what I'm seeing is infallible.

I do not understand why MTA does not charge Andalusian visigoths and many other regions. Sometimes I like to see some ancient ethnic groups regardless of whether I get results or not.

----------


## Angela

> That is extremely mean and pretentious. One could ask himself if you actually are a good human being with some of your response to other beings.


Look, you're on a site where we want people to base their interpretations on "SCIENCE" and "HISTORY", not agenda, myths and fantasy. If you're not going to read the science and history as it relates to the topic at hand, and have no interest in learning from the relevant scientific and historical material we present here, then what's the point pray tell?

All you're doing is repeating over and over again misunderstood information from t-rolls, or just dreaming up hypotheses with no basis in fact. 

I don't know how old you are, but this is not kindergarten, and we're not your parents. 

In the real world if you want someone to listen to your opinions they have to be informed ones.

We have a lot of problems in modern society precisely because young people are not held to the same standards that we had to meet. 

You have to do your homework before forming opinions, and still those opinions will get criticized, and you have to learn from the criticism too instead of just having hurt feelings. The thing not to do is to ignore the facts and to refuse to absorb where you went wrong. If you want to challenge the facts with different facts that's fine, but that's not what you're doing. 

I complained about my post graduate education, saying it was too tough, the professors too unfeeling. Nobody wants to see 25 year old men crying under interrogation. You know what? They were like Mama Bear compared to what I had to deal with at work. 

It was good preparation.

Even parents have to practice "tough love" more than occasionally. You're not always going to be around to act as protector. You have to teach them how to function in the real world without you when the time comes, and that means facing the consequences of the things they do, although it probably hurts you as much if not more than them.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> Do you mean this one? All the others I match get Tuscans as the closest modern population.
> 
> 
> It's the same reason they label some of the samples from Cordoba Spaniard from Cordoba, or the ones from the Visigothic site either Slavic Visigothic or Spaniard Visigothic. 
> 
> Actually, I think it's probably helpful for people who don't know the samples. They're trying to show the "ethnic" composition of the samples. Clearly, there were a lot of Tuscan like people in that particular burial in that particular era, versus Aegean like people or Spanish like people or on and on .
> 
> Some of them are not great matches, of course. All that it indicates, I think, is that people in Lazio might have been closer to Tuscans in the Middle Ages. Migration from Abruzzo and other southern regions might have changed them so that now they skew further south. Of course, who knows, it could have been a bunch of southern Tuscans.
> 
> Without more context from the burials everything is speculative to one degree or another.



I don't find a plausible reason to use these labels. Those in Villa Magna or from Cancelleria Basilica are not Tuscan and not all of these samples really come out like the Tuscans. For example, people believe that those labelled as Central Roman and found in the Longobard cemetery in Hungary or Collegno were Roman. There's no evidence of that. The many erroneous readings arise precisely from the accumulation of erroneous starting assumptions. In my opinion, this way of doing things only contributes to further confusion, and you can already see that there is a great deal of confusion anywhere. And MTA is not very precise about placing these ancient samples. 






> You may be right. I should have gone back to the graphic in the paper.
> 
> Still a difference between the categorizations in terms of similarity to Tuscans, however. 
> 
> These samples from Medieval Villa Magna, to which I get hits, are all labeled as closest to modern Tuscans by mta, but the paper has them in the South Italian cluster: 60, 57, 59, 54, 52.
> 
> Normally, I'd say that of course the academic paper has to have it more right than something based on K=15, but this paper is so disappointing in so many ways that I'm not sure.



Even if this academic paper is disappointing I wouldn't trust more MTA than this paper.

----------


## Angela

> If you're right, it had been commented more times, I think Angela. Nothing changes, more or less Germanic, if they were mixed with Eastern Europe or much more we still like them more because of the historical events that led them to us, contributing undoubtedly to the creation of modern Spanish.
> 
> 
> It is really very complicated and sometimes we don't know each other very well among Europeans, there is one out there that is surprising that Spanish regions appear in their Germanic lists of modern populations, possibly think we are pure Iberians, I wonder the Iberians were a pure ethnic group ...
> 
> 
> As soon as there are more samples and the calculators are improving, I think that many history books will be rewritten and those who do not like or do not like certain results will have to endure. I think it's seeing a lot, but maybe in a few years from what I'm seeing is infallible.
> 
> I do not understand why MTA does not charge Andalusian visigoths and many other regions. Sometimes I like to see some ancient ethnic groups regardless of whether I get results or not.


I'm only in the business of finding out what's "true", even if the truth is that I'm not very similar to ancient groups I "like", and I'm quite similar, or at least influenced by ancient groups I don't "like". 

It is what it is.

I'm not going to fiddle with results or blind myself to reality the way people do on certain other sites. I think it's dishonest and dishonorable. 

If you want to know how many Visigothic males invaded Iberia, one way to check is to look for the frequency of "Germanic" and perhaps "Slavic" yDna markers. I1, U-106, and Slavic R1a could be combined for a rough estimate. You can also look at IBD analysis per Ralph and Coop et al. There is also the autosomal analysis done by various papers. Spain is not a Germanic country no matter what Spanish Nordicists might like to believe. 

As I tried to explain to Half Alp, the discussions here should be based on scientific and historical fact, not preferences.

----------


## Angela

@Pax,

Yes, the labelling is sometimes a problem. What mta does is sometimes helpful, sometimes not. I'm not doing their PR. 

It would be helpful if people knew that the Ostrogoth from the Crimea they're matching is not very Germanic like and is, in fact, Pontic Greek like, or, in the case of the "Gothic" samples from Spain, they're getting a match not to "Germanic" ancestry, but to Spanish ancestry.

As for the "Central Romans" in Szolad, I think I've always made it clear in these discussions that we have no way of knowing whether these people were holdover "Romans" still in this Roman province because it held on for a very long time, or people who arrived there during the time of Byzantine rule, or whether it's just serendipity. 

As for Collegno, we have a similar issue, although there the samples are at least in the Italian peninsula. 

Perhaps they should just label them "Italian like". I don't know.

The fact remains that SOME of the samples buried at Medieval Magna, whether located in Lazio or not, are "more" like MODERN Tuscans than like MODERN Southern Italians, although most of the similarities aren't very good. Others are equally distant from Tuscans and Southern Italians, and some definitely lean more Southern Italian.

I don't see the big problem here. Is it because some samples which are more modern "Southern Italian like" are labelled "Tuscan"? 

If it concerns you, take it up with them.

When we actually get Tuscans from the Medieval period we'll find out what they were like at the time of the Villa Magna samples. Only then will we know if some of those people might actually have been from Tuscany. People are, after all, not always buried where they were born or lived. One of the samples comes out as being closest to Catalans. I doubt he was either Roman or Tuscan.

----------


## brick

> Actually, I think it may have been an opposite trajectory. People from Lazio were more Southern-Italian-like on average in the Middle Ages, and were pulled more _northern_ towards the position of modern Central Italy. However, some of them were in fact Tuscan-like, according to figure C.



I did a PCA with everyone from Medieval Age and Renaissance Rome.

----------


## Angela

> I did a PCA with everyone from Medieval Age and Renaissance Rome.


Where do you have R60 plotting? It doesn't look like anything lands in modern Tuscany, which is where K=15 puts it. 

So, even Eurogenes' two own programs don't agree.

----------


## brick

> Here are mine:
> 
> 3. Tuscan Medieval Villa Magna Italy (905 AD) *..... 6.017* - R60 - 
> Ancient GroupModern GroupSimiliar SamplesHaplogroups (NEW!)PCA AncientPCA ModernResearch Link
> 1. Tuscan (5.034)
> 2. Italian_Abruzzo (7.080)
> 3. West_Sicilian (8.330)
> 4. East_Sicilian (10.69)
> 5. Central_Greek (10.77)
> ...



Their G25 distances 

R60



R57

 

R59


 
R54




R52









> Can we get a split of only republican or earlier samples and leave roman empire samples or later for another thread/post?



They're all part of the same paper.

----------


## brick

> Where do you have R60 plotting? It doesn't look like anything lands in modern Tuscany, which is where K=15 puts it. 
> 
> So, even Eurogenes' two own programs don't agree.



R60 plotting close to south Italy.

K15 is older than G25. That's probably the reason.

----------


## Angela

> R60 plotting with south Italy.
> 
> K15 is older than G25. That's probably the reason.


They give it a genetic fit of 5 to modern Tuscans.

That's quite a flaw in K15.

I've never gotten a genetic fit of 6 with a Southern Italian in my life, which is what I get to this person. Another member, from Emilia Romagna, also gets a good fit.

Something is definitely wrong somewhere.

----------


## brick

> They give it a genetic fit of 5 to modern Tuscans.
> 
> That's quite a flaw in K15.
> 
> I've never gotten a genetic fit of 6 with a Southern Italian in my life, which is what I get to this person. Another member, from Emilia Romagna, also gets a good fit.
> 
> Something is definitely wrong somewhere.


K15 flaw and probably a bad conversion of the ancient samples on Mytrueancestry.com

In my PCA R60 has a similar position to the paper's PCA

South Italy towards Greece

----------


## Angela

Well, somebody had better get on the horn to mta.

For the price, we expect better.

----------


## Stuvanè

> I think there are genetic differences , especially since the ostrogoths where in the area of black sea Ukraine, Moldova ( and crimea) for over 500 years.........clearly, plenty of time to get some steppe admixture into their society



Personally, in the first periods, I imagine a fairly gradual cline between the western and eastern Goths, since - as mentioned - at least until the arrival of the Huns the two branches were quite permeable with one another and almost homogeneous.
However, there were already foreign elements, in some way assimilated, such as various Pontic / Anatolian Greeks, including some of the relatives or ancestors of Wulfila, the translator of the Gothic Bible.
I believe that the main differences have become more marked precisely during and after the Hun domain, with the Ostrogoths assimilating groups from Eastern Europe, and at this juncture there is some name-giving clue in the sources:


- in the _Variae,_ IV, 27 by Cassiodorus, dating back to 507/11, a Theoderic's official named Tutizar is quoted, who should refer to an alanic/hun origin or influence https://de.wikisource.org/wiki/RE:Tutizar ;


- the same applies to Tucza, mentioned in a letter by pope Pelagius I, a gothic woman residing in Rieti, already wife of the Roman Maximinus, who decides to leave her husband to become a nun: even here her name would have an iranic root;


- finally, there is Ragnaris, a Goth commander active in southern Italy in the last years of the Greek-Gothic war - official with a Germanic name -, quoted in the sources of Procopius and Agathias. Agathias, however, insists on defining it "Hun"

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

----------


## Pax Augusta

> @Pax,
> 
> Yes, the labelling is sometimes a problem. What mta does is sometimes helpful, sometimes not. I'm not doing their PR. .



What it concerns me, as usual, is the lack of accuracy. All these tools are inaccurate, even academic papers sometimes are, but MTA is really very inaccurate.


Since I see that MTA is a little game that people like, I don't want to be the usual party pooper, so I leave the party.

----------


## Jovialis

> This is the kind of filth we have to deal with day after day. This deranged Romanian is a perfect example of it.
> 
> I'm leaving it up so you can see the kind of ethnic slurs and racism that come bubbling up when people can hide behind sock accounts on the internet.


This retard thinks I'm a peasant... I'm actually a 1%-er

This drag on the human race should be allowed to fail, and perish from the face of the earth.

----------


## coțoflendură

I am a disgrace to humanity, laugh at the burning car wreck that is my life.

----------


## Carlos

> I am a disgrace to humanity, laugh at the burning car wreck that is my life.


It's not you, it's the drink and other things.

----------


## [email protected]

> Look, you're on a site where we want people to base their interpretations on "SCIENCE" and "HISTORY", not agenda, myths and fantasy. If you're not going to read the science and history as it relates to the topic at hand, and have no interest in learning from the relevant scientific and historical material we present here, then what's the point pray tell?
> 
> All you're doing is repeating over and over again misunderstood information from t-rolls, or just dreaming up hypotheses with no basis in fact. 
> 
> I don't know how old you are, but this is not kindergarten, and we're not your parents. 
> 
> In the real world if you want someone to listen to your opinions they have to be informed ones.
> 
> We have a lot of problems in modern society precisely because young people are not held to the same standards that we had to meet. 
> ...


I think the phrase Angela may have been looking for (excuse the presumption) is, “man up.” No adult, male or otherwise, complains that someone has been mean to them. They marshall their facts and do battle, or they say, sorry, I was in error. Pick one.

----------


## Regio X

> If my memory serves, I don't get good Oracle results with v3, btw, but I suppose the problem may be just the abscence of more "populations", as North Italians (my closest in K15).


@Angela
Just found the time to check it.

Dodecad V3's Oracle is not that bad after all, but it does have North Italians. Still, my three first pops there are Tuscans. N_Italian is the 4th, and North_Italian is the 8th. Not great, since I'm North Italian in ancestry. One pro of V3 would be that it puts the Tuscans before the Iberians, as in K36's "Oracle". I suppose it's right.
Eurogenes K15's Oracle has the pro of being headed by North Italians, however, one con of it would be, I suppose, placing Iberians before Tuscans.

----------


## Angela

> What it concerns me, as usual, is the lack of accuracy. All these tools are inaccurate, even academic papers sometimes are, but MTA is really very inaccurate.
> 
> 
> Since I see that MTA is a little game that people like, I don't want to be the usual party pooper, so I leave the party.


Sorry, just saw this.

I sincerely hope you don't leave this thread. Your contributions have been valuable. 

We wouldn't have found some of these errors without your commentary.

What we all should want is something which is as accurate as possible.

MTA should thank you. If they correct this problem, and the one with the mysterious 1540, and the misleading description of the Ostrogoth, for example, as well as other issues we may discover, they'll have a better product.

----------


## Angela

I should have just stuck with another poster's reply: Man UP

You have presented NO verifiable facts. All you have presented is jumbled, incoherent ramblings which show absolutely NO knowledge of the relevant history or genetics.

You've also now gotten yourself an infraction.

By all means keep it up.

----------


## Dema

Imperial Rome based on 24 samples from Antonio et al:


29.1 % J2a-M410 7
20.8 % G2a2 5
16.6 % J1a 4
8.3 % R1b 2
4.1 % J2b-M241 1
4.1 % J2b-M205 1
4.1 % T1a 1
4.1 % R1a 1
4.1 % R2a 1
4.1 % E1b-v12 1

----------


## Jovialis

> Another high-resolution subset of inscriptions (161 of over 41,000 inscriptions that are dated to a specific year in the 6th century) from late antique Rome shows a spike in inscriptions in 543 and a subsequent decline (Fig. 8). While some have seen in this evidence for plague (21), temporal correlation is insufficient to confirm a connection. The only direct evidence for plague in Rome in this period is a one-line reference to “a great pestilence [that] ravaged the land of Italy” in 543 in the continuation of the chronicler Marcellinus (39). *This epidemic coincided with the Gothic Wars, which devastated Italy in the early and mid-540s. Rome was besieged several times, notably from 545 to 546, causing famine as well as deaths due to warfare. Procopius, who reports on the siege in detail, claims that only 500 local men (likely an underestimate) remained in the city after it (26).* These political–military factors more readily explain the absence of inscriptions in the late 540s and early 550s. An additional dataset of ∼31,000 inscriptions from Spain includes only 40 that can be precisely dated within an annual resolution, but nonetheless does not show a substantial decline in inscriptions beginning in the 540s (Fig. 9).
> 
> https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/11/26/1903797116#sec-1




Looks like the plague did hit Italy hard, but the Gothic Wars, political de-stablization, and famine took the lion's share of demographic change. However this was nearly half a century AFTER the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476 AD, further driving the change.

Discussed here: https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/39606-The-Justinianic-Plague-An-inconsequential-pandemic

----------


## Jovialis

Here are the first 10 samples I get on MTA from 1000 AD - 1400 AD. The first 8 are from Villa Magna, with R65 at 8.682:


Medieval Villa Magna Italy (1100 AD) *..... 8.682* - R65 - 
Top *99*% match vs all users

Medieval Villa Magna Italy (1100 AD) *..... 12.08* - R58 - 
Top *98*% match vs all users

Tuscan Medieval Cancelleria Basilica (1350 AD) *..... 12.13* - R1290 - 
Top *96*% match vs all users

Tuscan Late Medieval Villa Magna Italy (1355 AD) *..... 12.59* - R54 - 
Top *98*% match vs all users

Tuscan Late Medieval Villa Magna Italy (1355 AD) *..... 13.28* - R56 - 
Top *97*% match vs all users

Tuscan Medieval Villa Magna Italy (1110 AD) *..... 14.69* - R64 - 
Top *97*% match vs all users

Tuscan Medieval Villa Magna Italy (1110 AD) *..... 15.14* - R57 - 
Top *97*% match vs all users

Medieval Italy Abbadia SS Plague (1348 AD) *..... 15.96* - BSS31 
Top *93*% match vs all users

Hellenic Cordoba Caliphate (1050 AD) *..... 16.85* - I7499 - 
Top *94*% match vs all users

Crusader Knight Tuscan / Lebanon (1250 AD) *..... 16.97* - SI-41 - 
Top *95*% match vs all users

----------


## brick

Eurogenes K15 PCA plot

----------


## brick

Eurogenes K15 PCA plot with Iron Age samples only

----------


## Angela

> Eurogenes K15 PCA plot with Iron Age samples only


I think what I find so surprising is that so many samples still land among Sardinians. Is it possible there were still unadmixed Romans around, i.e. locals who never got steppe admixture? Of course, this is Eurogenes, so it's not engraved in stone.

I wish there was something as detailed based on more sophisticated statistical methods. 

I'm having a little trouble finding some of the samples. In the first set, where is Ardea 850?

Also, what number is Etruscan_o and Latin _o and Latin _oo?

----------


## Angela

> Their G25 distances 
> 
> R60
> 
> 
> 
> R57
> 
>  
> ...


There's a BIG difference between this and what mta shows.

----------


## torzio

Do we have anything on these "san marino" samples .................see link

R16
mtDNA: U5b2b3

R17
mtDNA: U8b1b
Y-DNA: J-M304

R18
mtDNA: H2a

R19
mtDNA: U5b3a1
Y-DNA: J-L26


https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map.../45.660/13.909

----------


## torzio

from eurogenes .................samples that match other samples

R850 to non-Imperial/later Italian or modern samples:

Anatolia_MLBA:MA2203,
Germany_Early_Medieval:STR300,
Greece_Mycenaean:I9033,
Greece_Mycenaean:I9006, 
Anatolia_MLBA:MA2208, 
Moldova_Scythian:scy300, 
Anatolia_MLBA:MA2200, 
Greece_Mycenaean:I9041, 
Moldova_Scythian:scy197, 
Moldova_Scythianscy192,
Anatolia_MLBA:MA2206,

.................................................. .....................................

R1: .....proto-Villanovan

Hungary_BA:I7043, 
Croatia_MBA:I4331,
Germany_Bell_Beaker_dup.I4134.SG:RISE564.SG, 
Czech_Bell_Beaker:I4885, 
Croatia_Early_IA:I3313,
Croatia_MBA:I4332, 
Hungary_Maros.SG:RISE373.SG, 
Moldova_Scythian.SG:scy305.SG, 
Moldova_Scythian.SG:scy197.SG

----------


## Angela

There's no way they "Match" those other samples. 

They may be "related" to them or the result of admixtures among groups somewhat like that, but that's it.

Either you've misunderstood, or he's even more delusional than usual.

----------


## aci

I noticed that the haplogroup J appears suddenly after 700 BCE and at a very large proportion of 44,2% between 700 BCE - 700 CE. How is that possible?

*700ien-700en*
*%*
*
*

*I2a*
*2*
*4,7*
*
*

*I1*
*1*
*2,3*
*
*

*g2a2b*
*7*
*16,3*
*
*

*R1b*
*7*
*16,3*
*
*

*R1a*
*1*
*2,3*
*
*

*R2a*
*1*
*2,3*
*
*

*J*
*1*
*2,3*
*
*

*J1*
*6*
*14,0*
*44,2*

*J2a*
*9*
*20,9*

*J2b*
*3*
*7,0*

*E1b1b*
*2*
*4,7*
*
*

*T1a*
*2*
*4,7*
*
*

*H2*
*1*
*2,3*
*
*

*TOTAL*
*43*
*100,0*
*
*




In Imperial Rome is 54,2% !

----------


## torzio

> I noticed that the haplogroup J appears suddenly after 700 BCE and at a very large proportion of 46,3% between 700 BCE - 700 CE. How is that possible?
> *700bce-700ce*
> *%*
> *
> *
> 
> *I2a*
> *2*
> *4,9*
> ...


This below is the imperial numbers......where did you get the repulican numbers ?

Imperial Rome based on 24 samples from Antonio et al:


29.1 % J2a-M410 7
20.8 % G2a2 5
16.6 % J1a 4
8.3 % R1b 2
4.1 % J2b-M241 1
4.1 % J2b-M205 1
4.1 % T1a 1
4.1 % R1a 1
4.1 % R2a 1
4.1 % E1b-v12 1

----------


## aci

> This below is the imperial numbers......where did you get the repulican numbers ?
> 
> Imperial Rome based on 24 samples from Antonio et al:
> 
> 29.1 % J2a-M410 7
> 20.8 % G2a2 5
> 16.6 % J1a 4
> 8.3 % R1b 2
> 4.1 % J2b-M241 1
> ...


Thank you for the question. I looked again and found that I omitted 2 samples (R437 and R435, 2xR1b) that I think are from the period of the Roman Republic. 
I have corrected now.

*700 BCE-700 CE*
*%*
*
*

*I2a*
*2*
*4,7*
*
*

*I1*
*1*
*2,3*
*
*

*G2a2b*
*7*
*16,3*
*
*

*R1b*
*7*
*16,3*
*
*

*R1a*
*1*
*2,3*
*
*

*R2a*
*1*
*2,3*
*
*

*J*
*1*
*2,3*
*
*

*J1*
*6*
*14,0*
*44,2 %*

*J2a*
*9*
*20,9*

*J2b*
*3*
*7,0*

*E1b1b*
*2*
*4,7*
*
*

*T1a*
*2*
*4,7*
*
*

*H2*
*1*
*2,3*
*
*

*TOTAL*
*43*
*100,0*
*
*


Js appears suddenly after 700 BCE and at a very large proportion of 44,2% for 700 BCE - 700 CE period. 
For the imperial period, the clades of *Js reach 54.2%.* This proportion I think is only in the Arabian Peninsula or in small isolated regions of Asia. Migrations? Middle East, North Africa, Caucasus?
Before 700 BCE only 2 Js discovered in the same location (probably related) from 5300 BCE. After 700 CE the percentage of Js decreases by almost half (28.5%)

*It is also interesting that G2a and even R1b do not have such jumps and they maintain in time at stable percentages around ~ 16-20%.*

----------


## wandering_amorite

> I didn't want to comment anymore but was adressed directly. 
> 
> Yes, CTS6190 has been found in a turkish guy who says he has Albanian origins. We also have clades other than z638, which has tmrca of 4200 ybp, so its not some young founder effect.


Is the Albanian-origin Turkish guy under CTS6190 visible in any projects or on any trees?

----------


## wandering_amorite

> On Yfull, under CTS6190 there are four Portuguese, one Italian, one Dutch, one British, one Russian. There's not a single Albanian.


The two "Portuguese" under Y36166 are both Anglo-Virginians, one of whom has fabricated a Sephardic origin story. The Portuguese flag under Y22038 is an Italian Sephardic Jew who claims ultimate roots in Portugal. And then everyone under Y33795 is Ashkenazi, to the best of my knowledge. FYI.

----------


## Jovialis

> At last, I was able to get the coordinates for R850 and R437, by using the BAM conversion in Admixture Studio's version of Eurogenes K15. I will create more from the study, it just takes a really long time.
> 
> R850_Latin_Ardea_Tribe,0.39,14.49,7.18,0.00,18.05, 19.14,29.44,9.85,0.00,0.18,0.86,0.13,0.00,0.28,0.0 0
> R437_Latin_Prenestini_Tribe,12.48,11.77,5.88,0.00, 23.49,15.70,26.02,4.61,0.00,0.06,0.00,0.00,0.00,0. 00,0.00


Very interesting heat map for R437! Very close to Pugliesi.

----------


## Salento

> Very interesting heat map for R437! Very close to Pugliesi.


Around 300 BC Puglia was called Messapia.

You, me and R437 are connected :)

----------


## bigsnake49

What's interesting for me is that the heat map points out that it is closest to other Italian areas including Sicily rather than Albania and Greece.

----------


## Jovialis

> Around 300 BC Puglia was called Messapia.
> 
> You, me and R437 are connected :)


I instantly recalled this map, when I saw the heatmap :)

----------


## Jovialis

Heat map for R850, very interesting indeed! Calabria, and Campania has a strong affinity to 850.

(Pressed for time this morning, so I didn't get a chance to color this one.)

----------


## kingjohn

can people upload them to gedmatch ?
cool maps 👍

----------


## Angela

> Heat map for R850, very interesting indeed! Calabria, and Campania has a strong affinity to 850.
> 
> (Pressed for time this morning, so I didn't get a chance to color this one.)


Great work, Jovialis. :)

Yes, the 850 Ardea sample seems closest to Campanians and Calabresi, and the 487 Latin Prenestini sample to Apulians.

It makes sense. My husband has ancestry both from Napoli and Calabria and he's at a distance of 10.3 to that sample, although it's only number 14 in ranking order. Strangely, his cousin from the same area in Calabria is a lot further away.

If you ever get time it would be interesting to see the results for the other Latin Ardea sample. 

@Bigsnake,
Why would they be closer to Greeks?

Nice PCA too. I would be nestled right between SZ43 and CL36, but closer to SZ43. :)

----------


## Angela

My husband's first 13 hits don't seem to be on the PCA, and he gets quite a few Imperial Era samples, unless the numbers are different?

For example, is Via Paisiello there? That's his number one match.

----------


## bigsnake49

> Great work, Jovialis. :)
> 
> Yes, the 850 Ardea sample seems closest to Campanians and Calabresi, and the 487 Latin Prenestini sample to Apulians.
> 
> It makes sense. My husband has ancestry both from Napoli and Calabria and he's at a distance of 10.3 to that sample, although it's only number 14 in ranking order. Strangely, his cousin from the same area in Calabria is a lot further away.
> 
> If you ever get time it would be interesting to see the results for the other Latin Ardea sample. 
> 
> @Bigsnake,
> ...


Well because Puglia is very close to both Albania and Greece there has been quite a lot of migration from those two areas in ancient times.

The 850 Ardea sample also has a few hotspots in the Greek Islands and Cyprus.

----------


## Jovialis

@Angela, Thanks!
My short term goal is to get the rest of the Iron Age samples. My long term is to do the whole study. I will also update the PCA along the way; right now it is just those two from the Moots paper.

@ Kingjohn, I downloaded the BAM files and converted them with WGS Extractor to raw data files. Which I converted to AncestryDNA format in DNA kit studio. However, they are not compatible with Gedmatch. Nevertheless, they are compatible with Admixture Studio, which has all of the same calculators. Which is where I obtained the values for the map, since they have K15.

----------


## Jovialis

Here is a painted version of the R850 map, along with R437, compared to my heat map:



*
*

----------


## Jovialis

Observe the 437 Republican Era Latin, of which R1 Protovillanovan, and R850 Ardea Latin, are *exclusively* linked:

----------


## Jovialis

My next set of samples I am working will be the Central Italian Neolithic. I'll post a link to the raw data files when the set is complete. But I can't promise it will be soon. This last file alone was almost 10 gigabytes. Thus far it has the most SNPs I've seen, at over 2 million.

Here is a heat map of R2, fascinating result! Coriscans, Lazians, Calabrians, and Tuscans are most similar. With Sicilians, and Maltese as a close second; Apulians, Neapolitans, and Marches as close third. As well as Greeks and southern Albanians.

----------


## Angela

> My next set of samples I am working will be the Central Italian Neolithic. I'll post a link to the raw data files when the set is complete. But I can't promise it will be soon. This last file alone was almost 10 gigabytes. Thus far it has the most SNPs I've seen, at over 2 million.
> 
> Here is a heat map of R2, fascinating result! Coriscans, Lazians, Calabrians, and Tuscans are most similar. With Sicilians, and Maltese as a close second; Apulians, Neapolitans, and Marches as close third. As well as Greeks and southern Albanians.


Great job, Jovialis. :)

Absolutely fascinating results, too. So, there we have it, the earliest Italian Neolithic is preserved in Italy from Tuscany south, but more so on the western side of the Apennines. Also in Corsica, which makes sense given the connection to Tuscany. Apulia and Campania are just one point away from Lazio and Campania.

That raises the question of why Northern Italy is slightly lower, lower than Greece and Albania, (but, of course, much higher than the levels in countries like Spain, France and the Northern Balkans) while in a lot of analyses using multiple Neolithic sample sources, Northern Italy appears to have one of the highest Neolithic survival rates in Europe. 

The first thing that occurs to me is that they received input from populations which contained lots of Neolithic ancestry which was slightly different, perhaps northern Balkan or Central European Neolithic. That, or Italian Neolithic samples from Northern Italy are slightly different, or a combination of both factors. There is one almost completely Neolithic samples in the Parma Beaker set. I wish we could use that for a comparison. I don't think anyone has studied it at all. They're all obsessed only with the steppe.

The EEF survived in Italy in much higher percentages than in Central Europe, clearly. So much, again, for the proposition that the population of the Italian peninsula and islands was replaced completely during the Imperial Era. 

When I think of the abuse some of us took for proposing a lot of continuity. 

The prevalence of J2 already in Europe during the Neolithic is also a surprise to those "who shall not be named", two in Italy itself.

As for your post 690, I think the other sample from the Ardea tribe, 851, would also be interesting to see, and would probably show that link to the Protovillanovian as well. 

I know this is such a pain for you, not being funded by any "special interest" group. Have you considered starting a "fund me page" to purchase more computing power? Would that solve the issue?

----------


## Jovialis

> Great job, Jovialis. :)
> 
> Absolutely fascinating results, too. So, there we have it, the earliest Italian Neolithic is preserved in Italy from Tuscany south, but more so on the western side of the Apennines. Also in Corsica, which makes sense given the connection to Tuscany. Apulia and Campania are just one point away from Lazio and Campania.
> 
> That raises the question of why Northern Italy is slightly lower, lower than Greece and Albania, (but, of course, much higher than the levels in countries like Spain, France and the Northern Balkans) while in a lot of analyses using multiple Neolithic sample sources, Northern Italy appears to have one of the highest Neolithic survival rates in Europe. 
> 
> The first thing that occurs to me is that they received input from populations which contained lots of Neolithic ancestry which was slightly different, perhaps northern Balkan or Central European Neolithic. That, or Italian Neolithic samples from Northern Italy are slightly different, or a combination of both factors. There is one almost completely Neolithic samples in the Parma Beaker set. I wish we could use that for a comparison. I don't think anyone has studied it at all. They're all obsessed only with the steppe.
> 
> The EEF survived in Italy in much higher percentages than in Central Europe, clearly. So much, again, for the proposition that the population of the Italian peninsula and islands was replaced completely during the Imperial Era. 
> ...



Thanks Angela :) 

In regards to my PC, I plan on getting a new one relatively soon.

Here is the results for R851. Though something is up with the MTA calculator, it doesn't get itself in the sample list... so perhaps it is not a good means for determining ancestry for some of these samples at the moment. It could also explain why we aren't seeing Italians get it in their results.

However, it does in fact get the Protovillanovan:

----------


## Duarte

> Thanks Angela :) 
> 
> In regards to my PC, I plan on getting a new one relatively soon.
> 
> Here is the results for R851. Though something is up with the MTA calculator, it doesn't get itself in the sample list... so perhaps it is not a good means for determining ancestry for some of these samples at the moment. It could also explain why we aren't seeing Italians get it in their results.
> 
> However, it does in fact get the Protovillanovan:


For me, in MTA, this ancient sample appears as follows:



CLOSEST ANCIENT 


CLOSEST MODERN


SIMILAR SAMPLES:


HAPLOGROUPS:



PCA ANCIENT:


PCA MODERN:

----------


## Jovialis

Thanks Duarte!

There is also something up with the R8 neolthic sample, with MTA. It doesn't get itself either in the list.

Both R851, and R8 also took an extremely long time to upload, on MTA.

At any rate, the files are fine on the other calculators.

Though, they both seem to also not work on Admixturestudio. I let it run for 7 hours, over night, and it never finished processing.

However, I was able to obtain the values, and coordinates by uploading them to yourdnaportal.com, thankfully!

----------


## Jovialis

> Thanks Duarte!
> 
> There is also something up with the R8 neolthic sample, with MTA. It doesn't get itself either in the list.
> 
> Both R851, and R8 also took an extremely long time to upload, on MTA.
> 
> At any rate, the files are fine on the other calculators.
> 
> Though, they both seem to also not work on Admixturestudio. I let it run for 7 hours, over night, and it never finished processing.
> ...


Despite the MTA issue, the Neolithic sample, R8 is indeed similar to R2. So there isn't an issue with the file:

----------


## Jovialis

R851 vs R1015

----------


## Pax Augusta

> My next set of samples I am working will be the Central Italian Neolithic. I'll post a link to the raw data files when the set is complete. But I can't promise it will be soon. This last file alone was almost 10 gigabytes. Thus far it has the most SNPs I've seen, at over 2 million.
> 
> Here is a heat map of R2, fascinating result! Coriscans, Lazians, Calabrians, and Tuscans are most similar. With Sicilians, and Maltese as a close second; Apulians, Neapolitans, and Marches as close third. As well as Greeks and southern Albanians.



Well, 60 means that R2 is not very similar to any modern population. Being a Neolithic sample, there's nothing unusual about it. Can you post also the K36 results of these samples?

----------


## Angela

> R851 vs R1015


Very nice! Higher values for the Etruscan in Italy right where you would expect them. Interesting how "western" they were, with the Veneto and Friuli being lower, but higher in the "Illyrian" samples. Italy is indeed "central" Mediterranean. 

How ludicrous the insistence on the "Herodotus" version of the origin of the Etruscans seems now. 

When you get a chance could you put the maps you've already produced for these ancient Italian samples on one post? Just for ease of comparison.

The Latins were, from very early on, perhaps more heterogeneous than the Etruscans. Whether that was because the steppe like people hadn't yet completely merged with the Neolithic locals or admixture from southern areas I don't think we can know until we get lots more Northern and Southern Italian Bronze Age samples.

I'm always asking you to do more work! :)

----------


## Pax Augusta

> The Latins were, from very early on, perhaps more heterogeneous than the Etruscans



Latins were also a considerably smaller population than Etruscans.







> with the Veneto and Friuli being lower, but higher in the "Illyrian" samples.



It's Friuli only there.

----------


## Angela

> Well, 60 means that R2 is not very similar to any modern population. Being a Neolithic sample, there's nothing unusual about it. Can you post also the K36 results of these samples?


It's a damn sight closer than 40s or 20s. 

The relationship is there.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> It's a damn sight closer than 40s or 20s. 
> 
> The relationship is there.


That similarity tool is based on Eurogenes K36, one of the less credible Gedmatch tool. Just a few points of difference in the 36 components is enough to vary the result a lot.

https://gen3553.pagesperso-orange.fr/ADN/similitude.htm


However, yes, being the Italians very Neolithic is obvious that the genetic inheritance of the Neolithic has not disappeared.

----------


## Jovialis

> That similarity tool is based on Eurogenes K36, one of the less credible Gedmatch tool. Just a few points of difference in the 36 components is enough to vary the result a lot.
> https://gen3553.pagesperso-orange.fr/ADN/similitude.htm
> However, yes, being the Italians very Neolithic is obvious that the genetic inheritance of the Neolithic has not disappeared.


The raw data files were downloaded from the official data bank and converted by me personally. The values are all relative, despite the credibility of the calculator. Moreover, coordinates can be made for any gedmatch calculator. Especially now thanks to mlukas's new tool.

----------


## Jovialis

> Here is a painted version of the R850 map, along with R437, compared to my heat map:
> 
> 
> *
> *


*86* is very close, and it makes me damn proud to be this close to a Roman Latin, from the Republican era.

----------


## Angela

> The raw data files were downloaded from the official data bank and converted by me personally. The values are all relative, despite the credibility of the calculator. Moreover, coordinates can be made for any gedmatch calculator. Especially now thanks to mlukas's new tool.


Given Polako's obvious and often stated prejudices, any tinkering he did with the calculators (choice of samples, etc.) would be to make us "less" similar to these ancient samples, so in reality the similarities are probably higher than appear here, but it's good to see, as you say, the relative similarities.

----------


## Angela

> Latins were also a considerably smaller population than Etruscans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's Friuli only there.


Perhaps. Doesn't change that the Latins we have are quite heterogeneous.

Certainly looks to me like the lower number spills into the Veneto.

----------


## torzio

> Latins were also a considerably smaller population than Etruscans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's Friuli only there.



it looks like Friuli, Veneto, trentino ( all south tyrol ) and as far as innsbruck austria

----------


## Jovialis

> Given Polako's obvious and often stated prejudices, any tinkering he did with the calculators (choice of samples, etc.) would be to make us "less" similar to these ancient samples, so in reality the similarities are probably higher than appear here, but it's good to see, as you say, the relative similarities.


People are welcome to analyze the samples themselves with any calculator they'd like. Coordinates can be made for anyone of them via the raw data files I converted. If someone could point me to Italian regional sample BAM files, I'd be more than happy make them usable for other calculators, to be compared to these Iron age samples.

----------


## Jovialis

> Given Polako's obvious and often stated prejudices, any tinkering he did with the calculators (choice of samples, etc.) would be to make us "less" similar to these ancient samples, so in reality the similarities are probably higher than appear here, but it's good to see, as you say, the relative similarities.


I wouldn't be surprised if they are indeed higher. I'd like to see a map tool based on a different calculator as well. It is essentially just a list of modern sample distances that are compared to a target, reorganized as a map.

----------


## Lukas

> People are welcome to analyze the samples themselves with any calculator they'd like. Coordinates can be made for anyone of them via the raw data files I converted. If someone could point me to Italian regional sample BAM files, I'd be more than happy make them usable for other calculators, to be compared to these Iron age samples.


I'm going to make Late antiquity Roman samples conversion too. I will post zip when I'll convert all. This tool which you used is very fast, only download takes time.

----------


## kingjohn

> I'm going to make Late antiquity Roman samples conversion too. I will post zip when I'll convert all. This tool which you used is very fast, only download takes time.


hi mlukas,
can you do it for some of the imperial romans  also ?
for example: like *r113 
*
in my true ancestry tool  i am closest to *Imperial Rome Empire Via Paisiello (100 AD)*
i guess he is close to east sicilians 
appreciate if you can upload him 
kind regards
adam

----------


## Jovialis

> I think the green dots are the Italian samples from the Lombard paper. If so, it would be relative to that. Thus near the Northern side of the Imperial Roman cluster, with a proclivity towards the Greek centroid. That's my guess.





> Apulians are _north_/_northeast_ of the south Italian line.





> Maybe this might make it a bit easier to decipher.



I was right :)

----------


## Angela

> I was right :)


Indeed you were. :)

The Dodecad K12b is more in sync with the findings of an academic paper than Eurogenes is, despite being so old.

As I've been saying for ever, Eurogenes results are slanted, particularly as regards Italians. He's not an honest broker, and never has been, unlike Dienekes.

I just wish Dienekes was still active so that he could update the calculators or even come up with a new one.

----------


## Stuvanè

With the imperial updates :)

----------


## Jovialis

I have a new number 1 for now, I'll post the coordinates after a make a few more:

Distance to:
Jovialis

3.43008746
LA_S_Ercolano_Necropolis_Ostia_R121

3.70737104
Imperial_Civitanova_Marche_R836

4.06829202
MA_Villa_Magna_R60

6.31831465
MA_Villa_Magna_R59

6.33613447
MA_Villa_Magna_R65

6.93178909
C_Italian

7.03068275
Imperial_Monterotondo_R1549

7.54746315
IA_Latin_Prenestina_Selicata_437

7.94664709
O_Italian

8.53400258
S_Italian_Sicilian

8.78169118
Sicilian

8.86584457
Greek

10.09450841
MA_Villa_Magna_R57

10.43502755
Tuscan

10.94765728
Crimean_Tatar_Coast

11.25284853
Albanian_Kosovo

11.33426663
TSI30

11.35261203
Greek_Crete

11.67082259
Ashkenazy_Jews

11.78232575
Ashkenazi

12.38747755
Imperial_Monterotondo_R1548

12.58260307
Albanian_North

14.42027739
IA_Protovillanovan_Martinsicuro_R1

14.54204937
IA_Latin_Ardea_R850

14.94128843
Crimean_Tatar_Mountain

----------


## Jovialis

Here are the Medieval samples compared to the modern Italian samples, using Dodecad 12Kb.

----------


## Angela

> Here are the Medieval samples compared to the modern Italian samples, using Dodecad 12Kb.


Nice. Thanks, Jovialis. 

Have you ever noticed how when remains which are clearly those of Central or Northern Europeans show up in Italian contexts no one suggests that they stayed, had thousands of descendants, and had a large, permanent effect on Italian genetics?

Let a Syrian show up, though, and he's bound to be our ancestor. No problem with it at all, to be clear, but the agenda of those to whom it would be a tragedy if it applied to "their" country, is very clear for those who have been around for a while.

----------


## Fluffy

> Indeed you were. :)
> The Dodecad K12b is more in sync with the findings of an academic paper than Eurogenes is, despite being so old.
> As I've been saying for ever, Eurogenes results are slanted, particularly as regards Italians. He's not an honest broker, and never has been, unlike Dienekes.
> I just wish Dienekes was still active so that he could update the calculators or even come up with a new one.


 That's because Eurogenes is an idiot. A polish racist with a dangerous agenda. He makes up stuff to suit his twisted world view. Honestly I think hes mentally unfit. Smart yes but a real sick person in the head. He claims not to be racist which is hilarious.

----------


## kingjohn

> That's because Eurogenes is an idiot. A polish racist with a dangerous agenda. He makes up stuff to suit his twisted world view. Honestly I think hes mentally unfit. Smart yes but a real sick person in the head. He claims not to be racist which is hilarious.


many people in eastern europe are racist  :Thinking: 
you can see that there are almost no foreign immigrants in eastern europe 
compare to western europe ........
so if davidski is i wouldn't be surprised ........
kind regards
adam

----------


## Palermo Trapani

Jovialis: That is a great analysis you did with the K36 Heatmap for the Iron Age Romans and your K36 coordinates. Not to tie in to your analysis but I get Heat scores of 85 in Western Sicily to 81 all the way up to Umbria I believe and have I think a 70 somewhere in the Po Region. So I think your analysis would be consistent with all of us here whose ancestors hail from Campania, Calabria, Basilicata , Puglia, Sicily, etc. Speaking for only myself, thanks for doing this analysis and posting it.

----------


## Palermo Trapani

Angela: Kudos and well said, I notice the Nordic countries (Sweden, Denmark, Norway) are never scoring higher than 50. Oh well. As an American of Sicilian-Italian ancestry who has dealt with some of the anti Southern Italian stuff on other forums in the past (Italian Antro blog use be frequented by Nordicist types quite a bit and I have been posting there for years), I appreciate you holding their feet to the fire.

Thanks again

----------


## ihype02

Why are imperial Romans so south?

----------


## Palermo Trapani

> Why are imperial Romans so south?


Good question, why do none of the Roman samples cluster with Northern Germany, Denmark and Scandanavia?

----------


## ihype02

> Good question, why do none of the Roman samples cluster with Northern Germany, Denmark and Scandanavia?


I asked because they are more south than Southern Italy and the rest of other Romans, which suprised me. Were those samples taken from central Italy? Why did you assume I am a Nordicist?

----------


## Palermo Trapani

> I asked because they are more south than Southern Italy and the rest of other Romans, which suprised me. Were those samples taken from central Italy? Why did you assume I am a Nordicist?


I interpreted the question "Why are Imperial Romans so South?" to mean Southern Italy and Sicily. My apologies if that is not what you meant. In the short time I have been here since October, I have run into a few with Nordicist ideology. So if I got a little snippy again I apologize. Could be just related to history? By the Imperial era, Roman provinces were in the Levant, Anatolia, etc and maybe some Roman soldier married a local woman and moved back. Maybe some people in those provinces obtained citizenship and moved to Rome for economic opportunities? Not sure, there are some sharp people here who can probably provide some other plausible explanations. Again my apologies.

----------


## kingjohn

First myceneans, and now imperial romans 
It isn't a good time for the nordic propaganda... 
😂

----------


## hrvclv

I think I'll just give up on pop gen forums !!

On Anthrogenica, everyone wants to be Beaker-derived, and expresses their disappointment at being less so than expected.

Here on Eupedia, it's a constant witch hunt for alleged nordicists.

I stand on a ridgeline between northern and southern Europe, and there seems to be no place where I can feel comfortable.

Heck, can't you all just stick to the figures, analyze them for what they are, and try and see what they reveal in terms of migratory paths.

Doesn't it suffice to the British that they conquered half the planet ? Doesn't it suffice to Greeks and Romans that they fathered western civilization ?

For heavens sake, give us a break !!!!!!!

----------


## Maciamo

> I think I'll just give up on pop gen forums !!
> 
> On Anthrogenica, everyone wants to be Beaker-derived, and expresses their disappointment at being less so than expected.
> 
> Here on Eupedia, it's a constant witch hunt for alleged nordicists.
> 
> I stand on a ridgeline between northern and southern Europe, and there seems to be no place where I can feel comfortable.
> 
> Heck, can't you all just stick to the figures, analyze them for what they are, and try and see what they reveal in terms of migratory paths.
> ...


I completely agree. I never understood why people care about trying to "prove" that such or such region was superior historically. Our distant ancestors all came from Africa and all passed through the Middle East (even for Sub-Saharan Africans, as back migrations spread farming across the Sahel and all the way south to South Africa and Namibia, even contributing to the San gene pool). Western Eurasian people all have ancestors who were Middle Eastern Neolithic farmers and Steppe nomads. Practically all Europeans have at least some Celtic, Roman, Greek and Germanic blood, even in Finland and Sardinia. Trying to denigrate it or to view some ancestors as superior to others is lacking respect for some of our own ancestors.

----------


## kingjohn

ok i am sorry if you were offended 
regards
Adam

----------


## Angela

> I think I'll just give up on pop gen forums !!
> 
> On Anthrogenica, everyone wants to be Beaker-derived, and expresses their disappointment at being less so than expected.
> 
> Here on Eupedia, it's a constant witch hunt for alleged nordicists.
> 
> I stand on a ridgeline between northern and southern Europe, and there seems to be no place where I can feel comfortable.
> 
> Heck, can't you all just stick to the figures, analyze them for what they are, and try and see what they reveal in terms of migratory paths.
> ...


I take great exception to being told I am taking part in some "witchhunt", if that is indeed what you're doing.

I don't know how long you've been involved in this hobby, but I've been studying population genetics, reading various web sites and blogs, and posting about it all for over ten years. 

As a result, I don't have to make up anything about certain people and their agendas. I've heard it from their own mouths, from a time when they weren't so careful about hiding their opinions. I also was posting here for a years long period when Stormfront and theapricity members filled pages of this site with their disgusting, nordic supremacy rants.

Yes, they're gone now, no thanks to new members who don't know what it was like. 

I've found in my life that when someone tells you he's a racist, a thief, a murderer, a liar, whatever, it behooves one to believe it and to be leery of their behavior in the future. 

I also think it is a vast misunderstanding of the current state of affairs to think that some of those unlamented late posters haven't tried to come back and post under "sock" accounts. Perhaps you would have to read my pms from various members to understand what is sometimes hidden under the surface. 

Absent that, perhaps giving us some credit for good faith would help.

----------


## hrvclv

Who could reasonably argue that blatant racism shouldn't be exposed? I certainly couldn't, and won't.

But post, after post, after post, some people here are on the lookout for the slightest word that might positively refer to anything happening north of the 40th parallel. I remember being tagged as a nordicist for stating that the Germans were more disciplined than us Frenchies, a statement which is not only widely accepted as true, but is also currently evidenced with each new day that goes by. Not only that : it's one thing to be quick on the draw - and I am aware I can be rather touchy myself - but the wording of the rebukes is sometimes quite offensive.

Whatever happened on this forum in the deep past, nothing justifies that people should be so spontaneously indicted.

Over time, people get tired of such harassment, and many move to less exacting climes, to the general impoverishment of the forum. Soon there will be only a dozen posters left. I recently stayed away a while, to give my nerves a break. I'll stay away again if the stifling atmosphere endures. I've lived before pop gen forums, and can live without them.

Maciamo, through whose blog I learnt all the basics, certainly deserved better than that.

----------


## Carlos

Well, I don't know if I'll take a decade in this forum. At that time everything turned to haplogroups, users spent weeks, months and years talking about their haplogroups, the ethnic groups also seemed to belong to pure and clean and well-defined haplogroups. I entered without knowing anything at all, now it is not that I know much more but in those principles and then also how I did not conform or I did not add up the explanations because I honestly did not mind resorting to any rocambolesque situation and even make a fool of myself in order to call the Attention, maybe my way of expressing that everything could not be so accurate, I don't know, I saw everything very outdated.


The current trend that I see in all the sites and the one that I think is going to perpetuate will be the user's publication of their results, even predicting forums where to be able to enter and remain they will have to publish their own results, the opposite is very comfortable .


There are more and more tools, everything is going very fast, people are publishing continuously, they are researching and they want to know everything, there is no time to lose it in topics, supremacisms e.t.c.

----------


## [email protected]

Everyone needs to calm down. Assume, for a start, that people are, in the main, behaving fairly and honestly. Too many, unfortunately, post too quickly without considering how others may view their comments (I am guilty of this). If someone takes offense be willing to apologize and Move On. If you take offense, stop and consider that you may be over reacting.

Now, can we get back to talking about the science?

----------


## real expert

> I think I'll just give up on pop gen forums !!
> 
> On Anthrogenica, everyone wants to be Beaker-derived, and expresses their disappointment at being less so than expected.
> 
> Here on Eupedia, it's a constant witch hunt for alleged nordicists.
> 
> I stand on a ridgeline between northern and southern Europe, and there seems to be no place where I can feel comfortable.
> 
> Heck, can't you all just stick to the figures, analyze them for what they are, and try and see what they reveal in terms of migratory paths.
> ...



I don't understand all the fuss about Nordicists. In Germany, a so-called Nordic country nobody believes that the ancient Romans were Germanic/Scandinavian like. In fact, Germans think all contemporary or ancient Italians are like Sicilians or Southern Italians because most Italians that migrated to Germany are from the deep south of Italy. So aside from the internet in real life Nordicism is not an issue. However, Afrocentrism is another story since it's taught in schools all over the USA and promoted by BBC, History Channel and some other PC TV shows, documentaries. Rappers who push Afrocentrism are invited to Oxford University to lecture students about ancient Egyptians being black and how eurocentric racists try to hide it.

----------


## real expert

> I completely agree. I never understood why people care about trying to "prove" that such or such region was superior historically. Our distant ancestors all came from Africa and all passed through the Middle East (even for Sub-Saharan Africans, as back migrations spread farming across the Sahel and all the way south to South Africa and Namibia, even contributing to the San gene pool). Western Eurasian people all have ancestors who were Middle Eastern Neolithic farmers and Steppe nomads. Practically all Europeans have at least some Celtic, Roman, Greek and Germanic blood, even in Finland and Sardinia. Trying to denigrate it or to view some ancestors as superior to others is lacking respect for some of our own ancestors.


There are very vocal people with racist agenda on the internet but they are not half as powerful as the anti-white liberal leftists that do their best o disconnect all Europeans from North to South, from their ancient ancestors and roots. Keep in mind you read all the time there is no such thing as "Italian", "English" or "European", blah blah. However, the powerful people in academia, the intellectual elites, etc, are at war with the "white" or European identity. Hence you have a documentary in Sweden about the first people of Sweden where a black African man with blue contact lenses portrays a WHG, the first Swede. That triggered some African recent refugees in Sweden to say that they are entitled to live in Sweden since the original Swedes were black and theirs, that somehow makes them native to Sweden. The same troll games were played by so-called people of color from Britain who said since the Cheddar man as the first Briton was black, white Brits should get out of their land. I have seen a youtube clip about streets and places in Napoli where people on youtube made comments about the Subsaharan and North Africans and Indians who were walking there being native Italians since there is no such thing as Italian. According to them Italians come in different shades and are people for color. Besides John Cleese was criticized for saying London is no longer an English city. A black British woman of Nigerian descendant was outraged about this claim and argued to be as English as any white English person.

----------


## Maciamo

> There are very vocal people with racist agenda on the internet but they are not half as powerful as the anti-white liberal leftists that do their best o disconnect all Europeans from North to South, from their ancient ancestors and roots. Keep in mind you read all the time there is no such thing as "Italian", "English" or "European", blah blah. However, the powerful people in academia, the intellectual elites, etc, are at war with the "white" or European identity. Hence you have a documentary in Sweden about the first people of Sweden where a black African man with blue contact lenses portrays a WHG, the first Swede. That triggered some African recent refugees in Sweden to say that they are entitled to live in Sweden since the original Swedes were black and theirs, that somehow makes them native to Sweden. The same troll games were played by so-called people of color from Britain who said since the Cheddar man as the first Briton was black, white Brits should get out of their land. I have seen a youtube clip about streets and places in Napoli where people on youtube made comments about the Subsaharan and North Africans and Indians who were walking there being native Italians since there is no such thing as Italian. According to them Italians come in different shades and are people for color. Besides John Cleese was criticized for saying London is no longer an English city. A black British woman of Nigerian descendant was outraged about this claim and argued to be as English as any white English person.


How can you take seriously Africans who justify their right to stay in Europe based on the fact that Palaeolithic or Mesolithic Europeans had dark skin? That's so ridiculous. Yes, they had dark skin, but they were the ancestors of Europeans, not Africans. It's just that skin colour evolved over time to adapt to high latitudes with little sunlight in winter. Anyway ancient ancestry is no justification for residence permits or visas in modern states. Otherwise we could all claim rights to plenty of places in the world. 

There are plenty of stupid people in the world. I try to just ignore them. It's no need to get all worked up and waste one's time and energy with all the nonsense that goes around online.

----------


## Maciamo

> I don't understand all the fuss about Nordicists. In Germany, a so-called Nordic country nobody believes that the ancient Romans were Germanic/Scandinavian like. In fact, Germans think all contemporary or ancient Italians are like Sicilians or Southern Italians because most Italians that migrated to Germany are from the deep south of Italy. So aside from the internet in real life Nordicism is not an issue. However, Afrocentrism is another story since it's taught in schools all over the USA and promoted by BBC, History Channel and some other PC TV shows, documentaries. Rappers who push Afrocentrism are invited to Oxford University to lecture students about ancient Egyptians being black and how eurocentric racists try to hide it.


First of all, Germany is NOT a Nordic country. Nordic countries are Scandinavian countries + Finland. 

Secondly, how can you claim to speak for all or most Germans? They are many ignornant people in every country, but I doubt that so many Germans believe that all Italians look Sicilians. After all 12 millions Germans visit Italy each year and they go mostly to northern Italy. In would only take 6 years for all Germans to have been at least once to Italy (in reality so people go several times to the same country year after year, but even so, we could assume that a majority of Germans have been to Italy at least once in their lifetime). 

I had to look up Afrocentrism because, despite reading a lot (about 50 non-fiction books per year + Internet) and travelling a lot (nearly 50 countries so far), I am not really sure in what consists Afrocentrism and never heard of it being promoted by the BBC or being taught in schools in any Western country. Apparently Afrocentrism originated among African-Americans, not even in Africa itself. It has been dismissed by many top academics as pseudohistory. There is not much on the subject even on Wikipedia. I haven't found any confirmation on the Web that Afrocentrism is part of the US curriculum (in any state).

----------


## Ailchu

> There are very vocal people with racist agenda on the internet but they are not half as powerful as the anti-white liberal leftists that do their best o disconnect all Europeans from North to South, from their ancient ancestors and roots. Keep in mind you read all the time there is no such thing as "Italian", "English" or "European", blah blah. However, the powerful people in academia, the intellectual elites, etc, are at war with the "white" or European identity. Hence you have a documentary in Sweden about the first people of Sweden where a black African man with blue contact lenses portrays a WHG, the first Swede. That triggered some African recent refugees in Sweden to say that they are entitled to live in Sweden since the original Swedes were black and theirs, that somehow makes them native to Sweden. The same troll games were played by so-called people of color from Britain who said since the Cheddar man as the first Briton was black, white Brits should get out of their land. I have seen a youtube clip about streets and places in Napoli where people on youtube made comments about the Subsaharan and North Africans and Indians who were walking there being native Italians since there is no such thing as Italian. According to them Italians come in different shades and are people for color. Besides John Cleese was criticized for saying London is no longer an English city. A black British woman of Nigerian descendant was outraged about this claim and argued to be as English as any white English person.


the academics are at war with the "white" identity? and you think that is because of their agenda? what if it's because the data just doesn't support such an identity? we know that we all originated in africa and more recently in near east. we also know that the skin colour was dark most of the time and just changed recently. those are all just facts, if that is against white identity so be it. the data shows that this concept of identity shouldn't really have much value from a social and also genetical point of view. 

also if those indians were born in italy and do as italians do then they are native italians. just like the black english women is english. if john creeds was talking about culture he might be right, if he was talking about ethnicity then it makes no sense. or maybe it does just a bit but it would have no real value.

----------


## lynxbythetv

> That's because Eurogenes is an idiot. A polish racist with a dangerous agenda. He makes up stuff to suit his twisted world view. Honestly I think hes mentally unfit. Smart yes but a real sick person in the head. He claims not to be racist which is hilarious.


really ? ive read his blog previously and failed to see anything overtly racist.

Sent from my SM-G977B using Tapatalk

----------


## lynxbythetv

> I take great exception to being told I am taking part in some "witchhunt", if that is indeed what you're doing.
> 
> I don't know how long you've been involved in this hobby, but I've been studying population genetics, reading various web sites and blogs, and posting about it all for over ten years. 
> 
> As a result, I don't have to make up anything about certain people and their agendas. I've heard it from their own mouths, from a time when they weren't so careful about hiding their opinions. I also was posting here for a years long period when Stormfront and theapricity members filled pages of this site with their disgusting, nordic supremacy rants.
> 
> Yes, they're gone now, no thanks to new members who don't know what it was like. 
> 
> I've found in my life that when someone tells you he's a racist, a thief, a murderer, a liar, whatever, it behooves one to believe it and to be leery of their behavior in the future. 
> ...


there is an obvious kneejerk reaction on these boards when it comes to the romans and just how north or south they plot. infact i think it makes members on here happy when samples plot south. its the same with the myceneans.

Sent from my SM-G977B using Tapatalk

----------


## lynxbythetv

> I don't understand all the fuss about Nordicists. In Germany, a so-called Nordic country nobody believes that the ancient Romans were Germanic/Scandinavian like. In fact, Germans think all contemporary or ancient Italians are like Sicilians or Southern Italians because most Italians that migrated to Germany are from the deep south of Italy. So aside from the internet in real life Nordicism is not an issue. However, Afrocentrism is another story since it's taught in schools all over the USA and promoted by BBC, History Channel and some other PC TV shows, documentaries. Rappers who push Afrocentrism are invited to Oxford University to lecture students about ancient Egyptians being black and how eurocentric racists try to hide it.


the ancient italic tribes more resembled britsh/irish as opposed to the more scandanavian northern germanics. 

most of those roman busts arent showing nordic features but rather celtic ones. agrippa moreso resembles paul gallen (rugby player) than a swede. 

Sent from my SM-G977B using Tapatalk

----------


## Carlos

> really ? ive read his blog previously and failed to see anything overtly racist.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G977B using Tapatalk


Sincerity is one of my qualities and yes in this forum it has always had a nordicist or Central European naphthalene tuffillo in a surreptitious and innocent way perhaps, but it is clear that the users of Southern Europe how I would say it, because it does not affect us In the slightest, each one comforts himself as he wishes and obviously those assumptions do not make a dent, and we went on, nonsense after all.

Then Angela arrived and everything changed, a new order until I arrived The papers of Rome and the whole world went crazy in fact today I almost believe that Rome is the cradle of humanity not Africa. LOL


On the other hand, so much that some of them presume that their countries are so polite and there is so much culture in mine, for example in realization of public, social, family education, my learning is that a Sicilian is as European as a Swede, an Albanian as a English, so the opposite is a language that I don't understand, they are even so Europeanist that I would like Russia to join the EU


I do not know the interest sometimes that I have seen in people from the center or from the north stand out and throw down the south of Europe or give them identities that no e.t.c. when the enemy is expectant and life goes around a lot.

----------


## Ygorcs

> the ancient italic tribes more resembled britsh/irish as opposed to the more scandanavian northern germanics. 
> 
> most of those roman busts arent showing nordic features but rather celtic ones. agrippa moreso resembles paul gallen (rugby player) than a swede. 
> 
> Sent from my SM-G977B using Tapatalk


Indeed, most of the admixture models I have got from using all the Chalcolithic and Bronze Age average population samples available (G25) tend to "choose" English Bronze Age samples as the main part of the "steppe ancestry" in the Italic and Etruscan samples (though the latter also has a more "eastern" part that is also very relevant, closer to BB, CWC and Unetice samples from Poland, Czechia and so on).

----------


## Angela

And one member thinks we see Nordic t-rolls where they don't exist.

----------


## lynxbythetv

> Indeed, most of the admixture models I have got from using all the Chalcolithic and Bronze Age average population samples available (G25) tend to "choose" English Bronze Age samples as the main part of the "steppe ancestry" in the Italic and Etruscan samples (though the latter also has a more "eastern" part that is also very relevant, closer to BB, CWC and Unetice samples from Poland, Czechia and so on).


interesting.

Sent from my SM-G977B using Tapatalk

----------


## Salento

> Indeed, most of the admixture models I have got from using all the Chalcolithic and Bronze Age average population samples available (G25) tend to "choose" English Bronze Age samples as the main part of the "steppe ancestry" in the Italic and Etruscan samples (though the latter also has a more "eastern" part that is also very relevant, closer to BB, CWC and Unetice samples from Poland, Czechia and so on).



I really don’t think that all my Roman matches were British Tourists. LOL

----------


## lynxbythetv

> Sincerity is one of my qualities and yes in this forum it has always had a nordicist or Central European naphthalene tuffillo in a surreptitious and innocent way perhaps, but it is clear that the users of Southern Europe how I would say it, because it does not affect us In the slightest, each one comforts himself as he wishes and obviously those assumptions do not make a dent, and we went on, nonsense after all.
> 
> Then Angela arrived and everything changed, a new order until I arrived The papers of Rome and the whole world went crazy in fact today I almost believe that Rome is the cradle of humanity not Africa. LOL
> 
> 
> On the other hand, so much that some of them presume that their countries are so polite and there is so much culture in mine, for example in realization of public, social, family education, my learning is that a Sicilian is as European as a Swede, an Albanian as a English, so the opposite is a language that I don't understand, they are even so Europeanist that I would like Russia to join the EU
> 
> 
> I do not know the interest sometimes that I have seen in people from the center or from the north stand out and throw down the south of Europe or give them identities that no e.t.c. when the enemy is expectant and life goes around a lot.


i think i get what you mean. i still have not seen anything from eurogenes that could be deemed racist. ive read it on here before yet i have not seen it.

Sent from my SM-G977B using Tapatalk

----------


## Ygorcs

> I really don’t think that all my Roman matches were British Tourists. LOL


Haha! Well, that isn't surprising, is it? The steppe-admixed ancestry in those ancient Italics and Etruscans isn't but ~25-40% (varies by location and individual), and the modern English have lots of North Germanic/Scandinavian admixture. But, considering linguistics and the events in Bronze Age Europe, it would surprise no one, I believe, if the earliest Proto-Italics or perhaps still pre-Proto-Italics (Italo-Celtics?) were pretty much French/British Celtic-like originally.

Would you really be troubled to be related to these Welsh babes, honestly? lol

----------


## Salento

LivingDNA too, confuses North Italy with the British Isles.

I get 11+%, and more or less, they assign British to most Italians too.

----------


## Angela

> the ancient italic tribes more resembled britsh/irish as opposed to the more scandanavian northern germanics. 
> 
> most of those roman busts arent showing nordic features but rather celtic ones. agrippa moreso resembles paul gallen (rugby player) than a swede. 
> 
> Sent from my SM-G977B using Tapatalk


Yes, the ancient Romans look SO, SO, "CELTIC".

 
My mother's father looked just like him, and I assure you that nobody would EVER think he was British.

And poor Agrippa didn't look anything like that extremely ugly man: colorized bust.







Take your t-rolling elsewhere.

As for being "happy" about the ancient Roman and Etruscan results, I have ego enough that I'm happy that I was right about both of them for almost seven years, and that I stuck to my guns despite the ridicule, name calling, labeling me as a racist, and even, once, threats that came my way regularly.

----------


## Salento

> Haha! Well, that isn't surprising, is it? The steppe-admixed ancestry in those ancient Italics and Etruscans isn't but ~25-40% (varies by location and individual), and the modern English have lots of North Germanic/Scandinavian admixture. But, considering linguistics and the events in Bronze Age Europe, it would surprise no one, I believe, if the earliest Proto-Italics were pretty much French/British Celtic-like originally.
> 
> Would you really be troubled to be related to these Welsh babes, honestly? lol


I’m totally OK with it :)

----------


## lynxbythetv

> Yes, the ancient Romans look SO, SO, "CELTIC".
> 
>  
> My mother's father looked just like him, and I assure you that nobody would EVER think he was British.
> 
> And poor Agrippa didn't look anything like that extremely ugly man: colorized bust.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


no not the ancient romans in general, just a certain segment carried stronger steppe admixture just as others would have carried more calcolithic adnixture. see what i mean, this is wherethings get real dicey on these boards. 

mark ruffalo is part french.

a poster earlier on seemed happy that the myceneans are coming out as J2 and not R1B let alone the dreaded R1A.

look around the eyes, that slight droop, the longish head and the big nose. paul gallens looks far more like agrippa than mark ruffalo.

even you yourself said at one stage they look more like balkaners, which ones exactly. dont say albanians because they have many celtic types among them.

im not trolling at all.

also is that a bust of caesar, well he probably does look more italian. i never said all the roman emperor busts look celtic, just pointing out some do. 

Sent from my SM-G977B using Tapatalk

----------


## lynxbythetv

chael sonnen also has that kind of look. so you agree ?

Sent from my SM-G977B using Tapatalk

----------


## torzio

> LivingDNA too, confuses North Italy with the British Isles.
> 
> I get 11+%, and more or less, they assign British to most Italians too.


LivingDNA is rubbish ..............waited 20 months, no results, cancelled and got my money back

----------


## Salento

> LivingDNA is rubbish ..............waited 20 months, no results, cancelled and got my money back


I had no trouble with the Standard order by mail.

but... disappointed with the old free “One World Family”

Now you can upload Ancestry, 23, FTDNA, ... for free and then pay $39 for autosomal results.

----------


## torzio

> I had no trouble with the Standard order by mail.
> 
> but... disappointed with the old free “One World Family”
> 
> you could upload Ancestry, 23, FTDNA, ... for free and then pay $39 for autosomal results.


yes......but as an italian, what do you get ?

It seems they like to concentrate on the UK

----------


## Salento

> yes......but as an italian, what do you get ?
> 
> It seems they like to concentrate on the UK


for Italy, they only have North, South, Tuscany, and Sardinia.
(G.B. = North Italy, I think :)

----------


## bicicleur

> Yes, the ancient Romans look SO, SO, "CELTIC".
> 
>  
> My mother's father looked just like him, and I assure you that nobody would EVER think he was British.


who says modern Brits are Celtic?

----------


## lynxbythetv

> who says modern Brits are Celtic?


me.

Sent from my SM-G977B using Tapatalk

----------


## Ygorcs

> me.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G977B using Tapatalk


That'd be wrong, unless you refer to the Welsh, who apparently have quite little post-Antiquity gene flow. The English and the Scottish have lots of later admixture from North German/Scandinavian lands, as much as ~40-50% in some areas. So, genetically they're not the same as their partial Iron Age ancestors.

----------


## hrvclv

Go there : https://vahaduo.github.io/custompca/

Paste the data below in "data". Then flip both PC1 and PC2 to have the north in the right place.
Then look what happens. Iron Age Italics, Etruscans, Proto-Villanovan plot between Halstatt DA111 and the Lech Valley BB samples, among a crowd of Bavarian BB samples just above, and Iberian BBs just below. In other words, right where today's French and Swiss samples get packed together.

Looks like they did come from north of the Alps, and were by the Iron Age in the process of admixing with Remedello-like pops. What happened later is a different story. And I can't think what nordicism might have to do with that.

Bell_Beaker_Bavaria:E09538,0.121791,0.147252,0.032 809,0.007429,0.035391,-0.006136,-0.00235,0.002769,0.00634,0.028793,-0.001949,0.009891,-0.023637,-0.012111,-0.000814,-0.002121,0.007041,0.002154,0.007039,-0.004127,0.000624,-0.004575,-0.016269,0.001325,-0.001078
Bell_Beaker_Bavaria:E09569,0.117238,0.122879,0.051 666,0.050065,0.026466,0.015897,-0.00282,-0.000692,0.005522,0.002369,0.001624,0.002698,-0.004014,-0.009909,0.014251,0.005436,-0.002086,0.003801,-0.004399,0.008254,0.005241,0.00507,-0.001356,-0.000482,0.000239
Bell_Beaker_Bavaria:E09613_d,0.125205,0.123895,0.0 48649,0.063954,0.025235,0.01757,0.008225,-0.008769,-0.003886,-0.008201,-0.002273,-0.004796,-0.012042,-0.021882,0.017236,0.00769,0.008736,0,0.006411,-0.003752,0.01984,0.011376,0.00456,-0.00241,-0.00012
Bell_Beaker_Bavaria:I3588,0.12862,0.132019,0.04789 4,0.037145,0.036314,0.005578,0.00235,0.005077,0.01 084,0.018041,-0.00341,0.01124,-0.019772,-0.016377,-0.002714,0.015248,0.017471,-0.004687,0.003142,0.009505,0.002246,0.001113,-0.007641,0.007832,0.002515
Bell_Beaker_Bavaria:I3589,0.127482,0.135065,0.0509 11,0.051034,0.028928,0.008088,0.006815,0.001615,-0.007158,-0.001458,0.002436,0.004196,-0.008028,-0.01679,0.0076,0.022938,0.009779,-0.00114,0.00088,0.014007,0.006738,0.000124,0.00776 5,0.001325,-0.006227
Bell_Beaker_Bavaria:I3590,0.120652,0.147252,0.0441 23,0.018088,0.037853,-0.004462,-0.001645,-0.006461,0.009204,0.010387,0,0.012439,-0.014271,-0.007019,0.005972,-0.00411,-0.017602,0.008235,0.019986,0.004377,-0.001996,0.001731,-0.01479,-0.000602,0.003592
Bell_Beaker_Bavaria:I3594,0.130897,0.155376,0.0414 83,-0.016473,0.055703,-0.012829,-0.007285,0.006231,0.028838,0.044101,-0.001786,0.013788,-0.018434,-0.0139,-0.005565,0.000796,-0.001434,-0.005448,0.000628,-0.005127,0.002246,0.002844,-0.006039,-0.00253,0.000838
Bell_Beaker_Bavaria:I3600,0.135449,0.122879,0.0509 11,0.046835,0.028313,0.015618,-0.004465,-0.001846,-0.005931,0.006378,-0.000162,-0.008393,-0.000892,-0.017065,0.010722,0.018032,0.014864,0.005068,-0.002011,0.011756,0.00574,0.005688,0.006902,0.0004 82,0.001317
Bell_Beaker_Bavaria:I3601,0.119514,0.119832,0.0452 54,0.061047,0.018773,0.024263,-0.000705,-0.001154,-0.001841,-0.006925,-0.00406,0.008093,-0.017245,-0.024634,0.024701,0.02148,0.012386,-0.004814,-0.001383,0.007879,-0.001996,-0.002226,-0.006779,0.009037,-0.00467
Bell_Beaker_Bavaria:I5017,0.132035,0.14319,0.02790 7,0.010982,0.017542,-0.00251,-0.003525,-0.006923,-0.012476,0.016948,0.001461,0.001049,-0.011893,-0.000963,-0.009365,0.00716,0.001695,-0.000887,0,0.001876,-0.010606,-0.008532,-0.005053,0.014219,-0.008382
Bell_Beaker_Bavaria:I5020,0.122929,0.126941,0.0663 73,0.047481,0.03693,0.037092,0.00188,-0.001154,-0.00225,0.01713,-0.023546,0.017534,-0.002973,-0.024497,0.018865,0.015248,-0.000782,0.007601,-0.006788,0.004127,0.009608,-0.005193,-0.008997,-0.022172,0.011376
Bell_Beaker_Bavaria:I5023,0.134311,0.126941,0.0693 9,0.066861,0.03416,0.026495,0.004935,0.000462,0.00 45,-0.005103,0.004222,0.008542,-0.012042,-0.01913,0.021172,0.0179,0.015646,0,0.000377,0.0102 55,0.004118,0.001237,0.006162,0.00976,0.001437
Bell_Beaker_Bavaria:I5519,0.12862,0.121864,0.05845 4,0.075259,0.024004,0.027889,0.00094,0.001385,-0.007976,-0.018041,0.00341,0.003747,-0.003717,-0.014175,0.019272,0.024662,-0.000391,-0.00076,0.008925,0.006628,0.005865,0.005441,0.0050 53,0.008194,-0.003592
Bell_Beaker_Bavaria:I5520,0.136588,0.136081,0.0399 75,0.014212,0.036314,0.008925,-0.004935,-0.000462,0.0045,0.026242,0.007145,0.008393,-0.016204,-0.018441,0.005157,-0.00358,0.011213,-0.004687,-0.000377,-0.000125,0.000873,-0.001855,-0.004437,0.003615,-0.003712
Bell_Beaker_Bavaria:I5521,0.135449,0.128972,0.0705 22,0.057494,0.028005,0.027889,-0.00329,0.002077,-0.001023,-0.004738,-0.005846,0.013188,-0.013825,-0.016102,0.020358,0.005171,0.004303,0.001647,0.009 93,0.010755,0.006738,0.010263,-0.001109,-0.003253,-0.006586
Bell_Beaker_Bavaria:I5523,0.127482,0.121864,0.0561 91,0.062339,0.0397,0.018686,0.010575,-0.006461,-0.005931,-0.016766,-0.00065,0.005245,-0.006095,-0.016377,0.025515,0.006364,-0.00339,0.005068,0.00088,0.005753,0.000873,0.00086 6,0.000493,0.006989,-0.006466
Bell_Beaker_Bavaria:I5524,0.120652,0.145221,0.0384 66,-0.001292,0.041238,-0.002789,0.00893,0.008307,0.008999,0.026242,-0.001949,0.011839,-0.005946,0.003441,-0.00095,-0.005436,-0.012256,0.00152,0.004148,-0.006003,-0.002246,0.001484,-0.0053,-0.008073,0.000599
Bell_Beaker_Bavaria:I5525,0.127482,0.132019,0.0667 5,0.05168,0.040623,0.018407,0.00846,0.005538,0.012 68,0.00164,0.001299,0.002098,-0.008028,-0.011285,0.018729,0.023071,0.018906,-0.003294,-0.002765,0.010255,0.010731,-0.000742,0.000863,-0.006507,-0.003473
Bell_Beaker_Bavaria:I5529,0.132035,0.136081,0.0490 26,0.028424,0.035391,0.006136,0.005875,0.005307,0. 007567,0.010934,0.010068,0.012139,-0.016204,-0.010184,0.006922,0.004375,-0.000913,0.004181,0.008673,0.002626,-0.001872,0.004328,0.006162,0.009881,0.001437
Bell_Beaker_Bavaria:I5531,0.125205,0.13405,0.06675 ,0.062985,0.042162,0.020638,0.00658,0.010615,-0.001432,-0.017495,-0.006333,0.001649,0.005798,-0.005092,0.007329,0.008221,0.001825,0.006841,0.005 656,0.005753,0.003619,0.002349,0.000493,-0.002651,-0.001197
Bell_Beaker_Bavaria:I5658,0.129758,0.119832,0.0505 34,0.059109,0.027082,0.016455,-0.001645,0.001846,0.000614,-0.002369,0.002436,0.009292,-0.00773,-0.006744,0.021851,-0.004508,-0.017732,0.004434,0.004902,0.011005,0.017469,-0.002968,0.002342,0.017111,-0.004191
Bell_Beaker_Bavaria:I5659,0.138864,0.12491,0.07353 9,0.062339,0.031083,0.023706,0.002115,0.012923,0.0 1084,-0.002916,-0.00682,0.000749,-0.010258,-0.006744,0.014386,0.008353,0.000261,0.003801,-0.012193,0.012756,0.019466,-0.000742,0.008751,0.000602,-0.023471
Bell_Beaker_Bavaria:I5833,0.114961,0.136081,0.0656 19,0.050711,0.037545,0.01004,-0.00329,0.000462,0.012271,0.007289,0.001949,0.0028 47,-0.014569,-0.011836,0.021444,0.008884,0.004955,-0.001394,0.00264,-0.001251,0.006613,0.012736,-0.002095,-0.003856,-0.001197
Bell_Beaker_Bavaria:I5834,0.125205,0.129988,0.0509 11,0.048127,0.033852,0.020917,-0.00658,-0.000692,0.009817,0.011663,-0.001624,0.003747,-0.004906,-0.010459,0.011536,0.013126,0.000391,0.007981,0.003 52,-0.005503,-0.002496,-0.000742,-0.008874,-0.000964,0.000958
Bell_Beaker_Bavaria:I6590,0.119514,0.132019,0.0592 08,0.039729,0.038469,0.007809,-0.000235,0.001846,0.012067,0.011845,0.00341,0.0082 43,-0.012339,-0.010597,0.022394,0.005304,0.004172,0.004941,0.006 034,0.011506,0.010981,0.006059,0.005176,0.000964,0 .003712
Bell_Beaker_Bavaria:I6591,0.124067,0.135065,0.0429 92,0.030039,0.023697,0.006972,0.003055,0.003461,0. 009817,0.012028,-0.003085,0.005095,-0.00773,-0.012111,0.013029,0.006232,0.010822,0.001014,0.001 131,0.003252,0.00262,0.012489,0.002342,-0.004338,-0.001676
Bell_Beaker_Bavaria:I6624,0.130897,0.138112,0.0569 45,0.040052,0.035391,0.006136,-0.001175,0.008769,0.015544,0.024055,0.003248,0.016 036,-0.00996,-0.004404,0.017779,-0.002784,-0.0103,0.003927,0.002891,0.003877,0.003369,-0.000247,0.000246,-0.011086,0.006466
Bell_Beaker_CHE:I5755,0.119514,0.133034,0.067127,0 .022933,0.045547,0,-0.01081,0.001615,0.019021,0.01877,0.007957,0.00539 5,-0.010852,-0.020368,0.017779,0.009016,-0.001825,0.005828,0.003394,0.006128,0.008984,0.001 731,0.016145,-0.015665,0.004311
Bell_Beaker_CHE:I5759,0.126344,0.127957,0.022627,0 .011628,0.031698,0.008088,0.00658,0.003923,0.02270 2,0.014397,0.008444,-0.002847,-0.029286,-0.00289,0.003122,-0.00716,-0.001825,-0.000507,0.003394,0.005628,-0.012603,0.000247,-0.021075,0.002048,-0.011137
Bell_Beaker_HUN:I7044,0.120652,0.167562,0.039598,-0.023902,0.072629,-0.020359,0.00094,-0.001615,0.033133,0.048839,-0.003085,0.00045,-0.011596,0.007707,-0.020494,-0.016441,-0.002086,0.00038,0.011061,0.005628,0.004243,0.0039 57,-0.004437,-0.01687,0.006347
Bell_Beaker_HUN:I7045,0.130897,0.158423,0.044877,-0.023902,0.054779,-0.016733,0.00376,0.009692,0.025156,0.047017,0.0064 96,0.005395,-0.010258,-0.004817,-0.022122,0.002652,0.032466,-0.000253,0.010684,-0.004252,0.006114,-0.002102,-0.011092,-0.013978,-0.002994
Bell_Beaker_HUN_EBA:I2364,0.12862,0.158423,0.03318 7,-0.022933,0.045855,-0.015339,0.000705,0.007384,0.035178,0.046835,0.004 547,0.004046,-0.012785,0.001514,-0.009908,0.003447,0.008605,-0.003547,0.002765,-0.003377,-0.000749,0.000495,-0.009367,0.001566,-0.002275
Bell_Beaker_HUN_EBA:I2365,0.12862,0.127957,0.05053 4,0.045543,0.031083,0.015618,0.001175,-0.000692,0.006954,-0.007289,-0.000162,0.004046,-0.007582,-0.024359,0.012351,0.019358,0.010822,-0.002154,-0.002011,-0.005253,0.007612,0.007666,0.004314,0.00241,0.0014 37
Bell_Beaker_HUN_EBA:I2786,0.130897,0.118817,0.0584 54,0.06783,0.023081,0.018965,0.005875,-0.000692,-0.01943,-0.030251,-0.001461,0.003897,-0.010704,-0.012524,0.03488,0.012066,-0.014994,0.002787,0.00176,0.007504,0.004243,0,-0.002095,0.006868,-0.002155
Bell_Beaker_HUN_EBA:I3528,0.135449,0.141159,0.0652 42,0.04845,0.064627,0.006136,0.018096,0.011769,0.0 25975,0.010387,-0.013153,0.002248,0.010704,0.010184,-0.008143,0.018165,0.014864,-0.004941,0.005782,0.015132,0.00861,-0.006183,-0.012818,-0.040247,0.008742
Bell_Beaker_HUN_EBA:I3529,0.124067,0.137096,0.0494 03,0.035207,0.032314,0.017291,-0.001645,-0.002538,0.006545,-0.000911,0.006983,0.008542,-0.007136,-0.012386,0.000814,0.003182,-0.012778,0.001647,0.01257,-0.005253,-0.007112,0.000495,-0.003697,-0.000482,-0.005868
Bell_Beaker_HUN_EBA:I4178,0.120652,0.12491,0.05958 5,0.03876,0.032621,0.016455,-0.009635,0.001154,-0.009817,-0.010023,-0.004547,0.005845,-0.00892,-0.0139,0.024294,0.007955,-0.005998,0.001647,0.004777,0.001626,0.000125,0.009 027,0.005053,0.006266,-0.007664
Bell_Beaker_Iberia:I0459,0.127482,0.166547,0.05958 5,-0.028424,0.082477,-0.016176,-0.00517,0.001154,0.073833,0.078726,-0.003897,0.015137,-0.027948,-0.016377,-0.003664,0.007292,0.008345,0.002914,-0.004902,-0.003126,0.009358,0.003091,-0.013188,-0.046633,0.005628
Bell_Beaker_Iberia:I0460,0.12862,0.156392,0.064111 ,-0.021318,0.08894,-0.015897,-0.00564,0.001385,0.06872,0.097314,-0.004872,0.017984,-0.025124,-0.026011,0.006243,-0.00358,0.00352,0.007095,0.003268,-0.009004,0.016221,-0.002968,-0.020952,-0.04832,0.003832
Bell_Beaker_Iberia:I0461,0.1161,0.140143,0.051288, 0.008721,0.070475,-0.00753,-0.00846,0.007846,0.041518,0.046106,-0.010555,0.010341,-0.021853,-0.021744,0.012351,0.019358,0.016428,0.007981,-0.005154,0.005628,0.009358,0,-0.011955,-0.013375,-0.002874
Bell_Beaker_Iberia:I0826,0.132035,0.176702,0.06222 5,-0.029393,0.090171,-0.016455,-0.021386,0.006461,0.041927,0.098407,-0.009743,0.006444,-0.043112,-0.010459,-0.001221,-0.011668,0.021905,-0.007981,0.00817,-0.013006,0.005366,-0.015209,-0.006039,-0.040849,0.002634
Bell_Beaker_Iberia:I0840,0.122929,0.157407,0.05204 3,-0.030685,0.081861,-0.020638,-0.014336,-0.005769,0.068106,0.090571,-0.003248,0.016186,-0.033895,-0.022708,-0.001221,0.000265,0.014864,-0.014189,0.001885,-0.00025,0.012104,0.00371,-0.00493,-0.038198,0.003353
Bell_Beaker_Iberia:I1970,0.125205,0.173656,0.06750 5,-0.0323,0.079399,-0.024263,-0.00611,0.004384,0.054403,0.113533,-0.009094,0.018883,-0.041922,-0.030965,0.000271,0.010209,0.021905,-0.001014,0.009176,0.00988,0.013351,-0.00643,-0.017378,-0.045549,0.000838
Bell_Beaker_Iberia:I4229,0.120652,0.160454,0.04789 4,-0.023902,0.077553,-0.013387,-0.008695,0.005077,0.053176,0.072894,-0.003897,0.012439,-0.037611,-0.015689,-0.004072,-0.001326,0.003129,0.005574,0.000628,-0.004252,0.018218,-0.000495,-0.017624,-0.025666,-0.000239
Bell_Beaker_Iberia:I4247,0.12862,0.178733,0.034695 ,-0.030685,0.080323,-0.021753,-0.012926,0.01223,0.065652,0.101141,-0.000162,0.024578,-0.021556,-0.022845,-0.009093,0.018695,0.023339,-0.004434,0.001257,-0.007879,0.010731,0.006677,-0.019227,-0.035186,0.001437
Bell_Beaker_Iberia:I5665,0.126344,0.149283,0.05279 7,0.012274,0.068936,0.000837,-0.011281,-0.001385,0.043768,0.049204,0.001624,0.014687,-0.02438,-0.008945,0.001493,-0.002121,-0.008736,0.009755,0.004777,-0.00025,0.013227,0.001113,-0.00456,-0.027474,0.000838
Bell_Beaker_Iberia:I6472,0.135449,0.144205,0.07655 5,0.015181,0.048009,-0.009482,-0.015276,0.000923,0.035383,0.049933,0.001624,0.016 935,-0.029286,-0.009221,0.012758,-0.016971,0.004955,-0.003674,-0.007039,-0.002501,0.004866,0.010263,-0.006902,-0.020244,0.004431
Bell_Beaker_Iberia:I6539,0.124067,0.149283,0.05732 2,-0.003553,0.070167,-0.001394,-0.01081,0.003692,0.030679,0.041914,0.00341,0.00524 5,-0.023637,-0.026286,0.002307,0.009414,0.024121,-0.004941,0.00264,-0.006503,0.002496,0.00371,-0.001849,-0.016147,0.003233
Bell_Beaker_Iberia:I6584,0.124067,0.175687,0.06033 9,-0.02584,0.080015,-0.029284,-0.00329,0.001846,0.074856,0.087656,-0.004222,0.013488,-0.020069,-0.01101,-0.002986,-0.008884,0.009257,-0.000507,0.016718,0.017383,0.005241,0.00371,-0.015036,-0.026992,-0.006347
Bell_Beaker_Iberia:I6587,0.118376,0.165531,0.05807 7,-0.036499,0.089555,-0.030957,-0.01081,-0.001615,0.060539,0.094763,0.000487,0.004796,-0.036125,-0.020231,-0.003664,-0.002519,0.010431,-0.002154,-0.015335,-0.006253,0.024332,-0.009274,-0.014173,-0.030607,-0.008263
Bell_Beaker_Iberia:I6588,0.134311,0.15436,0.061094 ,0.007429,0.053856,0.014502,0.00658,0.01823,0.0182 03,0.045741,-0.009906,0.016036,-0.025867,-0.026424,0.011265,0.012596,0.000522,0.006081,-0.002388,0.017508,0.006613,-0.015457,-0.001849,-0.003133,0.007305
Bell_Beaker_Iberia:I6623,0.133173,0.146236,0.06147 1,0.036822,0.042162,0.011435,0.00987,0.002077,0.02 1475,0.032256,-0.015427,0.014087,-0.020812,-0.020781,0.009636,-0.006762,-0.016168,0.007221,0.004902,0.005628,0.010482,0.010 51,-0.004683,-0.011929,0
Bell_Beaker_ITA:I1979,0.130897,0.157407,0.021496,-0.030685,0.044316,-0.020359,0.00423,-0.003,0.016771,0.044101,0.010718,0.01139,-0.024083,-0.006881,-0.007193,0.019756,0.022948,-0.001267,0.002011,-0.009505,-0.000499,0.008408,-0.0053,-0.008314,0.001317
Bell_Beaker_ITA:I2478,0.126344,0.14319,0.044877,0. 002584,0.045239,0.013108,0,0.000462,0.022498,0.036 083,0.000325,0.013788,-0.017988,-0.007569,0.00475,-0.009016,-0.019949,0.012542,0.009553,-0.007754,0.006988,0.007543,-0.012202,-0.003374,0.005029
DEU_Lech_BBC:UNTA58_68Sk1,0.125205,0.145221,0.0328 09,0.008075,0.035699,-0.009203,-0.00188,0.002538,0.004295,0.028793,-0.003735,0.009142,-0.024678,-0.007844,-0.002172,-0.00305,0.006258,0.006461,0.006662,-0.005878,-0.00025,-0.004822,-0.01972,0.003133,-0.001676
DEU_Lech_BBC:WEHR_1192SkA,0.129758,0.13405,0.06788 2,0.065892,0.033237,0.019243,0.00047,-0.002538,0.008999,0.005467,0.000162,0.01109,-0.010406,-0.008945,0.022801,0.010209,-0.004433,0.009122,0.003645,0.000875,0.006364,0.011 994,0.000739,0.008796,-0.000479
DEU_Lech_EBA:AITI_119,0.121791,0.140143,0.05242,0. 026486,0.040623,0.003068,0.001175,0.001154,0.00347 7,0.017859,-0.001299,0.01124,-0.020961,-0.019818,0.01045,0.02201,0.01708,-0.0019,0.009679,0.002376,0.007986,0.003957,-0.005053,0.000964,0.008382
DEU_Lech_EBA:AITI_2,0.124067,0.140143,0.056191,0.0 41021,0.042162,0.016455,-0.003055,0.002077,0.014112,0.018406,0.002273,0.006 744,-0.020218,-0.000413,0.011672,0.001591,-0.008996,-0.006334,0.013073,0.012631,0.006988,0.00371,0.0014 79,-0.005422,-0.00467
DEU_Lech_EBA:AITI_78,0.132035,0.135065,0.046386,0. 034238,0.036314,0.003626,0.002585,0.005769,0.00531 8,0.010023,0.001299,0.011839,-0.016947,-0.015001,0.017236,0.015115,0.021513,0.005828,0.003 268,0.003252,0.006239,-0.002102,0.001109,-0.002651,-0.001676
DEU_Lech_EBA:POST_44,0.124067,0.144205,0.056568,0. 008721,0.04924,-0.001952,-0.00188,0.000692,0.008795,0.028247,0.001299,0.0092 92,-0.017988,-0.003028,0.005293,0.008353,-0.002608,-0.00266,0.004525,0.001126,-0.008235,-0.008285,-0.001356,-0.002651,-0.003233
DEU_Lech_EBA:POST_50,0.120652,0.153345,0.043746,-0.002584,0.052933,-0.003347,-0.00329,-0.002077,0.022293,0.031162,-0.005846,0.008692,-0.022299,-0.010459,-0.002172,0.014585,0.021253,0.004307,0.001257,-0.005753,0.00262,0.000124,0.002835,-0.005181,-0.010418
DEU_Lech_EBA:POST_6,0.12862,0.128972,0.065996,0.05 3941,0.03416,0.018128,0.00094,-0.002769,0.002863,0.001822,-0.006333,0.011989,-0.003865,-0.015001,0.015065,0.00305,-0.004303,-0.001394,0.002891,0.002751,0.007487,-0.003339,-0.004067,0.001446,-0.006107
DEU_Lech_EBA:UNTA85_1412,0.127482,0.14319,0.055437 ,0.032946,0.035391,0.009203,0.014806,-0.001154,-0.001841,0.010934,0.007957,0.008692,-0.018583,-0.018854,0.0076,0.016176,0.011865,-0.00266,0.004525,0.003877,-0.003244,-0.00371,-0.003821,0.019039,-0.004071
DEU_Lech_EBA:WEHR_1415adult_d,0.124067,0.119832,0. 062225,0.066538,0.017849,0.02259,-0.001645,0.000231,-0.019021,-0.012574,-0.00341,0.007044,-0.00773,-0.019955,0.026601,0.020419,0.01682,0.001394,-0.004902,0.01063,0.012353,-0.002349,0.005176,0.003253,-0.016046
DEU_Lech_EBA:WEHR_1415child,0.135449,0.127957,0.04 978,0.051034,0.029852,0.019243,0.005875,0,-0.000205,0.002734,-0.006171,0.012589,-0.013082,-0.020231,0.020494,0.006895,-0.004694,0.001774,0.005154,0.00963,0.002995,0.0045 75,-0.001849,-0.006386,-0.005149
ITA_Ardea_Latini_IA:RMPR851,0.133173,0.156392,0.04 4123,-0.010336,0.046778,-0.004741,0.008225,0.004154,0.023725,0.044283,-0.004222,0.01109,-0.02215,-0.011147,-0.006243,-0.006099,0.002738,-0.000127,0.004902,-0.004252,-0.009109,0.004328,-0.003081,-0.009519,-0.002874
ITA_Boville_Ernica_IA:RMPR1021,0.126344,0.153345,0 .035072,-0.014858,0.052317,-0.013387,-0.00094,0.003461,0.020452,0.04155,0.004222,0.01004 1,-0.013528,-0.008808,0.007465,-0.015646,-0.011995,-0.003041,0.004902,-0.012631,0.007861,0.006306,-0.007641,-0.001325,0.008023
ITA_Etruscan:RMPR473,0.125205,0.158423,0.035449,-0.019703,0.046162,-0.002789,0,-0.002769,0.026384,0.041368,-0.002923,0.012739,-0.018583,-0.007707,-0.0057,-0.017634,-0.010431,0.004054,0.010056,-0.002126,-0.004742,-0.00136,-0.003328,0.002289,-0.003473
ITA_Etruscan:RMPR474b,0.122929,0.151314,0.036581,-0.009044,0.036314,-0.00251,0.00235,-0.003461,0.013908,0.027882,-0.003573,0.01154,-0.013677,-0.004129,-0.003664,0.00411,0.004824,0.010135,0.013073,-0.002626,-0.004742,0.005317,-0.000493,-0.003133,-0.002634
ITA_Prenestini_tribe_IA:RMPR435b,0.125205,0.147252 ,0.045254,0.005814,0.044931,0.005578,-0.00094,0.003461,0.023725,0.039363,-0.004547,0.008992,-0.021407,-0.014726,0.012893,-0.001989,-0.001043,0.006208,0.003017,-0.003252,0.004742,0.002844,-0.006286,-0.000241,-0.002036
ITA_Proto-Villanovan:RMPR1,0.121791,0.144205,0.030547,-0.011951,0.024004,-0.008925,0.002585,-0.002538,0.004909,0.021868,0.005521,0.005695,-0.013825,-0.001239,-0.005429,-0.013524,-0.01017,0.003674,0.004777,-0.011631,-0.007237,0.000371,-0.002958,0.005422,-0.006227
ITA_Rome_Latini_IA:RMPR1016,0.127482,0.148267,0.03 4695,-0.017442,0.043085,-0.005578,-0.002115,-0.003231,0.024952,0.051391,-0.001461,0.013488,-0.034043,-0.010184,-0.008415,0.011535,0.018515,-0.003674,0.005405,0.004377,0.003244,-0.001731,0.002588,-0.006266,-0.007544
ITA_Villanovan:RMPR1015,0.12862,0.155376,0.04186,-0.022933,0.054164,-0.007251,-0.00188,-0.002077,0.023929,0.039545,0.00747,0.004946,-0.016501,-0.018854,-0.006107,0.011005,0.025686,0.003421,0.002263,0.004 877,0.005366,0.003957,-0.008381,-0.007591,-0.002874
CZE_Hallstatt_Bylany :Laughing: A111,0.124067,0.151314,0.063356,0.026163,0.0437,0. 005857,0.001175,0.002308,0.020861,0.02442,-0.012342,0.00015,-0.01665,-0.003165,0.014658,-0.009546,-0.018254,0.003801,0.005908,0.001626,0.009858,0.006 059,-0.004437,-0.005904,-0.005269
CZE_Hallstatt_Bylany :Laughing: A112,0.133173,0.123895,0.077687,0.042313,0.052625, 0.002231,0.00282,0.000462,0.016157,0.01549,-0.011692,-0.010641,-0.00223,0.004404,0.004479,0.006895,0.006258,-0.000253,0.003771,0.014507,-0.007736,-0.002102,0.003204,-0.00494,-0.001676

----------


## TardisBlue

> mark ruffalo is part french.


Only 1/4th: "His father is of Italian descent, from Girifalco and his mother is of half French Canadian and half Italian ancestry."

----------


## lynxbythetv

> That'd be wrong, unless you refer to the Welsh, who apparently have quite little post-Antiquity gene flow. The English and the Scottish have lots of later admixture from North German/Scandinavian lands, as much as ~40-50% in some areas. So, genetically they're not the same as their partial Iron Age ancestors.


how large are these areas and how much does this 50% represent overall ?

Sent from my SM-G977B using Tapatalk

----------


## bicicleur

> Go there : https://vahaduo.github.io/custompca/
> 
> Paste the data below in "data". Then flip both PC1 and PC2 to have the north in the right place.
> Then look what happens. Iron Age Italics, Etruscans, Proto-Villanovan plot between Halstatt DA111 and the Lech Valley BB samples, among a crowd of Bavarian BB samples just above, and Iberian BBs just below. In other words, right where today's French and Swiss samples get packed together.
> 
> Looks like they did come from north of the Alps, and were by the Iron Age in the process of admixing with Remedello-like pops. What happened later is a different story. And I can't think what nordicism might have to do with that.


you're probably right
there seems to be 1 oultier though : ITA Villanovan in the direction of Bell Beaker ITA
which is this Bell Beaker ITA?
is it possible to incorporate the Remedello individuals?

----------


## hrvclv

> you're probably right
> there seems to be 1 oultier though : ITA Villanovan in the direction of Bell Beaker ITA
> which is this Bell Beaker ITA?
> is it possible to incorporate the Remedello individuals?


ITA_Remedello_BA:RISE486,0.113823,0.169593,0.02790 7,-0.047804,0.080323,-0.025379,-0.013631,0.001385,0.059925,0.071801,0.00406,0.0137 88,-0.012933,-0.003991,-0.016422,-0.017767,-0.002999,0.012035,0.000754,-0.006503,0.001996,-0.003339,-0.02354,-0.027835,-0.007664
ITA_Remedello_BA:RISE487,0.124067,0.162485,0.04110 6,-0.045866,0.075706,-0.025658,-0.0094,0.011769,0.05154,0.096403,-0.010068,0.01079,-0.031367,-0.016652,-0.017779,-0.000663,0.013038,0.00266,0.017095,-0.018384,0.009733,0.008779,-0.019596,-0.018436,-0.004431
ITA_Remedello_BA:RISE489,0.121791,0.173656,0.04110 6,-0.062662,0.07663,-0.028726,-0.00564,0.004384,0.059925,0.079637,-0.006171,0.017534,-0.030773,-0.013212,-0.021172,-0.008353,0.00691,0.004561,0.015712,-0.006003,-0.003743,-0.003462,-0.012941,-0.026992,-0.007903

----------


## hrvclv

> which is this Bell Beaker ITA?


Sample ID / genetic sex (M/F): I2478 / M
Find location: Via Guidorossi, Parma, Emilia Romagna
Associated label in publication: Beaker Northern Italy
Date: 2194–1939 calBCE (3671±40 BP, LTL-5035A)
MtDNA haplogroup (mother): K1a2a
Y-DNA haplogroup (father): R1b1a1a2a1a2 (P312)
Reference: Olalde et al. 2018

----------


## Angela

First, the Romans of the Republic, the founders of Empire, were supposed to be Scandinavian like or German like, and the Etruscans were Anatolians. I heard it here dozens of times. Now they were all Swiss or French. :)

Has anyone ever denied that steppe related ancestry entered Italy from over the Alps??? Given the linguistic analyses of Italic and Celtic, has anyone ever denied that there might have been an Italo-Celtic speaking group in Central Europe which diverged into two streams? Haven't we known that for a very, very, long time?

What we also know is that by the time they were more than a bunch of shepards shivering from malaria on their hills, they had absorbed local Chalcolithic ancestry, and a bit perhaps from further south. R437 and R850 had absorbed quite a lot.

Oh, and only one of the samples might be plotting in southern France. Just saying. :)

----------


## Angela

I was going to do an analysis of my own dna to highlight the Bavarian BB and Remedello Bronze connection even in a half Emilian/half Tuscan, but Duarte has closed access to his google doc. I think he may be offended that we utilized the vahaduo K12b updated, with Italian regional samples which may have been put together by a known Italian racist. Or else he got offended because I said that dna shows one can indeed divide people, more or less, into large "breeding populations", and that believing this doesn't, ipso facto make one a "racist".

It's a pity, because he's an excellent poster. 

And you think I see racism everywhere, hrvclv? :)

I'll see if I can reconstruct the list from posts.

----------


## bicicleur

> Sample ID / genetic sex (M/F): I2478 / M
> Find location: Via Guidorossi, Parma, Emilia Romagna
> Associated label in publication: Beaker Northern Italy
> Date: 2194–1939 calBCE (3671±40 BP, LTL-5035A)
> MtDNA haplogroup (mother): K1a2a
> Y-DNA haplogroup (father): R1b1a1a2a1a2 (P312)
> Reference: Olalde et al. 2018


you seem to have a well organised database
how did you collect and build it?

----------


## hrvclv

Does it really matter who made a tool, as long as it proves useful ?

----------


## Angela

> I was going to do an analysis of my own dna to highlight the Bavarian BB and Remedello Bronze connection even in a half Emilian/half Tuscan, but Duarte has closed access to his google doc. I think he may be offended that we utilized the vahaduo K12b updated, with Italian regional samples which may have been put together by a known Italian racist. Or else he got offended because I said that dna shows one can indeed divide people, more or less, into large "breeding populations", and that believing this doesn't, ipso facto make one a "racist".
> 
> It's a pity, because he's an excellent poster. 
> 
> And you think I see racism everywhere, hrvclv? :)
> 
> I'll see if I can reconstruct the list from posts.



6.06036303
I3313_Balkans_BronzeAge




6.86379633
I3499_NWBalkans_PannonianPlain_Vucedol_EN



6.99657773
I2176_Balkans_BronzeAge

7.16551464
I1979_Bronze_Age_Beaker_Northern_Italy

7.41494437
I2175_Balkans_BronzeAge


8.75370207
Bul6_Balkans_BronzeAge

8.85352472
Bul10_Balkans_BronzeAge


9.34367166
I4331_Balkans_BronzeAge


9.64873049
I4332_Balkans_BronzeAge


10.77930888
I0706_Balkans_Neolithic


12.22507260
Bavaria_BB_II5524



Iron Age:
The first sample is one which has a bit of "Armenian", i.e. Caucasus in it. It's also the only "upper class" sample we have.
9.10498215
R1016_Iron_Age_Castel_di_Decima


9.61917356
R1015_Iron_Age_Veio_Grotta_Gramiccia


9.80181106
R1_Iron_Age_Protovillanovan_Martinsicuro


10.76144972
R474_Iron_Age_Civitavecchia


10.89582948
R1021_Iron_Age_Boville_Ernica

10.91793937
R473_Iron_Age_Civitavecchia



Iron Age Scythians: this is the group of assimilated "Scythians" from Moldova who are autosomally "Southern European", specifically "Tuscan like". 
8.12881295
ScythianSouthernMoldova_scy197


9.05183407
ScythianSouthernMoldova_scy192


9.31019871
ScythianMoldova_SCY300



The trajectory for my ancestry has seemed to me to point to an entrance into Italy from the southern edge of the eastern Alps. It's possible, of course, that we just don't have enough samples from more "western" entry points. 

We have a member from the Romagna who gets similar results, although closer to R1, and Torzio is closer to some of the Etruscan samples. 

Or, people like the Piemontese or western Lombards would show slightly different affinities. Unfortunately, none have posted.

----------


## Ygorcs

> First, the Romans of the Republic, the founders of Empire, were supposed to be Scandinavian like or German like, and the Etruscans were Anatolians. I heard it here dozens of times. Now they were all Swiss or French. :)
> 
> Has anyone ever denied that steppe related ancestry entered Italy from over the Alps??? Given the linguistic analyses of Italic and Celtic, has anyone ever denied that there might have been an Italo-Celtic speaking group in Central Europe which diverged into two streams? Haven't we known that for a very, very, long time?
> 
> What we also know is that by the time they were more than a bunch of shepards shivering from malaria on their hills, they had absorbed local Chalcolithic ancestry, and a bit perhaps from further south. R437 and R850 had absorbed quite a lot.
> 
> Oh, and only one of the samples might be plotting in southern France. Just saying. :)


I think what people are arguing here is simply that *Proto-Italics* were more probably French-like or even British-like than like some other steppe-admixed population more to the east of Switzerland/South Germany. Of course by the time Iron Age Latins, Oscans etc. existed they were not Proto-Italic anymore, but predominantly local Italians in ancestry.

----------


## bicicleur

> ITA_Remedello_BA:RISE486,0.113823,0.169593,0.02790 7,-0.047804,0.080323,-0.025379,-0.013631,0.001385,0.059925,0.071801,0.00406,0.0137 88,-0.012933,-0.003991,-0.016422,-0.017767,-0.002999,0.012035,0.000754,-0.006503,0.001996,-0.003339,-0.02354,-0.027835,-0.007664
> ITA_Remedello_BA:RISE487,0.124067,0.162485,0.04110 6,-0.045866,0.075706,-0.025658,-0.0094,0.011769,0.05154,0.096403,-0.010068,0.01079,-0.031367,-0.016652,-0.017779,-0.000663,0.013038,0.00266,0.017095,-0.018384,0.009733,0.008779,-0.019596,-0.018436,-0.004431
> ITA_Remedello_BA:RISE489,0.121791,0.173656,0.04110 6,-0.062662,0.07663,-0.028726,-0.00564,0.004384,0.059925,0.079637,-0.006171,0.017534,-0.030773,-0.013212,-0.021172,-0.008353,0.00691,0.004561,0.015712,-0.006003,-0.003743,-0.003462,-0.012941,-0.026992,-0.007903


they are outliers on the plot
maybe Iberia BB without the steppe ancestry, so Iberian chalcolithic ?

----------


## hrvclv

> I think what people are arguing here is simply that *Proto-Italics* were more probably French-like or even British-like than like some other steppe-admixed population more to the east of Switzerland/South Germany. Of course by the time Iron Age Latins, Oscans etc. existed they were not Proto-Italic anymore, but predominantly local Italians in ancestry.


Exactly...

----------


## Angela

As others have tried to point out, the modern British are not "Celts". Not even the Irish and Scottish, and perhaps not even the Welsh, are "Celts". You know that, surely. 

Take a look at my post number 771. I address the issue tangentially.

As I said, Piemontese or western Lombards might skew differently. I don't know, but I don't see that pull in the results of the Italian posters on our Board.

----------


## hrvclv

> 6.06036303
> I3313_Balkans_BronzeAge
> 
> 
> 6.86379633
> I3499_NWBalkans_PannonianPlain_Vucedol_EN
> 
> 
> 6.99657773
> ...


Iron Age Croatians plot in modern day northern Italy, if I remember correctly.

----------


## hrvclv

> they are outliers on the plot
> maybe Iberia BB without the steppe ancestry, so Iberian chalcolithic ?


Yes, that's how I see it too. They are pre-steppe West-Med people, with fairly high levels of WHG.

----------


## bicicleur

> I think what people are arguing here is simply that *Proto-Italics* were more probably French-like or even British-like than like some other steppe-admixed population more to the east of Switzerland/South Germany. Of course by the time Iron Age Latins, Oscans etc. existed they were not Proto-Italic anymore, but predominantly local Italians in ancestry.


steppe ancestry probably entered Europe probably 5 - 4,5 ka via the Carpathian Basin
from then on it got diluted more and more with European meso/neo/chalcolithic DNA
IMO the Italic people had it in already diluted form before entering Italy where they admixed further with pré-Italic Italian DNA
so, Indeed these Italic people prior to entering Italy could very well have been Halstatt-like

----------


## torzio

from data on post# 761

my plot with these ancients



I am near the top 

Very top one is Proto-villanovan , I sit under that

----------


## Maciamo

> I think what people are arguing here is simply that *Proto-Italics* were more probably French-like or even British-like than like some other steppe-admixed population more to the east of Switzerland/South Germany. Of course by the time Iron Age Latins, Oscans etc. existed they were not Proto-Italic anymore, but predominantly local Italians in ancestry.


That's the way I see it too. Proto-Italics, before intermingling with the indigenous people if Italy, were very probably the same Urnfield/Hallstatt people that expanded all over Western Europe. The Y-DNA tells the same story. Both groups were R1b-U152. If we exclude the Remedello and Kura-Araxes components from Iron Age Latins, Etrsucans and Villanovans, we get something close to German Bell Beaker and North Alpine Late Bronze Age.

----------


## Angela

We have quite a few Bronze Age samples from those areas, and from Spain. I don't remember anyone getting good matches with them, although I just may have missed a post here and there.

_NorthAlpineBronzeAgeFrench_AITI_43,5.01,0.00,0.13, 0.00,45.31,32.18,0.00,0.00,3.09,1.44,12.35,0.48_
_NorthAlpineBronzeAgeFrench_AITI_120,7.59,0.73,0.40 ,0.00,39.57,31.32,1.80,0.00,0.00,0.00,17.73,0.86_
_NorthAlpineBronzeAgeSpanishGalicia_AITI_72,4.56,0. 00,0.00,0.00,42.85,31.92,0.69,0.89,2.30,0.31,16.30 ,0.19_
_NorthAlpineBronzeAgeFrench_AITI_119,9.54,1.40,0.00 ,0.27,43.57,32.66,0.11,0.14,0.20,0.00,11.08,1.01_
_NorthAlpineBronzeAgeFrench_AITI_78,10.50,0.54,0.54 ,0.00,39.10,37.12,0.00,0.35,2.04,0.00,9.53,0.28_
_NorthAlpineSouthDutch_AITI_50,10.70,0.00,0.00,0.00 ,35.87,44.30,2.23,0.13,0.00,0.00,4.95,1.82_
_NorthAlpineSouthDutch_AITI_2,5.63,0.00,0.00,0.00,4 0.44,41.78,1.83,0.00,1.04,0.00,8.28,0.99_

_BronzeAgeSpainCogotas_I12208,1.39,0.00,5.31,0.43,5 4.53,22.97,1.16,0.00,3.96,0.94,8.35,0.95_

_BellBeakerFranceI1388,0.00,0.00,2.30,0.00,59.39,21 .76,0.81,0.00,7.46,0.00,8.28,0.00_
_IlergetesTribeCatalan_I3320,4.64,0.00,4.88,1.09,52 .24,25.19,0.00,0.00,3.67,0.00,7.44,0.86_
_IlercavonesCatalan_I3321,3.80,0.00,4.55,0.00,55.48 ,25.14,0.00,0.83,2.20,0.32,7.68,0.00_
_BellBeakerSouthernFrance_I3874,5.77,0.32,0.81,0.47 ,39.46,40.05,1.07,0.56,0.80,0.00,10.47,0.22_
_IberianElArgarBronzeAge_I8136,0.00,0.00,4.83,0.00, 61.85,21.67,1.21,0.00,3.88,0.00,6.07,0.49_


@hrvclv,

You're asking the wrong person. I didn't quit the Board because we use "racist" data. After investigating this person a little more, however, if you're asking me if I am cautious about using his samples, the answer is yes. I certainly wouldn't put it past him to choose samples which he "likes". I prefer to use academic samples for that reason. 

Anyway, as to your question about where the Balkan Bronze Age people plot, they do indeed plot in Northern Italy.

My closest match in that area.
Distance to:
I3313_Balkans_BronzeAge

3.56275646
Italy_Lombardy

4.78770749
Italy_Emilia

4.93995082
Italy_Liguria

5.14574766
Italy_Veneto

5.39127537
Italy_Piedmont

6.07536254
Italy_Tuscany

6.54086099
Swiss_Italian

7.53474883
Italy_Trentino

8.14842046
France_Corsica

8.45013349
Italy_FriuliVG

8.57974941
Italy_Romagna

9.78872702
Italy_Aosta_Valley

11.74627933
Italy_Marche

12.03777155
Italy_Lazio

12.29336406
Albanian_North

12.42080915
Albanian_Kosovo

14.46197428
Baleares

15.62894430
Macedonian

16.46757724
Galicia

17.02095179
Gagauz

17.19215810
Extremadura

17.51714611
Italy_Abruzzo

18.13725448
Portuguese

18.47098536
Pomak

18.50866554
Murcia



Distance to:
I3499_NWBalkans_PannonianPlain_Vucedol_EN

2.05818124
Italy_Tuscany

2.08280268
Italy_Emilia

3.31002147
Italy_Liguria

3.97854245
Italy_Romagna

5.39777455
Italy_Piedmont

5.50472684
Italy_Lombardy

5.66402703
Italy_Veneto

6.91328981
France_Corsica

7.23471478
Italy_Marche

7.24753020
Italy_Lazio

7.82929729
Italy_FriuliVG

9.04881553
Swiss_Italian

9.38126857
Albanian_Kosovo

9.49702164
Italy_Trentino

9.92970795
Albanian_North

12.16136360
Italy_Aosta_Valley

13.05936781
Italy_Abruzzo

14.06452985
Macedonian

14.32569370
Gagauz

14.88985722
Italy_Apulia

15.82283559
Italy_Campania

16.01395641
Greek

16.34666893
Italy_Sicily

16.44254238
Pomak

17.39657438
Baleares




Distance to:
BronzeAgeNorthernSpain_I2472

6.93994957
Cantabria

7.60840982
Valencia

7.89670184
Aragon

8.13528733
Spaniards

8.92260612
Cataluna

8.98898771
Spanish

9.40866090
Castilla_Y_Leon

9.54614582
Castilla_La_Mancha

10.57576948
Baleares

11.28035017
Galicia

11.51678341
Andalucia

11.81892127
Murcia

12.12418657
Extremadura

12.99507599
Portuguese

16.59701479
Canarias

18.28149611
French

18.37217733
Pais_Vasco

18.62023621
Italy_Aosta_Valley

18.98989731
French

20.41847846
Swiss_Italian

21.54235178
Italy_Trentino

21.79206914
Italy_Lombardy

22.89247366
Italy_Piedmont

23.89897278
French_Basque

23.97438409
Italy_Veneto



Distance to:
BellBeakerSouthernFrance_I3874

6.82477106
French

7.14394849
French

7.86105591
Mixed_Germanic

9.09198548
Dutch

9.62276987
Kent

10.16121056
CEU30

10.28466820
English

10.68832073
German

11.24242856
British_Isles

11.53092364
Cornwall

12.09670203
British

12.60727134
Italy_Aosta_Valley

13.53023281
Irish

13.63107479
Argyll

13.82049927
Orcadian

13.96088106
Orkney

15.01126044
Italy_Trentino

15.84988643
Croat

16.18187914
Swiss_Italian

16.35549449
Hungarians

17.23638303
Bosnian

17.40403562
Italy_FriuliVG

18.53435189
Norwegian

18.75241745
Italy_Veneto

18.86537145
Italy_Piedmont



All of the Iron Age samples were done on the Vahaduo thread, but for those who haven't seen them, this is a taste of it. These are both members of Latin tribes in the Iron Age.

Distance to:
R851_Iron_Age_Ardea

8.35141305
Baleares

11.06513726
Swiss_Italian

11.22772016
Galicia

11.36204724
Italy_Lombardy

11.58294024
Italy_Aosta_Valley

11.69795281
Spaniards

12.50926457
Extremadura

12.55556052
Castilla_Y_Leon

12.58474155
Italy_Trentino

12.62493168
Andalucia

12.85807528
Murcia

12.91240102
Cataluna

13.25537439
Italy_Piedmont

13.51998891
Cantabria

13.52852172
Valencia

13.65238807
Spanish

13.82352452
Italy_Liguria

13.82596109
Portuguese

13.90869071
Italy_Veneto

14.40460104
Italy_Emilia

14.50117581
Castilla_La_Mancha

14.70424769
Aragon

15.02386488
France_Corsica

15.80394096
Italy_Tuscany

16.38091682
Italy_FriuliVG



No one is really close to him, but as I have said repeatedly, he and other samples are somewhere in a no man's land between some Spaniards and northern Italians. Swiss Italians, for example are extremely like Lombards.

Distance to:
R850_Iron_Age_Ardea

3.90799181
Greek_Crete

7.13377179
Ashkenazy_Jews

7.63860109
Italy_Calabria

7.74058137
Sephardic_Jews

7.82175172
Ashkenazi

10.04684154
Italy_Sicily

10.57089239
Italy_Campania

10.88449356
Greek_Cappadocia

11.39101962
Italy_Apulia

11.86263040
Cypriots

12.08694751
Nusayri_Turkey

12.19292418
Morocco_Jews

12.92056940
Italy_Abruzzo

13.12759689
Crimean_Tatar_Coast

13.17106678
Turk_West_BlackSea

13.49063008
Turk_Central_West

14.16544387
Greek

14.43175665
Turk_Central_East

14.45064012
Turk_Anatolia

15.19421600
Turk_Southwest

15.21064759
Lebanese

15.74333510
Turk_Northwest

15.93597503
Turk_South

15.96534685
Turk_Central_Black_Sea

16.59878610
Turk_Southeast



Our only "upper class" burial:

To reiterate, I find that "Corsican" sample highly suspect, but, whatever...
Distance to:
R1016_Iron_Age_Castel_di_Decima

8.24389471
Baleares

9.75583505
Italy_Lombardy

10.70371038
France_Corsica

11.20965620
Italy_Liguria

11.32371847
Andalucia

11.42504540
Swiss_Italian

11.42629424
Galicia

11.51494216
Italy_Emilia

11.79780955
Italy_Piedmont

11.95574339
Murcia

12.07648128
Extremadura

12.59229129
Spaniards

12.60429252
Italy_Tuscany

12.64712420
Italy_Aosta_Valley

12.89660874
Italy_Veneto

12.99406788
Castilla_Y_Leon

13.07247260
Italy_Trentino

13.45805707
Portuguese

14.26729827
Cataluna

14.36500609
Spanish

14.53080865
Valencia

14.78261817
Castilla_La_Mancha

14.93880183
Canarias

14.97183356
Cantabria

15.34615261
Italy_Romagna



It remains to be seen, imo, whether that more "western" Beaker input we see in some of the Parma Beakers samples lasted in Italy or indeed how far it extended, given that one of the samples had almost no "Beaker", as indeed the Sicily "Beaker" samples had not "Beaker" genetic influence. 

Let's hope the upcoming Reich paper has more Bronze Age northern and southern Italian samples.

----------


## Ygorcs

> As others have tried to point out, the modern British are not "Celts". Not even the Irish and Scottish, and perhaps not even the Welsh, are "Celts". You know that, surely. 
> 
> Take a look at my post number 771. I address the issue tangentially.
> 
> As I said, Piemontese or western Lombards might skew differently. I don't know, but I don't see that pull in the results of the Italian posters on our Board.


Oops, sorry, I meant Bronze Age/Early Iron Age British and French, not modern ones.

----------


## Angela

> Oops, sorry, I meant Bronze Age/Early Iron Age British and French, not modern ones.


Don't see them either, in either modern or ancient samples.

----------


## Palermo Trapani

Ygorcs:

Don't the Welsh among the peoples of the UK have more Neolithic Early European Farmer DNA vs. the Scottish, Irish and English. The Scottish and English having more Celtic Steppe, less Neolithic and the English having Germanic Anglo-Saxon from even further North in Central Europe. So among NW Europeans, the Welsh have often been seen to resemble peoples in South West France and maybe some association with the Basque in Spain. So those women could definitely move to Italy and fit right in pretty much in any region, at least in my opinion.

----------


## Palermo Trapani

> steppe ancestry probably entered Europe probably 5 - 4,5 ka via the Carpathian Basin
> from then on it got diluted more and more with European meso/neo/chalcolithic DNA
> IMO the Italic people had it in already diluted form before entering Italy where they admixed further with pré-Italic Italian DNA
> so, Indeed these Italic people prior to entering Italy could very well have been Halstatt-like


Your statement is not inconsistent with my hypothesis. The Steppe which brought in Indo-European language and the movement of peoples associated with it covered a large area of land from North to South. I don't have the site in front of me but I think Lazaridis in one of his papers notes the Steppe was 57% EHG and 43% CHG. I wonder if that ratio varied North to South, i.e. the further South you go, the more CHG relative to EHG whereas North it is just the opposite, More EHG vs. CHG. In addition, the Pre-Italics/Latins route being further South would have taken them in areas that may have already had more EEF than areas further North which might have had more residual WHG. So what is the exact route the Proto-Italics took and what lands they crossed would perhaps suggest what peoples they married and intermixed with.

----------


## Palermo Trapani

Well like Salento, I don't seem to clustering with the English Romans that played in the 1970's BBC PBS show I Claudius, which was and still is one heck of a Show. Just to remind folks, American of Sicilian Italian Ancestry (Totalmente) from insular inland towns in the regions of Trapani, Palermo and Agrigento.

----------


## Angela

Forgot to provide the original dodecad source results...

I get a reasonably good fit to this sample...

Distance to:
R1016_Iron_Age_Castel_di_Decima

5.15760603
North_Italian

7.87889586
N_Italian

8.24389471
Baleares

11.32371847
Andalucia

11.42629424
Galicia

11.95574339
Murcia

12.07648128
Extremadura

12.25715301
TSI30

12.59229129
Spaniards

12.99406788
Castilla_Y_Leon

13.45805707
Portuguese

14.10107088
Tuscan

14.26729827
Cataluna

14.36500609
Spanish

14.53080865
Valencia

14.78261817
Castilla_La_Mancha

14.93880183
Canarias

14.97183356
Cantabria

15.63196725
Aragon

16.57335814
O_Italian

17.87135417
C_Italian

21.26400715
French

21.89108266
French

26.17368526
Greek

26.26928054
Sicilian



Target: R1016_Iron_Age_Castel_di_Decima
Distance: 2.4369% / 2.43685038 | ADC: 0.25x

76.8North_Italian
9.4Valencia
7.4Andalucia
5.4Sardinian
0.8Pulliyar
0.2Nganassan

And this one, an Etruscan one...
Distance to:
R1015_Iron_Age_Veio_Grotta_Gramiccia

5.24512154
North_Italian

8.03976368
N_Italian

8.21257572
Baleares

10.85773457
Galicia

11.64063572
Murcia

12.06155048
Extremadura

12.15138675
Andalucia

12.49035628
TSI30

12.74874111
Castilla_Y_Leon

12.84337962
Spaniards

13.02558636
Portuguese

14.29485922
Spanish

14.48704249
Cataluna

14.48716673
Tuscan

14.59809577
Canarias

15.02812031
Castilla_La_Mancha

15.03589040
Valencia

15.10769340
Cantabria

15.97660790
Aragon

16.59626464
O_Italian

17.91761982
C_Italian

20.96794697
French

21.55915815
French

25.93064596
Greek

26.20529908
Sicilian



As I said, we've posted results for all of them.

----------


## Palermo Trapani

Angela: You are correct, all of us descendants of Italian immigrants from various regions have been posting our results. These 2 as you note cluster close to modern Northern Italians and looking down the list, I don't see Swedes, Norwegians, Danes, Germans, or English showing up. Heck, even us poor old Sicilian-Italians are doing better on your list than those other modern populations. Who'd thunk it?

----------


## bicicleur

> Your statement is not inconsistent with my hypothesis. The Steppe which brought in Indo-European language and the movement of peoples associated with it covered a large area of land from North to South. I don't have the site in front of me but I think Lazaridis in one of his papers notes the Steppe was 57% EHG and 43% CHG. I wonder if that ratio varied North to South, i.e. the further South you go, the more CHG relative to EHG whereas North it is just the opposite, More EHG vs. CHG. In addition, the Pre-Italics/Latins route being further South would have taken them in areas that may have already had more EEF than areas further North which might have had more residual WHG. So what is the exact route the Proto-Italics took and what lands they crossed would perhaps suggest what peoples they married and intermixed with.


there is a large variation in BellBeaker DNA
they all have steppe DNA admixed with European neolithic/chalcolithic, but all in different proportions
if I remember well, Iberian continental Bell Beaker (with R1b Y-DNA) had more than British, who were allready 50 % admixed

I think the pure CHG is what Maciamo refers to as 'Kura-Araxes like' :




> Thanks for your analysis, Ygorcs. Very interesting. 
> 
> I also noticed that Iron-age Latins appear to be closest to Southeast French and North Italians. 
> 
> I agree that the original Italic tribes would have been very Celtic-like as they share common roots in the Urnfield and Hallstatt cultures. The Urnfield culture spread to northern Italy, but also Southeast France and Catalonia, which may be why, with the shared ancestry, many Iron Age Latin samples score high similarities with southern France and Catalonia in addition to northern Italy.
> 
> Hallstatt and La Tène Celts from around the Alps later spread to Belgium, France, Iberia and Britain, so it isn't surprising to find similarities between Bronze/Iron Age Iberia, Gaul and Britain and Iron Age central and northern Italy (including Etruscans). 
> 
> Like Angela said, the people living in Italy prior to the Italic invasions probably possessed some Near Eastern Kura-Araxes-like (Bronze Age Armenia/Anatolia/Levant) admixture. So when Villanovans and Italics mixed with them that gave us the hybrid individuals we witness in Iron Age Latium. 
> ...





> where would that Kura-Araxes have come from?
> from Myceneans and Greeks maybe?
> 
> there is a paper about the western Medittaranean (Sardinia, Baleares, Iberia), and if I recall well it shows only late (phoenician/greek) arrival of this type of admixture
> 
> on the other hand, that type of admixture may already have arrived in the Aegean and in Troy during early Heladic (Cycladic culture) and slightly prior to the foundation of Troy, ca 5 ka
> by the time of Myceneans the incoming Kura-Araxes was already heavily admixed with Aegean or Anatolian EEF and had also recieved a tad of steppe

----------


## Angela

Sicilians get quite good results with R437, as do Southern Italians, and this is an Iron Age sample let's not forget. Indeed, their fits are much better than what I get.

Distance to:
R437_Iron_Age_Palestrina_Selicata

4.59913035
S_Italian_Sicilian

4.83577295
Sicilian

6.62618291
C_Italian

10.16248001
Ashkenazi

10.49031935
Tuscan

10.64005169
Ashkenazy_Jews

11.26179382
Greek

11.40172794
Sephardic_Jews

11.72748055
TSI30

11.99572424
O_Italian

12.92229856
Morocco_Jews

19.05535620
N_Italian

19.48090090
North_Italian

22.31406731
Cypriots

25.38137112
Turkish

25.88563308
Bulgarian

25.93160234
Bulgarians

27.15757721
Romanians

27.42830655
Lebanese

28.16090197
Turks

28.45628226
Baleares

29.54386569
Canarias

29.68206361
Syrians

30.21483080
Murcia

30.27705732
Galicia



A bit of Moroccan Jew shows up, but nowhere near the affinity of the Bronze Age Sicilian Beaker with them. 
Target: R437_Iron_Age_Palestrina_Selicata
Distance: 2.1728% / 2.17279692 | ADC: 0.5x

76.8
S_Italian_Sicilian



18.4
C_Italian



3.4
Andalucia



1.4
Sardinian





Target: R437_Iron_Age_Palestrina_Selicata
Distance: 1.2030% / 1.20299496 | ADC: 0.25x

76.6
S_Italian_Sicilian



12.8
C_Italian



4.8
Andalucia



3.4
Sardinian



1.6
Morocco_Jews



0.8
Brahui





Bronze Age Beaker from Sicily...
Distance to:
I4930_Bronze_Age_Beaker_Sicily

17.75790528
Morocco_Jews

18.18684415
Sicilian

18.68690451
Sephardic_Jews

19.18726140
S_Italian_Sicilian

21.20363412
C_Italian

21.34804441
Ashkenazi

22.10654428
Ashkenazy_Jews

23.35725583
Tuscan

24.08437253
TSI30

26.09522945
Greek

27.25755308
O_Italian

27.37371002
Cypriots

28.92887312
North_Italian

30.30025412
N_Italian

33.40130237
Canarias

34.58367245
Andalucia

35.04589848
Baleares

35.06321149
Sardinian

35.24731195
Murcia

35.29380966
Lebanese

35.44868122
Turkish

35.86672413
Druze

36.96170992
Extremadura

37.15035128
Galicia

37.28312085
Portuguese





Target: I4930_Bronze_Age_Beaker_Sicily
Distance: 6.5012% / 6.50120497 | ADC: 0.25x

49.8
Cypriots



40.6
Sardinian



5.2
Mozabite



4.4
Morocco_Jews





There's a huge hole in the Antonio et al paper because they didn't address this issue of additional ancestry from the Near East showing up in Italy in the Bronze Age, and their "hypothesis" or "theory" of the changes in Italian genetics over time suffers from it. We're not seeing the whole picture yet, imo. Target: I4930_Bronze_Age_Beaker_Sicily
Distance: 6.5012% / 6.50120497 | ADC: 0.25x

49.8
Cypriots



40.6
Sardinian



5.2
Mozabite



4.4
Morocco_Jews

----------


## Ygorcs

> Don't see them either, in either modern or ancient samples.


So who do you understand the Proto-Italic portion of the Italic genetic structure was closest to? I also get LN/EBA Germany affinities, but generally also including a more "western" (Iberia, France) EEF, so I don't see the possibility of a source population much to the east of Western European BB types.

----------


## hrvclv

> Ygorcs:
> 
> Don't the Welsh among the peoples of the UK have more Neolithic Early European Farmer DNA vs. the Scottish, Irish and English. The Scottish and English having more Celtic Steppe, less Neolithic and the English having Germanic Anglo-Saxon from even further North in Central Europe. So among NW Europeans, the Welsh have often been seen to resemble peoples in South West France and maybe some association with the Basque in Spain. So those women could definitely move to Italy and fit right in pretty much in any region, at least in my opinion.




Of course these are "bottom line" results. They don't tell us via which population (Britain MN, BB, Gauls, Romans, Saxons, Vikings...) brought which genes.

----------


## hrvclv

The Italian results (Modern)

----------


## Angela

> So who do you understand the Proto-Italic portion of the Italic genetic structure was closest to? I also get LN/EBA Germany affinities, but generally also including a more "western" (Iberia, France) EEF, so I don't see the possibility of a source population much to the east of Western European BB types.


I'm not sure of the answer.

I'm just reporting what I see. I don't see any appreciable affinity of Northern Italians with German BB or French BB. The affinities I see are all with Balkan samples, not German or French. I personally get a lot of matches with Spanish and Portuguese samples, but after the Iron Age, not before.

Now, such affinities might exist in the Piemontese or the western Lombards. I don't know. None have posted. I know you can see it in some of the Valle Aosta samples, but they're not really Italians from my perspective.

They did exist in two of the Parma Beakers, but how widespread that influence was and whether it lasted is unknown to me. I get a hit only to one of the samples, the one with very little steppe, from what I remember. We really need more Bronze Age samples from both northern and southern Italy.

If they do exist in some Northern Italians, then maybe we're talking about two streams into Italy of slightly different steppe admixed peoples. 

If it doesn't, then, I don't know.


Also, there's of course this...

My particular area shows affinity to both Irish Bronze Age and Hungarian Bronze Age, but most of Italy has no connection to Irish Bronze Age, not even more northern areas than mine. Before the Parma Beaker samples and the Iron Age Italian samples came out I assumed that the Irish Bronze Age influence was from the Iron Age, i.e. the "Celtic" invasions. That's how the Ligurians became the Celt-Ligurians. Perhaps it was earlier, though, as we can see from Parma Beaker, or it was both. I think it covers the northern Etruscan area as well but not really southern Etruria and Rome. 

I had opined on one post that perhaps it might be a clue that the "Etruscans" took a different route south into Italy than the Latin affiliated tribes, but Pax took great exception to it. :)

I have to check how many Hungarian samples we have. By some analyses, I'm extremely close to the more "Southern European" Szolad samples. Maybe they weren't relict, isolated "Romans" after all. :)

----------


## hrvclv

The same, with a Near Eastern source (When applicable, it tends to bring the Anatolian down a bit)

----------


## hrvclv

Distance to:	ITA_Prenestini_tribe_IA:RMPR435b

0.03675835	DEU_Lech_EBA:POST_44
0.04002633	DEU_Lech_EBA:POST_50
0.04341762	HUN_BA:I7040
0.04531833	HRV_MBA:I4332
0.05019973	HUN_BA:I7043
0.05020603	HRV_MBA:I4331
0.05162455	DEU_Lech_EBA:AITI_119
0.05496288	DEU_Lech_EBA:AITI_2
0.05755096	DEU_Lech_EBA:AITI_78
0.06022575	HRV_EBA:I3499
0.06342869	DEU_Lech_EBA:UNTA85_1412
0.06362020	CZE_EBA:I7196
0.07387832	DEU_Lech_EBA:WEHR_1415child
0.07600874	DEU_Lech_EBA:POST_6
0.09528762	CZE_EBA:I7195
0.09874883	CZE_EBA:I7201
0.10138338	GRC_Mycenaean:I9033
0.10147843	CZE_EBA:I4892
0.10212855	CZE_EBA:I7200
0.10547954	ITA_Remedello_BA:RISE486
0.10627913	CZE_EBA:I7202
0.10631677	ITA_Remedello_BA:RISE487
0.10946105	GRC_Mycenaean:I9041
0.11053948	DEU_Lech_EBA:WEHR_1415adult_d
0.11102731	CZE_EBA:I4884

Distance to:	ITA_Rome_Latini_IA:RMPR1016

0.03645436	DEU_Lech_EBA:POST_50
0.04296666	HRV_MBA:I4332
0.04703267	HRV_MBA:I4331
0.05055921	HUN_BA:I7040
0.05296068	HUN_BA:I7043
0.05696050	HRV_EBA:I3499
0.05715747	DEU_Lech_EBA:POST_44
0.07224907	DEU_Lech_EBA:AITI_119
0.08058219	DEU_Lech_EBA:AITI_78
0.08389966	GRC_Mycenaean:I9041
0.08606722	DEU_Lech_EBA:UNTA85_1412
0.08622884	ITA_Remedello_BA:RISE487
0.08643854	DEU_Lech_EBA:AITI_2
0.08828742	GRC_Mycenaean:I9033
0.09094623	ITA_Remedello_BA:RISE489
0.09136644	HUN_BA:I7042
0.09284722	ITA_Remedello_BA:RISE486
0.09569667	GRC_Mycenaean:I9006
0.10043120	GRC_Mycenaean:I9010
0.10289433	CZE_EBA:I7196
0.10649018	DEU_Lech_EBA:WEHR_1415child
0.11085806	DEU_Lech_EBA:POST_6
0.12473158	CZE_EBA:I7195
0.12780555	CZE_EBA:I7200
0.13264803	CZE_EBA:I4892

Distance to:	ITA_Villanovan:RMPR1015

0.03529712	DEU_Lech_EBA:POST_50
0.04053185	HRV_MBA:I4332
0.04445669	HUN_BA:I7040
0.05038741	HRV_MBA:I4331
0.05115129	HUN_BA:I7043
0.05909810	DEU_Lech_EBA:POST_44
0.06253735	HRV_EBA:I3499
0.07031813	DEU_Lech_EBA:AITI_119
0.07932345	DEU_Lech_EBA:AITI_78
0.08469561	DEU_Lech_EBA:UNTA85_1412
0.08723023	GRC_Mycenaean:I9041
0.08723503	HUN_BA:I7042
0.08771433	ITA_Remedello_BA:RISE487
0.08801768	ITA_Remedello_BA:RISE486
0.09048659	DEU_Lech_EBA:AITI_2
0.09099420	ITA_Remedello_BA:RISE489
0.09702071	GRC_Mycenaean:I9033
0.09806956	GRC_Mycenaean:I9010
0.09866103	GRC_Mycenaean:I9006
0.10329891	CZE_EBA:I7196
0.10780411	DEU_Lech_EBA:WEHR_1415child
0.11014032	DEU_Lech_EBA:POST_6
0.12556804	CZE_EBA:I7195
0.12777818	CZE_EBA:I7200
0.13008604	CZE_EBA:I7201

Distance to:	ITA_Proto-Villanovan:RMPR1

0.03663236	HRV_EBA:I3499
0.03681141	HRV_MBA:I4331
0.03825269	HUN_BA:I7043
0.03886406	HUN_BA:I7040
0.05087999	HRV_MBA:I4332
0.05421105	DEU_Lech_EBA:POST_44
0.06347716	DEU_Lech_EBA:POST_50
0.07251258	GRC_Mycenaean:I9033
0.07637189	DEU_Lech_EBA:UNTA85_1412
0.07674899	DEU_Lech_EBA:AITI_119
0.07875470	DEU_Lech_EBA:AITI_78
0.07934288	DEU_Lech_EBA:AITI_2
0.08455779	CZE_EBA:I7196
0.08483528	GRC_Mycenaean:I9041
0.09170111	DEU_Lech_EBA:WEHR_1415child
0.09382116	DEU_Lech_EBA:POST_6
0.09405861	GRC_Mycenaean:I9006
0.10601722	GRC_Mycenaean:I9010
0.10900788	CZE_EBA:I7200
0.11113236	CZE_EBA:I7195
0.11299805	CZE_EBA:I7201
0.11405907	CZE_EBA:I7202
0.11511215	ITA_Remedello_BA:RISE486
0.11715919	HUN_BA:I7042
0.11842167	CZE_EBA:I4892

Distance to:	ITA_Etruscan:RMPR474b

0.02947394	HRV_MBA:I4331
0.03048724	HUN_BA:I7040
0.03149719	HRV_MBA:I4332
0.03155726	HUN_BA:I7043
0.03666060	DEU_Lech_EBA:POST_50
0.04058545	DEU_Lech_EBA:POST_44
0.04218627	HRV_EBA:I3499
0.05830453	DEU_Lech_EBA:AITI_119
0.06441887	DEU_Lech_EBA:AITI_78
0.06790251	DEU_Lech_EBA:UNTA85_1412
0.06902526	DEU_Lech_EBA:AITI_2
0.07811073	CZE_EBA:I7196
0.08174837	GRC_Mycenaean:I9033
0.08466554	DEU_Lech_EBA:WEHR_1415child
0.08510485	GRC_Mycenaean:I9041
0.08826851	DEU_Lech_EBA:POST_6
0.09625363	GRC_Mycenaean:I9006
0.10462609	CZE_EBA:I7200
0.10489784	ITA_Remedello_BA:RISE486
0.10556859	CZE_EBA:I7195
0.10557984	HUN_BA:I7042
0.10604794	GRC_Mycenaean:I9010
0.10962435	ITA_Remedello_BA:RISE487
0.11020110	CZE_EBA:I7201
0.11132451	ITA_Remedello_BA:RISE489

Distance to:	ITA_Etruscan:RMPR473

0.03882498	HUN_BA:I7040
0.04793418	HRV_MBA:I4331
0.05059259	HRV_EBA:I3499
0.05156205	HUN_BA:I7043
0.05341671	HRV_MBA:I4332
0.05455755	DEU_Lech_EBA:POST_50
0.05521485	DEU_Lech_EBA:POST_44
0.07658676	GRC_Mycenaean:I9033
0.08276730	ITA_Remedello_BA:RISE486
0.08321317	DEU_Lech_EBA:AITI_2
0.08404973	DEU_Lech_EBA:AITI_119
0.08644575	GRC_Mycenaean:I9041
0.08994418	DEU_Lech_EBA:UNTA85_1412
0.09052788	HUN_BA:I7042
0.09058468	DEU_Lech_EBA:AITI_78
0.09085964	ITA_Remedello_BA:RISE489
0.09326179	ITA_Remedello_BA:RISE487
0.09402630	CZE_EBA:I7196
0.09685247	GRC_Mycenaean:I9006
0.10373999	GRC_Mycenaean:I9010
0.10534016	DEU_Lech_EBA:WEHR_1415child
0.10667801	DEU_Lech_EBA:POST_6
0.12860375	CZE_EBA:I7195
0.12962410	CZE_EBA:I7201
0.13258347	CZE_EBA:I7200

Distance to:	ITA_Boville_Ernica_IA:RMPR1021

0.03955076	HUN_BA:I7040
0.04891343	HUN_BA:I7043
0.05003593	HRV_MBA:I4331
0.05524475	HRV_MBA:I4332
0.05593812	DEU_Lech_EBA:POST_44
0.05757211	HRV_EBA:I3499
0.05871093	DEU_Lech_EBA:POST_50
0.07886437	DEU_Lech_EBA:AITI_119
0.08223083	DEU_Lech_EBA:AITI_2
0.08314325	GRC_Mycenaean:I9033
0.08619195	ITA_Remedello_BA:RISE486
0.08658454	DEU_Lech_EBA:AITI_78
0.08807274	CZE_EBA:I7196
0.09000511	DEU_Lech_EBA:UNTA85_1412
0.09374318	ITA_Remedello_BA:RISE487
0.09387825	GRC_Mycenaean:I9041
0.09747214	HUN_BA:I7042
0.09855841	ITA_Remedello_BA:RISE489
0.10296225	DEU_Lech_EBA:WEHR_1415child
0.10397961	DEU_Lech_EBA:POST_6
0.10463181	GRC_Mycenaean:I9006
0.10675926	GRC_Mycenaean:I9010
0.12268479	CZE_EBA:I7201
0.12470784	CZE_EBA:I7195
0.12907313	CZE_EBA:I7200

Distance to:	ITA_Proto-Villanovan:RMPR1

0.03663236	HRV_EBA:I3499
0.03681141	HRV_MBA:I4331
0.03825269	HUN_BA:I7043
0.03886406	HUN_BA:I7040
0.05087999	HRV_MBA:I4332
0.05421105	DEU_Lech_EBA:POST_44
0.06347716	DEU_Lech_EBA:POST_50
0.07251258	GRC_Mycenaean:I9033
0.07637189	DEU_Lech_EBA:UNTA85_1412
0.07674899	DEU_Lech_EBA:AITI_119
0.07875470	DEU_Lech_EBA:AITI_78
0.07934288	DEU_Lech_EBA:AITI_2
0.08455779	CZE_EBA:I7196
0.08483528	GRC_Mycenaean:I9041
0.09170111	DEU_Lech_EBA:WEHR_1415child
0.09382116	DEU_Lech_EBA:POST_6
0.09405861	GRC_Mycenaean:I9006
0.10601722	GRC_Mycenaean:I9010
0.10900788	CZE_EBA:I7200
0.11113236	CZE_EBA:I7195
0.11299805	CZE_EBA:I7201
0.11405907	CZE_EBA:I7202
0.11511215	ITA_Remedello_BA:RISE486
0.11715919	HUN_BA:I7042
0.11842167	CZE_EBA:I4892

----------


## hrvclv

Looks like those guys didn't all come from exactly the same spots. Might explain the diversity of dialects : Latin, Faliscan, etc... all of them close, but clearly distinct. With differences suggesting they had been apart a while.

----------


## Leopoldo Leone

_Anybody wants to be the "real" Romans but for god's sake let's not say that modern Italians are the descendents of the historical populations that inhabited Italy:_ I'll be honest and say that I deem both blood and culture to be needful for a people to make up an ethnic group, thus _in my theoretical framework_ to deny the genetic continuity that the Italians have with the populations that lived in Italy is to sunder Italians from their heritage. Putting my personal perpective aside, the majority of studies have shown that there is a strong genetic continuity between Italians and populations in Italy since the iron age, so any extravagant claim straight from the XX century of "original" Italians/Latins/Italics that built the roman civilization coming from North Europe is pratically groundless; moreover, to focus so much on the fact that proto-italics had higher steppe-related ancestry than later italics is to divert the attention from the _equally true_ fact that it was not the proto-italics that developed the italic cultures ( of which latin's was a part ) but later italics with lower steppe-related ancestry, so "british-like" proto-italics were not the ones responsible for the achievements of the subsequent italian people _with low steppe-related_ _ancestry_. As for Davidsky, just today I scrolled down the comments of one post about "a whole new ancestry brought in Europe by the Romans/ancient Greeks", and unironically he believes that the all the historical Italian and Greek populations were like northern Italians/continental Europe (with the elites being germanic/slavic-like, _of course! )_ and that modern central and southern Italians are "mutts", so modern central and southern Italians not only are not the heirs of the classical greco-roman culture, but they are also not quite native to Europe and they ought to be kicked out of Europe! ( it sounds like a parody, but he himself really wrote that... ). These comments were from 2016 but in the last post he made about ancient Italians he still modelled the latin outliers, who cluster with modern day southern Italians, as italic-"semitic", and it speaks volumes about his incapacity of changing his initial theories when the data do not support them. finally let's also debunk a common accusation made by his folk to anyone criticising his models: it is not _racist_ to say that in Italy there is not any significant gene flow from the middle east (escluding the EEF and neolithic Iran ), and to be fair many "semitic" peoples had great civilizations before any indo-european people, but I could argue that _it is indeed_ racist to keep postulating biblical movement of people from all the middle east in order to make more than half of the population of Italy appear as the least "european" of all the continent, and to keep saying that the real responsible of all the classical civilizations were northern steppe pastoralists whose most closely related descendents are the eastern Europeans ( and _of course_ Poles are especially related to them because of "muh R1a").

----------


## Angela

Anybody with half a brain who's been around for longer than a minute knows what Davidski is all about. Those who deny it either secretly agree with him or just want to be able to use his programs and post on his site or are so new to the "hobby" that they don't have a clue about the "players".

If the debacle with the Mycenaeans, whom he claimed were going to be carbon copies of the Corded Ware people of Poland up until the day before the publication of the paper, and the Etruscans, who were going to be Anatolian Iron Age people up until a week before the paper came out, isn't enough for people to see his analyses aren't reliable then they're being wilfully blind. I certainly didn't make mistakes like that. 

Oh, and don't forget how the northern Indians were going to be 50% Andronovo or whatever nonsense he modeled for months. 

Ignore him.

On to more important things. 

R473 Etruscan
Distance to:
R473_Iron_Age_Civitavecchia

5.23807216
I2520_Balkans_BronzeAge

7.33017053
I1979_Bronze_Age_Beaker_Northern_Italy

7.88686249
I1113_Malak_Preslavets

8.15739542
I2111_Trypillia

8.17621551
I2176_Balkans_BronzeAge

8.33299466
I2215_Malak_Preslavets

8.84239786
I1297_Malak_Preslavets

9.36587423
I2175_Balkans_BronzeAge

9.46015856
Bavaria_BB_II5524

9.83392089
I3151_Trypillia

10.07499380
Bul10_Balkans_BronzeAge

10.18056482
I2110_Trypillia

10.61650131
Bul6_Balkans_BronzeAge

10.62080505
I1926_Trypillia

10.62551175
ElSotilloBasqueCountry_I1977

10.84815192
CuevadelaPalomaSpain_I3239

11.21283639
I4331_Balkans_BronzeAge

11.59367931
I2478_Bronze_Age_Beaker_Northern_Italy

12.06694245
I0706_Balkans_Neolithic

12.55335015
I9123_Bronze_Age_Armenoi_Crete

12.55979299
NorthAlpineBronzeAgeSpanishGalicia_AITI_72

13.34862165
I1295_Malak_Preslavets

14.53531217
I2440_Globular_Amphora

14.54483757
IberiaBronzeAge_ATP9




Bavaria BB did show up, but at a further distance than the Balkan samples. Same for the Spanish samples which show up.

R474 Etruscan...This one has good hits to the German BB and North Alpine samples, but equally good hits to the Balkans Bronze Age.
Distance to:
R474_Iron_Age_Civitavecchia

5.74122809
I4331_Balkans_BronzeAge

6.77580991
Bavaria_BB_II5524

8.72072818
NorthAlpineBronzeAgeFrench_AITI_120

9.30280603
NorthAlpineBronzeAgeSpanishGalicia_AITI_72

9.65161126
I2520_Balkans_BronzeAge

10.61332653
I2176_Balkans_BronzeAge

10.90744700
I1113_Malak_Preslavets

11.18787737
I2215_Malak_Preslavets

11.81452496
I2478_Bronze_Age_Beaker_Northern_Italy

11.82549788
CuevadelaPalomaSpain_I3239

12.33373423
I9123_Bronze_Age_Armenoi_Crete

12.54336877
I2165_Balkans_BronzeAge

12.68957840
I1979_Bronze_Age_Beaker_Northern_Italy

13.05530161
Bul6_Balkans_BronzeAge

13.21538876
NorthAlpineBronzeAgeFrench_AITI_119

14.00343886
I2111_Trypillia

14.45190299
I2181_Balkans_Chalcolithic_outlier

14.92140074
I2175_Balkans_BronzeAge

15.52350798
ElSotilloBasqueCountry_I1977

15.70083756
NorthAlpineBronzeAgeFrench_AITI_78

16.12808730
I3151_Trypillia

16.32355047
BronzeAgeEngland_I2462

16.50133328
I1297_Malak_Preslavets

16.56924561
Bul10_Balkans_BronzeAge

17.55443819
BellBeakerSouthernFrance_I3874




R1015 Etruscan-more Balkan Bronze Age heavy
Distance to:
R1015_Iron_Age_Veio_Grotta_Gramiccia

5.90466765
I2520_Balkans_BronzeAge

7.39762124
I2176_Balkans_BronzeAge

7.71334558
I1979_Bronze_Age_Beaker_Northern_Italy

8.13312363
I2175_Balkans_BronzeAge

8.35159266
I2215_Malak_Preslavets

8.37548805
I2111_Trypillia

8.72612743
I3151_Trypillia

9.37365457
I2110_Trypillia

9.64178925
Bavaria_BB_II5524

9.76218725
I1113_Malak_Preslavets

9.95499874
Bul10_Balkans_BronzeAge

10.42357424
CuevadelaPalomaSpain_I3239

10.52312216
I1297_Malak_Preslavets

10.70558733
ElSotilloBasqueCountry_I1977

10.72228520
I1926_Trypillia

11.05433851
I0706_Balkans_Neolithic

11.10513395
Bul6_Balkans_BronzeAge

11.40769915
I4331_Balkans_BronzeAge

11.85190702
I9123_Bronze_Age_Armenoi_Crete

11.99557418
I1295_Malak_Preslavets

12.39624540
I2478_Bronze_Age_Beaker_Northern_Italy

13.15312510
NorthAlpineBronzeAgeSpanishGalicia_AITI_72

14.56524631
ANI160_Varna_Outlier

14.83928570
I4088_Balkans_Chalcolithic

14.89781192
IberiaBronzeAge_ATP9




R1016 Roman-the only upper class sample-again, closer to Bronze Age Balkans
Distance to:
R1016_Iron_Age_Castel_di_Decima

7.35068024
I3151_Trypillia

8.76047373
I2520_Balkans_BronzeAge

9.09492716
I1979_Bronze_Age_Beaker_Northern_Italy

9.45085710
I2175_Balkans_BronzeAge

9.68979876
I2176_Balkans_BronzeAge

10.22361971
I2110_Trypillia

10.45816906
Bavaria_BB_II5524

10.55012322
I2215_Malak_Preslavets

10.69418534
Bul10_Balkans_BronzeAge

10.99995000
CuevadelaPalomaSpain_I3239

11.07581148
I2111_Trypillia

11.10573726
I0706_Balkans_Neolithic

11.18283506
ElSotilloBasqueCountry_I1977

11.73281296
I9123_Bronze_Age_Armenoi_Crete

11.86617040
I1926_Trypillia

11.93298370
I1113_Malak_Preslavets

11.95698122
I4331_Balkans_BronzeAge

12.09002895
I1295_Malak_Preslavets

12.25331384
I1297_Malak_Preslavets

12.57254549
I2478_Bronze_Age_Beaker_Northern_Italy

13.06662925
Bul6_Balkans_BronzeAge

13.48874716
NorthAlpineBronzeAgeSpanishGalicia_AITI_72

14.70167337
ANI160_Varna_Outlier

14.73282050
NorthAlpineBronzeAgeFrench_AITI_120

15.32862681
IberiaBronzeAge_ATP9




Boville Ernica-Bavarian BB and a Spanish sample show up relatively early, but Balkans is first.
Distance to:
R1021_Iron_Age_Boville_Ernica

6.69770856
I3151_Trypillia

7.95362182
CuevadelaPalomaSpain_I3239

8.44269507
Bavaria_BB_II5524

9.72555911
I2215_Malak_Preslavets

9.81126393
I2520_Balkans_BronzeAge

10.30931133
I1979_Bronze_Age_Beaker_Northern_Italy

10.38576911
I2176_Balkans_BronzeAge

10.45481229
I1113_Malak_Preslavets

10.87415284
ElSotilloBasqueCountry_I1977

11.41484998
I4331_Balkans_BronzeAge

11.43899034
I2175_Balkans_BronzeAge

11.56217540
NorthAlpineBronzeAgeSpanishGalicia_AITI_72

12.04413965
I2478_Bronze_Age_Beaker_Northern_Italy

12.20604768
I2110_Trypillia

12.28929209
I1297_Malak_Preslavets

12.79157535
Bul10_Balkans_BronzeAge

13.04577326
I0706_Balkans_Neolithic

13.36867982
NorthAlpineBronzeAgeFrench_AITI_120

13.42683879
I2111_Trypillia

14.22975755
I1926_Trypillia

14.38184967
I1295_Malak_Preslavets

14.64225392
Bul6_Balkans_BronzeAge

14.87163407
I9123_Bronze_Age_Armenoi_Crete

16.00559902
IberiaBronzeAge_ATP9

16.21570535
IlergetesTribeCatalan_I3320



R851, maybe more western?

Distance to:
R851_Iron_Age_Ardea

7.12745396
I3151_Trypillia

7.74215732
CuevadelaPalomaSpain_I3239

8.31362737
I2215_Malak_Preslavets

8.37911093
ElSotilloBasqueCountry_I1977

8.94475265
I1113_Malak_Preslavets

8.99763302
Bavaria_BB_II5524

9.73866521
I1297_Malak_Preslavets

10.11018299
I2520_Balkans_BronzeAge

10.14648708
I2478_Bronze_Age_Beaker_Northern_Italy

10.83610631
NorthAlpineBronzeAgeSpanishGalicia_AITI_72

11.57587146
I1979_Bronze_Age_Beaker_Northern_Italy

11.68067207
I2110_Trypillia

11.81369967
I2176_Balkans_BronzeAge

12.75417971
I4331_Balkans_BronzeAge

12.96713538
I2175_Balkans_BronzeAge

13.14383886
I1926_Trypillia

13.18246183
I2111_Trypillia

13.56668346
IberiaBronzeAge_ATP9

13.62619169
NorthAlpineBronzeAgeFrench_AITI_120

13.98647919
BronzeAgeSpainCogotas_I12208

14.07380901
Bul10_Balkans_BronzeAge

14.10845137
IlergetesTribeCatalan_I3320

14.47627369
I0706_Balkans_Neolithic

14.57562692
IlercavonesCatalan_I3321

14.86646226
I2440_Globular_Amphora



Same for R435
Distance to:
R435_Iron_Age_Palestrina_Colombella

2.14441134
I2478_Bronze_Age_Beaker_Northern_Italy

6.60470287
NorthAlpineBronzeAgeSpanishGalicia_AITI_72

6.79479212
ElSotilloBasqueCountry_I1977

6.97894691
I1113_Malak_Preslavets

7.11525825
I2215_Malak_Preslavets

8.59178678
NorthAlpineBronzeAgeFrench_AITI_119

9.01150931
I1297_Malak_Preslavets

9.15171569
Bavaria_BB_II5524

9.40140947
CuevadelaPalomaSpain_I3239

9.51282292
BronzeAgeEngland_I2462

9.63494162
IlergetesTribeCatalan_I3320

10.53571070
NorthAlpineBronzeAgeFrench_AITI_120

11.23877217
I2181_Balkans_Chalcolithic_outlier

11.64855356
IlercavonesCatalan_I3321

12.15553783
BronzeAgeSpainCogotas_I12208

12.23966911
I2520_Balkans_BronzeAge

13.58203961
I4331_Balkans_BronzeAge

13.76760691
NorthAlpineBronzeAgeFrench_AITI_78

13.82287597
IberianSettlementCataloniaSpain_I3496

13.98864540
IberiaBronzeAge_ATP9

14.33947349
I3151_Trypillia

14.60477319
BellBeakerSouthernFrance_I3874

14.91302116
I2111_Trypillia

15.69331705
I2440_Globular_Amphora

15.79126974
I2176_Balkans_BronzeAge




From what I can see there's a mixture of Balkan Bronze Age and North Alpine/German BB/Iberian Bronze Age, with some samples leaning more one way than the other.

I would need more Etruscan samples to say whether they lean more "eastern" than "western" Bronze Age in comparison to the Latins. 

Whether it was always mixed or the mixture occurred after they arrived in Italy I don't know. 

To get a balanced view both German Beaker and Balkan Bronze have to be included in the sources.

----------


## Carlos

I put the MTA Time lines because the values you are hanging do not work in the Vadhuo calculator, there are separations, 0.00, and it does not work.


I have obtained very good results with Cogotas (Vettones) ilergetes, some illercavons, bell beaker, bronze age, bronze age north Alpine I obtained 18 results. In the Cogotas kit he gets El Argar, in a way ... I think getting better results would be already in the bronze jumping through the mountains, too good results from those samples I think for someone modern. (Both are mine, but I have an older kit)

----------


## Palermo Trapani

bicicleur: Is is fair to say that the Steppe migration people were varied in source populations. The Samarra culture to the North was exclusively Eastern European Hunter Gather and that would be part of the Steppe migration, would it not. The Yamnaya I think was in the Southern Danube region including Hungary, Austria, and likely included less EHG and more CHG and Iran Neolithic component. Lazaridis et al (2016) in "Genomic Insights into the Origin of Farming in the Near East" , Nature Vol. 536 p.423 documents that 43% of the ancestry in the Yamnaya was CHG and Iran Neolithic thus 57% would be EHG. So it has been documented by Raveane et al (2019) "Population Structure of modern-day Italians reveals patterns of ancient and archaic ancestries in Southern Europe", Science Advances 5. In Figure 2 of that paper, they document a strong CHG signal in pretty much every Italian Region save 1, which is I think the Northern Most one. Clearly Lazio has a strong CHG signal. It is documented in more Southern European Countries but not in NW Europe or Northern Europe or Eastern Europe in the samples that they used. So when speaking of the Steppe into Italy, is it possible that the pro-Italics had related but distinct admixture of EHG and CHG whereas the further North you go, the Steppe migration was more EHG.

----------


## Ygorcs

> bicicleur: Is is fair to say that the Steppe migration people were varied in source populations. The Samarra culture to the North was exclusively Eastern European Hunter Gather and that would be part of the Steppe migration, would it not. The Yamnaya I think was in the Southern Danube region including Hungary, Austria, and likely included less EHG and more CHG and Iran Neolithic component. Lazaridis et al (2016) in "Genomic Insights into the Origin of Farming in the Near East" , Nature Vol. 536 p.423 documents that 43% of the ancestry in the Yamnaya was CHG and Iran Neolithic thus 57% would be EHG. So it has been documented by Raveane et al (2019) "Population Structure of modern-day Italians reveals patterns of ancient and archaic ancestries in Southern Europe", Science Advances 5. In Figure 2 of that paper, they document a strong CHG signal in pretty much every Italian Region save 1, which is I think the Northern Most one. Clearly Lazio has a strong CHG signal. It is documented in more Southern European Countries but not in NW Europe or Northern Europe or Eastern Europe in the samples that they used. So when speaking of the Steppe into Italy, is it possible that the pro-Italics had related but distinct admixture of EHG and CHG whereas the further North you go, the Steppe migration was more EHG.


The Samara Culture existed much earlier than the bulk of the steppe migrations westwards and eastwards. By the time they happened, in the LCA and EBA, the Khvalynsk-related people had mixed extensively with Progress-related people (rich in CHG) and also in some parts with Sredny Stog-related people to form a more homogeneous Yamnaya-like cluster. I'm sure there was internal genetic structure with some having more EHG than others, but not dramatic differences as the ones that existed before in the LN or ECA.

I believe the extra CHG in some regions of Italy is more easily explainable as the final outcome of the same thing that had already started before the steppe migrations in the Central-Eastern Mediterranean: the increase in CHG/Iranian-related ancestry, in a descending cline from east to west (probably arriving in most places already diluted with ANF and EEF), independently of any steppe migration. That's what explains e.g. the Minoans and the Sicilian Bell Beaker.

----------


## bicicleur

there is some neolithic CHG in Italy
first pottery arrived in the northern Zagros 9 ka
between 9 and 8,8 ka herders started to move west

Attachment 11782


they had ceramics, probably sieves for dairy production

Attachment 11783


these people were probably CHG, it has been detected in Diros cave on the Peloponesos, and now in Italian neolithic
8,6 ka some of these people introduced cattle and ceramics in central anatolia, they were probably Y-DNA J and T
that is when Anatolian farmers started to move

Attachment 11784


they were G2a2 and C1a2, detected in Central Anatolia before, but also some minor J and T
but all this is not the main source of CHG in the Mediterranean today, that is bronze age CHG

----------


## bicicleur

> The Samara Culture existed much earlier than the bulk of the steppe migrations westwards and eastwards. By the time they happened, in the LCA and EBA, the Khvalynsk-related people had mixed extensively with Progress-related people (rich in CHG) and also in some parts with Sredny Stog-related people to form a more homogeneous Yamnaya-like cluster. I'm sure there was internal genetic structure with some having more EHG than others, but not dramatic differences as the ones that existed before in the LN or ECA.
> I believe the extra CHG in some regions of Italy is more easily explainable as the final outcome of the same thing that had already started before the steppe migrations in the Central-Eastern Mediterranean: the increase in CHG/Iranian-related ancestry, in a descending cline from east to west (probably arriving in most places already diluted with ANF and EEF), independently of any steppe migration. That's what explains e.g. the Minoans and the Sicilian Bell Beaker.


the Khvalynsk had steppe ancestry admixed with a tad of Siberian ancestry, their Y DNA was R1b (probably pre-V88), R1a and Q1a (hence the tad Siberian)
the people around the Dnjepr had steppe ancestry admixed with a tad of EEF, their Y DNA was pre-V88 R1b and I2a2a-L701

the Yamna were R1b-Z2103, they had pure steppe ancestry, no Siberian, no EEF
they were derived from R1b-P297, who were detected north since 9 ka, in the Samara and eastern Baltic area
during the 6,2 ka cold spell, some R1b-M269 probably moved south into the steppe, they were the Repin people who arrived in the Don-Volga area ca 5,95 ka
https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-P297/

----------


## bicicleur

> The Samara Culture existed much earlier than the bulk of the steppe migrations westwards and eastwards. By the time they happened, in the LCA and EBA, the Khvalynsk-related people had mixed extensively with Progress-related people (rich in CHG) and also in some parts with Sredny Stog-related people to form a more homogeneous Yamnaya-like cluster. I'm sure there was internal genetic structure with some having more EHG than others, but not dramatic differences as the ones that existed before in the LN or ECA.
> 
> I believe the extra CHG in some regions of Italy is more easily explainable as the final outcome of the same thing that had already started before the steppe migrations in the Central-Eastern Mediterranean: the increase in CHG/Iranian-related ancestry, in a descending cline from east to west (probably arriving in most places already diluted with ANF and EEF), independently of any steppe migration. That's what explains e.g. the Minoans and the Sicilian Bell Beaker.


can you tell me more about these Progress-related people?

----------


## etrusco

> the Khvalynsk had steppe ancestry admixed with a tad of Siberian ancestry, their Y DNA was R1b (probably pre-V88), R1a and Q1a (hence the tad Siberian)
> the people around the Dnjepr had steppe ancestry admixed with a tad of EEF, their Y DNA was pre-V88 R1b and I2a2a-L701
> 
> the Yamna were R1b-Z2103, they had pure steppe ancestry, no Siberian, no EEF
> they were derived from R1b-P297, who were detected north since 9 ka, in the Samara and eastern Baltic area
> during the 6,2 ka cold spell, some R1b-M269 probably moved south into the steppe, they were the Repin people who arrived in the Don-Volga area ca 5,95 ka
> https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-P297/



Yamnaya had EEF, on average around 14%. 
Do you know if R1b P297 in Kunda and Narva culture ( the eastern baltic R1b you mentioned) are ancestral to the Samara HG R1b? It would be quite interesting because Kunda and Narva were something like 75% WHG.

----------


## Maciamo

> We have quite a few Bronze Age samples from those areas, and from Spain. I don't remember anyone getting good matches with them, although I just may have missed a post here and there.
> 
> _NorthAlpineBronzeAgeFrench_AITI_43,5.01,0.00,0.13, 0.00,45.31,32.18,0.00,0.00,3.09,1.44,12.35,0.48_
> _NorthAlpineBronzeAgeFrench_AITI_120,7.59,0.73,0.40 ,0.00,39.57,31.32,1.80,0.00,0.00,0.00,17.73,0.86_
> _NorthAlpineBronzeAgeSpanishGalicia_AITI_72,4.56,0. 00,0.00,0.00,42.85,31.92,0.69,0.89,2.30,0.31,16.30 ,0.19_
> _NorthAlpineBronzeAgeFrench_AITI_119,9.54,1.40,0.00 ,0.27,43.57,32.66,0.11,0.14,0.20,0.00,11.08,1.01_
> _NorthAlpineBronzeAgeFrench_AITI_78,10.50,0.54,0.54 ,0.00,39.10,37.12,0.00,0.35,2.04,0.00,9.53,0.28_
> _NorthAlpineSouthDutch_AITI_50,10.70,0.00,0.00,0.00 ,35.87,44.30,2.23,0.13,0.00,0.00,4.95,1.82_
> _NorthAlpineSouthDutch_AITI_2,5.63,0.00,0.00,0.00,4 0.44,41.78,1.83,0.00,1.04,0.00,8.28,0.99_
> ...


When you say 'I don't remember anyone getting good matches with them', did you mean forum members or Iron Age Italian samples? Anyway, my family gets a distance between 2 and 5 for NorthAlpineBronzeAgeFrench_AITI_78 and BellBeakerSouthernFrance_I3874 and generally good matches with all the AITI samples from Kleinaitingen (EBA Bavaria, contemporaneous to the Unetice culture to the east).

As for Iron Age Italians, my closest match (R435 Latin from Praeneste) is also close to those AITI samples. EBA Bavaria is part of the Tumulus culture, which is ancestral to the Urnfield and Hallstatt cultures, so it's not surprising to find a connection with Italics too.

Distance to:
R435__Iron_Age_____Palestrina_Colombella

4.63867438
NorthAlpineBronzeAgeFrench_AITI_43

6.60470287
NorthAlpineBronzeAgeSpanishGalicia_AITI_72

8.59178678
NorthAlpineBronzeAgeFrench_AITI_119

----------


## Angela

> When you say 'I don't remember anyone getting good matches with them', did you mean forum members or Iron Age Italian samples? Anyway, my family gets a distance between 2 and 5 for NorthAlpineBronzeAgeFrench_AITI_78 and BellBeakerSouthernFrance_I3874 and generally good matches with all the AITI samples from Kleinaitingen (EBA Bavaria, contemporaneous to the Unetice culture to the east).
> 
> As for Iron Age Italians, my closest match (R435 Latin from Praeneste) is also close to those AITI samples. EBA Bavaria is part of the Tumulus culture, which is ancestral to the Urnfield and Hallstatt cultures, so it's not surprising to find a connection with Italics too.
> 
> Distance to:
> R435__Iron_Age_____Palestrina_Colombella
> 
> 4.63867438
> NorthAlpineBronzeAgeFrench_AITI_43
> ...


Sorry, I meant that I didn't remember other posters getting them, and certainly not British Bronze Age, at good fits. I get Bavaria BB, for example, but it's not a great match, much worse than Balkan Bronze Age. Torzio has since posted and he's at about a 7, if I remember correctly. No Piemontese or Lombards have posted, so I don't know if they'd do better. 

That prompted me to run Jovialis' whole list of Balkan samples, plus the Iberian Bronze, British Bronze, and German North Alpine Bronze for the more "northern" Italian Iron Age samples. I posted the following on the Iron Age thread.


Did you include these, Jovialis? I ask because of a discussion I'm having with Ygorcs about whether there was a British Bronze Age or Iberian or North Alpine pull in these samples.

Just for the heck of it I added them. (If some are post Iron Age, please let me know and I'll remove them.)

NorthAlpineBronzeAgeFrench_AITI_120,7.59,0.73,0.40 ,0.00,39.57,31.32,1.80,0.00,0.00,0.00,17.73,0.86
NorthAlpineBronzeAgeSpanishGalicia_AITI_72,4.56,0. 00,0.00,0.00,42.85,31.92,0.69,0.89,2.30,0.31,16.30 ,0.19
NorthAlpineBronzeAgeFrench_AITI_119,9.54,1.40,0.00 ,0.27,43.57,32.66,0.11,0.14,0.20,0.00,11.08,1.01
NorthAlpineBronzeAgeFrench_AITI_78,10.50,0.54,0.54 ,0.00,39.10,37.12,0.00,0.35,2.04,0.00,9.53,0.28
NorthAlpineSouthDutch_AITI_50,10.70,0.00,0.00,0.00 ,35.87,44.30,2.23,0.13,0.00,0.00,4.95,1.82
NorthAlpineSouthDutch_AITI_2,5.63,0.00,0.00,0.00,4 0.44,41.78,1.83,0.00,1.04,0.00,8.28,0.99
CuevadelaPalomaSpain_I3239,0.00,0.00,2.63,2.34,44. 59,28.94,2.32,0.66,0.00,0.00,18.51,0.00
IberianSettlementCataloniaSpain_I3496,5.38,0.21,0. 75,0.00,53.63,28.85,1.92,1.72,5.92,0.00,1.63,0.00
CuevadelaPalomaSpain_I3243,8.87,0.00,2.93,4.86,36. 62,38.06,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,8.67,0.00
ElSotilloBasqueCountry_I1977,2.96,0.00,2.41,0.00,5 2.45,25.53,0.60,0.00,3.19,0.00,12.86,0.00
IberiaBronzeAge_ATP9,0.89,0.00,1.25,0.00,58.14,21. 43,0.49,0.00,4.69,0.00,11.18,1.93
BellBeakerFranceI1388,0.00,0.00,2.30,0.00,59.39,21 .76,0.81,0.00,7.46,0.00,8.28,0.00
IlergetesTribeCatalan_I3320,4.64,0.00,4.88,1.09,52 .24,25.19,0.00,0.00,3.67,0.00,7.44,0.86
IlercavonesCatalan_I3321,3.80,0.00,4.55,0.00,55.48 ,25.14,0.00,0.83,2.20,0.32,7.68,0.00
BellBeakerSouthernFrance_I3874,5.77,0.32,0.81,0.47 ,39.46,40.05,1.07,0.56,0.80,0.00,10.47,0.22
IberianElArgarBronzeAge_I8136,0.00,0.00,4.83,0.00, 61.85,21.67,1.21,0.00,3.88,0.00,6.07,0.49
BronzeAgeSpainCogotas_I12208,1.39,0.00,5.31,0.43,5 4.53,22.97,1.16,0.00,3.96,0.94,8.35,0.95
Bavaria_BB_II5524,2.95,0.00,1.28,1.77,41.61,28.76, 0.00,0.00,3.52,0.00,20.12,0.00
BronzeAgeEngland_I2462,8.52,1.12,1.18,0.00,45.45,3 3.73,0.00,0.00,2.08,0.00,6.90,1.02
BronzeAgeOuterHebrides_I2655,9.88,0.61,0.00,0.39,3 7.20,45.77,0.76,0.00,0.29,0.00,4.27,0.82
NeolithicScotland_I2634,0.00,0.00,6.63,1.42,60.56, 11.65,0.00,0.21,7.56,0.00,11.96,0.00


Same samples:

R473 Etruscan
Distance to:
R473_Iron_Age_Civitavecchia

5.23807216
I2520_Balkans_BronzeAge

7.33017053
I1979_Bronze_Age_Beaker_Northern_Italy

7.88686249
I1113_Malak_Preslavets

8.15739542
I2111_Trypillia

8.17621551
I2176_Balkans_BronzeAge

8.33299466
I2215_Malak_Preslavets

8.84239786
I1297_Malak_Preslavets

9.36587423
I2175_Balkans_BronzeAge

9.46015856
Bavaria_BB_II5524

9.83392089
I3151_Trypillia

10.07499380
Bul10_Balkans_BronzeAge

10.18056482
I2110_Trypillia

10.61650131
Bul6_Balkans_BronzeAge

10.62080505
I1926_Trypillia

10.62551175
ElSotilloBasqueCountry_I1977

10.84815192
CuevadelaPalomaSpain_I3239

11.21283639
I4331_Balkans_BronzeAge

11.59367931
I2478_Bronze_Age_Beaker_Northern_Italy

12.06694245
I0706_Balkans_Neolithic

12.55335015
I9123_Bronze_Age_Armenoi_Crete

12.55979299
NorthAlpineBronzeAgeSpanishGalicia_AITI_72

13.34862165
I1295_Malak_Preslavets

14.53531217
I2440_Globular_Amphora

14.54483757
IberiaBronzeAge_ATP9




Bavaria BB did show up, but at a further distance than the Balkan samples. Same for the Spanish samples which show up.

R474 Etruscan...This one has good hits to the German BB and North Alpine samples
Distance to:
R474_Iron_Age_Civitavecchia

5.74122809
I4331_Balkans_BronzeAge

6.77580991
Bavaria_BB_II5524

8.72072818
NorthAlpineBronzeAgeFrench_AITI_120

9.30280603
NorthAlpineBronzeAgeSpanishGalicia_AITI_72

9.65161126
I2520_Balkans_BronzeAge

10.61332653
I2176_Balkans_BronzeAge

10.90744700
I1113_Malak_Preslavets

11.18787737
I2215_Malak_Preslavets

11.81452496
I2478_Bronze_Age_Beaker_Northern_Italy

11.82549788
CuevadelaPalomaSpain_I3239

12.33373423
I9123_Bronze_Age_Armenoi_Crete

12.54336877
I2165_Balkans_BronzeAge

12.68957840
I1979_Bronze_Age_Beaker_Northern_Italy

13.05530161
Bul6_Balkans_BronzeAge

13.21538876
NorthAlpineBronzeAgeFrench_AITI_119

14.00343886
I2111_Trypillia

14.45190299
I2181_Balkans_Chalcolithic_outlier

14.92140074
I2175_Balkans_BronzeAge

15.52350798
ElSotilloBasqueCountry_I1977

15.70083756
NorthAlpineBronzeAgeFrench_AITI_78

16.12808730
I3151_Trypillia

16.32355047
BronzeAgeEngland_I2462

16.50133328
I1297_Malak_Preslavets

16.56924561
Bul10_Balkans_BronzeAge

17.55443819
BellBeakerSouthernFrance_I3874




R1015 Etruscan-more Balkan Bronze Age heavy
Distance to:
R1015_Iron_Age_Veio_Grotta_Gramiccia

5.90466765
I2520_Balkans_BronzeAge

7.39762124
I2176_Balkans_BronzeAge

7.71334558
I1979_Bronze_Age_Beaker_Northern_Italy

8.13312363
I2175_Balkans_BronzeAge

8.35159266
I2215_Malak_Preslavets

8.37548805
I2111_Trypillia

8.72612743
I3151_Trypillia

9.37365457
I2110_Trypillia

9.64178925
Bavaria_BB_II5524

9.76218725
I1113_Malak_Preslavets

9.95499874
Bul10_Balkans_BronzeAge

10.42357424
CuevadelaPalomaSpain_I3239

10.52312216
I1297_Malak_Preslavets

10.70558733
ElSotilloBasqueCountry_I1977

10.72228520
I1926_Trypillia

11.05433851
I0706_Balkans_Neolithic

11.10513395
Bul6_Balkans_BronzeAge

11.40769915
I4331_Balkans_BronzeAge

11.85190702
I9123_Bronze_Age_Armenoi_Crete

11.99557418
I1295_Malak_Preslavets

12.39624540
I2478_Bronze_Age_Beaker_Northern_Italy

13.15312510
NorthAlpineBronzeAgeSpanishGalicia_AITI_72

14.56524631
ANI160_Varna_Outlier

14.83928570
I4088_Balkans_Chalcolithic

14.89781192
IberiaBronzeAge_ATP9




R1016 Roman-the only upper class sample-again, closer to Bronze Age Balkans
Distance to:
R1016_Iron_Age_Castel_di_Decima

7.35068024
I3151_Trypillia

8.76047373
I2520_Balkans_BronzeAge

9.09492716
I1979_Bronze_Age_Beaker_Northern_Italy

9.45085710
I2175_Balkans_BronzeAge

9.68979876
I2176_Balkans_BronzeAge

10.22361971
I2110_Trypillia

10.45816906
Bavaria_BB_II5524

10.55012322
I2215_Malak_Preslavets

10.69418534
Bul10_Balkans_BronzeAge

10.99995000
CuevadelaPalomaSpain_I3239

11.07581148
I2111_Trypillia

11.10573726
I0706_Balkans_Neolithic

11.18283506
ElSotilloBasqueCountry_I1977

11.73281296
I9123_Bronze_Age_Armenoi_Crete

11.86617040
I1926_Trypillia

11.93298370
I1113_Malak_Preslavets

11.95698122
I4331_Balkans_BronzeAge

12.09002895
I1295_Malak_Preslavets

12.25331384
I1297_Malak_Preslavets

12.57254549
I2478_Bronze_Age_Beaker_Northern_Italy

13.06662925
Bul6_Balkans_BronzeAge

13.48874716
NorthAlpineBronzeAgeSpanishGalicia_AITI_72

14.70167337
ANI160_Varna_Outlier

14.73282050
NorthAlpineBronzeAgeFrench_AITI_120

15.32862681
IberiaBronzeAge_ATP9




Boville Ernica-Bavarian BB and a Spanish sample show up relatively early
Distance to:
R1021_Iron_Age_Boville_Ernica

6.69770856
I3151_Trypillia

7.95362182
CuevadelaPalomaSpain_I3239

8.44269507
Bavaria_BB_II5524

9.72555911
I2215_Malak_Preslavets

9.81126393
I2520_Balkans_BronzeAge

10.30931133
I1979_Bronze_Age_Beaker_Northern_Italy

10.38576911
I2176_Balkans_BronzeAge

10.45481229
I1113_Malak_Preslavets

10.87415284
ElSotilloBasqueCountry_I1977

11.41484998
I4331_Balkans_BronzeAge

11.43899034
I2175_Balkans_BronzeAge

11.56217540
NorthAlpineBronzeAgeSpanishGalicia_AITI_72

12.04413965
I2478_Bronze_Age_Beaker_Northern_Italy

12.20604768
I2110_Trypillia

12.28929209
I1297_Malak_Preslavets

12.79157535
Bul10_Balkans_BronzeAge

13.04577326
I0706_Balkans_Neolithic

13.36867982
NorthAlpineBronzeAgeFrench_AITI_120

13.42683879
I2111_Trypillia

14.22975755
I1926_Trypillia

14.38184967
I1295_Malak_Preslavets

14.64225392
Bul6_Balkans_BronzeAge

14.87163407
I9123_Bronze_Age_Armenoi_Crete

16.00559902
IberiaBronzeAge_ATP9

16.21570535
IlergetesTribeCatalan_I3320




Distance to:
R851_Iron_Age_Ardea

7.12745396
I3151_Trypillia

7.74215732
CuevadelaPalomaSpain_I3239

8.31362737
I2215_Malak_Preslavets

8.37911093
ElSotilloBasqueCountry_I1977

8.94475265
I1113_Malak_Preslavets

8.99763302
Bavaria_BB_II5524

9.73866521
I1297_Malak_Preslavets

10.11018299
I2520_Balkans_BronzeAge

10.14648708
I2478_Bronze_Age_Beaker_Northern_Italy

10.83610631
NorthAlpineBronzeAgeSpanishGalicia_AITI_72

11.57587146
I1979_Bronze_Age_Beaker_Northern_Italy

11.68067207
I2110_Trypillia

11.81369967
I2176_Balkans_BronzeAge

12.75417971
I4331_Balkans_BronzeAge

12.96713538
I2175_Balkans_BronzeAge

13.14383886
I1926_Trypillia

13.18246183
I2111_Trypillia

13.56668346
IberiaBronzeAge_ATP9

13.62619169
NorthAlpineBronzeAgeFrench_AITI_120

13.98647919
BronzeAgeSpainCogotas_I12208

14.07380901
Bul10_Balkans_BronzeAge

14.10845137
IlergetesTribeCatalan_I3320

14.47627369
I0706_Balkans_Neolithic

14.57562692
IlercavonesCatalan_I3321

14.86646226
I2440_Globular_Amphora




Distance to:
R435_Iron_Age_Palestrina_Colombella

2.14441134
I2478_Bronze_Age_Beaker_Northern_Italy

6.60470287
NorthAlpineBronzeAgeSpanishGalicia_AITI_72

6.79479212
ElSotilloBasqueCountry_I1977

6.97894691
I1113_Malak_Preslavets

7.11525825
I2215_Malak_Preslavets

8.59178678
NorthAlpineBronzeAgeFrench_AITI_119

9.01150931
I1297_Malak_Preslavets

9.15171569
Bavaria_BB_II5524

9.40140947
CuevadelaPalomaSpain_I3239

9.51282292
BronzeAgeEngland_I2462

9.63494162
IlergetesTribeCatalan_I3320

10.53571070
NorthAlpineBronzeAgeFrench_AITI_120

11.23877217
I2181_Balkans_Chalcolithic_outlier

11.64855356
IlercavonesCatalan_I3321

12.15553783
BronzeAgeSpainCogotas_I12208

12.23966911
I2520_Balkans_BronzeAge

13.58203961
I4331_Balkans_BronzeAge

13.76760691
NorthAlpineBronzeAgeFrench_AITI_78

13.82287597
IberianSettlementCataloniaSpain_I3496

13.98864540
IberiaBronzeAge_ATP9

14.33947349
I3151_Trypillia

14.60477319
BellBeakerSouthernFrance_I3874

14.91302116
I2111_Trypillia

15.69331705
I2440_Globular_Amphora

15.79126974
I2176_Balkans_BronzeAge




From what I can see there's a mixture of Balkan Bronze Age on the one side, and North Alpine/German BB/French/Iberian Bronze Age on the other, so a sort of west/east continuum, with some samples leaning more one way than the other, but having hits to both.

That makes sense to me given Italy's "Central Med" position geographically.

However, I couldn't really make a determination as to whether Etruscans on average are more one than the other than the Latins. Now, whether that's because there were originally two streams into Italy from the north which then mixed, or because it was one mixed group originally and it was a matter of individual variation in not completely stable populations, I don't know.

I had previously thought that perhaps the Etruscans had a more "western" origin, partly on the basis of data in Cassidy et al, but that doesn't appear in the data we have so far.

----------


## Palermo Trapani

Ygorcs: Fair enough but I guess I am trying to reconcile Lazaradis et al (2016) "Genomic insights into the Origin of Farming in the ancient Near East" when the authors state early Bronze Age Steppe peoples had 43% CHG/Iranian Neolithic related ancestry. As those peoples moved Westward, they would have encountered other peoples already in the areas they migrated through so I am wondering with respect to the peoples who would bring in the Latin Language, how could they be modeled with respect to EEF, CHG/Iranian-related ancestry, EHG, WHG, etc. I don't think they were EHG exclusively like the Samara peoples who went to the Nothern Baltics, Scandinavia, etc and thus had some admixture with CHG. So I guess what you are suggesting is the only source of CHG and Iranian Neolithic ancestry in Italy is via the expansion of the Early European Farmers from Anatolia, and none entered via the Steppe?

Thanks for the response.

----------


## Ygorcs

> can you tell me more about these Progress-related people?


Basically my idea, considering the available aDNA samples, is that in the Eneolithic you had Sredny Stog-like in the west, Khvalynsk-like in the northeast and Progress-like in the southeast of the Pontic-Caspian steppe. Progress-like people already had a lot of CHG (~40-50%) similar to the bulk of the Yamnaya, whereas it was pretty minor in Sredny Stog and significant but still minor in Khvalynsk. By the time of the Yamnaya and Corded Ware expansion, according to my own analysis (so take it with a grain of salt, of couse), the Yamnaya and Early CWC were mostly a mix of those 3 earlier populations in varying proportions (Early CWC seems to have had more Sredny Stog-like admixture, which might help explain the presence of R1a as opposed to R1b as the major haplogroup in that population). In my opinion Progress-like people expanded, mixed with Khvalynsk-like and eventually spread westwards (Late Khvalynsk/Early Repin), absorbing the Sredny Stog people of Ukraine.

From the Neolithic to the EBA (Yamnaya), the main change in Ukraine involved the near disappearance of WHG and the huge increase in the CHG. These two things do not suggest to me an influence from the north or northwest (Baltic area), but rather an influence from the south (Caucasus Piedmont, Caspian coast).

----------


## Angela

> Basically my idea, considering the available aDNA samples, is that in the Eneolithic you had Sredny Stog-like in the west, Khvalynsk-like in the northeast and Progress-like in the southeast of the Pontic-Caspian steppe. Progress-like people already had a lot of CHG (~40-50%) similar to the bulk of the Yamnaya, whereas it was pretty minor in Sredny Stog and significant but still minor in Khvalynsk. By the time of the Yamnaya and Corded Ware expansion, according to my own analysis (so take it with a grain of salt, of couse), the Yamnaya and Early CWC were mostly a mix of those 3 earlier populations in varying proportions (Early CWC seems to have had more Sredny Stog-like admixture, which might help explain the presence of R1a as opposed to R1b as the major haplogroup in that population). In my opinion Progress-like people expanded, mixed with Khvalynsk-like and eventually spread westwards (Late Khvalynsk/Early Repin), absorbing the Sredny Stog people of Ukraine.
> 
> From the Neolithic to the EBA (Yamnaya), the main change in Ukraine involved the near disappearance of WHG and the huge increase in the CHG. These two things do not suggest to me an influence from the north or northwest (Baltic area), but rather an influence from the south (Caucasus Piedmont, Caspian coast).


Very persuasive, Ygorcs.

----------


## bicicleur

> Basically my idea, considering the available aDNA samples, is that in the Eneolithic you had Sredny Stog-like in the west, Khvalynsk-like in the northeast and Progress-like in the southeast of the Pontic-Caspian steppe. Progress-like people already had a lot of CHG (~40-50%) similar to the bulk of the Yamnaya, whereas it was pretty minor in Sredny Stog and significant but still minor in Khvalynsk. By the time of the Yamnaya and Corded Ware expansion, according to my own analysis (so take it with a grain of salt, of couse), the Yamnaya and Early CWC were mostly a mix of those 3 earlier populations in varying proportions (Early CWC seems to have had more Sredny Stog-like admixture, which might help explain the presence of R1a as opposed to R1b as the major haplogroup in that population). In my opinion Progress-like people expanded, mixed with Khvalynsk-like and eventually spread westwards (Late Khvalynsk/Early Repin), absorbing the Sredny Stog people of Ukraine.
> 
> From the Neolithic to the EBA (Yamnaya), the main change in Ukraine involved the near disappearance of WHG and the huge increase in the CHG. These two things do not suggest to me an influence from the north or northwest (Baltic area), but rather an influence from the south (Caucasus Piedmont, Caspian coast).


now, I remember all of a sudden

you refer to the samples found on the Porgress site as described in the Wang papre?

----------


## Alan

> R116 the "outlier" with high Steppe dated to 0-200 CE. Maybe he was a Gallic immigrant to Rome?:
> 
> (this sample has the highest level of Steppe admixture out of all Imperial samples, so not "typical")
> 
> *His Y-DNA haplogroup:* https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-Z631/
> 
> K36 results:
> 
> Arabian 0.67 
> ...


Haven't been around for a long time, I come back and this interesting study takes my attention.

The fact that we barely have any prior to 0 CE and that the authors mention this eastern influx into Romans as Iranian_Neolithic rather than CHG makes not only me wonder that the source of Latin Indo European might be really different. And goes hand in hand with my previous theory that the Steppes was the source for most European Indo European languages but not all.




> The most recent literature demonstrated significant impact of Caucasus-related ancestry in the Central European Late-Neolithic and Bronze-Age through the migrations of Yamnaya/Pontic-Steppe herders. Accordingly, our results confirm that Caucasus-related admixture via Yamnaya is present in _Eastern_ and _Central-Western European_ clusters (i.e. Continental Europe; Supplementary Table S8, Supplementary Information). However, among our Mediterranean groups, evidence of Yamnaya (and EHG) introgression seems to be present at a lesser extent and was detected mainly in Balkan-related groups (Supplementary Table S8, Supplementary Information), which in turn display traces of admixture with Eastern Europe (Fig. 4, Supplementary Fig. S2). In addition, outgroup-_f3_ values for Late Neolithic/Bronze Age samples (especially Yamnaya) appear lower in all our newly analysed Mediterranean populations (Supplementary Fig. S9). *These results suggest that the genetic history of Southern Italian and Balkan populations may have been, at least in part, independent from that of Eastern and Central Europe, involving specific migratory events that carried Caucasian and Levantine genetic contributes along the Mediterranean shores (see Supplementary Information). This picture may bring important implications for our understanding of the cultural history of Europe, and in particular for the diffusion of Indo-European languages. The Steppe in the Early Bronze Age has been supported as a source of at least some Indo-European languages entering North-Central Europe at that time. In southern Mediterranean Europe, however, our results suggest lower impacts. Any significant Steppe/northern component may have arrived in the south Balkan mainland and southern Italy only later, by which time Indo-European languages of the Italic, Greek and various Balkan branches** had already established themselves there.* *This would suggest that* *a Bronze Age Steppe source may be not highly consistent with all branches of the Indo-European family (see also Broushaki et al.).*
> 
> 
> 
> Summing it up, our analyses show that a Caucasus-related ancestry is observed in both Southern Italian and Southern Balkan populations. Nevertheless, these populations do not seem to reveal such significant evidence of Bronze-Age Yamanya-like introgressions, which have been interpreted as the most probable vectors of CHG-like ancestry in Central-Eastern and Northern Europe and were also linked with the demographic diffusion of some Indo-European languages. These results may suggest that Caucasus-related ancestry reached our Mediterranean populations through migratory events at least partly independent from those postulated for Central Europe, most likely through Anatolia. If so, the spread of Indo-European languages in Europe may be envisaged as a more complex multi-way phenomenon, rather than the one-way result of a single diffusion process.



Also as Angela correctly pointed out that "tail" is called Levantine tail not Near Eastern per se. It represents Levant_Neo_BA type of ancestry during the very early stages of Rome. And I am not suprised to be honest we know that before Rome the Civilizations were based around the Near East and those people were probably something like pioneers bringing important goods and ideas into the Italian Peninsula. However the Iran_Neolithic genes seem to be more ancient. We already see allot of it during the late Neolithic but also a rise of it back again at Iron Age. EHG on the other hand appears more sporadic when Rome has been established, makes you wonder if those , with the vocabulary of Polako, were not "immigrant outliers" .

----------


## torzio

based on post # 808

Distance to:
Torziok12b

7.89459942
Bavaria_BB_II5524

8.87062568
NorthAlpineBronzeAgeFrench_AITI_120

10.55301379
NorthAlpineBronzeAgeSpanishGalicia_AITI_72

13.52289540
CuevadelaPalomaSpain_I3239

15.06901457
NorthAlpineBronzeAgeFrench_AITI_119

15.97685201
NorthAlpineBronzeAgeFrench_AITI_78

17.33912339
BellBeakerSouthernFrance_I3874

17.88934599
CuevadelaPalomaSpain_I3243

18.57029887
BronzeAgeEngland_I2462

19.37494258
ElSotilloBasqueCountry_I1977

20.13756440
NorthAlpineSouthDutch_AITI_2

22.04581366
IlergetesTribeCatalan_I3320

24.12289369
NorthAlpineSouthDutch_AITI_50

24.25831198
BronzeAgeSpainCogotas_I12208

24.66223834
IlercavonesCatalan_I3321

25.34179354
BronzeAgeOuterHebrides_I2655

26.10284276
IberiaBronzeAge_ATP9

26.46820923
IberianSettlementCataloniaSpain_I3496

28.42436631
BellBeakerFranceI1388

31.73002994
IberianElArgarBronzeAge_I8136

32.26507245
NeolithicScotland_I2634

----------


## Alan

> Imperial Rome based on 24 samples from Antonio et al:
> 
> 
> 29.1 % J2a-M410 7
> 20.8 % G2a2 5
> 16.6 % J1a 4
> 8.3 % R1b 2
> 4.1 % J2b-M241 1
> 4.1 % J2b-M205 1
> ...


J1a Doesn't look Semitic

A surprise to see no J1c3 subclades since the Levant was pretty much Semitic by majority at that time.

J1a, J2a2, J2b, R1b, R2a. In fact this looks more like How Anatolia-Iranian Plateau influence would have looked like.

----------


## Angela

> J1a Doesn't look Semitic
> 
> A surprise to see no J1c3 subclades since the Levant was pretty much Semitic by majority at that time.
> 
> J1a, J2a2, J2b, R1b, R2a. In fact this looks more like How Anatolia-Iranian Plateau influence would have looked like.


Not everyone buried in Rome was a "local" or stayed and mixed their genes with locals. However, some obviously did, and indeed, going by yDna it doesn't look like a very big "Semitic" component. Anatolia/Iran is another story, whether directly or via Greece and its islands and settlements in Asia Minor or both.

Also, for clarity, there are two Latin Iron Age samples with this kind of ancestry. R850 is Cretan like, and R437 has perhaps half of that kind of ancestry.

----------


## Bucket

> However the Iran_Neolithic genes seem to be more ancient. We already see allot of it during the late Neolithic but also a rise of it back again at Iron Age. EHG on the other hand appears more sporadic when Rome has been established, makes you wonder if those , with the vocabulary of Polako, were not "immigrant outliers" .


Are you saying that those North-West Med looking Latins are immigrants?

----------


## Jovialis

Cretan Greeks vs 647 ancient samples; top 100:

----------


## Angela

> Cretan Greeks vs 647 ancient samples; top 100:


Indeed, there's the proof that most of them were Crete like. The samples from the Greek Empuries samples in Spain also come out rather Crete like. 

I'm starting to think maybe the Greeks of the Classical Era were pretty much island Greek like, although of course we need ancient samples from the mainland in that period to really know for sure. 

I hope that the Reich Lab has some samples. It would be great if they included them for comparison to the Iron Age Southern Italians in their upcoming paper.

----------


## Salento

A piece of Imperial R114 - R50 - R51, the Latin R437, ... all share a position in my 20th chromosome.
Maybe there’s continuity to these days.





...

----------


## Dianatomia

> Indeed, there's the proof that most of them were Crete like. The samples from the Greek Empuries samples in Spain also come out rather Crete like. 
> 
> I'm starting to think maybe the Greeks of the Classical Era were pretty much island Greek like, although of course we need ancient samples from the mainland in that period to really know for sure. 
> 
> I hope that the Reich Lab has some samples. It would be great if they included them for comparison to the Iron Age Southern Italians in their upcoming paper.


Yep, it is unlikely that the Steppe admixture influx has stopped during the Bronze Age. I guess that the Classical Greeks had more Steppe than Mycenaeans, but less than the modern Greeks. But the Mycenaeans surprised us, so maybe perhaps also the Classical Greeks in some way.

----------


## Salento

In another position in the 20º chromosomes the Latin R850 and R437 (again), Roman Imperial R436, Villas and Palaces owners :) ,...

----------


## Salento

R1 also has a chromosomal affinity with R114:

----------


## torzio

> R1 also has a chromosomal affinity with R114:


interesting.............have you always had a lot of R1 ?

mine below with legend under



Pink = scythian-dalmatian

red = various roman and gallo-roman

blue = thuringian

magenta = thraco-cimmerian

light green = scythian

dark green = sample R1

----------


## Salento

@Torzio post #823 shows the R1 Kit results, not mine.

Posts #820 and #822 are my results.

----------


## Palermo Trapani

Salento: Just as you and Torzio did, I looked at my Chroma results from MyTrueAncestry and I am getting very, very, similar results. There is an option you can use that gives the closest modern populations to the ancient Samples used in the Antonio/Moots et al (2019) study. I, like, you came to the same conclusion, genetic continuity from Iron Age down to today. Some Romans cluster closer to Central/North Central Italy, Some Cluster South/South Central Italy.

Chroma1.JPG




For example, the first red color on Chromosome 1 is 591 SNPS related to Thracian I5769, R58, R1545, R59 and R131 and Central Roman CL36 Second Red color bar is 442 SNPs shares wiht R44, R49 and R969, R970, R52 and R41, respectively. The orange bar on Chromosome 1 is 128 SNPS with Ancient Greek I9005. With My True Ancestry, all of my chromosome Sharing for periods BC are Ancient Thracian and Ancient Greeks. For Chromosome 8, 105 SNPs with I0073, Chromosome 10, 115 SNPs with I9005 (first light orange segment) and 101 with I0070, Chromosome 13, 110 SNPs with Mycenaean I9006 and Chromosome 21, 102 with I0074.

I have Caesar Level (can analyze up to 60 ancient samples) but this chroma tool very nice, I may have to upgrade to get more ancient samples analyzed.

----------


## Salento

> Salento: Just as you and Torzio did, I looked at my Chroma results from MyTrueAncestry and I am getting very, very, similar results. There is an option you can use that gives the closest modern populations to the ancient Samples used in the Antonio/Moots et al (2019) study. I, like, you came to the same conclusion, genetic continuity from Iron Age down to today. Some Romans cluster closer to Central/North Central Italy, Some Cluster South/South Central Italy.
> 
> Chroma1.JPG
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For example, the first red color on Chromosome 1 is 591 SNPS related to Thracian I5769, R58, R1545, R59 and R131 and Central Roman CL36 Second Red color bar is 442 SNPs shares wiht R44, R49 and R969, R970, R52 and R41, respectively. The orange bar on Chromosome 1 is 128 SNPS with Ancient Greek I9005. With My True Ancestry, all of my chromosome Sharing for periods BC are Ancient Thracian and Ancient Greeks. For Chromosome 8, 105 SNPs with I0073, Chromosome 10, 115 SNPs with I9005 (first light orange segment) and 101 with I0070, Chromosome 13, 110 SNPs with Mycenaean I9006 and Chromosome 21, 102 with I0074.
> 
> I have Caesar Level (can analyze up to 60 ancient samples) but this chroma tool very nice, I may have to upgrade to get more ancient samples analyzed.


... more of mine:

https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...l=1#post597660

----------


## Palermo Trapani

Salento: That Chromosome of yours with 2127 shared SNPs has a great historical continuity through time. A place where Ancient Greece and Rome meet!!!

----------


## Salento

> Salento: That Chromosome of yours with 2127 shared SNPs has a great historical continuity through time. A place where Ancient Greece and Rome meet!!!


imho, It’s also possible that most of it, is a much older common shared ancestry,

... ‘cause they share the same segment.

----------


## Jovialis

> Just letting you all know that apparently we're getting two papers, one with Iron Age Sicily samples and other with more Roman Era Italian samples like Samnites according to:
> 
> https://anthrogenica.com/showthread....l=1#post648728
> 
> https://anthrogenica.com/showthread....l=1#post648734


FYI

https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...taly-over-time

----------


## bigsnake49

> Cretan Greeks vs 647 ancient samples; top 100:


Very close to a lot of Roman samples.

----------


## Jovialis

> Very close to a lot of Roman samples.


Here are the Imperial Roman samples that are similar to Greek Cretans, under a genetic distance of 5.0:



R850 is one of them, so similar kind of people have been there since the Iron Age.

They could be natives since that time, perhaps, rather than immigrants.

What is clear however, is that people "south" of them disappear by the middle ages.

----------


## ihype02

> I was wrong about all the Imperial Roman samples coming from Isola Sacra near Ostia, although a good number do. They're actually from some necropoli around the city of Rome itself as well. So, not like future archaeologists excavating just in Flushing. It's like archaeologists excavating in New York City as a whole, or London.
> 
> However, the burial contexts tell us nothing. There's no grave goods, no inscriptions, not even names from what I can see, and there's been disturbances at a lot of the sites. 
> 
> Interestingly enough, some of the samples come from the Catacombs of Peter and Paul. I have to check tomorrow and see if those are more "East Med", i.e. the samples south and east of modern Southern Italians. It would make sense. The first Christians, and the only Christians for a long time were Jews.
> 
> In that regard, look what happens to the J1 in ancient Italy after the Imperial Era.
> 
> 
> ...


So I1 came to Italy with Germanic tribes, Goths, as expected. Iron Age Italy very enriched with R1b just like today.



> The irony of all this is that Albanians are not very "Illyrian" at all, so why you cling to it so much as the defining element of your ethnicity is beyond me. Holdovers from your Communist dictatorship's propaganda? There are northeastern Italians who are closer to the Illyrians than you are. Heck, even the Spaniards come out as "close" to the Illyrians. Did your ancestors travel all the way to Iberia as well? It's just similar mixtures of steppe and Neolithic, for crying out loud.


They probably had regional differences.
I don't believe southern Illyrians will be different from Thracians tbh. Not that it bothers me.

----------


## torzio

> So I1 came to Italy with Germanic tribes, Goths, as expected. Iron Age Italy very enriched with R1b just like today.
> 
> They probably had regional differences.
> I don't believe southern Illyrians will be different from Thracians tbh. Not that it bothers me.


I think the Romans knew what they where naming areas in their republic and imperial times ............Epirus was split into 2 ...........the older southern one of modern Albania and a bit of NW greece and the newer north one of modern north Albania , called Epirus Nova ( New Epirus ) ....where the main Roman supply route ran from....modern Durres to modern Istanbul

----------


## Angela

> So I1 came to Italy with Germanic tribes, Goths, as expected. Iron Age Italy very enriched with R1b just like today.
> 
> They probably had regional differences.
> I don't believe southern Illyrians will be different from Thracians tbh. Not that it bothers me.


It must be the Goths, who were much less of a folk migration for what that's worth, than the Langobardi, who are pretty uniformly U-106 so far, yes? 

I do value your objective analysis of all these matters, for what that's worth as well, and I deeply respect the Albanians for their sense of honor in doing what they could to help Italy in turn for Italy's help.

----------


## Salento

EDIT 
... wrong thread ... my bad

Migrated to:

https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...l=1#post600614

----------


## Aspurg

Marija Gimbutas 
Tursha are held to be the early Etruscans, *whose central Balkan origin* can be guessed on the basis of the curious correspondence of pottery types between early Etruscan Etruria and the Girla-Mare and Verbicioara group on the Danube in Balkan origin can be guessed on the basis of the curious correspondence of pottery types between early Etruscan Etruria and the Girla-Mare and Verbicioara group on the Danube in northeastern Yugoslavia and southwestern Rumania (as I was informed by Dr. Hencken).


G. E. W. Wolstenholme, ‎Cecilia M. O'Connor - Medical Biology and Etruscan Origins
In the example from Tarquinia the bull-bird is itself a vessel. The most striking parallel to the *Tarquinian chariot* is the one from the Glasinac *in Bosnia* (Seewald, 1939), though it is scarcely older than the one from Tarquinia and may be later (Fig. 10). Another bull-bird, but undated, comes from Hungary, and like the one from Tarquinia it is also a vessel, though it has no wheels


G. E. W. Wolstenholme, ‎Cecilia M. O'Connor - Medical Biology and Etruscan Origins
The urns that are most like Villanovan are the *Dubovac-Zuto hrdo and Girla Mare urns* found in the region where Hungary, Rumania and Jugoslavia come together (Berciu and Comsa, I9 56, Fig. 40; Wosinsky, 1904, Plates LXIX, XCI, XCVI; Zambotti, I9 54, Plates XIX, I10, I II; XXI, I28; Benac, I956—see also for references). These are placed in the Middle and Late Bronze Ages and hence are *quite old enough to be the ancestors of the Villanovan urn*.


 Etruscans came from the Balkans? They brought the Etruscan language *from the Balkans to Italy*. That is why one finds it's cousin, the Lemnian there.. The Late Bronze Age Collapse wiped out (and pushed, like the Armenians and Phrygians who came from the Balkans) the Etruroid and various other Balkan IE languages or reduced them to small pockets. 

 The reason Balkan J2b2 was found in an Etruscan is because Etruscans came from the Balkans. The reason the sample was clustering autosomally with the Balkans is the same. 

 These pre Bronze Age Collapse cultures in the Balkans. We do know they existed, we do not know what language they spoke, we know that in Iron Age, early History they spoke Illyran and Thracian but we also know the propagation of Illyrian and Thracian languages is related by many to some LBA and EIA cultures, mostly Hallstat/Urnfield..

 The question is the nature of the Etruscan. Is Etruscan the EEF language or did it arrive from the Anatolia? In the former case I suspect various E-V13 preserved the Etruscan in the Balkans (though various or majority spoke IE surely), and if Etruscan was not EEF than I believe it was most definitely brought by the J-L283. 

Rhaetic, cousin of Etruscan is considered as more distant to the Etruscan than Lemnian. Some G-L497 clades might be tied to Rhaetic (as could hypothetically some CE J-L283's). In fact we find on the Lemnos itself in Greek FTDNA Project we find a rare G-Y8903, negative to all subclades below.

As far as genetic facts are concerned various E-V13 and J-L283 clades do have likely "Sea People" associations (Levant-Italian LBA-MBA links).

Some of these Balkan MBA cultures are counted by many as "IE" speaking based on funerary traditions etc. but Etruscans had also IE influences and they spoke Etruscan.

That's the interesting point was Etruscan EEF, it has no relation to Basque and apparently more people connect Basque to EEF's than to WHG's.

Herodotus tells us Etruscans came from Anatolia. If that's true that favors the "South of Black Sea" J-L283 migratory route.

----------


## Angela

I have rarely seen anything as confused as this in all my years here at Eupedia, and that's saying something.

Just one little clue. We know what the Bronze and Iron Age Anatolians looked like genetically; we now know what the Etruscans looked like genetically. They are in a no man's land between Spaniards and northern Italians. 

ETRUSCANS DID NOT COME FROM ANATOLIA.

----------


## Regio X

> Marija Gimbutas 
> Tursha are held to be the early Etruscans, *whose central Balkan origin* can be guessed on the basis of the curious correspondence of pottery types between early Etruscan Etruria and the Girla-Mare and Verbicioara group on the Danube in Balkan origin can be guessed on the basis of the curious correspondence of pottery types between early Etruscan Etruria and the Girla-Mare and Verbicioara group on the Danube in northeastern Yugoslavia and southwestern Rumania (as I was informed by Dr. Hencken).
> 
> 
> G. E. W. Wolstenholme, ‎Cecilia M. O'Connor - Medical Biology and Etruscan Origins
> In the example from Tarquinia the bull-bird is itself a vessel. The most striking parallel to the *Tarquinian chariot* is the one from the Glasinac *in Bosnia* (Seewald, 1939), though it is scarcely older than the one from Tarquinia and may be later (Fig. 10). Another bull-bird, but undated, comes from Hungary, and like the one from Tarquinia it is also a vessel, though it has no wheels
> 
> 
> G. E. W. Wolstenholme, ‎Cecilia M. O'Connor - Medical Biology and Etruscan Origins
> ...


That G-Y8903 is not necessarily negative for all subclades below. He just tested Z6748-. You can check this in G-L497 Project in FTDNA; in the description of group 315.

----------


## torzio

> Marija Gimbutas 
> Tursha are held to be the early Etruscans, *whose central Balkan origin* can be guessed on the basis of the curious correspondence of pottery types between early Etruscan Etruria and the Girla-Mare and Verbicioara group on the Danube in Balkan origin can be guessed on the basis of the curious correspondence of pottery types between early Etruscan Etruria and the Girla-Mare and Verbicioara group on the Danube in northeastern Yugoslavia and southwestern Rumania (as I was informed by Dr. Hencken).
> 
> 
> G. E. W. Wolstenholme, ‎Cecilia M. O'Connor - Medical Biology and Etruscan Origins
> In the example from Tarquinia the bull-bird is itself a vessel. The most striking parallel to the *Tarquinian chariot* is the one from the Glasinac *in Bosnia* (Seewald, 1939), though it is scarcely older than the one from Tarquinia and may be later (Fig. 10). Another bull-bird, but undated, comes from Hungary, and like the one from Tarquinia it is also a vessel, though it has no wheels
> 
> 
> G. E. W. Wolstenholme, ‎Cecilia M. O'Connor - Medical Biology and Etruscan Origins
> ...


The only associated in Lemnian to Etruscan is that Etruscan traders used the island as a stop over and carve the tablet...........Lemnian is over 400 years younger then what was already spoken in Etruscan lands.

If you believe Etruscan and Rhaetian are similar , then you must believe that Centum and Satem language being the same............if you do not, then they are not linked.
Rhaetian is linked firstly with magre language and then venetic circa 600BC ......there was no Rhaetian language before this date

----------


## Pax Augusta

> Etruscans came from the Balkans? They brought the Etruscan language *from the Balkans to Italy*. That is why one finds it's cousin, the Lemnian there.. The Late Bronze Age Collapse wiped out (and pushed, like the Armenians and Phrygians who came from the Balkans) the Etruroid and various other Balkan IE languages or reduced them to small pockets. 
> 
>  The reason Balkan J2b2 was found in an Etruscan is because Etruscans came from the Balkans. The reason the sample was clustering autosomally with the Balkans is the same. 
> 
>  These pre Bronze Age Collapse cultures in the Balkans. We do know they existed, we do not know what language they spoke, we know that in Iron Age, early History they spoke Illyran and Thracian but we also know the propagation of Illyrian and Thracian languages is related by many to some LBA and EIA cultures, mostly Hallstat/Urnfield..
> 
>  The question is the nature of the Etruscan. Is Etruscan the EEF language or did it arrive from the Anatolia? In the former case I suspect various E-V13 preserved the Etruscan in the Balkans (though various or majority spoke IE surely), and if Etruscan was not EEF than I believe it was most definitely brought by the J-L283. 
> 
> Rhaetic, cousin of Etruscan is considered as more distant to the Etruscan than Lemnian. Some G-L497 clades might be tied to Rhaetic (as could hypothetically some CE J-L283's). In fact we find on the Lemnos itself in Greek FTDNA Project we find a rare G-Y8903, negative to all subclades below.
> ...



This post of yours shows that your knowledge of the Etruscans to be extremely poor. Which I always find quite incredible. I would never dream of talking about Bosnian cuisine, of which I know little or nothing, or Serbian poetry, of which I ignore anything. You're mixing subjects already solved by Etruscology with others that you obviously only interpret as you like. Everyone talks about Etruscans but no one has studied Etruscology. And this is also your case.

Today there is consensus that the Etruscan language is pre-Indo-European and not related in any way to the Anatolian languages of the late Bronze and Iron Age which are Indo-European. Just as there is no evidence that the Basque language was the only pre-Indo-European language spoken in Europe.


Let's forget about your real goal, I'm not surprised by anything now, since there are various foreign nationalisms that have been desperately trying for years to use the question of the Etruscans' origins to support the less plausible theses, and we see it every day this systematic campaign of disinformation against the Etruscans. 

Still make laugh the attempts of Slovenian and Russian scholars to argue that the Etruscans are proto-Slavic, attempts that are no less pathetic than those of the many amateur scholars who propose in 2020 the theory of Herodotus that is no longer believed reliable by Etruscologists for many decades now. 

Yes, Rhaetic, related to the Etruscan, is considered as more distant to the Etruscan than Lemnian, but you forget to mention that Lemnian is attested later than Etruscan and many scholars consider Lemnian derived from the Etruscan. Although the question remains open, given the lack of inscriptions of the many pre-Indo-European languages that have disappeared without leaving any documentation, the island of Lemnos was part of the Greek world, certainly not of the Balkan world nor of the Iron Age Anatolia. The man in Lemnos' stele is thought to be a Greek from Ionia, a Phocaean, and we know that the Etruscans had long relationships, particularly the areas of southern Etruria that show an affinity with some aspects of the alphabet used in Lemnos, typical of Italy and Greece and not Anatolia, and that they hosted several Greeks from Ionia who escaped the Persian conquest of Anatolia.

The Etruscans were so Balkan that they were in fact closer to the modern Iberians, the modern North Italians, the Latins than to the modern Balkan people. J2b2-L283 found in one Etruscan is too little to draw conclusions and anyway it was found in the Nuragics as well. And the relations between Etruscans and Nuragics during the period of formation of the Etruscans are very attested and the necropolis of Mattonara in Civitavecchia, modern Lazio, where 3 out of 4 Etruscan samples come from, is precisely the necropolis of an Etruscan port that had relations with Sardinia. 

It is undeniable that there were movements from the Balkans to Italy in the Neolithic, Bronze and Iron Age. But Etruscan history is a fascinating but also very complex subject, as well as the birth of the Iron Age ethnicities, and they both deserve a much more serious approach.

----------


## Aspurg

> That G-Y8903 is not necessarily negative for all subclades below. He just tested Z6748-. You can check this in G-L497 Project in FTDNA; in the description of group 315.


 Indeed and as this Greek lacks *dys446=17*, *dys450=7* (very slow/reliable STR) which define the BY27899 he is almost 100 % *BY27899-* as well. That makes him still 4000 years distant from his Rhaetic (?) relatives. Also at FTDNA at Lemnos there is some other G2a, I think it's one of Neolithic clades. 





> This post of yours shows that your knowledge of the Etruscans to be extremely poor.
> 
> 
> Let's forget about your real goal, I'm not surprised by anything now, since there are various foreign nationalisms that have been desperately trying for years to use the question of the Etruscans' origins to support the less plausible theses, and we see it every day this systematic campaign of disinformation against the Etruscans.


 I admit my knowledge of the Etruscans is not great, but I was going through one Balkan culture, namely Girla Mare and found out that the proto-Etruscan urn was derived of this culture. 





> Still make laugh the attempts of Slovenian and Russian scholars to argue that the Etruscans are proto-Slavic, attempts that are no less pathetic than those of the many amateur scholars who propose in 2020 the theory of Herodotus that is no longer believed reliable by Etruscologists for many decades now.



Herodotus was a contemporary of the Etruscans. I quoted Gimbutas, she claimed Etruscans came from the Balkans based on some archaeological evidence. Lets check the only Etruscan Y-DNA: surprise, surprise it came from the Balkans.
Aren't you engaging here in a bit of Protochronism yourself ("I'm Italian, Etruscans were from Italy so Etruscans must have been in Italy 1000 BC, 2000 BC, 3000 BC..").





> Yes, Rhaetic, related to the Etruscan, is considered as more distant to the Etruscan than Lemnian, but you forget to mention that Lemnian is attested later than Etruscan and many scholars consider Lemnian derived from the Etruscan.


 Indeed but it's not any done deal that Lemnian had some recent link with the Etruscan.





> Although the question remains open, given the lack of inscriptions of the many pre-Indo-European languages that have disappeared without leaving any documentation, the island of Lemnos was part of the Greek world, certainly not of the Balkan world nor of the Iron Age Anatolia. The man in Lemnos' stele is thought to be a Greek from Ionia, a Phocaean, and we know that the Etruscans had long relationships, particularly the areas of southern Etruria that show an affinity with some aspects of the alphabet used in Lemnos, typical of Italy and Greece and not Anatolia, and that they hosted several Greeks from Ionia who escaped the Persian conquest of Anatolia.


From what I've read archaeologically they looked Mycenaean, we know the history of Lemnos. Pelasgians of Lemnos spoke "Pelasgian language". 

Christopher Smith - The Etruscans: A Very Short Introduction
A number of Etruscan cities claimed descent from the Pelasgians, including Cerveteri and Tarquinia. 


Peter Derow, ‎Robert Parker, ‎Wykeham
In some representations Pelasgians had lived in Lemnos, Pelasgians had settled in Etruria, and the Pelasgians were identified with the Tyrrhenians (Etruscans) of Lemnos. Two late archaic inscriptions from Lemnos in a native language which has affinities with Etruscan.


Athenians lived on the Acropolis and the Pelasgians near the Hymettus, but the Athenians expelled the Pelasgians, who settled on Lemnos.


These facts and existence of Lemnian on Lemnos clearly point that these were not some "Etruscan traders".


Fact: E-V13 is a Neolithic haplogroup, and currently by all available evidence it's origins are traced to Dalmatian Cetina culture (as E-M35 FTDNA admin proposed), nearby there is early Cardial E-L618+ find, also E-L618, V13- is found in Albanians. Clades that are mostly Western Balkan such as E-Y37092 show strong resemblance to Cetina culture with 3 clades separated from each other 4200 years ago, practically next to each other!! Vasojevići, E.Montenegro, Rajovići E-Montenegro origin, Albanian Dushmani very near in Shkoder area.. Furthermore E-BY14150 is found in Macedonia. Also distant Greek (Cetina did have outposts in Peloponnese etc.). All this implies this Early E-V13 clade is indeed Cetina trace (as already suggested by FTDNA admin) especially as it is almost non-existent in the Eastern Balkans where V13 is also diverse. This clade implies what originally the E-V13 were even if parallel clades under E-CTS1273 show a different picture. 


I. Marovic – B. Covic: Cetina culture:
 Cetina culture emerged early in the early Bronze Age on the eneolite substrate (Adriatic culture); its people belonged to the old Mediterranean population, which was partially Indoeuropeanized but was not Indo-European.

These were people who took up various IE traditions but they were largely not IE genetically. As is suggested if their main component was Adriatic it should have been logically E-L618.


Not only that: the cultures to which Gimbutas connects the Villanovan urns (Vattina-Girla Mare) were almost certainly heavy with E-V13. And Viminatium A-DNA results will soon show the dominance of E-V13 in that area in 0-300 AD. 


Evidence suggests Lemnian is not recent migrant. If Etruscan was EEF then E-V13 branches likely preserved Lemnian alongside some G-L497 (like the one found in Lemnos). You would expect a robust genetic group to be the group which "carries" a language. 


E-V13 is almost certainly through some clades (such as 2 clades found in Druze that are 3800 years away from each other and have MBA/LBA connection to others) connected to Philistines and Philistines were connected to "Pelasgians", although they themselves most likely spoke some IE language. Still I believe autosomal results of Philistine finds showed that their European component was generally EEF dominated (as were most Balkan populations at the time). 


I do think some groups still might have spoken Etruroid. E-V13 clades that might have something to do with the Etruscans are very rare though. 





> The Etruscans were so Balkan that they were in fact closer to the modern Iberians, the modern North Italians, the Latins than to the modern Balkan people.



J-L283>Y15058 find in Veliki Vanik Croatia (3600 ybp) is also clustering with the Modern Italians. Besides Modern North Italians and Iberians have Germanic, Celtic and other influences.


J-CTS6190 Etruscan and J-Y15058 Dalmatian were closely phylogenetically related. That is a fact. And from what I've heard they were autosomally related though I did not go into details. 







> J2b2-L283 found in one Etruscan is too little to draw conclusions and anyway it was found in the Nuragics as well. And the relations between Etruscans and Nuragics during the period of formation of the Etruscans are very attested and the necropolis of Mattonara in Civitavecchia, modern Lazio, where 3 out of 4 Etruscan samples come from, is precisely the necropolis of an Etruscan port that had relations with Sardinia.


 It is possible though J-L283 in Nuragics proved to be a separate clade 5400 years away from the Etruscan J-L283.

Yes and there is this Etruscan as Anatolian IE theory as well.

----------


## Regio X

> Indeed and as this Greek lacks *dys446=17*, *dys450=7* (very slow/reliable STR) which define the BY27899 he is almost 100 % *BY27899-* as well. That makes him still 4000 years distant from his Rhaetic (?) relatives. Also at FTDNA at Lemnos there is some other G2a, I think it's one of Neolithic clades.


Sorry. Not sure why you'd think that, but no, these are not oddities at G-BY27899 level. At all. The DYS446 naturally varies, and most of the confirmed G-BY27899 men have DYS450=8 (not 7), as the Greek. Currently you find the confirmed and predicted G-BY27899 men from group 333 to 344 in that Project. 
So yes, it's certainly possible he belongs to an existant G-FGC477 branch, and G-BY27899 is one of them - plus G-BY180574, G-Z6748 (defined by many SNPs/equivalents; and he's just Z6748-) and G-CTS3664 (likely defined by many as well, and it could actually be below another existant one; we just don't know yet). There's also a little chance he belongs to a new one, but we cannot know it without further SNP tests.

Finally, as a side note, I'd say that it's not how it works anyway. STR markers may provide important clues, but they must be seen in a context, and the likelihood of a basal branch goes beyond isolated STR oddities. Of course, certain isolated and relevant oddities may characterize also unknown subclades of existant clades, but we cannot do a precise link without more "reference men/results". I myself get an "odd" result for a marker with very low mutation rate. What if I knew I'm only G-L497 (without further testing)? Would this STR result in isolation evidence a new basal G-L497 branch? Not at all!

But that's an interesting result anyway, being the guy from Greece - relatively far from G-L497 hotspots in diversity and frequency. It'd be great if that guy tested further.

Current Chart:
https://d3tije9h5o4l4c.cloudfront.ne...photos/3466876

----------


## Aspurg

> I have rarely seen anything as confused as this in all my years here at Eupedia, and that's saying something.


 How about someone gives rebuttal of Gimbutas from an archaeological POV? 




> They are in a no man's land between Spaniards and northern Italians.


 So is the Dalmatian Veliki Vanik find closely related to the only Etruscan by Y-DNA. The thing is this sample was from 3600 years ago, long before any Gaul/Celtic and Germanic influences that these modern populations received. 




> ETRUSCANS DID NOT COME FROM ANATOLIA.


 I never said this was a likely option. It's certainly impossible if Etruscan is an EEF language.

----------


## Angela

Honestly, it's like debating with someone from the "Flat Earth Society". 

There are way too many nationalistic, agenda obsessed crazies interested in this topic. Most of them have some pride, and don't want to make themselves more ridiculous, so they've gone quiet on this subject.

Some haven't. 

I have some news to impart: genetics trumps ancient accounts of legends.

----------


## Aspurg

> Sorry. Not sure why you'd think that, but no, these are not oddities at G-BY27899 level. At all. The DYS446 naturally varies, and most of the confirmed G-BY27899 men have DYS450=8 (not 7), as the Greek. Currently you find the confirmed and predicted G-BY27899 men from group 333 to 344 in that Project. 
> So yes, it's certainly possible he belongs to an existant G-FGC477 branch, and G-BY27899 is one of them - plus G-BY180574, G-Z6748 (defined by many SNPs/equivalents; and he's just Z6748-) and G-CTS3664 (likely defined by many as well). There's also a little chance he belongs to a new one, but we cannot know it without further SNP tests.
> 
> Finally, as a side note, I'd say that ot's not how it works anyway. STR markers must be seen in a context, and the likelihood of a basal branch goes beyond isolated STR oddities. Of course, certain isolated and relevant oddities may characterize also unknown subclades of existant clades, but we cannot do the link without more "reference men". I myself get an "odd" result for a marker with very low mutation rate. What if I knew I'm only G-L497 (without further testing)? Would this STR result in isolation evidence a new basal G-L497 branch? Not at all!
> 
> But that's an interesting result anyway, being the guy from Greece - relatively far from G-L497 hotspots in diversity and frequency. It'd be great if that guy tested further.


 Indeed, you are correct, I was looking at YFull info, it seems overthere G-BY113517 don't have a reading on dys450, and at FTDNA the only 450=7 are G-BY113713. So it seems YFull's picture is incorrect. As if they count the Swedish result to have dys450=7 too, though he has 8.

I remember seeing this haplotype quite a while ago and my first association were the Lemnians. I don't think he looks particularly similar to anyone. 
I agree that STR's must be viewed in context, one has to look at those that define the earliest clades, and ensure the downstream haplotypes also share them in addition to some identifiable downstream SNP's/STR's. The prediction should be reliable provided important mutations are reflected on Y111, and there is no guarantee of that, some clades are more lucky than the others in that regard. 

His dys481 seems like a possible indication for Z45474- (481=22 X). Yes his BigY would be very useful. Unfortunately FTDNA SNP Packs seem pretty outdated compared to what is offered at YSEQ.

----------


## Regio X

> Indeed, you are correct, I was looking at YFull info, it seems overthere G-BY113517 don't have a reading on dys450, and at FTDNA the only 450=7 are G-BY113713. So it seems YFull's picture is incorrect. As if they count the Swedish result to have dys450=7 too, though he has 8.
> 
> I remember seeing this haplotype quite a while ago and my first association were the Lemnians. I don't think he looks particularly similar to anyone. 
> I agree that STR's must be viewed in context, one has to look at those that define the earliest clades, and ensure the downstream haplotypes also share them in addition to some identifiable downstream SNP's/STR's. The prediction should be reliable provided important mutations are reflected on Y111, and there is no guarantee of that, some clades are more lucky than the others in that regard. 
> 
> His dys481 seems like a possible indication for Z45474- (481=22 X). Yes his BigY would be very useful. Unfortunately FTDNA SNP Packs seem pretty outdated compared to what is offered at YSEQ.


The SNP Pack is indeed outdated. More than one year old. Many BigYs were performed in 2019. 

Actually DYS481 varies significantly. Its mutation rate is not "that" low. Indeed, there're G-Z45474 men also with DYS481=21 anyway, as the Greek.

----------


## torzio

> Indeed and as this Greek lacks *dys446=17*, *dys450=7* (very slow/reliable STR) which define the BY27899 he is almost 100 % *BY27899-* as well. That makes him still 4000 years distant from his Rhaetic (?) relatives. Also at FTDNA at Lemnos there is some other G2a, I think it's one of Neolithic clades. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I admit my knowledge of the Etruscans is not great, but I was going through one Balkan culture, namely Girla Mare and found out that the proto-Etruscan urn was derived of this culture. 
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Raetic script and other north italian ones

https://www.univie.ac.at/raetica/wiki/Script#Map

----------


## Jovialis

I knew the modeling for this paper was kind of bizarre. Moroccan Hunter-Gatherer ancestry in Copper Age and Bronze Age Northern Europe, and Iron Age Ukraine?

----------


## Stuvanè

> I knew the modeling for this paper was kind of bizarre. Moroccan Hunter-Gatherer ancestry in Copper Age and Bronze Age Northern Europe, and Iron Age Ukraine?


Sorry Jovialis, where did this scheme come from? (Thanks in advance)

----------


## Jovialis

> Sorry Jovialis, where did this scheme come from? (Thanks in advance)


This was from the supplements in the Antonio et al 2019 paper.

----------


## Palermo Trapani

> This was from the supplements in the Antonio et al 2019 paper.


I was thinking that might be the case, thanks for that information and clarification. I need to go read these supplements more than just the reported tables in the published paper. Probably good idea to do that for all the papers every time, assuming the authors make them available.

----------


## Jovialis

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread....l=1#post744170

----------


## Jovialis

> https://anthrogenica.com/showthread....l=1#post744170


So apparently looking at haplotype sharing is "overcomplicated". Yet the self-hater, wannabe jew, Azzurro/principe insists you need to look at haplogroups. Also, some mental midget known as Johnny Ola gaslights saying ABA is not 60% Anatolian_N/40% CHG, despite citing the paper 3 timea.Then some clueless regular wants to know why I am saying people are in violation of academic studies.  :Confused: 
What a complete waste of my time.

----------


## Azzurro

> So apparently looking at haplotype sharing is "overcomplicated". Yet the self-hater, wannabe jew, Azzurro/principe insists you need to look at haplogroups. Also, some mental midget known as Johnny Ola gaslights saying ABA is not 60% Anatolian_N/40% CHG, despite citing the paper 3 timea.Then some clueless regular wants to know why I am saying people are in violation of academic studies. 
> What a complete waste of my time.


LOL  :Laughing:

----------


## Jovialis

> LOL


Glad you came out of the shadows. It is funny, because it is true.

----------


## Jovialis

Tell me Azzurro, how is looking at an arbitrary construct known as ITA_Imperial_Rome supposed to tell you anything? You have the floor.

----------


## Azzurro

> Tell me Azzurro, how is looking at an arbitrary construct known as ITA_Imperial_Rome supposed to tell you anything? You have the floor.


I am laughing because you are so predictable, I have nothing to discuss with you. All the concerns you have have been discussed by several people at Anthrogenica over the years. If you wouldn't immediately go hostile people would discuss with you.

----------


## Jovialis

> I am laughing because you are so predictable, I have nothing to discuss with you. All the concerns you have have been discussed by several people at Anthrogenica over the years. If you wouldn't immediately go hostile people would discuss with you.


That's not sufficient, do not dodge the question. Why are you hung up on haplogroups, yet think it is perfectly fine to lump in all of these people in one aggregated group for analysis. The study shows that these people did not leave a lasting legacy. But it seems that people like you do not seem to care about that.

----------


## Azzurro

The haplogroups are still very prevalent in the area, it would hard pressed to ignore it.

----------


## Jovialis

> I am laughing because of how predictable you are. All the concerns you brought brought up have already been answered by several people at Anthrogenica, is it my fault you come in all hostile and get negative responses?


Come to grips with the fact that you are wrong:




> *Late Antiquity and the fall of Rome*
> 
> Late Antiquity was characterized by *deep demographic changes* and political reorganization, including the split of the Roman Empire into eastern and western halves, the movement of the capital from Rome to Byzantium (later Constantinople), and the gradual dissolution of the Western Roman Empire (maps in Fig. 3, C and D) (_1_, _3_).
> 
> The average ancestry of the Late Antique individuals (_n_ = 24) shifts away from the Near East and toward modern central European populations in PCA (Fig. 3D). Formally, they can be modeled as a two-way mixture of the preceding Imperial individuals and 38 to 41% ancestry from a late Imperial period individual from Bavaria or modern Basque individuals (table S24). The precise identity of the source populations and the admixture fractions should not be interpreted literally, given the simplified admixture model assumed and the lack of data for most contemporaneous ancient populations (_7_). This ancestry shift is also reflected in ChromoPainter results by the drastic shrinkage of the Near Eastern cluster (C4), maintenance of the two Mediterranean clusters (C5 and C6), and marked expansion of the European cluster (C7) (Fig. 4C).
> 
> https://science.sciencemag.org/content/366/6466/708

----------


## Azzurro

> That's not sufficient, do not dodge the question. Why are you hung up on haplogroups, yet think it is perfectly fine to lump in all of these people in one aggregated group for analysis. The study shows that these people did not leave a lasting legacy. But it seems that people like you do not seem to care about that.


Autosomal dna is not my forte, I focus on Uniparental data, I would say when 30-55% of the Y dna came from these people as you put it, it is quite a lasting genetic legacy.

----------


## Azzurro

> Come to grips with the fact that you are wrong:


This paper if anything did the exact opposite of what your saying, it proved me right along with other like minded individuals. It killed the whole everything is Neolithic crowd.

----------


## Jovialis

> Autosomal dna is not my forte, I focus on Uniparental data, I would say when 30-55% of the Y dna came from these people as you put it, it is quite a lasting genetic legacy.


Please read this article:




> This is a public service announcement. If you are a user of direct-to-consumer personal genomics services, *please do not pay any attention to your mtDNA and Y chromosomal haplogroups.* Why? Because they hardly tell you anything about your individual ancestry. What do I mean by this? Your mtDNA comes down from your mother’s-mother’s-mother’s-mother… and similarly for your Y chromosomal lineage if you are a male. These few individuals are not any more likely to contribute to your ancestry than all those multitudes and multitudes who do not contribute to your mtDNA or Y lineages; also known as almost all your ancestors! What you should pay attention to are your autosomal results. Inferences made from most of your genome. These results may be more difficult to parse, but difficulty is no sin, and elegant ease is no virtue, in this case. That’s because you are interested in your ancestry,* not a convenient interpretable story*.
> 
> 
> Of course I am _not saying that mtDNA and Y chromosomal haplogroups are useless. They are useful for population scale phylogeography. But please don’t make inferences about yourself from one data point. At least in most cases._
> 
> https://www.discovermagazine.com/the...al-haplogroups

----------


## Jovialis

> This paper if anything did the exact opposite of what your saying, it proved me right along with other like minded individuals. It killed the whole everything is Neolithic crowd.


No, you are wrong, for example it showed that J2 has been in Italy since the Neolithic. Also, J1 disappears after the imperial era, in the data set.

Now isn't this nice, we can go man to man, on these topics without the zerg-rush of stupidity.

----------


## Azzurro

> Please read this article:


I don’t care, like I said i’m not an expert on autosomal dna, there was a significant change in autosomal structure, pre Iron Age Italians were more Sardinian like, whatever your saying doesn’t make sense for the way how Italians plot today. For us in the South the major genetic impact was from the Greek colonies not the Italic tribes. Then obviously Italic tribes is second followed by Near Eastern input, I can’t tell exactly what % it is, but its there. Its not that complicated and we have the supporting *Haplogroup* data to show all of this.

----------


## Azzurro

> No, you are wrong, for example it showed that J2 has been in Italy since the Neolithic. Also, J1 disappears after the imperial era, in the data set.
> 
> Now isn't this nice, we can go man to man, on these topics without the zerg-rush of stupidity.


There is over 102 sub branches of J2 that exist, over 80% of the J2 in Italy dates to the Iron Age, I have a thread on AG for the history of J2. Which all ancient samples have been looked and chronologically dated. The most common group of J2 in Italy J-L283 (under J2b) comes from a Balkan source, has been found in Nuragics and Etruscans, this group was part of Caucasus Chalcolithic and migrated into Balkans in EBA, anyways point being each branch has there own specific history. Also, J1 like J2 is diverse and not all of it has the same origin, there was J1 in EHG, the one your thinking of J1-Z2331 which is the chief Semitic marker represents a little over half to 75% of all J1 in modern Italians.

----------


## Jovialis

> I don’t care, like I said i’m not an expert on autosomal dna, there was a significant change in autosomal structure, pre Iron Age Italians were more Sardinian like, whatever your saying doesn’t make sense for the way how Italians plot today. For us in the South the major genetic impact was from the Greek colonies not the Italic tribes. Then obviously Italic tribes is second followed by Near Eastern input, I can’t tell exactly what % it is, but its there. Its not that complicated and we have the supporting *Haplogroup* data to show all of this.


Well, the person who wrote that was an expert, and you should appreciate his insight.

Also, not all Italians were just Sardinian-like, the study shows that CHG has been trickling into Italy since the Neolithic. In fact, the authors suggest the central Italian farmers could have come from Greece, or Anatolia, rather than central European farmers, due to that CHG in them. There was a resurgence of WHG in the copper age, and then there was steppe influence there after in the bronze age. The steppe component, albiet important, was always a minority component, even among the Latini and Etruscans.

----------


## Azzurro

> Well, the person who wrote that was an expert, and you should appreciate his insight.
> 
> Also, not all Italians were just Sardinian-like, the study shows that CHG has been trickling into Italy since the Neolithic. In fact, the authors suggest the central Italian farmers could have come from Greece, or Anatolia, rather than central European farmers, due to that CHG in them. There was a resurgence of WHG in the copper age, and then there was steppe influence there after in the bronze age. The steppe component, albiet important, was always a minority component, even among the Latini and Etruscans.


Yeah they were part of the Adriatic Neolithic package, which had some J2 and Iran Neo, as you can see from the graph you love to post, Iran Neo decreased after Neolithic and only started to remerge during the Iron Age for the most part, there was a small move in EBA Sicily from the Castelluccio Culture (I predicted this years ago and on here btw), although the majority of it came in Iron Age with Greeks, Anatolians and people from the Levant, I don't see anyway around it.

----------


## Jovialis

> Yeah they were part of the Adriatic Neolithic package, which had some J2 and Iran Neo, as you can see from the graph you love to post, Iran Neo decreased after Neolithic and only started to remerge during the Iron Age for the most part, there was a small move in EBA Sicily from the Castelluccio Culture (I predicted this years ago and on here btw), although the majority of it came in Iron Age with Greeks, Anatolians and people from the Levant, I don't see anyway around it.


Yeah, I will post it 100,000 times, if that's what it takes.

Actually, I had suggest back thread that the increase in CHG/IN has come from the merging of the Greek colonies with Rome. However, I am not sure how you can connect Levantine influence with that.

Geneticists have more recently suggested that there has been a pulse of CHG/IN in the Mediterranean during the BA. Clearly there is an overlap with ABA in all of these areas, it doesn't suggest it came from the Levant, but probably Anatolia. Which by the way, did not have Natufian admixture in it. Perhaps some of the marginal Natufian admixture may have come by way of Phoenicians, in some cases. However, I would bet the majority came from Berber admixture via the moors.

----------


## bicicleur 2

> Yeah they were part of the Adriatic Neolithic package, which had some J2 and Iran Neo, as you can see from the graph you love to post, Iran Neo decreased after Neolithic and only started to remerge during the Iron Age for the most part, there was a small move in EBA Sicily from the Castelluccio Culture (I predicted this years ago and on here btw), although the majority of it came in Iron Age with Greeks, Anatolians and people from the Levant, I don't see anyway around it.


I wonder when this 'neolithic' Iran Neo arrived in the Adriatic.
Remember Diros cave and Franchthi cave neolithic had this Iran Neo as well.
There is some archeological evidence of some ceramic neolithic herders from the eastern Taunus range moving westward 9-8,8 ka without interaction with Central Anatolian neolithic crossing the Aegean.
This predates the 8,6 ka Barcin neolithic with supposedly Central Anatolian neolithic roots.
As a matter of facts, those herders from the eastern Taunus range allready had cattle and got ceramics ca 9 ka, both of them did not exist in Central Anatolian neolithic prior to 8,6 ka.

Another hint : Sardinian mesolithic mtDNA was not WHG mtDNA at all.

----------


## Azzurro

> Yeah, I will post it 100,000 times, if that's what it takes.
> 
> Actually, I had suggest back thread that the increase in CHG/IN has come from the merging of the Greek colonies with Rome. However, I am not sure how you can connect Levantine influence with that.
> 
> Geneticists have more recently suggested that there has been a pulse of CHG/IN in the Mediterranean during the BA. Clearly there is an overlap with ABA in all of these areas, it doesn't suggest it came from the Levant, but probably Anatolia. Which by the way, did not have Natufian admixture in it. Perhaps some of the marginal Natufian admixture may have come by way of Phoenicians, in some cases. However, I would be the majority came from Berber admixture via the moors.


The last part doesn't explain how it made through out all of the mainland, even Northern Italians have small amounts of Natufian, like I was saying we see Levantine Y markers in Southern Italians, Central Italians and even Northern Italians. The Phoenicians is not enough to explain it all, since they only had three colonies and some trading colonies throughout the coast. I think we should wait for Greek speaking samples from the Seleucid and Ptolemaic empires in the Eastern Mediterranean, because it seems likely there was a constant flow from there.

----------


## bicicleur 2

> I knew the modeling for this paper was kind of bizarre. Moroccan Hunter-Gatherer ancestry in Copper Age and Bronze Age Northern Europe, and Iron Age Ukraine?


At first sight, it seems strange to have Morrocan HG as one of the 4 building blocks.
I guess they tried several proxys and found out this gave the best fittings.
If northern Afirca was depopulated - as it looks like - before Ibero-Maurisians arrived there some 26 ka, and if they came from the Levant after mixing with Dzudzuana DNA as I suspect, then Morrocan HG is in fact late paleolithic Levantine (some 30 ka).
That would mean Levantine mesolithic is in fact Anatolian mesolithic mixed with some paleolithic Levantine.

----------


## Angela

Jovialis, honestly, I don't see the point of arguing with someone like this, or posting at anthrogenica. When you boil it down there are probably very few actual individuals posting. Most of the posts are from socks. I find the very idea of engaging them disgusting

Anyone who believes you can deduce the amount of a certain ancestry from y dna statistics at this point in the study of genetics other than to say that many times autosomal percentages are going to be a fraction of the yDna signature is beneath engaging in discussion.

My God, practically every man in the northern Apennines carries R1b and usually U-152, and yet they're at most 25% steppe. 

These are ludicrous assertions imo. 

You'll never convince them because they're not interested in objective facts. They staked out their positions based on agendas long ago and they will approach every new dna sample with that in mind and try to twist the facts to suit their a priori position. What can possibly be gained from engaging in discussion with them. 

They'll never see the nuances because it would disturb their world view.

Oh, and he hasn't taken off his "mask". Who the hell knows who he really is? He once sent me a photoshopped picture supposedly of "him", or maybe it was a facebook page, where this little Southern Italian or Southern Italian and other Southern European mixed guy was posted against a Canadian scene. That was it for me. It was as bad as when one of these jokers sent me an obvious photoshop of him against an Italian scene to prove he was a "real" Italian. That's all you need to know about their IQ and reasoning ability.

----------


## Jovialis

> Jovialis, honestly, I don't see the point of arguing with someone like this, or posting at anthrogenica. When you boil it down there are probably very few actual individuals posting. Most of the posts are from socks. I find the very idea of engaging them disgusting
> 
> Anyone who believes you can deduce the amount of a certain ancestry from y dna statistics at this point in the study of genetics other than to say that many times autosomal percentages are going to be a fraction of the yDna signature is beneath engaging in discussion.
> 
> My God, practically every man in the northern Apennines carries R1b and usually U-152, and yet they're at most 25% steppe. 
> 
> These are ludicrous assertions imo. 
> 
> You'll never convince them because they're not interested in objective facts. They staked out their positions based on agendas long ago and they will approach every new dna sample with that in mind and try to twist the facts to suit their a priori position. What can possibly be gained from engaging in discussion with them. 
> ...


Yeah, you're right, it is sort of like the _playing chess with a pigeon_ meme.

----------


## torzio

> Tell me Azzurro, how is looking at an arbitrary construct known as ITA_Imperial_Rome supposed to tell you anything? You have the floor.



Republican-Roman ethnicity is far far different than Imperial-Roman ethnicity ...................you need to separate the two ..................this is the main issue, people are merging the two and thinking it has always been like what the Imperial Roman one is

----------


## Jovialis

> Republican-Roman ethnicity is far far different than Imperial-Roman ethnicity ...................you need to separate the two ..................this is the main issue, people are merging the two and thinking it has always been like what the Imperial Roman one is


There is no such thing as Imperial-Roman ethnicity, or Republican-Roman ethnicity. There are Latins & various Italics, Greeks, Etruscans, Illyrians, Celts, etc...

But more importantly, the point I am making is that you cannot take a bunch of disparate samples from one time period, and make an aggregate of it, and use it as a viable construct to deduce ethnicity. As I was saying, the haplotype sharing clusters are better for that, and make sense. But apparently some people think that is over-complicated. It is almost as if they are feigning stupidity to protect their arguments.

I can think of countless examples of how this is idiotic.

----------


## Angela

> Yeah, you're right, it is sort of like the _playing chess with a pigeon_ meme.


Amazing, really. Don't they get that this was the capital of the Empire, and we have no way of knowing whether these samples are "natives" of even a few generations or just travelers?

Maciamo went through a lot of the immediate post Roman Empire samples and it was clear a lot of them were visitors from Northern Europe. 

There couldn't have been visitors, traders, and on and on from the east that just happened to die in Rome? 

It's just stupid. 

By the way, did you see the new Sarno and Boattini paper posted on the site? Seems like Southern Italians can be pretty well described as a mix of Anatolian Farmer and Caucasus Hunter Gatherer. Makes sense to me. Just wish I could get the tree to post.

https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...m-isolation-in

----------


## Jovialis

^^ I haven't, thanks for the heads up!

----------


## real expert

> Amazing, really. Don't they get that this was the capital of the Empire, and we have no way of knowing whether these samples are "natives" of even a few generations or just travelers?
> 
> Maciamo went through a lot of the immediate post Roman Empire samples and it was clear a lot of them were visitors from Northern Europe. 
> 
> There couldn't have been visitors, traders, and on and on from the east that just happened to die in Rome? 
> 
> It's just stupid. 
> 
> By the way, did you see the new Sarno and Boattini paper posted on the site? Seems like Southern Italians can be pretty well described as a mix of Anatolian Farmer and Caucasus Hunter Gatherer. Makes sense to me. Just wish I could get the tree to post.
> ...







I read somewhere that the Neolithic Iranian DNA didn’t have really an impact on Italy, but instead only CHG. Iran Neo and CHG are very similar components, albeit not identical. Furthermore, the increase of this CHG component is due to the largest change from "Iron Age/republic era Romans" to "imperial" and present day Central Italians. This change, namely the increasing of CHG (which in the paper is labeled as Neo Iran,) was attributed to the "Near Eastern immigration" by the researchers. However, based on the Sicilian Beaker samples, it seems that South Italians largely had this CHG component already elevated in them by the Bronze Age. In contrast to Central or North Italians who appear to have received the CHG or Neo Iran around the time of the Iron Age to Roman imperial times. Hence, it can be concluded that there was a high degree of immigration from either Southern Italy or Greece/Anatolia to Rome.The authors of the Roman paper even hinted in the study that what they label as Iran Neo could be entirely a Caucasian component.

----------


## torzio

> There is no such thing as Imperial-Roman ethnicity, or Republican-Roman ethnicity. There are Latins & various Italics, Greeks, Etruscans, Illyrians, Celts, etc...
> 
> But more importantly, the point I am making is that you cannot take a bunch of disparate samples from one time period, and make an aggregate of it, and use it as a viable construct to deduce ethnicity. As I was saying, the haplotype sharing clusters are better for that, and make sense. But apparently some people think that is over-complicated. It is almost as if they are feigning stupidity to protect their arguments.
> 
> I can think of countless examples of how this is idiotic.



fig# 3 in the paper, indicates where the ethnicity came from for each period...........from the base of the blue arrow to the arrival at rome ( the tip )

so B , 900 BC states from northern balkans
C, year 27 BC from the Levant
D, year 300 AD from France
E, year 700 AD from Germany

----------


## Angela

> I read somewhere that the Neolithic Iranian DNA didn’t have really an impact on Italy, but instead only CHG. Iran Neo and CHG are very similar components, albeit not identical. Furthermore, the increase of this CHG component is due to the largest change from "Iron Age/republic era Romans" to "imperial" and present day Central Italians. This change, namely the increasing of CHG (which in the paper is labeled as Neo Iran,) was attributed to the "Near Eastern immigration" by the researchers. However, based on the Sicilian Beaker samples, it seems that South Italians largely had this CHG component already elevated in them by the Bronze Age. In contrast to Central or North Italians who appear to have received the CHG or Neo Iran around the time of the Iron Age to Roman imperial times. *Hence, it can be concluded that there was a high degree of immigration from either Southern Italy or Greece/Anatolia to Rome*.The authors of the Roman paper even hinted in the study that what they label as Iran Neo could be entirely a Caucasian component.


Hypotheses have to take into account historical plausibility. There is no plausible scenario for a late, i.e. Iron Age movement into Southern Italy directly from the Caucasus. It had to come as part of an admixture in other people. I don't take the conclusions of that paper too seriously given that they seem to think that every single person buried in Imperial Rome was a native or at least long standing resident who left descendants who merged into the population. It never seemed to occur to them that the reason the "tail into the Levant" disappeared is because Rome lost its status as the hub and trading center of the Empire long before it fell. It's just such a naïve, sophomoric mistake that I completely lost faith in them. I mean, if nothing else, where was their common sense. If they wanted to know how to do a paper on ancient dna trying to figure out what admixture had just or was occurring they should have followed the example of the paper on the Langobards. For heaven's sake, at least do RUDIMENTARY isotopic analyses.

I do agree with the highlighted comment. However, the only way to know is to get Bronze Age Southern Italian samples, Iron Age Greek samples, and compare to see how similar they are, and then get early Iron Age, Republican Era samples from southern rural eras and see how they changed.

It's immaterial to me what the results would show. I'm just tired of the stupidity which passes for analysis on anthrofora.

----------


## Jovialis

> Amazing, really. Don't they get that this was the capital of the Empire, and we have no way of knowing whether these samples are "natives" of even a few generations or just travelers?
> 
> Maciamo went through a lot of the immediate post Roman Empire samples and it was clear a lot of them were visitors from Northern Europe. 
> 
> There couldn't have been visitors, traders, and on and on from the east that just happened to die in Rome? 
> 
> It's just stupid. 
> 
> By the way, did you see the new Sarno and Boattini paper posted on the site? Seems like Southern Italians can be pretty well described as a mix of Anatolian Farmer and Caucasus Hunter Gatherer. Makes sense to me. Just wish I could get the tree to post.
> ...






Absolutely fantastic! I feel vindicated!

In spite of all that grief, this is a glorious day!

Anthrogenica is repudiated.  :Grin: 

Thank you for telling me Angela, and thank you to Kingjohn for posting the paper.

----------


## Angela

> Absolutely fantastic! I feel vindicated!
> 
> In spite of all that grief, this is a glorious day!
> 
> Anthrogenica is repudiated. 
> 
> Thank you for telling me Angela, and thank you to Kingjohn for posting the paper.


My man! :)

Wasn't it Lazaridis at one point, when people were exclaiming over where some samples from Reggio Calabria were plotting that they were undoubtedly from a very drifted subset? You can see it proved in the paper.

Could I ask you for one more favor? Could you also put it on the Calabrian paper site.

----------


## real expert

> ....... It's just such a naïve, sophomoric mistake that I completely lost faith in them. I mean, if nothing else, where was their common sense. If they wanted to know how to do a paper on ancient dna trying to figure out what admixture had just or was occurring they should have followed the example of the paper on the Langobards. For heaven's sake, at least do RUDIMENTARY isotopic analyses.
> 
> I do agree with the highlighted comment. However, the only way to know is to get Bronze Age Southern Italian samples, Iron Age Greek samples, and compare to see how similar they are, and then get early Iron Age, Republican Era samples from southern rural eras and see how they changed.
> 
> It's immaterial to me what the results would show. I'm just tired of the stupidity which passes for analysis on anthrofora.


I personally suspect that there was to a degree sampling bias in this Roman study. In my opinion, people don't take into consideration that native/Italic Romans practiced cremation (burning) of their dead. Cremation was the usual custom until about A.D. 100. Hence, geneticists won't have the DNA of all the cremated Romans, especially from the nobles, aristocracy. However, I do think that the "Eastern Mediterranean" component was in Italy before Imperial Rome came into being, and that the bulk of migrants was from Magna Graecia, Southern Italy, and to a lesser degree from Hellenized Anatolia. 

While we don’t really have the burial context, there are clear indications that not few of the sampled DNA were from non-locals, foreigners and slaves, too. To me, it appears that the authors made a mistake by suggesting that all of their tested DNA samples of Imperial Rome represents the entire Roman society. It's extremely unlikely that the native Romans who were like the early ones disappeared without a trace. So, I'm inclined to believe that not all, but many of the cremated Romans perhaps were genetically speaking still like the early Romans.

----------


## Jovialis

> My man! :)
> 
> Wasn't it Lazaridis at one point, when people were exclaiming over where some samples from Reggio Calabria were plotting that they were undoubted from a very drifted subset? You can see it in the paper.
> 
> Could I ask you for one more favor? Could you also put it on the Calabrian paper site.


Sure, the heat map from the Mycenaean paper?

----------


## Angela

> Sure, the heat map from the Mycenaean paper?


No, this latest tree and admixture is from the Calabrian paper and this is the Moots paper, but I just checked and you did put it there already.

----------


## Leopoldo Leone

My personal conjecture is that Italy was affected by the CHG gene flow (what was before labelled Iran_N but I think it is likelier it was CHG because I remember, sorry if I can't now recall the precise paper, that there was an Anatolian/CHG cline from Anatolia to the Caucasus and CHG/Iran_N from the Caucasus to southwards) that affected south east Europe, and the some migration that carried yamna-like admixture from the Balkans affected central-south Italy (judging from the distribution of the balkan R1b subclade versus the Italic subclade), and lastly a migration from central Europe or south France into north Italy and then a spread of proto-Italic peoples from north Italy to the rest of the peninsula, creating the Italian cline. 

The Moot paper showed that the iron age centroid is indeed located in the central Italian region although no sample fell there, which I interpret as meaning that it is likely that it gradually came to existence as a more north Italian-like element mixed with a more south Italian-like one. I don't think it is really plausible to think that all Italy was north Italian-like but Greek colonists created the cline that exists today, given it extends well beyond the area of the Magna Graecia. I shouldn't be surprised if ancient south Italians were not too dissimilar from ancient Greeks and telling apart their direct ancestry in modern day's south Italians can be akin to figuring out how much "Saxon" or "Briton" the Englishmen are, given the initial similarity between them.

----------


## Angela

> My personal conjecture is that Italy was affected by the CHG gene flow (what was before labelled Iran_N but I think it is likelier it was CHG because I remember, sorry if I can't now recall the precise paper, that there was an Anatolian/CHG cline from Anatolia to the Caucasus and CHG/Iran_N from the Caucasus to southwards) that affected south east Europe, and the some migration that carried yamna-like admixture from the Balkans affected central-south Italy (judging from the distribution of the balkan R1b subclade versus the Italic subclade), and lastly a migration from central Europe or south France into north Italy and then a spread of proto-Italic peoples from north Italy to the rest of the peninsula, creating the Italian cline. 
> 
> The Moot paper showed that the iron age centroid is indeed located in the central Italian region although no sample fell there, which I interpret as meaning that it is likely that it gradually came to existence as a more north Italian-like element mixed with a more south Italian-like one. I don't think it is really plausible to think that all Italy was north Italian-like but Greek colonists created the cline that exists today, given it extends well beyond the area of the Magna Graecia. I shouldn't be surprised if ancient south Italians were not too dissimilar from ancient Greeks and telling apart their direct ancestry in modern day's south Italians can be akin to figuring out how much "Saxon" or "Briton" the Englishmen are, given the initial similarity between them.


The researchers of the Moots paper are using ALL the samples they found, some of which may have nothing to do with understanding the Italian cline, because they may be travelers or traders who came and went. 

Southern Italy, once we get a time lapse set of samples, will, I think, show that the Italics did have some impact, as one would expect from the languages, but you would also have Greeks, perhaps like the Mycenaeans, perhaps similar to modern day Aegean populations, and some of the "locals". They may be pretty similar to the Greeks, as others said. We have to wait and see.

----------


## Jovialis

> Absolutely fantastic! I feel vindicated!
> 
> In spite of all that grief, this is a glorious day!
> 
> *Anthrogenica is repudiated.* 
> 
> Thank you for telling me Angela, and thank you to Kingjohn for posting the paper.


I have been permanently banned.  :Laughing: 

Funny not one single thread on the new paper, what a bunch of losers! Not a peep!

For people so obsessed with Southern Italians, you would at least think there would be a thread on the new Sarno paper. No matter, they are trying to cover the sky with their hands, but the sky is crashing down on them hard.

It looks like that is the only way they could remove the content of my signature, which linked the paper and Tree graphic. Pathetic attempt to suppress information. What a joke!

----------


## real expert

> I have been permanently banned. 
> Funny not one single thread on the new paper, what a bunch of losers! Not a peep!
> For people so obsessed with Southern Italians, you would at least think there would be a thread on the new Sarno paper. No matter, they are trying to cover the sky with their hands, but the sky is crashing down on them hard.
> It looks like that is the only why they could remove the content of my signature, which linked the paper and Tree graphic. Pathetic attempt to suppress information. What a joke!


I knew it! I was about to ask you whether you think you'll get permanently banned because of your argument there. The AG Mods are disgusting banning and blocking maniacs, a bunch of arrogant, partial and intolerant bullies who in the name of etiquette and quality content get rid of users they don't like. I've never seen a forum that moderates discussions and bans users so massively like AG. Besides, aside from Afrocentric trolls from ES nobody has a safe haven there anyway, especially not if you challenge certain gold class members. Chin up! You did nothing wrong.

----------


## Jovialis

> I knew it! I was about to ask you whether you think you'll get permanently banned because of your argument there. The AG Mods are disgusting banning and blocking maniacs, a bunch of arrogant, partial and intolerant bullies who in the name of etiquette and quality content get rid of users they don't like. I've never seen a forum that moderates discussions and bans users so massively like AG. Besides, aside from Afrocentric trolls from ES nobody has a safe haven there anyway, especially not if you challenge certain gold class members. Chin up! You did nothing wrong.


Thank you for your kind words!

It is just a ridiculous garbage website full of sophistry.

----------


## real expert

> I am laughing because you are so predictable, I have nothing to discuss with you. All the concerns you have have been discussed by several people at Anthrogenica over the years. If you wouldn't immediately go hostile people would discuss with you.


Oh, please antrogenica is full of smug folks who don't like to debate if you know more than the "veterans" or "gold class members, or disagree with their views. New users are usually ignored unless they repeat and agree with the opinion of certain top dogs there. Besides, many posters love to report others who challenge them to get them banned. Plus, the AG Mods are unfair bullies with client politics that ban users right and left, and treat posters who behave the same differently. These PC cowards however, barely ban Afrocentric trolls there.

----------


## Palermo Trapani

> Oh, please antrogenica is full of smug folks who don't like to debate if you know more than the "veterans" or "gold class members, or disagree with their views. New users are usually ignored unless they repeat and agree with the opinion of certain top dogs there. Besides, many posters love to report others who challenge them to get them banned. Plus, the AG Mods are unfair bullies with client politics that ban users right and left, and treat posters who behave the same differently. These PC cowards however, barely ban Afrocentric trolls there.


real expert: If you don't mind me asking, why are the Afrocentrist allowed to troll there at antrogenica and if you challenge them you get banned. FYI, I am not a member there nor have I ever been. Do the Afrocentrist there still have problems with the Schuenemann et al 2016 paper on Ancient Egypt. That paper had 90 ancient Egyptians, I know from the Middle Kingdom analyzed in terms of mtDNA and if I remember correctly 3 Full genomes. The paper had J. Krause on it who was involved with the sequencing of the Denisovans so if people there are having problems with that paper, then :Rolleyes: .

If you want to say the samples were only from the Middle Kingdom and not Upper Egypt, ok, but the results are what they are.

----------


## kingjohn

> Thank you for your kind words!
> It is just a *ridiculous garbage* website full of sophistry.


Agree 
With you  :Good Job: 
the only good
Thing there is that they are good source
For new papers  :Laughing: 

P.s
Many of my new dna papers posts are based on them as source :Laughing:

----------


## Jovialis

Glad to be in good company! :) At any rate, it is my fault that this thread has gotten off track. Let's get back on topic.

----------


## Angela

Well, Sarno's paper is on both Lazaridis' and Razib Khan's twitter feed, virtually guaranteeing it will be read.

So much for trying to bury papers with which one disagrees.

----------


## real expert

> real expert: If you don't mind me asking, why are the Afrocentrist allowed to troll there at antrogenica and if you challenge them you get banned. FYI, I am not a member there nor have I ever been. Do the Afrocentrist there still have problems with the Schuenemann et al 2016 paper on Ancient Egypt. That paper had 90 ancient Egyptians, I know from the Middle Kingdom analyzed in terms of mtDNA and if I remember correctly 3 Full genomes. The paper had J. Krause on it who was involved with the sequencing of the Denisovans so if people there are having problems with that paper, then.
> 
> If you want to say the samples were only from the Middle Kingdom and not Upper Egypt, ok, but the results are what they are.


I'll answer your question by sending you a PM since I don't want to derail this thread.

----------


## Ralphie Boy

This paper has become relevant to me because I found out that one of my great grandfathers was J2a-L70. To my knowledge, the earliest sample of L70 was found in this paper, in late antiquity Rome. I was told as a child that we might have a little Italian ancestry. Many years later, out of the blue, a relative contacted me and shared his genetic tests, including his Y DNA result, and told me a story about an Italian connection. 

The oral history is anecdotal, and unfortunately our L70 subclade is unknown, but the result is an interesting bit of evidence. There are two Greeks with L70 in YFull, and two in an unpublished Stanford study. It looks from the map like the haplogroup may have made its way from the Middle East to Anatolia then the Balkans, Italy and other parts of Europe. It’s “parent,” L25 was also found in the Stanford study, apparently. In this paper the “grandparent” L26 was found in Imperial Rome. 
6FAC724A-D9EE-45C8-A8DA-8A945135E1B5.jpg9327E67A-014D-4D21-B03C-906E3E9C69A2.jpg228A5EC6-42EC-4492-81C4-39CE99AB2C26.jpg

----------


## Palermo Trapani

> I'll answer your question by sending you a PM since I don't want to derail this thread.


Sure, thanks for the response.

----------


## Mario

Maybe we should not consider the roman as a concept of nation, only a concept of law and politics. Classical city-state civilization has highly floating population, if I remember correctly, the dynasty of Tarquinius was established by an 'Etruscan' whose father was from Corinth Greece, the epoch control by Latins is only a part of the whole roman civilization.After all, in the time of Tacitus(AD55-AD120), he said the senators were basically sons of knights and freed slaves (indicating a foreign source), and hardly found a few local families.

----------


## Jovialis

> Maybe we should not consider the roman as a concept of nation, only a concept of law and politics. Classical city-state civilization has highly floating population, if I remember correctly, the dynasty of Tarquinius was established by an 'Etruscan' whose father was from Corinth Greece, the epoch control by Latins is only a part of the whole roman civilization.*After all, in the time of Tacitus(AD55-AD120), he said the senators were basically sons of knights and freed slaves (indicating a foreign source), and hardly found a few local families*.


Perhaps than, you should read the paper of which this thread is about. Because the Imperial era's _foreign sources_ are shown to not have had any significant impact in the subsequent eras. The following era was defined by deep demographic shifts; which says so explicitly in the paper. Meaning, native Italians from the hinterlands had reclaimed the cities. Frankly, I am getting fed up with this canard, especially after it has been refuted by genetics.

Rome was an empire, established by the Italic tribe, the Latini. The Etruscans, Greeks, Celts, Illyrians and other Italics were incorporated into Rome. Of course there isn't a monolithic ethnic group, this is elementary.

The greatest shift probably came when newly incorporated Greeks from the south, who we know are high in CHG, mixed with the Italic population. The Latins and Etruscans we have DNA for cluster with Northern Italians, who were already intermediate between central Europeans, and other southern Europeans. This is evident in the genetic profile of medieval Central Italians.

----------


## Jovialis

Here is the section:




> *Late Antiquity and the fall of Rome
> 
> *
> _Late Antiquity was characterized by deep demographic changes and political reorganization, including the split of the Roman Empire into eastern and western halves, the movement of the capital from Rome to Byzantium (later Constantinople), and the gradual dissolution of the Western Roman Empire (maps in Fig. 3, C and D) (1, 3)._

----------


## Ozzie

Yes, well the foreign contingent shifted to Constantinople along with the Emperor and governing body. Italia and Roma lost their importance, and the immigrants moved on and other people from the north moved in.

----------


## Angela

I just posted this on the Calabrian thread. For those not reading it:

"I agree with you except for the fact that Modern Iranians and Caucasians do indeed have a lot of Iran Neo ancestry, along with Anatolian farmer. The gene flow went both ways. The fact is that a wave of that ancestry spread into Anatolia and mixed with the Anatolian farmers living there. Perhaps through Anatolians it spread south into the Levant, eventually even reaching North Africa. It definitely spread into the Central and Western Mediterranean, again, as I've said over and over again, as an admixed group. There is absolutely no evidence from history of a movement to Italy or Greece, for that matter, from the Caucasus itself.

In terms of Italy in, say, the Bronze and Iron Age, I'm not sure if all of it came via the Greeks or if some of it came directly from Anatolia itself. (It certainly didn't go to Etruria, as the Etruscans clearly came from Central Europe, which 90% of the internet said was fantasy when I and a few others insisted on it here and on anthrogenica; one of the many things they and eurogenes got wrong about Southern Europe.) In isolated places like southern and southwestern Sardinia in the Iron Age, some of it may have come with Phoenicians. Perhaps a bit arrived in the same way in Northwestern Sicily. The rest of Sicily and the mainland are different.

The Moots paper, other than providing the ancient samples, tends to confuse rather than clarify the issue of what happened in Imperial Age. Once we get Southern Italian samples and Greek samples from the Iron Age, we'll know better how much Iran Neo/CHG, for example, arrived in Italy with the Greeks and then could have very likely moved northward.

The problem with Moots is that it assumes every single burial sample is a long term resident of Rome, i.e. Roman or at least Italian. That's manifestly a simplification. Not every person who "looks" like a Levantine or even an Anatolian on a PCA would have become a long time settler whose progeny contributed to the local genomes. We can see that with some of the samples from the post Imperial period whom we've analyzed and who are manifestly northern European visitors to Rome. Had they done some isotopic testing we might have a clearer idea of who was "local" and who was not. Added to all this, in the period in question, some Romans still practiced cremation, so the sample is not representative.

Then, there's the question of the big demographic change even earlier than the end of the Empire. Rome was gradually abandoned as the seat of Empire. Everything shifted either to Constantinople or to Northern Italy. That's why the "tail to the east" ended. The traders left.

There is indeed also the period of the Germanic invasions. The problem with attributing much of the change to them, the popular back to the beginning scenario particularly in the north, is that every Germanic invader sample we've found is either I1 or R1b-U106. I can't believe that a paper purporting to deal with Italian genetics totally ignored yDna. The one thing yDna is really good for is tracking migrations. There's far too little of either I1 or U106, even in the Veneto, much less in Lazio, to account for a change from people with almost no steppe to people with 25-30% steppe. It doesn't matter how small the "native" population might have been due to plague, invasion, the Gothic Wars etc.; the "Germanic" ydna would have to be higher than it is. Not to mention that the Langobards numbered around 100,000 people even according to their own scribes, and the Goths were even smaller in number. The arrival of the Visigoths mimics, imo what happened in Hungary with the arrival of the "Huns".

I really hope the Reich Lab, and Razib Khan in his summary, don't make these kind of elementary mistakes.

Now, if someone shows the Germanics carried a lot of R1b U152 then that's a different story.

I'd also like to see samples from the Italian countryside and mountains from the Late Imperial and Post Imperial Era. When cities collapse, people from the periphery move down and repopulate them.

We need more data.

Northern Italian Neo-Nazis, like their brethren from other countries, may want to believe that they have tons of "Germanic" dna from the invasion period, but that really "is" a fantasy.

----------


## Dianatomia

> Northern Italian Neo-Nazis, like their brethren from other countries, may want to believe that they have tons of "Germanic" dna from the invasion period, but that really "is" a fantasy.


Why would they want that? Given that they do in fact have a lot of DNA similar to the people who founded Rome. DNA from a Germanic invasion breaks that continuity.

----------


## Angela

> Why would they want that? Given that they do in fact have a lot of DNA similar to the people who founded Rome. DNA from a Germanic invasion breaks that continuity.


Brother, that's the million dollar question. Insanity springs to mind. :)

One of these weirdos has his hair cut German military style in a picture, along with what looks like his version of a German military uniform. 

Meanwhile, Italy was brutalized by the German invasion, aided, to our shame, by some of our Blackshirts.

Maybe it's things on the internet, the desire to identify with the more prosperous European countries of the last two centuries? Maybe it's because of the separatism in certain regions? No proper pride in being "Italian" in some regions?

To be honest, there's long been a certain feeling of superiority in some Northern Italians versus Southern Italians based a lot on sheer "looks". My own grandfather used to say horrible things about the ancestry of Southern Italians apparently, although I learned that only when I was older. My father jokingly told me that had he been alive when I got engaged to my husband there would have been hell to pay. My own second cousin was forbidden to marry a son of Southern Italian migrants. Only after five years had passed and she wouldn't look at anyone else did they relent. Meanwhile, he was infinitely too good for her, both in character and looks. :) Out of that whole family he's much my favorite person.

Maybe those kinds of attitudes in certain families provided fertile ground for that kind of internet propaganda.ar
In the beginning, the Lega Nord, most dominant in the Veneto and certain parts of Lombardia, wanted to secede and join the Alpine countries, like Switzerland. Of all the idiocy, that was the worst. As if Switzerland would have them. They barely tolerate the Ticino. Try speaking Italian, one of the three "official" languages of Switzerland, in Basel. As if speaking in Venetian would make a difference. Still sounds "Italian" to them, as indeed it is.

Or, they take too seriously the fact that the Nazis declared us "Honorary Aryans" because that idiot Mussolini tied us to them. Of course, looking at Hitler and a lot of his cronies, yeah, quite a few of us look more "Aryan" than they do. :)

I don't know too much about Golden Dawn and whether they identify with Germans or are just their own band of loonies. Nothing would surprise me.

Ed. One of the ironies of this situation is that during the period shortly after Rome conquered the north, people like Livy were falling all over themselves in their claims to be Romans, and trying to brush aside any prior Celtic/Gallic associations. Most people are really disgusting, you know? It's just about associating yourself with what you perceive as power.

----------


## ihype02

> Brother, that's the million dollar question. Insanity springs to mind. :)
> 
> One of these weirdos has his hair cut German military style in a picture, along with what looks like his version of a German military uniform. 
> 
> Meanwhile, Italy was brutalized by the German invasion, aided, to our shame, by some of our Blackshirts.


I have seen more neo-Nazi with Slavic ancestry than of Germanic heritage or Italian or anything else. Funny because Hitler considered Slavs inferior people owned by Jewish masters. You go figure.

----------


## Angela

[QUOTE=ihype02;619720]I have seen more neo-Nazi with Slavic ancestry than of Germanic heritage or Italian or anything else. Funny because Hitler considered Slavs inferior people owned by Jewish masters. You go figure.[/QUOTGE]

You're exactly right. That's where there is the most in the open racist skin head activity as well. 

When I've mentioned in the past that they were next on the chopping block, plans already having been drawn up to send them for extermination after the Jews and Homosexuals (forgetting some well known Nazis were Homosexual and Hitler probably had severe sexual problems of course; they weren't going to get any children from him for their breeding program) and gypsies were taken care of, they argue over the authenticity of the plans, which are completely authentic, and as if the attitude toward Slavs wasn't obvious and repeatedly displayed. 

The Nazis wanted all that good, flat farmland for the more industrious German farmers. It was called Lebenstraum. This article blames it all on the Nazis, but it was part of the stated reason for World War I by Imperial Germany as well, just carried to undreamed of extremes. (The Italians to my shame, got into the act, which is why they tried to get into the colonialism game, as one example.)

"The German concept of *Lebensraum*_ (German pronunciation: [ˈleːbənsˌʁaʊm] (listen), "living space") comprises policies and practices of settler colonialism which proliferated in Germany from the 1890s to the 1940s. First popularized around 1901,[2] Lebensraum became a geopolitical goal of Imperial Germany in World War I (1914–1918) originally, as the core element of the Septemberprogramm of territorial expansion.[3] The most extreme form of this ideology was supported by the Nazi Party (NSDAP) and Nazi Germany until the end of World War II.[4]__Following Adolf Hitler's rise to power, Lebensraum became an ideological principle of Nazism and provided justification for the German territorial expansion into Central and Eastern Europe.[5] The Nazi Generalplan Ost policy ('Master Plan for the East') was based on its tenets. It stipulated that Germany required a Lebensraum necessary for its survival and that most of the indigenous populations of Central and Eastern Europe would have to be removed permanently (either through mass deportation to Siberia, extermination, or enslavement) including Polish, Ukrainian, Russian, Czech and other Slavic nations considered non-Aryan. The Nazi government aimed at repopulating these lands with Germanic colonists in the name of Lebensraum during World War II and thereafter.[6][7][8][9] Entire indigenous populations were decimated by starvation, allowing for their own agricultural surplus to feed Germany.[6]"



_Of course, the Nazis identified race by physical characteristics in some cases. So, for example, if a Polish or Russian child was blonde and blue eyed and had the right cranial and face measurements, they sometimes made an exception and took them from their parents to be adopted by German parents. There's a great video program about it. The bitterness of these children. now adults, is profound, poor things.

----------


## kingjohn

But today we know from genetics that many of the slavs ( considered inferiour by nazis)
Are more closer to the ancient indo-iranians aka aryan than germans....( or at least the germans who are not r1a) :Thinking: 


P.s
And personally the european left is more dangerous 
At least i know what those skin head think the are not hiding what you see is what you get...

----------


## Ailchu

> And personally the european left is more dangerous 
> At least i know what those skin head think the are not hiding what you see is what you get...


the nazis or skinheads are just the tip of the iceberg. most of the rest you can not see. they are just a very extreme subgroup of the overall racist population.
and if someone is a nazi who follows Hitler or just another racist in any other shape or form, doesn't matter in the end.

----------


## Jovialis

> the nazis or skinheads are just the tip of the iceberg. most of the rest you can not see. they are just a very extreme subgroup of the overall racist population.
> and if someone is a nazi who follows Hitler or just another racist in any other shape or form, doesn't matter in the end.


Including non-white racists, who advocate for their own racial supremacy.

----------


## Palermo Trapani

> Including non-white racists, who advocate for their own racial supremacy.


My vote is  :Good Job:

----------


## Ailchu

> Including non-white racists, who advocate for their own racial supremacy.


of course. i would also include ethno- or "race"-centrists who base their centrism on genetics.

----------


## Jovialis

> of course. i would also include ethno- or "race"-centrists who base their centrism on genetics.


I think the real danger is misunderstanding genetics, or twisting it to fit ideology. I see it a lot when I lurk on that dumpster fire known as twitter.

I think understanding thorny subjects like genetics is imperative, otherwise it creates a vacuum that gets filled by extremism.

----------


## torzio

> Here is the section:


do you use information from the below attachment in your analysis 

https://www.researchgate.net/publica...7th_century_BC

----------


## Jovialis

> do you use information from the below attachment in your analysis 
> 
> https://www.researchgate.net/publica...7th_century_BC



I don't follow what this would have to do with my previous post in regards to the demographic shifts of central Italy in late antiquity and the middle ages.

----------


## Jack Johnson

A little off topic my friend, but on one of these forums here on Eupedia, Regio X did some admixture runs on G25 with East and West Sicilians, and found around .4% Shum Laka admixture. He included the Iberomaurusians in said runs, and from what I understand, the Iberomaurusian samples are partly Eurasian, as well as partly Ancestral North African/Ancestral East African (ANA/AEA), which is in turn related in some way to Basal Eurasian (BE). If I am not mistaken, ANA/AEA ancestry is present in the Shum Laka samples, as it is in almost all Sub-Saharan African populations; there is also a minor bit of Eurasian ancestry not directly related to ANA/AEA, in the Shum Laka samples; most likely related to the various back migrations from Eurasia and Northern Africa, into Sub-Saharan Africa over the last 200kyb. Do you think that is why Regio X's G25 run picks up very minor, almost noise level Shum Laka admixture in present-day Sicilians, and even in one of the Roman Republican-era samples? I believe that because of this shared ANA/AEA ancestry, noise levels of Shum Laka admixture appear in modern day Sicily; this also explains the presence mtDNA Haplogroups L1b1 and L2a1 in Neolithic/Eneolithic Iberia, as well as the minor presence of Y-DNA haplogroup A1 in small pockets across Eurasia, such as in the Aegean Region of Turkey, Jordan, Oman, Palestine, Sardinia, Ireland, Scotland, northeastern England, Norway and even Finland. I'm finding it difficult to get more definitive answers regarding the genetic/phylogenetic relations between Eurasia, Northern Africa, and Sub-Saharan Africa; especially seeing that these topics seem to have been hijacked by Afrocentrist types on Anthrogenica. Some of these posters appear to have been rejects from Egypt Search, and some of them even believe Basal Eurasian is some from of Sub-Saharan African ancestry. To me this is the equivalent of saying modern humans evolved from Chimpanzees or Old World Monkeys, when in actuality we share a common ancestor. The same applies to modern human biological diversity, you wouldn't say modern Europeans are descended from Siberians, Syrians, Turks, Egyptians or Jordanians, because for one, those modern populations didn't exist at that time in human history; instead all these groups share common Eurasian and North/Northeast African ancestors, related to the first Out of Africa expansions 60-70ybp.

----------


## real expert

> Jovialis, honestly, I don't see the point of arguing with someone like this, or posting at anthrogenica. When you boil it down there are probably very few actual individuals posting. Most of the posts are from socks. I find the very idea of engaging them disgusting
> 
> Anyone who believes you can deduce the amount of a certain ancestry from y dna statistics at this point in the study of genetics other than to say that many times autosomal percentages are going to be a fraction of the yDna signature is beneath engaging in discussion......



I can understand Jovialis that he felt he had to step in, in order to set the record straight. There are plenty agenda and ideologically driven folks on anthrogenica, beginning by the Mods. So, it's kinda refreshing when there are users who challenge or try to refute these posters who interpret the data according to their pet theories. Certainly, debating and discussing with members of AG that have an agenda can be futile and even gets you sooner or later banned. But then again, someone has to clarify what the actual data says or indicates in order to prevent other readers from getting misled. Furthermore, AG is pretty popular and followed by many people who are intrested in their origin or just in ancient people. Plus, there are not few people who consider anthrogenica as a forum with authority when it comes to ancient DNA, etc.

----------


## Azzurro

@Jovialis

Riddle me this, that you say there is zero Levantine admixture in Southern and Central Italians

Here is looking at Vahaduo gradients, when comparing two pops, the first showing what pop 1 has more of and the second showing what pop 2 has. I'm half Lucanian and half Sicilian so just to see 

Chart 1 me vs Lombardy

Distance difference: ( AC - BC ) ↑
A: Azzurro_scaled
B: Italian_Lombardy
C: ↴

-0.04697202
Palestinian_Beit_Sahour

-0.04560101
Tunisian_Jew

-0.04506793
Lebanese_Christian

-0.04502367
Libyan_Jew

-0.04380057
Samaritan

-0.04369960
Palestinian

-0.04349487
Karaite_Egypt

-0.04342150
Jordanian

-0.04335536
Lebanese_Druze

-0.04331608
Romaniote_Jew

-0.04330282
Druze

-0.04323730
Cypriot

-0.04323594
BedouinA

-0.04281699
Lebanese_Muslim

-0.04240975
Syrian_Jew

-0.04202865
Sephardic_Jew

-0.04193884
Moroccan_Jew

-0.04185732
Italian_Jew

-0.04182144
Iraqi_Jew

-0.04178363
Yemenite_Amran

-0.04146349
Yemenite_Dhamar

-0.04145701
Ashkenazi_Germany

-0.04117618
Yemenite_Ma'rib

-0.04081285
BedouinB

-0.04078270
Egyptian



Distance difference: ( AC - BC ) ↓
A: Azzurro_scaled
B: Italian_Lombardy
C: ↴

0.04616570
French_Occitanie

0.04596957
Spanish_Pais_Vasco

0.04593070
Basque_French

0.04573025
Spanish_Terres_de_l'Ebre

0.04537104
French_Auvergne

0.04481222
French_South

0.04440522
Basque_Spanish

0.04418347
Italian_Trentino-Alto-Adige

0.04409500
Spanish_Barcelones

0.04403272
Swiss_German

0.04372056
Spanish_Lleida

0.04345644
English_Cornwall

0.04336925
Spanish_Cantabria

0.04328407
French_Brittany

0.04310045
French_Nord

0.04308457
English

0.04285668
French_Paris

0.04282876
Spanish_Aragon

0.04274457
Orcadian

0.04262683
Welsh

0.04258209
Scottish

0.04254835
Belgian

0.04244068
Italian_Bergamo

0.04241583
Spanish_Pirineu

0.04237266
Spanish_Catalunya_Central



Next 2 for you since your Pugliese, Puglia vs Lombardy

Distance difference: ( AC - BC ) ↑
A: Italian_Apulia
B: Italian_Lombardy
C: ↴

-0.05039380
Greek_Kos

-0.05002065
Cypriot

-0.04991024
Greek_Dodecanese

-0.04987424
Greek_Crete

-0.04958243
Druze

-0.04932296
Lebanese_Druze

-0.04926000
Italian_Campania

-0.04919607
Lebanese_Christian

-0.04896156
Iraqi_Jew

-0.04877783
Palestinian_Beit_Sahour

-0.04816992
Karaite_Egypt

-0.04802114
Romaniote_Jew

-0.04795111
Syrian_Jew

-0.04793188
Lebanese_Muslim

-0.04771010
Italian_Calabria

-0.04770576
Italian_Basilicata

-0.04770328
Greek_Central_Anatolia

-0.04724583
Samaritan

-0.04702269
Greek_Cappadocia

-0.04623210
Assyrian

-0.04622167
Iranian_Jew

-0.04596442
Georgian_Jew

-0.04570986
Armenian

-0.04559199
Italian_Jew

-0.04541148
Sephardic_Jew



Distance difference: ( AC - BC ) ↓
A: Italian_Apulia
B: Italian_Lombardy
C: ↴

0.04811817
Spanish_Pais_Vasco

0.04762656
Basque_French

0.04659519
Basque_Spanish

0.04645296
French_South

0.04607401
Spanish_Terres_de_l'Ebre

0.04591461
Spanish_Barcelones

0.04579097
French_Occitanie

0.04507768
French_Auvergne

0.04501614
Spanish_Lleida

0.04498966
Spanish_Aragon

0.04486812
Spanish_Cantabria

0.04426657
Spanish_Navarra

0.04422151
Spanish_Pirineu

0.04417128
Spanish_Peri-Barcelona

0.04410601
Spanish_Catalunya_Central

0.04347178
Spanish_Girona

0.04344095
Spanish_Valencia

0.04328784
Spanish_Penedes

0.04276611
Spanish_Castilla_La_Mancha

0.04275293
Spanish_Cataluna

0.04267207
French_Paris

0.04262469
Spanish_Camp_de_Tarragona

0.04256021
Spanish_Castello

0.04254226
Spanish_Asturias

0.04220933
Italian_Trentino-Alto-Adige



Now me vs Puglia average from G25

Distance difference: ( AC - BC ) ↑
A: Azzurro_scaled
B: Italian_Apulia
C: ↴

-0.01095705
Berber_MAR_TIZ

-0.01078279
Moroccan_North

-0.01061598
Berber_Tunisia_Chen

-0.01046510
Saharawi

-0.01045269
Mozabite

-0.01038683
Berber_MAR_ERR

-0.01035996
Tunisian_Berber_Tamezret

-0.00993874
Tunisian_Berber_Matmata

-0.00991996
Tunisian_Berber_Zraoua

-0.00979948
Algerian

-0.00960243
Moroccan

-0.00955279
Moroccan_South

-0.00929198
Berber_Tunisia_Sen

-0.00917140
Tunisian

-0.00807193
Berber_Algeria

-0.00799620
Tunisian_Douz

-0.00794973
Libyan

-0.00794479
Fulani

-0.00748450
Spanish_Canarias

-0.00743965
Tunisian_Rbaya

-0.00686667
Mandenka

-0.00677981
Gambian

-0.00677316
Igbo

-0.00674689
Esan_Nigeria

-0.00671087
Mende_Sierra_Leone



Distance difference: ( AC - BC ) ↓
A: Azzurro_scaled
B: Italian_Apulia
C: ↴

0.01675761
Italian_Basilicata

0.01573005
Circassian

0.01572491
Ossetian

0.01571614
Kabardin

0.01545934
Karachay

0.01540089
Adygei

0.01529509
Abazin

0.01523285
Balkar

0.01520394
Ingushian

0.01520252
Italian_Molise

0.01517609
Cherkes

0.01497347
Abkhasian

0.01489201
North_Ossetian

0.01475707
Turkish_North

0.01469924
Kumyk

0.01468853
Greek_Crete

0.01447690
Turkish_Central

0.01432282
Italian_Campania

0.01421947
Greek_Izmir

0.01416759
Turkish_Kayseri

0.01412351
Georgian_Imer

0.01410833
Chechen

0.01410582
Italian_Abruzzo

0.01385643
Azeri_Turkey

0.01364512
Greek_Trabzon

----------


## Jovialis

I never said that. I said there could be some levantine via Moors and Saracens. I have insisted that the Imperial era did not bring in transformative waves of near eastern immigration. Which is what this paper shows. You proport to be half-Sicilian. So you would probably have a very small amount of moorish ancestry You and people like you have falsely insisted it is a significant component. When even Anatolian_BA only has 5% levant farmer in them. Also why are you using modern populations to try to deduce that? We already have ancient samples that can provide a more accurate picture. Also, those modern populations are user provided, so they're not even all that reliable. For example, I plot slightly north of Abruzzo with that sample set, and I am closer to them than it's Apulia sample. I'm not by my pc at the moment.

----------


## Azzurro

> I never said that. I said there could be some levantine via Moors and Saracens. I have insisted that the Imperial era did not bring in transformative waves of near eastern immigration. Which is what this paper shows. You proport to be half-Sicilian. So you would probably have a very small amount of moorish ancestry You and people like you have falsely insisted it is a significant component. When even Anatolian_BA only has 5% levant farmer in them. Also why are you using modern populations to try to deduce that? We already have ancient samples that can provide a more accurate picture. Also, those modern populations are user provided, so they're not even all that reliable. For example, I plot slightly north of Abruzzo with that sample set, and I am closer to them than it's Apulia sample. I'm not by my pc at the moment.


Its not only Sicilians, all Italians have some of this ancestry just in varying degrees. I do always score North African, Moorish ancestry is specifically mostly restricted to Sicily and skewed to Western side of the island, you see when I compare myself to Puglia, I have a North African pull vs the pull for Puglia is more Italic and some Caucasus like admix. In terms of component its 3rd to Greek and Native like ancestry, probably anywhere from 5-20%. I used modern just so using all pops we can do the same with ancients if you’d like the result will be the same.

I'll do the exact same 3 but with ancient just to see

Distance difference: ( AC - BC ) ↑
A: Azzurro_scaled
B: Italian_Lombardy
C: ↴

-0.04654301
England_Roman_Near_Eastern_o

-0.04645886
Levant_Beirut_ERoman

-0.04564379
Levant_Beirut_IAII

-0.04546720
Levant_Beirut_IAIII

-0.04537057
Levant_Sidon_MBA

-0.04524332
Levant_LBN_MA

-0.04506587
Levant_LBN_Roman

-0.04500486
Levant_Ashkelon_IA2

-0.04497101
Levant_Abel_IA

-0.04490149
Levant_Baqah_BA

-0.04416679
Levant_Megiddo_MLBA

-0.04410870
Levant_Hazor_MLBA

-0.04400349
Levant_Megiddo_IBA

-0.04389557
Levant_Ashkelon_LBA

-0.04387587
Levant_JOR_EBA

-0.04352114
SYR_Ebla_EMBA

-0.04343998
Levant_Beirut_Hellenistic

-0.04330058
Levant_Shadud_MLBA

-0.04328653
TUR_Alalakh_MLBA

-0.04301334
Levant_Beirut_IAIII_Egyptian

-0.04283930
Levant_LBN_MA_o3

-0.04269086
EGY_Late_Period

-0.04186878
TUR_Arslantepe_LC

-0.04158253
TUR_Ovaoren_EBA

-0.04113304
TUR_Arslantepe_EBA



Distance difference: ( AC - BC ) ↓
A: Azzurro_scaled
B: Italian_Lombardy
C: ↴

0.04656284
ITA_Prenestini_tribe_IA

0.04600792
FRA_Grand_Est_EBA_o

0.04554412
Iberia_North_IA

0.04488038
FRA_Occitanie_IA2

0.04471355
FRA_Hauts_De_France_IA2

0.04460014
Bell_Beaker_FRA_C

0.04452605
CZE_Hallstatt_Bylany

0.04355815
Iberia_Central_CA_Stp

0.04352483
DEU_Lech_BBC

0.04293914
Iberia_Northeast_Empuries1

0.04292336
ITA_Collegno_MA

0.04260115
Levant_LBN_MA_o2

0.04230452
Scotland_LBA

0.04230000
VK2020_Scotland_Orkney_VA

0.04216315
VK2020_GreenlandE_VA

0.04215560
DEU_Lech_EBA_contam

0.04215351
Iberia_Northwest_CA_Stp

0.04203318
VK2020_Faroes_EM

0.04200165
England_Roman

0.04190681
DEU_Singen_EBA

0.04188492
CHE_EBA

0.04182430
FRA_Grand_Est_EBA

0.04180018
FIN_Levanluhta_IA_o

0.04172381
ITA_Etruscan

0.04162954
Bell_Beaker_CHE



Distance difference: ( AC - BC ) ↑
A: Italian_Apulia
B: Italian_Lombardy
C: ↴

-0.05029098
ITA_Rome_Imperial

-0.04979581
TUR_Arslantepe_LC

-0.04967688
TUR_Alalakh_MLBA

-0.04943465
SYR_Ebla_EMBA

-0.04932819
TUR_Arslantepe_EBA

-0.04919046
ITA_Collegno_MA_o1

-0.04917313
Levant_Beirut_ERoman

-0.04910746
Levant_LBN_Roman

-0.04894733
Levant_LBN_MA

-0.04884040
Levant_Beirut_IAIII

-0.04839711
IND_Roopkund_B_o

-0.04836996
Levant_Sidon_MBA

-0.04804477
Levant_Ashkelon_LBA

-0.04788977
Levant_Beirut_Hellenistic

-0.04787002
TUR_Ovaoren_EBA

-0.04779643
Levant_Megiddo_MLBA

-0.04768597
Levant_Abel_IA

-0.04756779
TUR_Kaman-Kalehoyuk_MLBA

-0.04749306
Levant_Ashkelon_IA2

-0.04746872
Levant_Baqah_BA

-0.04743205
Levant_LBN_MA_o3

-0.04731439
Levant_Beirut_IAII

-0.04715215
Levant_Hazor_MLBA

-0.04707166
TUR_Camlibel_Tarlasi_LC

-0.04663320
TUR_Titris_Hoyuk_EBA



Distance difference: ( AC - BC ) ↓
A: Italian_Apulia
B: Italian_Lombardy
C: ↴

0.04717043
ITA_Prenestini_tribe_IA

0.04680025
Iberia_North_IA

0.04408293
CZE_Hallstatt_Bylany

0.04393664
FRA_Occitanie_IA2

0.04381027
FRA_Hauts_De_France_IA2

0.04372629
Iberia_Central_CA_Stp

0.04351516
FRA_Grand_Est_EBA_o

0.04346890
Iberia_Northeast_c.6-8CE_ES

0.04315933
Iberia_Northeast_Empuries1

0.04285383
Iberia_East_IA

0.04248588
Bell_Beaker_FRA_C

0.04239483
Iberia_Northwest_CA_Stp

0.04192815
ITA_Etruscan

0.04192044
Iberia_Mallorca_EBA

0.04191855
CHE_IA

0.04180234
DEU_Lech_EBA_contam

0.04168613
ITA_Ardea_Latini_IA

0.04138268
Iberia_Northeast_RomP

0.04115005
Iberia_Menorca_LBA

0.04105508
DEU_Lech_BBC

0.04080975
FRA_Grand_Est_IA1

0.04057321
FRA_Grand_Est_EBA

0.04055253
DEU_Singen_EBA

0.04051532
Iberia_North_BA

0.04050144
FIN_Levanluhta_IA_o



Distance difference: ( AC - BC ) ↑
A: Azzurro_scaled
B: Italian_Apulia
C: ↴

-0.01184459
MAR_LN

-0.01098823
ITA_Sardinia_Punic

-0.01084036
Iberia_Southeast_c.5-8CE

-0.01068713
ITA_Etruscan_o1

-0.01064138
Canary_Islands_Guanche

-0.01041249
Levant_LBN_MA_o1

-0.01034771
ITA_Sardinia_C_o

-0.01023527
Iberia_Southeast_c.3-4CE

-0.01014421
Iberia_Central_CA_Afr

-0.00983191
MAR_EN

-0.00974578
MAR_Taforalt

-0.00856199
Iberia_Ibiza_Punic

-0.00829704
ITA_Grotta_Continenza_N_o

-0.00777278
DEU_Esperstedt_MN

-0.00776686
FRA_Occitanie_MN

-0.00753677
Iberia_Southeast_c.10-16CE

-0.00740520
TUR_Pinarbasi_HG

-0.00720464
ITA_Grotta_Continenza_CA

-0.00719512
ITA_Sardinia_LCA

-0.00715924
FRA_MN_PRI

-0.00713235
FRA_MN_FLR

-0.00710924
FRA_Grand_Est_MN

-0.00709356
IRL_EN_MN

-0.00708906
England_N

-0.00708827
CHE_MN



Distance difference: ( AC - BC ) ↓
A: Azzurro_scaled
B: Italian_Apulia
C: ↴

0.01596878
Ostrogothic_Crimea_ACD

0.01594113
IND_Roopkund_B

0.01539048
ARM_Areni_C

0.01496791
RUS_Alan_MA

0.01467541
UZB_Dzharkutan2_BA

0.01449881
RUS_Maykop

0.01336193
RUS_North_Caucasus_MBA

0.01330451
Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps

0.01321084
RUS_Maykop_Novosvobodnaya

0.01317634
ARM_MBA

0.01301759
RUS_Maykop_Late

0.01286196
Levant_Megiddo_MLBA_o2

0.01270293
RUS_Saltovo-Mayaki_low_res

0.01255068
ARM_Lchashen_MBA

0.01250893
ARM_LBA

0.01249805
IRN_Ganj_Dareh_Historic

0.01243047
GEO_CHG

0.01228049
TUR_Barcin_C

0.01227321
Levant_LBN_MA_o4

0.01215714
RUS_Darkveti-Meshoko_En

0.01211911
Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kalavan

0.01207212
IND_Roopkund_B_o

0.01199676
TJK_Ksirov_H_Kushan

0.01168996
TUR_IA

0.01156714
Kura-Araxes_RUS_Velikent

----------


## Jovialis

Often I have seen results suggesting Moorish ancestry being within a fraction of a percent in the mainland South. Perhaps, a tad higher in Sicily. Specifically, North African ancestry. However most of the time I see the so-called Near Eastern excess in the south being related to Iran_N. Usually as North Caucasus ancestry. I believe this kind of ancestry was flowing in since the early bronze age and probably earlier, through intermediary populations. Often Southern Italians can be modeled with populations like Minoans, according to our results in Maciamo's sample sets. This makes sense, because I think Anatolian_N with a small but significant amount of CHG, are what pre-italics in the south looked like. Who then mixed with Italics flowing in, as well as Greek colonists, and Iapygians.

----------


## Azzurro

> Often I have seen results suggesting Moorish ancestry being within a fraction of a percent in the mainland South. Perhaps, a tad higher in Sicily. Specifically, North African ancestry. However most of the time I see the so-called Near Eastern excess in the south being related to Iran_N. Usually as North Caucasus ancestry. I believe this kind of ancestry was flowing in since the early bronze age and probably earlier, through intermediary populations. Often Southern Italians can be modeled with populations like Minoans, according to our results in Maciamo's sample sets. This makes sense, because I think Anatolian_N with a small but significant amount of CHG, are what pre-italics in the south looked like. *Who then mixed with Italics flowing in, as well as Greek colonists, and Iapygians*.


The bold part I fundamentally agree with you here, and right now the LBA Sicilians look to be Sardinian like, so we'll see for mainland South, but I doubt it vary much, I think Minoan like structure is possible in some of native groups like Oenotrians but we'll have to see. If the results are like Sicily (which I think will be the case), we'll see that Greek colonization was the most important demographic shift in Southern Italy's history. I am not talking about a fraction of a percent but non trivial foundational Levantine admix. North African ancestry is highly different than Levantine btw, I don't know why you equate Moorish ancestry as bringing this in, majority of the people who settled Sicily in this period were Berbers from Algeria and Tunisia. Nothing you are saying is wrong, btw Helladic EBA works even better try it out. Also the Near Eastern 'excess' is much higher than Ancient Greeks or any supposed Neolithic-Bronze Age movements, you need Levantine. Even the chart I showed with all gradients, it is specifically picking Bronze Age and Iron Age Levantines and not Neolithic. Like I've said in the past the uniparental data also supports this, this shouldn't be controversial, this doesn't mean anything crazy either, like I said Native and Greek are 1 and 2 for the most important autosomal structure of Southern Italians.

----------


## Leopoldo Leone

> The bold part I fundamentally agree with you here, and right now the LBA Sicilians look to be Sardinian like, so we'll see for mainland South, but I doubt it vary much, I think Minoan like structure is possible in some of native groups like Oenotrians but we'll have to see. If the results are like Sicily (which I think will be the case), we'll see that Greek colonization was the most important demographic shift in Southern Italy's history. I am not talking about a fraction of a percent but non trivial foundational Levantine admix. North African ancestry is highly different than Levantine btw, I don't know why you equate Moorish ancestry as bringing this in, majority of the people who settled Sicily in this period were Berbers from Algeria and Tunisia. Nothing you are saying is wrong, btw Helladic EBA works even better try it out. Also the Near Eastern 'excess' is much higher than Ancient Greeks or any supposed Neolithic-Bronze Age movements, you need Levantine. Even the chart I showed with all gradients, it is specifically picking Bronze Age and Iron Age Levantines and not Neolithic. Like I've said in the past the uniparental data also supports this, this shouldn't be controversial, this doesn't mean anything crazy either, like I said Native and Greek are 1 and 2 for the most important autosomal structure of Southern Italians.


Here we go again with this nonsense: there's no academic studies that show any Levantine_N ancestry in deep south Italy, let alone south Italy as a whole; there is a big problem with user provided samples regarding southern Italians given that they show always, invariably, a lot of discrepancy with the results from professional studies, and the history of Sikeliot's samples and a tour on purported "south Italian" samples from the 23andMe subreddit show that there is enough reason to be weary of what you see passed as "southern Italian" online; it seems really odd to say that "you need a non trivial foundational Levantine admix" in ALL south Italians, and to a minor extent also central Italians, yet no paper up to this date ever showed this, and giving the nature of Italian "penchant" in genetic researches it is really unlikely that if there were no one has yet found it aside from hobbyist in an anthroforum.

As for uniparental, I am curious to see: the J1 and J2 clades present in Italy are largely different from those in the Levant, though I've read on anthrogenica that "almost all J1 clades in Italy are of babylonian-mesopotamian and Levantine origins", and I have seen the same for the J2a clades, but without any source so you see why I am highly skeptical of those claims.

Also, we have no way to gauge the reliability of Helladic EBA because the paper it is supposedly from isn't even out.

----------


## Leopoldo Leone

> @Jovialis
> 
> Riddle me this, that you say there is zero Levantine admixture in Southern and Central Italians
> 
> Here is looking at Vahaduo gradients, when comparing two pops, the first showing what pop 1 has more of and the second showing what pop 2 has. I'm half Lucanian and half Sicilian so just to see 
> 
> Chart 1 me vs Lombardy
> 
> Distance difference: ( AC - BC ) ↑
> ...



Please do not lie: you are also partially jewish, so you can't claim to be just "half Sicilian half Lucanian" and use your results to show something that is supposed to generalise to all southern and central Italians as a whole. I remember that you said that your Gedrosia K3 results modelled you as 25% yemeni jew: as I have said I do not take the results from online calculator as gospel but yemeni jew is really exotic and if you need 25% in a model, it is safe to say you can't be taken as a good proxy for the average south Italian.

----------


## Jovialis

@Azzurro

You do not need Levantine to model southern Italians:





Also,

Minoan and other Greek populations are best for modeling almost all Italian populations, especially the south. Based on what we are seeing with Maciamo's sample sets.



Furthermore, they do not have Levantine in them either. Only Anatolian BA had 5%, and that is an average of three. The one of the three used for Raveane et al 2018 did not have the Levantine farmer element in it.



Thus, after looking at academic studies, as well as Dodecad k12b, it shows that Southern Italians have a excess of Iran_N, that has been there for a very long time. The so called Levantine admixture, like I said, is in trace amounts.

----------


## Jovialis

> @Azzurro
> 
> You do not need Levantine to model southern Italians:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also,
> ...


To answer your other question



Levantine populations are distinguished by the affinity to Natufian, which is in the direction of North African populations. This is why Moorish samples from medieval Andalusia pull in the direction of Natufians, and medieval Canaries. This is partly because the pre-print from Lazaridis shows that Natufians emerged as a combination of Ancestral North Africans, and Paleo-Caucasians. Later Levantine populations became pulled closer to Anatolian_N CHG, and even some steppe, due to migrations flowing into the levant from outside sources in later periods. Nevertheless, Natufian (Levantine farmers) are the original and most distinguishing component of what it means to be Levantine. Which is why populations in the near east today are about 1/3 Natufian. (i.e. the brown component)



Here is a PCA using samples from the Antonio et al 2019 paper, along with ultimate source populations. You can see the surviving cohorts, C6 and C7 are far removed from Natufian.

----------


## Jovialis

The Ancient Egyptians were about 50% and more Natufian.

----------


## Angela

Good job, Jovialis.

I confess the last page or so of posts is confusing me. Why are the results of someone of mixed Southern Italian and Jewish ancestry being used to conclude anything at all about Southern Italian ancestry?

Also, why is the picture New Englander uses of himself the same picture that was sent to me by Azurro claiming that it was him? 

Honestly, I can't keep up with all these sock accounts. 

Just to clarify the record, I have always believed, and stated, that the Greek colonization of Southern Italy was large enough that it probably had a significant impact on Southern Italians at least. The Sikiliot/Azurro/anthrogrenica crowd vociferously disagreed, as they disagreed with the statements I made on record here that the pattern of yDna in Southern Italy, especially in terms of the J2 clades, resembled that of Crete, and that perhaps that could be attributed to very early contact between Crete and Southern Italy. 

Now, all of a sudden they're on board (although they still refuse to consider any impact from Crete), and don't have the honesty and grace to admit they held a contrary opinion and attacked mercilessly those who believed it probably had an impact. 

There's also a deafening silence about the Etruscans, whom they were ABSOLUTELY sure, based on their genetic analyses using Eurogenes calculators, and their awesome linguistic analyses, were mid-first millennium BC migrants straight from Anatolia. They also ignored the caveat I added that any such movement from Anatolia reaching southern Italy might, AFTER the time of the Etruscans, have impacted modern Tuscans. 

How many times do people have to be abysmally wrong before you start to doubt their analyses?

Now, once we get all the relevant samples from the Iron Age and the Empire from all the relevant areas, and all the newest mathematical methods are used, and those samples are compared to verified modern Southern Italian samples, it may turn out that there is some percentage of "Natufian" in some areas of Southern Italy and Sicily. The challenge will then be to sort out whether it came with the Moors who ruled Sicily for two hundred years, and some parts of the mainland for some decades (there is some Moorish y dna in Sicily, as there is in Spain and Portugal, for example), or it came with actual Jews or people from, say, Syria, or if it was part of the flow of, say, Anatolian Bronze Age, or from flow from Crete. 

I doubt the percentage is very high if it appears at all on the mainland, most probably in the single digits. So, all these fanatics who had been claiming huge percentages of "Levantine" in Southern Italians are going to be just one more instance where these people have been abysmally wrong.

----------


## Azzurro

> Good job, Jovialis.
> 
> I confess the last page or so of posts is confusing me. Why are the results of someone of mixed Southern Italian and Jewish ancestry being used to conclude anything at all about Southern Italian ancestry?
> 
> Also, why is the picture New Englander uses of himself the same picture that was sent to me by Azurro claiming that it was him? 
> 
> Honestly, I can't keep up with all these sock accounts. 
> 
> Just to clarify the record, I have always believed, and stated, that the Greek colonization of Southern Italy was large enough that it probably had a significant impact on Southern Italians at least. The Sikiliot/Azurro/anthrogrenica crowd vociferously disagreed, as they disagreed with the statements I made on record here that the pattern of yDna in Southern Italy, especially in terms of the J2 clades, resembled that of Crete, and that perhaps that could be attributed to very early contact between Crete and Southern Italy. 
> ...


Lol I never sent you a picture of myself, I can’t believe you pulled of a lie like this to try and prove i’m sock, its pitiful.

----------


## Azzurro

> Here we go again with this nonsense: there's no academic studies that show any Levantine_N ancestry in deep south Italy, let alone south Italy as a whole; there is a big problem with user provided samples regarding southern Italians given that they show always, invariably, a lot of discrepancy with the results from professional studies, and the history of Sikeliot's samples and a tour on purported "south Italian" samples from the 23andMe subreddit show that there is enough reason to be weary of what you see passed as "southern Italian" online; it seems really odd to say that "you need a non trivial foundational Levantine admix" in ALL south Italians, and to a minor extent also central Italians, yet no paper up to this date ever showed this, and giving the nature of Italian "penchant" in genetic researches it is really unlikely that if there were no one has yet found it aside from hobbyist in an anthroforum.
> 
> As for uniparental, I am curious to see: the J1 and J2 clades present in Italy are largely different from those in the Levant, though I've read on anthrogenica that "almost all J1 clades in Italy are of babylonian-mesopotamian and Levantine origins", and I have seen the same for the J2a clades, but without any source so you see why I am highly skeptical of those claims.
> 
> Also, we have no way to gauge the reliability of Helladic EBA because the paper it is supposedly from isn't even out.


Leopoldo, they are not, and mostly the same. The only J1 clade in Italians not shared with Levantines so far is this branch J1-BY94, https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-BY94/. Which represents anywhere from 20-30% of J1 in Southern Italy. Then J1-CTS1460 and J1-PF7263, CTS1460 is likely to be a Kura Araxian marker being heavily found in the Caucausus, then PF7263 origin is still not determined but is equally found in Europe and the Middle East, the remaining half of J1 is found under J1-Z1853 which is the marker of Semitic speakers. Of Z1853 the two most common clades found in Southern Italians and Italians in general are J1-YSC76 and J1-L829. Both are Levantine markers YSC76 has been found in several Levantine sites including Beirut, Hazor, Meggido, etc.

J2 is pretty much the same as J1, except the shift of focus is Anatolia and the Caucasus. But all clades are shared, the main reasons are the movements of all Mediterranean Empires, Roman, Byzantine, Ottoman (in the case of moving to Middle East, I know Italy was never under the Ottomans, this is for shared clades in Aegean moving East). So far from Levant in terms of J2 we have J2b-M205 which is found in Italians mostly in Sicily though, and for now there is J2a-M92 unfortunately the samples weren’t strong enough to get further snp analysis, so we’ll have to see when more samples come out, letting you know M92 is the third most common J2 branch for all Italians. But again we’ll see if it’s all M92 or just a portion like CTS2906 or the PF7412. 

It also doesn’t end at J1 and J2, there are other markers like E-M123 branches, E-V22, E-V12, etc... which are not trivial in numbers E-V12, E-V22 and E-M84 usually are over 1% throughout.

----------


## Azzurro

> Please do not lie: you are also partially jewish, so you can't claim to be just "half Sicilian half Lucanian" and use your results to show something that is supposed to generalise to all southern and central Italians as a whole. I remember that you said that your Gedrosia K3 results modelled you as 25% yemeni jew: as I have said I do not take the results from online calculator as gospel but yemeni jew is really exotic and if you need 25% in a model, it is safe to say you can't be taken as a good proxy for the average south Italian.


I am not lying, the Jewish is Crypto Jewish, not recent practicing Jewish, on my great grandmother’s side and my paternal line is related to the 8th largest Ashkenazi lineage. Its funny because compared to the average from the G25 dataset I actually plot more West than the average Southern Italian because my dna usually needs a little extra Barcin N like ancestry.

----------


## Azzurro

> @Azzurro
> 
> You do not need Levantine to model southern Italians:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also,
> ...


Here let's see if we model with those 4 pops what we get

Target
Distance
IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
TUR_Barcin_N
WHG
Yamnaya_RUS_Samara

Italian_Abruzzo
0.02262340
•
9.4
62.4
0.8
27.4

Italian_Aosta_Valley
0.02873368
•
0.0
53.8
9.0
37.2

Italian_Apulia
0.02505043
•
10.4
63.8
0.2
25.6

Italian_Basilicata
0.02289782
•
11.4
63.4
0.2
25.0

Italian_Bergamo
0.02661484
•
0.0
60.2
6.6
33.2

Italian_Calabria
0.02658451
•
14.0
64.2
0.0
21.8

Italian_Campania
0.02496018
•
12.6
64.2
0.0
23.2

Italian_Lazio
0.02427440
•
7.8
63.2
2.8
26.2

Italian_Liguria
0.03570536
•
0.4
59.0
5.6
35.0

Italian_Lombardy
0.03122243
•
0.0
60.8
5.4
33.8

Italian_Marche
0.02471964
•
5.6
61.8
2.0
30.6

Italian_Molise
0.02145589
•
8.8
62.2
0.4
28.6

Italian_Northeast
0.02464286
•
0.0
54.4
7.4
38.2

Italian_Piedmont
0.02240809
•
1.0
59.8
4.2
35.0

Italian_Trentino-Alto-Adige
0.02424364
•
0.0
57.2
8.2
34.6

Italian_Tuscany
0.01948327
•
3.4
61.0
3.4
32.2

Italian_Umbria
0.01903239
•
6.0
61.8
2.0
30.2

Italian_Veneto
0.02230888
•
0.0
57.8
7.0
35.2

Sicilian_East
0.03216339
•
12.4
63.8
1.4
22.4

Sicilian_West
0.03355985
•
13.2
61.4
4.8
20.6

Maltese
0.03674313
•
13.8
63.4
1.8
21.0

Average
0.02616324
•
6.2
60.9
3.5
29.4




Now adding a Levantine, Caucasian source and North African, look at how the fits improve drastically

Target
Distance
Canary_Islands_Guanche
IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps
Levant_Sidon_MBA
TUR_Barcin_N
WHG
Yamnaya_RUS_Samara

Italian_Abruzzo
0.01544054
•
1.0
0.0
6.4
19.4
45.2
2.4
25.6

Italian_Aosta_Valley
0.02873368
•
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
53.8
9.0
37.2

Italian_Apulia
0.01661615
•
1.8
0.0
9.6
19.0
44.8
2.0
22.8

Italian_Basilicata
0.01385949
•
1.6
0.8
6.8
21.4
44.2
1.6
23.6

Italian_Bergamo
0.02661484
•
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
60.2
6.6
33.2

Italian_Calabria
0.01607839
•
4.8
2.2
9.0
19.4
43.4
0.8
20.4

Italian_Campania
0.01401499
•
2.2
1.0
7.0
23.8
42.8
1.6
21.6

Italian_Lazio
0.01944671
•
0.0
0.0
2.4
19.4
48.6
3.8
25.8

Italian_Liguria
0.03363834
•
5.4
0.0
3.2
0.0
53.2
6.0
32.2

Italian_Lombardy
0.03116513
•
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
60.2
5.4
33.4

Italian_Marche
0.01994673
•
0.0
0.0
2.4
16.0
49.2
3.2
29.2

Italian_Molise
0.01591755
•
0.2
0.0
7.0
17.4
46.6
2.0
26.8

Italian_Northeast
0.02464286
•
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
54.4
7.4
38.2

Italian_Piedmont
0.02166374
•
0.8
0.0
0.0
4.6
55.8
4.6
34.2

Italian_Trentino-Alto-Adige
0.02424364
•
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
57.2
8.2
34.6

Italian_Tuscany
0.01748036
•
0.8
0.0
1.6
8.8
53.4
4.0
31.4

Italian_Umbria
0.01626847
•
1.8
0.0
5.2
9.8
51.4
2.8
29.0

Italian_Veneto
0.02230888
•
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
57.8
7.0
35.2

Sicilian_East
0.02031225
•
4.6
0.0
9.6
22.8
40.2
3.0
19.8

Sicilian_West
0.02116545
•
7.4
0.4
8.2
21.6
37.6
5.8
19.0

Maltese
0.01421510
•
12.0
1.0
3.2
22.6
38.0
1.4
21.8

Average
0.02065587
•
2.2
0.3
3.9
11.7
49.4
4.2
28.3

----------


## Jovialis

I have already demonstrated that Middle Bronze age levant has significant amounts of CHG, and Anatolian_N. As well as south eastern European, and Greek influences.


Also, even Davidski said the modern populations are not reliable for his calculator, because they are user submitted.


Furthermore, the examples I have provided coincide with academic sources, like Sarno et al. 2021. Thus, I think 19%-22% Levant is preposterous, not to mention it takes all of the CHG/IN from an ultimate source population, from Iran_N in that modeling. I don't think using those sample sets are sound.

----------


## ihype02

I wonder what is the old Greek component of Sicilians. Earlier on I gave 40% to 50% as an assumption.

----------


## Azzurro

> I have already demonstrated that Middle Bronze age levant has significant amounts of CHG, and Anatolian_N. As well as south eastern European, and Greek influences.
> 
> 
> Also, even Davidski said the modern populations are not reliable for his calculator, because they are user submitted.
> 
> 
> Furthermore, the examples I have provided coincide with academic sources, like Sarno et al. 2021. Thus, I think 19%-22% Levant is preposterous, not to mention it takes all of the CHG/IN from an ultimate source population, from Iran_N in that modeling. I don't think using those sample sets are sound.


Here this likely more in line with the truth

Target
Distance
Canary_Islands_Guanche
Corded_Ware_DEU
IRN_Seh_Gabi_LN
ITA_Grotta_Continenza_N
Levant_Natufian
WHG

Italian_Abruzzo
0.01680414
•
0.0
31.0
13.2
50.4
5.4
0.0

Italian_Aosta_Valley
0.01900145
•
0.4
49.2
0.0
46.0
0.4
4.0

Italian_Apulia
0.02084633
•
0.0
28.2
14.6
51.8
5.4
0.0

Italian_Basilicata
0.01934074
•
0.0
27.6
15.6
51.2
5.6
0.0

Italian_Bergamo
0.01498310
•
0.6
42.6
1.6
53.0
0.0
2.2

Italian_Calabria
0.02307626
•
2.0
23.6
17.6
51.2
5.6
0.0

Italian_Campania
0.01868658
•
0.0
25.6
16.2
51.2
7.0
0.0

Italian_Lazio
0.01716958
•
0.0
32.2
10.4
52.2
5.2
0.0

Italian_Liguria
0.02613282
•
6.2
43.4
2.2
47.0
0.0
1.2

Italian_Lombardy
0.01875623
•
0.8
43.6
1.2
52.6
1.0
0.8

Italian_Marche
0.01678414
•
0.0
36.0
9.0
50.0
5.0
0.0

Italian_Molise
0.01789744
•
0.0
31.4
13.6
51.0
4.0
0.0

Italian_Northeast
0.01619406
•
0.0
49.8
0.8
45.6
1.2
2.6

Italian_Piedmont
0.01311654
•
0.0
42.2
4.4
50.0
2.6
0.8

Italian_Trentino-Alto-Adige
0.01395139
•
0.0
45.0
1.0
49.6
0.8
3.6

Italian_Tuscany
0.01170206
•
0.0
38.8
6.8
51.0
3.2
0.2

Italian_Umbria
0.01373964
•
0.0
35.0
10.0
51.8
3.2
0.0

Italian_Veneto
0.01301464
•
0.0
43.6
2.8
50.0
0.4
3.2

Sicilian_East
0.02314748
•
0.8
27.4
14.0
49.2
8.6
0.0

Sicilian_West
0.01973300
•
4.6
28.8
12.2
45.8
7.8
0.8

Maltese
0.01707106
•
8.4
25.8
13.2
44.0
8.6
0.0

Average
0.01767375
•
1.1
35.8
8.6
49.7
3.9
0.9

----------


## Leopoldo Leone

> Leopoldo, they are not, and mostly the same. The only J1 clade in Italians not shared with Levantines so far is this branch J1-BY94, https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-BY94/. Which represents anywhere from 20-30% of J1 in Southern Italy. Then J1-CTS1460 and J1-PF7263, CTS1460 is likely to be a Kura Araxian marker being heavily found in the Caucausus, then PF7263 origin is still not determined but is equally found in Europe and the Middle East, the remaining half of J1 is found under J1-Z1853 which is the marker of Semitic speakers. Of Z1853 the two most common clades found in Southern Italians and Italians in general are J1-YSC76 and J1-L829. Both are Levantine markers YSC76 has been found in several Levantine sites including Beirut, Hazor, Meggido, etc.
> 
> J2 is pretty much the same as J1, except the shift of focus is Anatolia and the Caucasus. But all clades are shared, the main reasons are the movements of all Mediterranean Empires, Roman, Byzantine, Ottoman (in the case of moving to Middle East, I know Italy was never under the Ottomans, this is for shared clades in Aegean moving East). So far from Levant in terms of J2 we have J2b-M205 which is found in Italians mostly in Sicily though, and for now there is J2a-M92 unfortunately the samples weren’t strong enough to get further snp analysis, so we’ll have to see when more samples come out, letting you know M92 is the third most common J2 branch for all Italians. But again we’ll see if it’s all M92 or just a portion like CTS2906 or the PF7412. 
> 
> It also doesn’t end at J1 and J2, there are other markers like E-M123 branches, E-V22, E-V12, etc... which are not trivial in numbers E-V12, E-V22 and E-M84 usually are over 1% throughout.


An entire "citation needed" disclaimer is needed, but let's work with what you say: 
As for J1, you yourself say that only half could be "unambigously" connected to Semitic speakers, which would mean that only half of the already few J1-carriers in Italy would descend paternally from men that spoke semitic tongues; furthermore, the Eupedia page about J1 states that it is only the L858 subclade of the J1-P58 subclade, and it also states that P58 itself likely originated from eastern Anatolia, so could be linked to the expansion of CHG in Europe, and lastly it says that MOST of the J1 in Europe, Anatolia and the Caucasus is NOT of the P58 variety.
We are not bound to take it as gospel but often it is reliable enough, and given we are home we could ask Maciano to provide the sources.

As for Jb, you have already said that "the shift is on Anatolia and the Caucasus", so again it could be linked to the Iran_N/CHG geneflow into Europe, and furthermore the Eupedia page on J2 states that the in subclades in Italy are likely of Greek origins, because they belike the varieties that peak on Crete, and the Z435 variety is linked with Romans, so I don't see how Jb can be taken as a Levantine uniparental marker; also, https://yhrd.org/tools/branch/J2b-M205, M205 seems to have nothing to do with the Levant, as does M92, https://yhrd.org/tools/branch/%20J2a-M92

As for E, V12 is found also in french Basque, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_E-V12, and the other two are canonically linked to the Balkans and north Africa respectively.

First, provide a reliable source that shows that what you are saying isn't made up, and secondly argue why those are "unambigously semitic markers"; to be thorough, some such markers have been found, not only limited to Italy (and to be precise, the J1 distribution doesn't seem to have any north-south gradient in distribution), but to Europe as a whole, and, and this is what is cogent to the discussion, not in the amount required to back up your claim that uniparental data "shows a not trivial levantine gene flow in Italy". 

P.S.
I think we have already said that G25 samples are really" funny" to say the least, as their results are totally at odds with the results of academic papers. The only one, as far as I know, that could give it some support is the Sarno paper about the "east med continuum" but its results have never been replicated, and in his latest paper he used no Levant_N to model Calabrian Greeks, and that paper had the flaw of lumping the Levant with Anatolia, so much of that "near east, not sardinian-like" admixture is likely Anatolian-like rather than Levant-like, and I say so because of the known ancient cline made up of a mix of EEF and CHG/Iran_N that span SE europe and Anatolia. Also, and I am going to repeat myself, is it so reasonable to trust user reported samples when the results are so at odds with the scientific literature and when there is a known history of presenting untrustworthy genetic samples as "south Italians"?

----------


## Jovialis

@Azzurro, Sarno et al. 2021, found this modeling to be most appropriate:

FYI, for Iran_N, they really mean non-steppe related CHG-related. But both are very similar and I believe used in the same cohort of samples for analysis often, such as in Raveane et. al. This ancestry is highly differentiated from Natufian. 



Canary Island also doesn't make sense to use, because it already has Natufian admixture in it. Also, another issue is that the eurogenes modeling is not picking up WHG, which is probably being subsumed by corded ware. This is why I never have too much faith is trying to achieve such precise analysis with these calculators. Rather is it better to use them for broader analysis, such as the 2-ways modeling. Not to mention, analyzing very old and distant samples like WHG has a lot of room for error.

----------


## brick

It is enough to add the Neolithic sample Tepecik_Ciftlik_N and both Iran_N and Natufian descend significantly in the Italian samples.

----------


## Leopoldo Leone

Also, the often quoted Fernandes 2019 (a little trivia: it was published exactly 2 years and a day ago) shows the exact opposite of what many people who cite claim: in the PCA Sicilians pre-IE samples are closer to both Anatolia and Greece samples (to be precise between Iberia and Greece, as you'd expect), while Sardinia samples are closer (touching) the samples from Iberia, so the samples do not show that the pre-IE folks in Sicily were Sardinian-like, but already shifted towards the north east mediterranean.

----------


## Azzurro

> An entire "citation needed" disclaimer is needed, but let's work with what you say: 
> As for J1, you yourself say that only half could be "unambigously" connected to Semitic speakers, which would mean that only half of the already few J1-carriers in Italy would descend paternally from men that spoke semitic tongues; furthermore, the Eupedia page about J1 states that it is only the L858 subclade of the J1-P58 subclade, and it also states that P58 itself likely originated from eastern Anatolia, so could be linked to the expansion of CHG in Europe, and lastly it says that MOST of the J1 in Europe, Anatolia and the Caucasus is NOT of the P58 variety.
> We are not bound to take it as gospel but often it is reliable enough, and given we are home we could ask Maciano to provide the sources.
> 
> As for Jb, you have already said that "the shift is on Anatolia and the Caucasus", so again it could be linked to the Iran_N/CHG geneflow into Europe, and furthermore the Eupedia page on J2 states that the in subclades in Italy are likely of Greek origins, because they belike the varieties that peak on Crete, and the Z435 variety is linked with Romans, so I don't see how Jb can be taken as a Levantine uniparental marker; also, https://yhrd.org/tools/branch/J2b-M205, *M205 seems to have nothing to do with the Levant*, as does M92, https://yhrd.org/tools/branch/%20J2a-M92
> 
> As for E, V12 is found also in french Basque, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_E-V12, and the other two are canonically linked to the Balkans and north Africa respectively.
> 
> First, provide a reliable source that shows that what you are saying isn't made up, and secondly argue why those are "unambigously semitic markers"; to be thorough, some such markers have been found, not only limited to Italy (and to be precise, the J1 distribution doesn't seem to have any north-south gradient in distribution), but to Europe as a whole, and, and this is what is cogent to the discussion, not in the amount required to back up your claim that uniparental data "shows a strong levantine gene flow in Italy".


Dude common, https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-M205/ has been found in every single ancient Levantine site as well as Ancient Egypt. I have all of it tracked down from Ancient samples, I have an entire thread on Anthrogenica where every single J2 has been found in ancient dna and the corresponding clade, J-M205 is a non argument, there is nothing to say it is a confirmed marker of the ancient Levant and Egypt, the oldest sample we have of J2b-M205 is in EBA Jordan. 

J1-P58's downstream clade Z1853 which I stated along with J2b-M205 are the Iran Neolithic markers that moved into the Levant and mixed with the local ANF+Natufian population. The dates are practically identical and both have been found together in every single ancient site. With all fairness I respect Maciamo's genetics section but for J1 and J2 it is highly outdated. Like I said so far we have 2 M92 in Middle Bronze Age Meggido, which at the moment are the oldest J-M92, you didn't understand what I wrote, for M92 specific branches can be Levantine in origin and others could have an Anatolian origin.

J-Z435 is linked with Roman expansion, but is not a Roman marker, has not been found in ancient Italics, and J-Z435 itself is highly contested, many samples are old in the Near East as well. Currently there is 3 theories for it, an Anatolian origin, Levantine origin and a Greek origin, we will have to wait and see what the ancient dna will yield, so far all the ancient samples under J-Z435 are young, we need Iron Age and Bronze Age samples to figure out its origin.

https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-Z435/

Umm no they are not, E-V13 is linked with the Balkans, and I did not mention E-V13. So what if E-V12 is found in the French Basque, their source will ultimately be either a Levantine or Egyptian one, it is a founder effect.

Do me a favour and look at the ftdna projects and see what branches people are falling under.

----------


## Azzurro

> It is enough to add the Neolithic sample Tepecik_Ciftlik_N and both Iran_N and Natufian descend significantly in the Italian samples.


It still proves my point that you need a Levantine source, the whole argument of the other side is that there is none.

----------


## Azzurro

> @Azzurro, Sarno et al. 2021, found this modeling to be most appropriate:
> 
> FYI, for Iran_N, they really mean non-steppe related CHG-related. But both are very similar and I believe used in the same cohort of samples for analysis often, such as in Raveane et. al. This ancestry is highly differentiated from Natufian. 
> 
> 
> 
> Canary Island also doesn't make sense to use, because it already has Natufian admixture in it. Also, another issue is that the eurogenes modeling is not picking up WHG, which is probably being subsumed by corded ware. This is why I never have too much faith is trying to achieve such precise analysis with these calculators. Rather is it better to use them for broader analysis, such as the 2-ways modeling. Not to mention, analyzing very old and distant samples like WHG has a lot of room for error.


I use Canary Islander to account for North African admix, it would be the best proximate source for Berber ancestry in Sicily and Malta.

----------


## brick

None of these models can be considered definitive evidence. Because of the possible sampling error, because of the errors in G25, and because of the very nature of these tools, which are tools that calculate only possible estimates that depend on the choices made (models, reference samples) and are not definitive proofs of anything. 

Again it is enough to change the settings, without Tepecik_Ciftlik_N and ADC: 0.5x RC these are the results, both Iran_N and Natufian descend significantly in the Italian samples.

----------


## brick

> It still proves my point that you need a Levantine source, the whole argument of the other side is that there is none.


I am not saying that there is nothing, something is certainly there the further south you go in Italy, I am saying that it is not possible to calculate it with precision, as it is not possible to understand what has happened for example in southern Italy without the ancient samples that are still missing.

----------


## Leopoldo Leone

> Dude common, https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-M205/ has been found in every single ancient Levantine site as well as Ancient Egypt. I have all of it tracked down from Ancient samples, I have an entire thread on Anthrogenica where every single J2 has been found in ancient dna and the corresponding clade, J-M205 is a non argument, there is nothing to say it is a confirmed marker of the ancient Levant and Egypt, the oldest sample we have of J2b-M205 is in EBA Jordan. 
> 
> J1-P58's downstream clade Z1853 which I stated along with J2b-M205 are the Iran Neolithic markers that moved into the Levant and mixed with the local ANF+Natufian population. The dates are practically identical and both have been found together in every single ancient site. With all fairness I respect Maciamo's genetics section but for J1 and J2 it is highly outdated. Like I said so far we have 2 M92 in Middle Bronze Age Meggido, which at the moment are the oldest J-M92, you didn't understand what I wrote, for M92 specific branches can be Levantine in origin and others could have an Anatolian origin.
> 
> J-Z435 is linked with Roman expansion, but is not a Roman marker, has not been found in ancient Italics, and J-Z435 itself is highly contested, many samples are old in the Near East as well. Currently there is 3 theories for it, an Anatolian origin, Levantine origin and a Greek origin, we will have to wait and see what the ancient dna will yield, so far all the ancient samples under J-Z435 are young, we need Iron Age and Bronze Age samples to figure out its origin.
> 
> https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-Z435/
> 
> Umm no they are not, E-V13 is linked with the Balkans, and I did not mention E-V13. So what if E-V12 is found in the French Basque, their source will ultimately be either a Levantine or Egyptian one, it is a founder effect.
> ...


I own up my slip on E-V22 and E-V13, but E-V22 has been found also in Asturians, and it is a bit hard to link that place with any Phoenician or Moorish legacy, given that neither set foot there, and the picture is still muddy to say the least.

Also, J2-M205 is found also overall Europe, and J2-M92 even in India, so it is clear that you can't simply state "it is an ancient (of the last 5,000 years) Egyptian and Levantine marker", and either a CHG/Iran_N origin makes up for a much more parsimonious explanation, given that all these places have some admixture from it.

The problems with your approach is that you take some haplogroups, throw away all the most plausible explanations, and build your own narrative around them discarding all the contrary evidence. 
If I am understandin you correctly, it seems you are saying that half of J1 in Italy is "surely of Levantine origins", and also a good chunk of J2. Also, I think it has already been noticed that potentially shared J1 and J2 subclades might be just shared CHG/Iran_N, so I am not sure that the argument "the oldest subclade we have is from place X so it must be a marker of ancestry from that place" is airtight.

----------


## Azzurro

> I am not saying that there is nothing, something is certainly there the further south you go in Italy, I am saying that it is not possible to calculate it with precision, as it is not possible to understand what has happened for example in southern Italy without the ancient samples that are still missing.


That is the thing, I always said its range, in the first or second post to Jovialis I said it is somewhere between 5-20%, we going to get another Ancient Roman Italy paper (with various Italic tribes), several Ancient Greek ones and one on the Iron Age Middle East those will papers will be crucial going forward. We can more accurately calculate autosomal and uniparental inheritance.

----------


## Leopoldo Leone

> I am not saying that there is nothing, something is certainly there the further south you go in Italy, I am saying that it is not possible to calculate it with precision, as it is not possible to understand what has happened for example in southern Italy without the ancient samples that are still missing.


It is not a good idea to take G25 results as better than academic results, which didn't show any Levant_N needed for south Italians. By the way, Anatolian Farmers had some Levant_N so more EEF ancestry would mean more Levant_N, but the thing is that it seems that north Italians have more EEF than south Italians, who have less IE than the former but also another admixture that is either Iran_N or CHG, and in fact it is all you need to model them ( and a bit of north african in Sicilians and few Calabresi), and it is only G25 samples showing that you need more Levant_N to model south Italians. Why don't we stick to what is reliable?

----------


## Azzurro

> I own up my slip on E-V22 and E-V13, but E-V22 has been found also in Asturians, and it is a bit hard to link that place with any Phoenician or Moorish legacy, given that neither set foot there, and the picture is still muddy to say the least.
> 
> Also, J2-M205 is found also overall Europe, and J2-M92 even in India, so it is clear that you can't simply state "it is an ancient (of the last 5,000 years) Egyptian and Levantine marker", and either a CHG/Iran_N origin makes up for a much more parsimonious explanation, given that all these places have some admixture from it.
> 
> The problems with your approach is that you take some haplogroups, throw away all the most plausible explanations, and build your own narrative around them discarding all the contrary evidence. 
> If I am understandin you correctly, it seems you are saying that half of J1 in Italy is "surely of Levantine origins", and also a good chunk of J2. Also, I think it has already been noticed that potentially shared J1 and J2 subclades might be just shared CHG/Iran_N, so I am not sure that the argument "the oldest subclade we have is from place X so it must be a marker of ancestry from that place" is airtight.


J-M205 is non argument, we can discuss other clades if you'd like. J-M205 is equivalent to saying R-M269 and Indo Europeans, the parsimonious explanation is Iron Age and Classical Age Levantine people moving across the Mediterranean. It isn't even a top 20 clade in frequency for J2 in Italy.

E-V22 in Austrias could easily be a paternal ancestor from the Levant who arrived there during Roman era and also not necessarily, could have originated with a paternal Phoenician ancestor from Southern Spain who moved up? All countries have internal movement.

----------


## brick

Iran_N and Natufian can also come out in the Balkans with these models using G25. Why is no one asking how they got there?










> It is not a good idea to take G25 results as better than academic results, which didn't show any Levant_N needed for south Italians. By the way, Anatolian Farmers had some Levant_N so more EEF ancestry would mean more Levant_N, but the thing is that it seems that north Italians have more EEF than south Italians, who have less IE than the former but also another admixture that is either Iran_N or CHG, and in fact it is all you need to model them ( and a bit of north african in Sicilians and few Calabresi), and it is only G25 samples showing that you need more Levant_N to model south Italians. Why don't we stick to what is reliable?



I am fully aware of this. Read my second post.

----------


## Leopoldo Leone

> J-M205 is non argument, we can discuss other clades if you'd like. J-M205 is equivalent to saying R-M269 and Indo Europeans, the parsimonious explanation is Iron Age and Classical Age Levantine people moving across the Mediterranean. It isn't even a top 20 clade in frequency for J2 in Italy.
> 
> E-V22 in Austrias could easily be a paternal ancestor from the Levant who arrived there during Roman era and also not necessarily, could have originated with a paternal Phoenician ancestor from Southern Spain who moved up? All countries have internal movement.


So did also iron and classical age Levantine moved to India? I might be recalling wrongly, but isn't J-M205 more common in the Balkans compared to Italy? Especially northern Balkans? did ancient Levantines not only reach those places, but also left such a significat genetic legacy? Don't get me wrong, some haplos are indeed linked to Phoenicians or other Levantines, but not those you claim, which are much more common.

Lastly, earnestly do you put forwards such explanations? E-V22 haplo shows no correspondency with supposed Phoenician or Moorish settlements in the area, so you must posit internal migrations that "reversed" the original distribution.

----------


## Azzurro

> Iran_N and Natufian can also come out in the Balkans with these models using G25. Why is no one asking how they got there?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Who said no one is asking? Greece already had an abundance of Iran Neo since Bronze Age both Minoans and Cycladic culture had a lot of Iran Neo, the Natufian is the bigger the question, my guess is the same way how Italy got theirs, just add a layer with the Hellenistic era. From Hellenistic through Roman through Byzantine you have over 1000 years of opportunity for this component to reach the Aegean and Balkans, and case in point would be the J-M205 clade in the Balkans.

----------


## Azzurro

> So did also iron and classical age Levantine moved to India? I might be recalling wrongly, but isn't J-M205 more common in the Balkans compared to Italy? Especially northern Balkans? did ancient Levantines not only reach those places, but also left such a significat genetic legacy? Don't get me wrong, some haplos are indeed linked to Phoenicians or other Levantines, but not those you claim, which are much more common.
> 
> Lastly, earnestly do you put forwards such explanations? E-V22 haplo shows no correspondency with supposed Phoenician or Moorish settlements in the area, so you must posit internal migrations that "reversed" the original distribution.


Your right J-M205 is more common in the Northern Balkans than Italy, https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-Y22059/ the clade is 1000 years old, and is probably a Byzantine era founder effect. I am no longer discussing J-M205, if you chose not to believe its Levantine in origin its on you, this is a fact.

Please do me a favour and look at E-V22's phylogentic tree

https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-V22/

Are you thinking of J-L283 instead of J-M205? J-L283 is historically old in Europe, some Bronze Age Caucasus movement into the Balkans, and has been found throughout several Balkan and Italian ancient sites.

----------


## Leopoldo Leone

> Your right J-M205 is more common in the Northern Balkans than Italy, https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-Y22059/ the clade is 1000 years old, and is probably a Byzantine era founder effect. I am no longer discussing J-M205, if you chose not to believe its Levantine in origin its on you, this is a fact.
> 
> Please do me a favour and look at E-V22's phylogentic tree
> 
> https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-V22/


So I guess that the J-M205 in India, Scandinavia and even central asia was ancient Phoenicians settling there, and if you think that postulating founder effects after founder effects based on implausible internal migrations is scientific you might want to review a basic logics handbook.

P.S. 

is this outdated as well? How did J-M205 end up in India and central asia spread by Levantine travellers?
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...up-J2b1-(M205)

----------


## Azzurro

> So I guess that the J-M205 in India, Scandinavia and even central asia was ancient Phoenicians settling there, and if you think that postulating founder effects after founder effects based on implausible internal migrations is scientific you might want to review a basic logics handbook.


LOL, it was found in every single Levantine civilization and Egypt not only Phoenicians. So it can be Phoenician, Jewish, Syrian, Assyrian, Edomite, Egyptian, Amorite, Aramean, etc... 

The Scandinivan, the Indian and the Central Asian ones all have an ancestor who belonged to one of those mentioned groups, again this is a fact and facts don't care about your feelings.

----------


## brick

> That is the thing, I always said its range, in the first or second post to Jovialis I said it is somewhere between 5-20%, we going to get another Ancient Roman Italy paper (with various Italic tribes), several Ancient Greek ones and one on the Iron Age Middle East those will papers will be crucial going forward. We can more accurately calculate autosomal and uniparental inheritance.



I do not think it will be easy to calculate even with the publication of new ancient samples, certainly now it is impossible. Since with the same models using the G25, never forget it is an amateur tool, these components come out even to the Greeks, and the Greeks had an important role in Italy, it is clear that not everything can be attributed to foreign presence during imperial Rome. Moreover, we must consider that the genetics of the Balkans has been greatly altered by the Slavic migrations of the medieval era and that in the past Balkans may have played an important role as a bridge between Italy and the Near East. Finally, the Natufian sample itself is still based on one or two individuals, isn't it? It is highly problematic. 





> Who said no one is asking? Greece already had an abundance of Iran Neo since Bronze Age both Minoans and Cycladic culture had a lot of Iran Neo, the Natufian is the bigger the question, my guess is the same way how Italy got theirs, just add a layer with the Hellenistic era. From Hellenistic through Roman through Byzantine you have over 1000 years of opportunity for this component to reach the Aegean and Balkans, and case in point would be the J-M205 clade in the Balkans.



Natufian has likely many problems and is the big question, I agree. With the same model used with Italians and Balkans, many Iberian populations (both Spanish and Portuguese) get out significant percentages of Natufian. Only by putting SSA do these percentages decrease but not disappear. The strange thing is that Natufian comes out to some Iberian samples, to others it does not. Does it really make sense? This suggests to me that these results cannot be taken too seriously, for a number of reasons already listed, possible sampling error, because of the possible errors in G25, and because of the very nature of these tools, which are tools that calculate only possible estimates that depend on the choices made (models, reference samples) and are not definitive proofs of anything.

----------


## Leopoldo Leone

> LOL, it was found in every single Levantine civilization and Egypt not only Phoenicians. So it can be Phoenician, Jewish, Syrian, Assyrian, Edomite, Egyptian, Amorite, Aramean, etc... 
> 
> The Scandinivan, the Indian and the Central Asian ones all have an ancestor who belonged to one of those mentioned groups, again this is a fact and facts don't care about your feelings.


Yes, how convenient it is to postulate that it was some Semitic-speaking groups travelling all the way there and settling down instead of taking as the most plausible explanation that it was spread by Iran_N or CHG lineages that are known to have contributed to all groups living in those areas? Again, I have been waiting for some sources, but you just pointed that "the oldest samples that have it are from the Levant, so it must be Levantine", although the fact there is no historical evidence of any possible Egyptian or Levantine sources reaching as far, and that the age of the J2-M205 subclade is compatible with much older movements, https://haplogroup.org/ystory/j-m205/. 

We have discussed for some length about this clade, but you have shown to build your "arguments" by wishful thinking, weak evidence and overlooking of contrary evidence, so I do not expect anything different about any eventual discussion about the other clades.

----------


## Azzurro

> Yes, how convenient it is to postulate that it was some Semitic-speaking groups travelling all the way there and settling down instead of taking as the most plausible explanation that it was spread by Iran_N or CHG lineages that are known to have contributed to all groups living in those areas? Again, I have been waiting for some sources, but you just pointed that "the oldest samples that have it are from the Levant, so it must be Levantine", although the fact there is no historical evidence of any possible Egyptian or Levantine sources reaching as far, and that the age of the J2-M205 subclade is compatible with much older movements, https://haplogroup.org/ystory/j-m205/. 
> 
> We have discussed for some length about this clade, but you have shown to build your "arguments" by wishful thinking, weak evidence and overlooking of contrary evidence, so I do not expect anything different about any eventual discussion about the other clades.


https://anthrogenica.com/showthread....-History-of-J2

----------


## Azzurro

> I do not think it will be easy to calculate even with the publication of new ancient samples, certainly now it is impossible. Since with the same models using the G25, never forget it is an amateur tool, these components come out even to the Greeks, and the Greeks had an important role in Italy, it is clear that not everything can be attributed to foreign presence during imperial Rome. Moreover, we must consider that the genetics of the Balkans has been greatly altered by the Slavic migrations of the medieval era and that in the past Balkans may have played an important role as a bridge between Italy and the Near East. Finally, the Natufian sample itself is still based on one or two individuals, isn't it? It is highly problematic. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natufian has likely many problems and is the big question, I agree. With the same model used with Italians and Balkans, many Iberian populations (both Spanish and Portuguese) get out significant percentages of Natufian. Only by putting SSA do these percentages decrease but not disappear. The strange thing is that Natufian comes out to some Iberian samples it comes out, to others it does not. Does it really make sense? This suggests to me that these results cannot be taken too seriously, for a number of reasons already listed, possible sampling error, because of the possible errors in G25, and because of the very nature of these tools, which are tools that calculate only possible estimates that depend on the choices made (models, reference samples) and are not definitive proofs of anything.


We will be getting more Natufian samples, we'll how much they vary from the few we have now. While I don't fully disagree with you on all points, and think you bring out excellent points, like I said my whole point with this is shut up the everything came in Neolithic or Bronze Age crowd. On the opposite end you see clear Greco-Roman clades who made into the Middle East and North Africa and there is much less of an opposition to it, one of the markers found in one of the Latin Tribes has been found in Algeria and Turkey, or E-V13 that has none trivial frequencies in Middle East, you don't see "E-V13 Neolithic in Fertile Crescent" as a response. Italy and the Balkans were practically the center of the world for 500 years, so its normal you have movements towards there, and the same thing happened the other way. We take for granted how mobile ancient people truly were.

----------


## Leopoldo Leone

> https://anthrogenica.com/showthread....-History-of-J2


If the oldest R1b sample found had been from western Europe, should we be talking about an European migrations into north America? Maybe in the absence of better explanations, but the spread of J2-M205 with CHG/Iran_N genes makes much more sense, that is to say it is better supported by the available evidence, than a recent spread from Levantines populations reaching as far as India and central asia and north Europe, and the age of the subclade, according to the site I've linked, is compatible with such picture (6000 byp +/- 2700 years).

----------


## Angela

> It is enough to add the Neolithic sample Tepecik_Ciftlik_N and both Iran_N and Natufian descend significantly in the Italian samples.


Don't you just love how he always starts out with Barcin just because it will show more Levant Neo or Natufian in Italians?

Then when he gets caught he'll reluctantly use Tepecek instead. WOW, what happened to all that extra Natufian?

If that isn't the sign of a dishonest, agenda driven analysis, I don't know what is. Sicily is in the 5% range, and Campania and Calabria 3.7%. The rest of the south drops off precipitously. 

Is this the big onslaught of Levantine genes we've been hearing about for almost a decade? You'd think they'd be ashamed.

I do believe I said above that if excess Levant appeared in academic studies using more sophisticated tools it would be in the low single digits. Don't they ever get tired of being always wrong?

----------


## Azzurro

> If the oldest R1b sample found had been from western Europe, should we be talking about an European migrations into north America? Maybe in the absence of better explanations, but the spread of J2-M205 with CHG/Iran_N genes makes much more sense, that is to say it is better supported by the available evidence, than a recent spread from Levantines populations reaching as far as India and central asia and north Europe, and the age of the subclade, according to the site I've linked, is compatible with such picture (6000 byp +/- 2700 years).


Iron Age and Classical era are recent for you? Bothers you that there is the potential for you having Semitic speaking ancestors  :Laughing:

----------


## Angela

> Lol I never sent you a picture of myself, I can’t believe you pulled of a lie like this to try and prove i’m sock, its pitiful.


I never lie; no one has ever been able to prove such a thing after more than ten years here.

You, on the other hand, used a sock on this very site. You posted as Principe and also posted as Azurro, and then went to anthrogenica as Principe Azzurro.

You must have a very short memory. 

You've been so wrong so many times. Do the Etruscans ring a bell? Didn't it teach you a little humility?

Well, at least you've finally learned how to spell "Azzurro"; after all the conversations with your Sicilian grandmother and three years of studying Italian, it took all this time.

----------


## Azzurro

Your a despicable human being

I sincerely hope your Luni region in Emilia Romagna has nothing to do with Sicily or Basilicata since the Neolithic

----------


## Angela

> Your a despicable human being
> 
> I sincerely hope your Luni region in Emilia Romagna has nothing to do with Sicily or Basilicata since the Neolithic



FYI: it is YOU'RE, a contraction of YOU ARE. Your means belonging to you, as in your agenda driven, dishonest analyses. 

I see you don't deny that you posted under two separate identities here. Well, of course you can't. 

I'm despicable for pointing that out? 

What do you call someone who would do that? The word dishonest comes to mind.

Every one who is from Italy shares ancestry. We're all on a cline, so like it or not, we're related on some level. Doesn't mean we all have to like each other. I judge each person as an individual on qualities like honesty, integrity, and compassion.

----------


## Azzurro

> FYI: it is YOU'RE, a contraction of YOU ARE. Your means belonging to you, as in your agenda driven, dishonest analyses. 
> 
> I see you don't deny that you posted under two separate identities here. Well, of course you can't. 
> 
> I'm despicable for pointing that out? 
> 
> What do you call someone who would do that? The word dishonest comes to mind.


Principe, Principe Azzurro and Azzurro are variants of the classic Prince Charming reference. I posted under Principe Azzurro because you banned the Azzurro account and did personal attacks and thought I wasn't going to respond, you think I care about your silly rules? 

Jovialis on AG posted as Fuorilegge does that make him a sock?

And let me tell you something Angela, unlike you I have many people who personally contact me for information regarding the spread and origins of their Y lines, you bad mouth Anthrogenica, but it is seen as the most pristine anthrofora genetic site, Eupedia forum section is deemed as toxic mostly because of you.

So enjoy posting threads with the same 10-15 people who agree with you and be hostile with anyone who veers away from your line of thinking.

----------


## Angela

> Principe, Principe Azzurro and Azzurro are variants of the classic Prince Charming reference. I posted under Principe Azzurro because you banned the Azzurro account and did personal attacks and thought I wasn't going to respond, you think I care about your silly rules? 
> 
> Jovialis on AG posted as Fuorilegge does that make him a sock?
> 
> Are you understanding yourself properly?


This is the last time I am going to address this. To the best of my recollection you had two separate accounts here; one as Principe and one as Azurro. At anthrogenica you posted as Principe Azzurro.

As for your arguments, such as they are, you have made them; they have been answered. Yours are unconvincing imo and that of most people here.

So, unless you start spamming the same posts over and over again, that would seem to be the end of the matter.

----------


## binx

On Anthrogenica anyone who thinks differently from the leading group, who tries to influence and address every discussion, is regularly banned. On Eupedia this does not happen.

----------


## Azzurro

> On Anthrogenica anyone who thinks differently from the leading group, who tries to influence and address every discussion, is regularly banned. On Eupedia this does not happen.


That’s absolutely not true, its definitely more open. Have you ever posted there?

----------


## Azzurro

> This is the last time I am going to address this. To the best of my recollection you had two separate accounts here; one as Principe and one as Azurro. At anthrogenica you posted as Principe Azzurro.
> 
> As for your arguments, such as they are, you have made them; they have been answered. Yours are unconvincing imo and that of most people here.
> 
> So, unless you start spamming the same posts over and over again, that would seem to be the end of the matter.


Not one convincing counter argument has been made in my opinion, pretty much all the same answers masquerading in different words tbh.

----------


## Jovialis

> Not one convincing counter argument has been made in my opinion, pretty much all the same answers masquerading in different words tbh.


I've already made my points upthread. Your eurogenes modeling is flawed, there have been many reasons given why, which I have mentioned myself. It is absurd to suggest that south Italians are 20% Levantine, sorry, but to be frank, that's just crazy. If this is the main thing you are arguing, than you should think about this:


You don't find it to be odd that this calculator is producing models that no academic study could support? I know Davidski doesn't like to admit it, in fact he argues that his calculator is better than academic papers! He has told me that himself on AG. That's when I knew that AG is a sort of fan-boy site for eurogenes, people that are delusional enough to think that this calculator is better than academic analysis. It is laughable!


The difference between Eupedia, and AG is that on Eupedia we use these tools, like Dodecad, to best replicate the academic findings to verify accuracy. On AG, you take the results of eurogenes as gospel, despite the fact that is is contrary to academic analysis. Sorry, but dozens of Ivy-League geneticists working on papers using multiple tools for analysis, holds more water than the results of a single tool interpreted by laymen.

----------


## Azzurro

@Jovialis,

Its not my main focus, in fact I only become this Levantine in Italians rep when discussing with this crowd. Also I didn’t say it’s definitely 20% range of 5-20%.

By counter arguement why are all genetic companies like Ftdna, MyHeritage, 23&Me and the old Nat Geo calculator give this Middle Eastern?

Your aware that the Ivy League schools are in contact with him? He actually isn’t an amateur regardless of what you think of Davidski. 

This is why I dislike autosomal dna, because a lot of it is subjective and bias, i’m an very biased not going to lie about that. When it comes to Uniparental its much more clear cut.

----------


## Angela

The new paper on the origin and distribution of Ydna J1-M267 provides, I think, more evidence for informed analysis. 

See:
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...709#post621709

----------


## Jovialis

> @Jovialis,
> 
> Its not my main focus, in fact I only become this Levantine in Italians rep when discussing with this crowd. Also I didn’t say it’s definitely 20% range of 5-20%.
> 
> By counter arguement why are all genetic companies like Ftdna, MyHeritage, 23&Me and the old Nat Geo calculator give this Middle Eastern?
> 
> Your aware that the Ivy League schools are in contact with him? He actually isn’t an amateur regardless of what you think of Davidski. 
> 
> This is why I dislike autosomal dna, because a lot of it is subjective and bias, i’m an very biased not going to lie about that. When it comes to Uniparental its much more clear cut.


The vast majority of the "middle eastern" I have seen is usually Iran and Caucasus-related. Thus this is very old (possibly EBA) excess CHG that their modeling adds to their "Italian" components; which is usually about 4 or 5%. We need to connect the dots; Sarno et al. 2021 shows there is very old CHG/IN in southern Italy.


Only a minority of "middle eastern" can usually be broadly associated with the levant region, or within the range of a single percentage point. Which I have speculated could be more attributed to Moorish and Saracen admixture from the Middle Ages. FYI, the levant area is also counted as "North African" in 23andme.


So what if he is in contact with them? His calculator is not giving the accurate modeling, which is not cohesive with what the academics are publishing. I have been in contact with several professionals as well, but that doesn't make me an expert. Like I said, these kinds of calculators are better for broad analysis, not precise analysis, because it clearly doesn't jive well with what the actual experts are saying.

----------


## Azzurro

> The new paper on the origin and distribution of Ydna J1-M267 provides, I think, more evidence for informed analysis. 
> 
> See:
> https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...709#post621709


It’s not really a direct evidence, I use evidence based on ancient samples and where are clades are currently found today, who brought them. J1 is usually either 6th or 7th and sometimes 8th haplogroup of depending the region or province when looked analytically. I know which J1 branches we see in Italians and across Europe and the Middle East. In the response I gave to Leopoldo, rougly half of the J1 in the Peninsula is of the Classical Middle East variety, the other half is not as clear cut. The most common branch of the other half might be Greek in origin and came in with some J2 in Early Bronze Age, other clades there is clear answer. The 2 best examples are J-FGC8216 and J-L829, where we see young TMRCA’s, we see clear Middle Eastern, Mediterranean Europe and Central and North European branches, so success branches in Roman Empire, and could have been in Italy or Iberian Peninsula very early in Iron Age via Phoenicians and spread with people who were autosomally Italian or Spanish. Then there could have been some who came from a direct ancestor from the Levant. The ultimate source would still be the same, and both aforementioned clades are non trival in distribution. I personally find this exciting that you can see this, and its not only ancient Levantine Y’s I’m interested in, would like to see the spread of Greek paternal lineages, Italic, etc... in the Antonio et al. paper you had several Celts too who settled in Roman Italy, definitely there was some Uniparental leftover as well. We’re getting more papers from ancient Italy, so its going to be exciting.

----------


## Azzurro

@Jovialis

Look we see this completely different, if you choose not to see the Levantine its on you, for me its been a fact like the sky is blue since 2016 when I got my first ever results back from Nat Geo.

Maybe the Calcs plus the Uniparental evidence one day will become clear to you as many others see it. There was another poster whom I always argued with over similar discussions, now doesn't deny it anymore. 

We'll see what 2021 brings us

----------


## Pax Augusta

Italians in general are well aware that the Roman Empire was multi-ethnic and that there may have been some legacies from the imperial era in Italy. Of course, many Italians are also ignorant and still think that the Latins or Italics were Nordic gods compared to the other populations of pre-Roman Italy. In any case, uniparental markers on mitochondrial or Y chromosomal DNA represent only one ancestor of the many ancestors from which a person is descended. Ethnicity estimates of commercial companies are games. To be clear for me everyone is free to do and think what he wants, but it is naive to think that an Italian can change his identity on the basis of his genetic results, or because he discovers he has a Y-DNA that exists in the Levant he begins to feel more Levantine than Italian, just as if he discovers he has a Y-DNA that is more frequent among Germanic populations he can begin to feel more German or Scandinavian than Italian. The Italian demography has changed a lot in the last 150 years because of internal migrations, and in the last 30-40 years it is changing because of external ones, and it will change again in the next years. Despite this, regional identity is still strong in Italy, even when a person has ancestors from different regions of Italy. There are many Italians born in a region other than that of their parents' origin who identify with their place of birth rather than their parents' place of origin. Identity is first and foremost a cultural process. Changing identity on the basis of genetic data may happen in the new world, or it may happen to those of mixed ancestry or to migrants in a completely different context, but it can hardly happen in Europe. Very rarely I do see it happening in Italy in the real life.

The interest in these topics should be purified by personal research into one's own identity, which only ends up influencing the judgement on what are the conclusions or hypotheses of the research. Population genetics produces hypotheses, genetic studies rarely have the smoking gun. And population genetics, including studies of the much overrated Ivy League schools, is much criticised by other scholars for its approach and method, which is often reminiscent of old 19th century theories. Pointing out that southern Europeans have more contact with West Asia, Levant and North Africa, which given the geography is like reinventing the wheel, feeds the idea that the purest Europeans are northern Europeans, nineteenth-century idea that it was the geneticists themselves who revived. So it is absolutely no surprise that he may be in contact with Ivy League Schools. Because more and more we see in discussions Nordicists going hand in hand with migrationists and orientalists.

Having said that, a few words should also be said about the G25 and Italy. As far as Italy is concerned, many areas are still uncovered, Liguria is based on a single individual probably from the Savona area, Emilia and Romagna are completely missing, and it is evident that the Alpine and Prealpine areas are oversampled compared to the Po Valley. The view it can give is still very partial. Only in a few years' time will we have a more accurate view, although it cannot be taken for granted, because Italian geneticists have suffered from circular argumentation from the very beginning, as this can be seen in their work, and from Cavalli-Sforza's initial wrong approach. So, if even geneticists are not exempt from mistakes, why should we believe amateurs who have never had a neutral point of view? When he said that modern samples were not representative and reliable he was referring only and exclusively to a few samples that he was interested in. Those who have really a neutral approach, rare even to find among geneticists, are interested in the accuracy of all, not just the part they are attached to for personal reasons.



Present pasts in the archaeology of genetics, identity, and migration in Europe: a critical essay

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00438243.2019.1627907

----------


## Jovialis

> @Jovialis
> 
> Look we see this completely different, if you choose not to see the Levantine its on you, for me its been a fact like the sky is blue since 2016 when I got my first ever results back from Nat Geo.
> 
> Maybe the Calcs plus the Uniparental evidence one day will become clear to you as many others see it. There was another poster whom I always argued with over similar discussions, now doesn't deny it anymore. 
> 
> We'll see what 2021 brings us


Yeah, we do see it completely differently. But I do not choose to not see, what is not there. I already told you my take on it.

As for Nat Geo, my results did not indicate Levantine for me either:



Originally, I thought it shows Italian being augmented by Norman or Lombard input.

Regardless, of direct-to-consumer models, I do not see it in Sarno et al. 2021. So I don't know what to tell you. 

The only explanation I can think of is non-steppe CHG pulse in EBA for excess Caucasus-related ancestry in South Europeans. 

Approximately a percent or less of Levant/North African related to Moors/Saracens. But I guess that's too little for them to even use in the modeling.

----------


## Jovialis

> Yeah, we do see it completely differently. But I do not choose to not see, what is not there. I already told you my take on it.
> 
> As for Nat Geo, my results did not indicate Levantine for me either:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally, I thought is shows Italian being augmented by Norman or Lombard input.
> 
> Regardless, of direct-to-consumer models, I do not see it in Sarno et al. 2021. So I don't know what to tell you. 
> ...


The Nat Geo modeling sort of reminds me of the Dodecad Ancient Rome Test modeling:



Distance to:
C6_Medieval_Mediterranean:R973_Tivoli_Palazzo_Cian ti

1.58104396
Italian_Abruzzo

2.75294388
Italian_Campania

3.44476414
Italian_Apulia

3.51955963
Italian_Sicily

4.59958694
Greek_Lemnos

5.77788023
Greek_Foca

5.79443699
Italian_Calabria

6.31964398
Greek_Central

6.34653449
Ashkenazi_Jews

6.48418846
Greek_Athens

6.79745541
Greek_Izmir

6.82921665
Moldavian_Jewish

7.21295363
Greek_Fournoi

7.33743034
Italian_Marche

7.44902678
Italian_Lazio

8.33485453
Greek_Crete

8.52562021
Greek_Peloponnese

9.90076765
Albanian

10.25443319
Italian_Jews

10.40373010
Greek_Icaria

10.48913247
Greek_Thrace

10.63477785
Greek_Kos

10.78041279
Italian_Romagna

11.10206287
Greek_Thessaly

11.12278742
Greek_Thessaloniki



Distance to:
C7_Late_Antiquity_European:R106_Crypta_Balbi

5.97977424
Bavarian_German

6.44240638
French_Northeast

6.67700532
French_North

8.07205674
Dutch

8.51226174
English_South

8.62562462
French_Northwest

9.14299732
Hungarian_Transdanubia_Budapest

9.14821294
English_mixed

9.15852062
Hungarian_Transylvania_Szekely

9.71460756
Hungarian

9.84938069
English_North

10.22175621
German_Northwest

10.25785065
Scottish

10.46867709
Hungarian_Alfold

10.67980805
German

10.96936188
Slovenian

11.45865175
Irish

11.66404304
Hungarian_North

12.19399032
Icelandic

12.21720508
Croat

12.47612520
Czech

13.02931694
Bosnian

13.07887228
Serb

13.37731288
Danish

13.76011264
Moldavian_North

----------


## Salento

_one to one ... vs R969_ Tivoli Palazzo Cianti (Date range: 1600 CE - 1700 CE)



Edit :  :Thinking: ... wrong thread, ... but it's OK :) ... there aren't many R samples on that site, ... get the Kit # !

----------


## Salento

_Search for Shared DNA Segments in Two Raw Data Files._

Salento vs R437 / R850 (single segment matches only ...  :Thinking:  MTA )

... my settings:

Single Segment Matches of length at least *100* tested SNPs 
Report Double Segment Matches of length at least *250* tested SNPs
Treat No-Calls as Matching SNPs? *no*
............. :

*... vs R437*


*... vs R850*



https://www.math.mun.ca/~dapike/FF23utils/pair-comp.php

----------


## Salento

_one to one: R1 vs R437 & R850_  :Cool V: 

R1 (# AG4512653) vs R437 (# SA5994979)




R1 (# AG4512653) vs R850 (# SN3426822)

----------


## ihype02

> I was wrong about all the Imperial Roman samples coming from Isola Sacra near Ostia, although a good number do. They're actually from some necropoli around the city of Rome itself as well. So, not like future archaeologists excavating just in Flushing. It's like archaeologists excavating in New York City as a whole, or London.
> 
> However, the burial contexts tell us nothing. There's no grave goods, no inscriptions, not even names from what I can see, and there's been disturbances at a lot of the sites. 
> 
> Interestingly enough, some of the samples come from the Catacombs of Peter and Paul. I have to check tomorrow and see if those are more "East Med", i.e. the samples south and east of modern Southern Italians. It would make sense. The first Christians, and the only Christians for a long time were Jews.
> 
> In that regard, look what happens to the J1 in ancient Italy after the Imperial Era.
> 
> 
> ...


What is interesting is that J1 is not so great in most of Anatolia, expect for it's very eastern region. The sample size is still small to take conclusions but if we assume that those percentages are good representatives of Y-DNA lines of Imperial Rome population then it seems that the bulk of the population should come from the the very south-eastern Anatolia, Syria, Levant and Northern Africa. Otherwise you don't get nearly 25% J1. (I estimated it with a ruler)

----------


## ihype02

Target: ITA_Rome_Imperial
Distance: 1.4672% / 0.01467243

51.8
SYR_Ebla_EMBA



32.4
ITA_Etruscan



8.4
ITA_Rome_Latini_IA



7.4
Levant_Beirut_Hellenistic





Target: ITA_Rome_Imperial
Distance: 2.4345% / 0.02434468

59.6
Levant_Beirut_Hellenistic



23.4
ITA_Etruscan



17.0
ITA_Rome_Latini_IA






Target: ITA_Rome_Imperial
Distance: 2.6360% / 0.02635958

62.2
Levant_Beirut_Hellenistic



37.8
ITA_Rome_Latini_IA

----------


## ihype02

The calculator fails to recognize significant Classical Greek ancestry in Imperial Romans (0-1.4%). The Empuries does not even show up.
This makes sense historically and demographically. Those people did not come from Southern Italy. It's mathematically impossible for Imperial Romans to be mostly from Southern Italy. Not only because of the demographics but they cannot create the cluster because Southern Italians plot west of Imperial Romans.

Target: ITA_Rome_Imperial
Distance: 1.4796% / 0.01479591

60.2
SYR_Ebla_EMBA



21.8
ITA_Etruscan



18.0
ITA_Ardea_Latini_IA




Target: ITA_Rome_Imperial
Distance: 1.4417% / 0.01441702

51.2
SYR_Ebla_EMBA



22.2
ITA_Ardea_Latini_IA



16.0
ITA_Etruscan



9.4
Levant_Beirut_Hellenistic



1.2
GRC_Mycenaean




Target: ITA_Rome_Imperial
Distance: 1.4789% / 0.01478888

59.4
SYR_Ebla_EMBA



22.6
ITA_Etruscan



16.6
ITA_Ardea_Latini_IA



1.4
GRC_Mycenaean

----------


## Angela

Stop using averages. They can totally misrepresent what happened.

For one thing, get rid of the C4 samples, since the authors themselves pointed out that the "tail into the Levant disappeared, and then see what you get.

That's not to say that some of the C4 type genes didn't remain, but using an average of ALL the samples is not going to give you a complete picture.

For crying out loud, the "Italian-Greek" like samples which are so similar to modern Southern Italians were already in central Italy in the IRON AGE. 

For another run, maybe do averages of the different Moots groups, and see what happens in terms of admixture to reach Southern Italians/Sicilians.

----------


## ihype02

> Stop using averages. They can totally misrepresent what happened.
> 
> For one thing, get rid of the C4 samples, since the authors themselves pointed out that the "tail into the Levant disappeared, and then see what you get.
> 
> That's not to say that some of the C4 type genes didn't remain, but using an average of ALL the samples is not going to give you a complete picture.
> 
> For crying out loud, the "Italian-Greek" like samples which are so similar to modern Southern Italians were already in central Italy in the IRON AGE. 
> 
> For another run, maybe do averages of the different Moots groups, and see what happens in terms of admixture to reach Southern Italians/Sicilians.


Only one of them appears to be Italian-Greek-like from Iron Age (and an other one seem shifted towards northern Africa). 
I thought Southern Italian-like Romans were in Late Antiquity only ? The vast majority of Imperial Romans them plot south of Southern Italians. 

Can you help me where can I find the dates of the samples?

----------


## Leopoldo Leone

My guess is that the majority of the imperial samples are indeed foreigners, but before drawing inferences about the demography one must keep in mind that Latins practiced cremation back then and it likely skewed the rests that survived till our days, and C5, the so called "east med" cluster seems to me to be made up of the Anatolians found in the Danubian limes paper, judging from their position in a PCA.

----------


## ihype02

> My guess is that the majority of the imperial samples are indeed foreigners, but before drawing inferences about the demography one must keep in mind that *Latins practiced cremation back then* and it likely skewed the rests that survived till our days, and C5, the so called "east med" cluster seems to me to be made up of the Anatolians found in the Danubian limes paper, judging from their position in a PCA.


That explain everything. Because Rome had hundreds of thousands Italic people I was wondering why only one or two of Imperial samples are showing as fully Italic-like, surely there should have been more. Scientist must have struggled to find Iron Age Italic samples.

----------


## Angela

> Only one of them appears to be Italian-Greek-like from Iron Age (and an other one seem shifted towards northern Africa). 
> I thought Southern Italian-like Romans were in Late Antiquity only ? The vast majority of Imperial Romans them plot south of Southern Italians. 
> 
> Can you help me where can I find the dates of the samples?



No, the majority of the samples are NOT C3, C4.

There seems to be 15 C3/C4 samples, and 38 C5/C6 samples from the Imperial Era, so that's not correct. Then there are two samples from the Iron Age which Maciamo labeled "Italian_Greeks". One of them is definitely R850. The other is, I think, R437. To the best of my recollection both Jovialis and Salento are very close to R437, which is labeled C6. Maciamo may, on the other hand, have used the North African leaning sample. I'm not sure.

Anyway, that brings me to 40 samples. (I think I may be off 1, C/5, C/6, who might be in another part of the list of samples. Jovialis would know.)

Jovialis has illustrated all of this again and again.

If you don't have a copy of his coordinates for the Imperial Era Antonio et al samples, here they are, separated by cluster.

C3-Marcellino_&_Pietro_Imperial_Rome:R132:Antonio_201 9,1.24,0,17.94,1.71,24.66,4.24,0,6.41,16.58,0.29,2 4.91,2.02
C3-Viale_Rossini_Necropolis_Imperial_Rome:R80:Antonio _2019,3.6,0,11.4,0,27.69,7.57,0,3.33,16.8,0.28,28. 39,0.94
C4-ANAS_Imperial_Rome:R67:Antonio_2019,18.93,0,4.46,0 .81,9.71,3.86,0.41,1.41,17.74,0,42.1,0.57
C4-ANAS_Imperial_Rome:R68:Antonio_2019,17.66,0,3.38,0 ,12.85,0.04,0,1.12,19.87,0,44.63,0.45
C4-ANAS_Imperial_Rome:R70:Antonio_2019,9.87,0.04,2.27 ,0,21.13,2.38,0,1.9,20.78,0,41.64,0
C4-ANAS_Imperial_Rome:R73:Antonio_2019,10.71,0,6.38,0 ,23.57,4.41,0.48,0.11,18.48,0,34.78,1.09
C4-Casale_del_Dolce_Imperial_Rome:R126:Antonio_2019,8 .87,0.13,2.7,0,21.68,1.28,0.37,0,18.5,0.5,45.28,0. 69
C4-Isola_Sacra_Necropolis_Imperial_Rome:R38:Antonio_2 019,11.97,0.24,2.94,0,17.99,1.99,0.16,0.3,18.03,0, 46.26,0.13
C4-Isola_Sacra_Necropolis_Imperial_Rome:R41:Antonio_2 019,6.8,0,4.58,0.58,22.76,5.5,1.17,0.93,16.28,0.84 ,40.36,0.19
C4-Isola_Sacra_Necropolis_Imperial_Rome:R42:Antonio_2 019,8.78,0,3.65,0.61,16.08,0,0,1.86,24.68,0.29,43. 58,0.49
C4-Monterotondo_Imperial_Rome:R1547:Antonio_2019,7.68 ,0,5.24,0.75,16.6,0,0.88,2.25,24.3,0,42.29,0
C4-Monterotondo_Imperial_Rome:R1550:Antonio_2019,12.1 4,0,7.34,0.46,14.89,1.07,0,1.17,23.92,0.34,38.67,0
C4-Monterotondo_Imperial_Rome:R1551:Antonio_2019,14.5 1,0,0,0.07,10.96,4.32,0,0,15.15,0,54.02,0.96
C4-Viale_Rossini_Necropolis_Imperial_Rome:R75:Antonio _2019,7.1,0,4.53,0,21.52,4.26,0.62,1.18,16.8,0.53, 43.46,0
C4-Viale_Rossini_Necropolis_Imperial_Rome:R76:Antonio _2019,7.56,0,3.38,0.5,17.19,5.76,0.79,0,19.2,0.06, 45.56,0
C5-ANAS_Imperial_Rome:R66:Antonio_2019,7.41,0,0,0.88, 25.05,8.08,0,0,17.27,0,40.91,0.4
C5-ANAS_Imperial_Rome:R69:Antonio_2019,7.86,0.81,0.57 ,0,27.22,11.31,0,0,9.7,0,42.15,0.39
C5-ANAS_Imperial_Rome:R71:Antonio_2019,7.22,0,4.51,0, 21.22,2.34,0,0,11.39,0,52.86,0.46
C5-ANAS_Imperial_Rome:R72:Antonio_2019,8.93,0,0.55,0, 23.61,5.18,0,0,16.96,0.36,43.85,0.57
C5-Casale_del_Dolce_Imperial_Rome:R123:Antonio_2019,8 .53,0,0,1.18,24.75,8.57,0,0,15.64,0,41.02,0.3
C5-Casale_del_Dolce_Imperial_Rome:R128:Antonio_2019,8 .25,0,1.27,0,20.16,8.57,0.69,0,14.58,0,46.38,0.1
C5-Centocelle_Necropolis_Imperial_Rome:R50:Antonio_20 19,8.31,0,0.91,0,25.51,11.04,0.37,0,15.34,0.52,36. 86,1.15
C5-Isola_Sacra_Necropolis_Imperial_Rome:R39:Antonio_2 019,7.32,0.69,3.87,0.29,25.31,7.92,0,0,13.54,0.16, 40.39,0.51
C5-Isola_Sacra_Necropolis_Imperial_Rome:R40:Antonio_2 019,7.17,1,0.52,0.04,27.69,5.79,0,0,15.54,0,41.29, 0.97
C5-Isola_Sacra_Necropolis_Imperial_Rome:R43:Antonio_2 019,7.74,0,1.35,0,26.77,3.83,0.51,0,12.69,0,46.89, 0.23
C5-Isola_Sacra_Necropolis_Imperial_Rome:R44:Antonio_2 019,5.19,0,2.37,0,29.27,4.24,0,0,12.92,0,45.7,0.31
C5-Isola_Sacra_Necropolis_Imperial_Rome:R45:Antonio_2 019,5.04,0,9.86,0,27.46,7.12,0.8,0,16.44,0,32.4,0. 88
C5-Marcellino_&_Pietro_Imperial_Rome:R130:Antonio_201 9,9.5,0,4.35,0,24.11,2.09,0.93,0,17.15,0,41.34,0.5 3
C5-Marcellino_&_Pietro_Imperial_Rome:R133:Antonio_201 9,7.2,0.88,3.08,0.32,26.06,7.84,0,0,14.07,0,39.97, 0.58
C5-Marcellino_&_Pietro_Imperial_Rome:R134:Antonio_201 9,8.11,0,4.64,0.7,23.15,7.79,0,0.89,15.41,0,39.31, 0.01

C5-Monterotondo_Imperial_Rome:R1548:Antonio_2019,10.4 7,0,1.51,0,23.09,11.15,0,0.34,13.95,0,39.5,0
C5-Necropolis_of_Monte_Agnese_Imperial_Rome:R1543:Ant onio_2019,8.92,0,5.86,0,21.15,9.11,0.41,0.36,14.95 ,0,38.92,0.31
C5-Necropolis_of_Monte_Agnese_Imperial_Rome:R1545:Ant onio_2019,7.65,0,0.11,0,25.35,8.55,0.79,0.23,15.75 ,0,40.81,0.75

C5-Via_Paisiello_Necropolis_Imperial_Rome:R114:Antoni o_2019,8.42,0,1.52,0,23.81,13.17,0.21,0,15.09,0,37 .22,0.57
C5-Via_Paisiello_Necropolis_Imperial_Rome:R115:Antoni o_2019,7.93,0.62,4.33,0,21.69,10.11,0,0,15.87,0,39 .44,0
C5-Viale_Rossini_Necropolis_Imperial_Rome:R78:Antonio _2019,7.22,0,2.96,0,21.74,4.79,0,0.21,13.19,0.38,4 9.44,0.06
C5-Viale_Rossini_Necropolis_Imperial_Rome:R81:Antonio _2019,7.2,0,3.08,0,24.47,7.25,1.26,0,16.89,0.24,39 .24,0.36

C6-Casale_del_Dolce_Imperial_Rome:R125:Antonio_2019,8 .89,0,2.51,0.08,27.83,9.8,0.09,0,10.91,0,39.46,0.4 3

C6-Centocelle_Necropolis_Imperial_Rome:R47:Antonio_20 19,9.26,0.79,5.46,0,30.38,11.55,0,0.1,9.43,0,32.54 ,0.5
C6-Centocelle_Necropolis_Imperial_Rome:R49:Antonio_20 19,7.88,0,1.68,0.17,29.59,14.37,0,1.09,10.73,0,34. 2,0.29
C6-Centocelle_Necropolis_Imperial_Rome:R51:Antonio_20 19,7.5,0,2.26,0,25.82,10.46,0,0,13.7,1.23,39.03,0
C6-Civitanova_Marche_Imperial_Rome:R835:Antonio_2019, 8.06,0.47,2.84,1.58,30.3,16.15,0,0,10.89,0,29.71,0
C6-Civitanova_Marche_Imperial_Rome:R836:Antonio_2019, 7.99,0,1.59,0,30.78,15.05,0,0,10.14,0,34.45,0

C6-Marcellino_&_Pietro_Imperial_Rome:R136:Antonio_201 9,8.45,0.16,4.03,0.38,25.87,13,0,0,12.45,0,35.36,0 .28
C6-Marcellino_&_Pietro_Imperial_Rome:R137:Antonio_201 9,9.38,0,2.53,0.51,28.21,9.34,0,0.62,11.96,0,37.44 ,0
C6-Monterotondo_Imperial_Rome:R1549:Antonio_2019,9.21 ,0.08,3.15,0,27.32,20.37,0.6,0.6,11.39,0.18,26.54, 0.57
C6-Necropolis_of_Monte_Agnese_Imperial_Rome:R1544:Ant onio_2019,9.52,0.56,2.18,0,26.06,13.98,0,0,12.91,0 ,34.79,0
C6-Palestrina_Imperial_Rome:R436:Antonio_2019,9.14,0, 1.72,0.34,26.42,13.43,0.32,0,12.19,0.11,35.95,0.38

C6-Via_Paisiello_Necropolis_Imperial_Rome:R113:Antoni o_2019,8.54,0,3.42,0,34.32,12.61,0.56,0,8.26,0,32. 14,0.16
C6-Via_Paisiello_Necropolis_Imperial_Rome:R131:Antoni o_2019,7.3,0.24,0.94,0.57,31.63,13.18,0.27,0,11.79 ,0,33.23,0.84

C7-Isola_Sacra_Necropolis_Imperial_Rome:R37:Antonio_2 019,2.14,1,2.7,0,50.7,31.46,0,0,4.24,0,7.65,0.12

C7-Via_Paisiello_Necropolis_Imperial_Rome:R116:Antoni o_2019,5.47,0.42,1.19,0.19,43.87,34.16,0,0,3.74,0, 10.63,0.33

That's 37.

Then there's Via Paisiello 111, which is a good match for me, which brings me to 38. (It's C6, and the closest match is Romagna.)

Via_Paisiello_Necropolis_Imperial_Rome:R111:Antoni o_2019,6.68,0,0.53,0.35,37.36,17.99,0,0,9.6,0,26.9 8,0.51


Then there are the two Iron Age "Italian-Greek" samples

Latini_o:R850:Antonio_2019,7.3,0,4.52,1.08,21.26,1 0.54,0,0.43,14.77,0,40.1,0

I think the other one is R437 but I'm having trouble finding the K12b coordinates. I'll get back to you.*

I may be missing another one. Jovialis will know and I'm sure chime in when he sees this post.

Ed. * Here is R437

C6_Iron_Age_Mediterranean:R437_(Latin_Prenestini_T ribe)_Palestrina_Selicata,6.45,0,3.03,0,33.19,11.9 4,0,0,11.63,0,33.74,0.02

----------


## ihype02

Greeks in Rome cool.

Distance to:
NE_Iberia_Hel_(Empúries2):I8208:Olalde_2019

6.19184141
Mycenaean:I9010:Lazaridis_2017

6.20208836
Mycenaean:I9041:Lazaridis_2017

7.38984438
Mycenaean:I9006:Lazaridis_2017

9.91380351
Mycenaean:I9033:Lazaridis_2017

17.79902525
Latini_o:R850:Antonio_2019

----------


## Angela

^^In early Republican Rome already. A lot of the C6 are already modern Italian like.

ViaPaisiello R111 is an example, as I showed in this thread when I posted my K12b ancient results:
The origin and legacy of the Etruscans through a 2000-year archeogenomic time transec - Page 18 (eupedia.com)

I'm sure there are others; I just checked the ones that came up for me.

----------


## Palermo Trapani

Angela: Your memory is good :), yes I get close results to R437, not as close to R850, but not totally horrible there. But 6 of the Basilicata samples are distances <=6 and R437 is 4.25 on Dodecad 12B. So there is some Southern Italian/Sicilian people that are similar to moderns from those regions starting at least by the time of R437 (circa 300 AD) and clearly well established by 7th century in Basilicata. 

Distance to:
PalermoTrapani_Combined

2.38784422
S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_670-775CE:VEN015

4.04278369
S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_670-775CE:VEN013

4.24855269
S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_650-763CE:VEN005

4.25480904
C6_Iron_Age_Mediterranean:R437_(Latin_Prenestini_T ribe)_Palestrina_Selicata

6.18293620
S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_650-800CE:VEN001

6.18618622
S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_650-763CE:VEN006

6.46209718
S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_672-800CE:VEN016

10.49192547
S.Italy_Venosa_related:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_ 672-800CE:VEN017

10.62509765
S.Italy_Venosa_related:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_ 660-766CE:VEN009

10.73998603
S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_670-775CE:VEN012

13.22413702
C5_Iron_Age_Eastern_Mediterranean:R850_(Latini)_Ar dea

13.97620120
S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_672-800CE:VEN018

14.18623981
S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_660-766CE:VEN008

16.22776941
S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_670-775CE:VEN014

16.65905460
S.Italy_Venosa_related:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_ 672-800CE:VEN021

20.24406086
S.Italy_Venosa_related:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_ 670-775CE:VEN010

22.79961403
S.Italy_Venosa_related:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_ 672-800CE:VEN022

40.14503207
S.Italy_Venosa_VEN002:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_6 50-800CE:VEN002

----------


## ihype02

I would not be sure about Latini_o. C6 could really be a Greek.
Distance to:
NE_Iberia_Hel_(Empúries2):I8208:Olalde_2019

6.19184141
Mycenaean:I9010:Lazaridis_2017

6.20208836
Mycenaean:I9041:Lazaridis_2017

7.38984438
Mycenaean:I9006:Lazaridis_2017

9.91380351
Mycenaean:I9033:Lazaridis_2017

11.86266833
C6_Iron_Age_Mediterranean:R437_(Latin_Prenestini_T ribe)_Palestrina_Selicata

17.79902525
Latini_o:R850:Antonio_2019


Distance to:
Mycenaean:I9041:Lazaridis_2017

7.04257055
C6_Iron_Age_Mediterranean:R437_(Latin_Prenestini_T ribe)_Palestrina_Selicata

17.46657952
Latini_o:R850:Antonio_2019



Distance to:
Mycenaean:I9033:Lazaridis_2017

9.99532891
C6_Iron_Age_Mediterranean:R437_(Latin_Prenestini_T ribe)_Palestrina_Selicata

21.39397111
Latini_o:R850:Antonio_2019



Distance to:
Mycenaean:I9010:Lazaridis_2017

10.26925508
C6_Iron_Age_Mediterranean:R437_(Latin_Prenestini_T ribe)_Palestrina_Selicata

19.57308356
Latini_o:R850:Antonio_2019



Distance to:
Mycenaean:I9006:Lazaridis_2017

13.83894866
C6_Iron_Age_Mediterranean:R437_(Latin_Prenestini_T ribe)_Palestrina_Selicata

18.65988478
Latini_o:R850:Antonio_2019

----------


## Angela

> I would not be sure about Latini_o. C6 could really be a Greek.
> Distance to:
> NE_Iberia_Hel_(Empúries2):I8208:Olalde_2019
> 
> 6.19184141
> Mycenaean:I9010:Lazaridis_2017
> 
> 6.20208836
> Mycenaean:I9041:Lazaridis_2017
> ...


It depends how you define Greek, I suppose.

Distance to:
C5_Iron_Age_Eastern_Mediterranean:R850_(Latini)_Ar dea

2.94292372
Greek_Kos

3.34363575
Greek_Rhodes

4.80929309
Greek_Crete

5.18691623
Turk_Cyprus

5.44699917
Greek_Fournoi

5.80874341
Greek_Icaria

7.10749604
Greek_Izmir

7.50240628
Moldovan_Jewish

7.54348063
Italian_Jews

7.63675324
Italian_Calabria

7.74058137
Sephardic_Jews

7.84169625
Ashkenazi_Jews

8.69839066
Greek_Cypriot

10.04992537
Italian_Sicily

10.57545271
Italian_Campania

10.65026291
Greek_Lemnos

10.88449356
Greek_Cappadocia

11.39714438
Italian_Apulia

11.47420585
Greek_Foca

12.08694751
Nusayri_Turkey

12.19292418
Morocco_Jews

12.91891636
Italian_Abruzzo

13.17106678
Turk_West_BlackSea

13.49063008
Turk_Central_West

14.27385372
Lebanese_Muslim



Don't at least people from Crete count as Greeks?

I don't make mistakes like that.

----------


## ihype02

> It depends how you define Greek, I suppose.
> 
> Distance to:
> C5_Iron_Age_Eastern_Mediterranean:R850_(Latini)_Ar dea
> 
> 2.94292372
> Greek_Kos
> 
> 3.34363575
> ...


Unless he totally lacks Italic ancestry like Cretans do I suppose he could be a Greek. Distance to:
C6_Iron_Age_Mediterranean:R437_(Latin_Prenestini_T ribe)_Palestrina_Selicata

14.10277987
Latini_o:R850:Antonio_2019

----------


## Angela

It's probably an overgeneralization, but I think Calabrians may turn out to be the most "ancient Greek like" Italians. 

That will make my hubby very happy. :)

----------


## ihype02

> It's probably an overgeneralization, but I think Calabrians may turn out to be the most "ancient Greek like" Italians. 
> 
> That will make my hubby very happy. :)


All of the Greeks left Southern Italy for Rome (1.5M people there). Just kidding, I am sure they will. 




> All of the Ionic colonies in Sicily are from Euboea, and the Doric ones are from Corinth, Megara, Rhodes and Crete. The biggest *demographic change came with Magna Greacians, as Syracuse was one of the most populous Greek city in Classical antiquity*. But others contributed too. The greatest component but not the absolute majority is the ancient Greek ancestry, IMO. But this nearly complete replacement is very exaggerated.
> 
> Greeks from Anatolia and Cyprus rarely came to Sicily, as for Moors, Arbereshe and Normans, their contribution each was a 1 digit percentage. I have all the statistics for Arbereshe, they don't extend 3%, and were slightly above 1% in 15th century.
> 
> IMO, there might have been an ancient Greek-like population which poured into Sicily, possibly related with southern mainland Italians which pushed native Sicilians really close to Minoans. I believe the Bell Beaker Sicily sample might be what Sicilians were right before the Greek colonization, from which time frame was it taken?
> 
> _
> "We detected Iranian-related ancestry in Sicily by the MiddleBronze Age 1800–1500 bc, consistent with the directional shift of these individuals towards Minoans and Mycenaeans in the PCA(Fig. 2b); in distal modelling, Sicily_MBA requires 15.7±2.6% o fIran_Ganj_Dareh_Neolithic-related ancestry (P=0.060; Fig. 4,Supplementary Table 14). Sources closer in time always require Minoan_Lassithi or Anatolia_EBA as a source (SupplementaryTable 21). Modern southern Italians harbour Iranian-related ancestry71, and our results show that this ancestry must have reached Sicily before the period of Greek political control when Sicily and southern Italy were part of Magna Graecia."
> 
> ...





> I don't believe it though. Modern Sicilians are closer to Bell Beaker Sicily than Cretans are to Minoans, I wonder why no one mentions a large scale replacement there?
> As for Southern Italy, South Apulia had only 2 cities compared to numerous native settlements, how could they contribute more than 15%?
> 
> I find 50% more than enough for Sicilians in terms of ancient Greek impact overall, *Calabria might have more*.





> I wonder what is the old Greek component of Sicilians. Earlier on I gave 40% to 50% as an assumption.





> Campania, Apulia and Basilicata have significantly more known native settlements than Greek settlements.
> https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Grecia#Basilicata
> Lucania has 6 Greek cities, one of which was heavily mixed with natives (hellenized).
> While Apulia had 4 Greek cities which were heavily mixed with natives and two others originally founded by the ancient Greeks.
> 
> *I believe the Magna Greacia impact goes this way:
> Calabria>Sicily>Campania>Lucania>Apulia*

----------


## ihype02

> Unless he totally lacks Italic ancestry like Cretans do I suppose he could be a Greek. Distance to:
> C6_Iron_Age_Mediterranean:R437_(Latin_Prenestini_T ribe)_Palestrina_Selicata
> 
> 14.10277987
> Latini_o:R850:Antonio_2019


R850 is from 500-800BC, not a Greek. 

300BC-400BC and 700-800BC Campanian Greek samples cluster with Aegean BA. 

The other one R437 has an Italic Y-DNA, he could be a mixed with Greek. Again I saw one Bulgarian-like Early Medieval Slavic sample I don't go around using it as a source to estimate the Slavic ancestry in Modern Greek. Coincidences can happen. He is quite close to TAQ021 and ETR013 Etruscan. Who were those I don't remember?
Distance to:
C6_Iron_Age_Mediterranean:R437_(Latin_Prenestini_T ribe)_Palestrina_Selicata

1.47349924
Prenestini_o_IA:R437:Antonio_2019

1.57206870
Szolad40:Amorim_2018

2.57128373
C6-Villa_Magna_MA:R52:Antonio_2019

2.63738507
VEN005:Etruscan_Pre-Print_2021

3.23655681
C6-Via_Paisiello_Necropolis_Imperial_Rome:R131:Antoni o_2019

3.62056625
C5-S_Ercolano_Necropolis_Ostia_Late_Antiquity:R122:An tonio_2019

3.65334094
TAQ021:Etruscan_Pre-Print_2021

3.65811427
C6-Villa_Magna_MA:R56:Antonio_2019

4.52726187
C6-Via_Paisiello_Necropolis_Imperial_Rome:R113:Antoni o_2019

4.75920161
C6-Civitanova_Marche_Imperial_Rome:R836:Antonio_2019

5.00437808
C6-Centocelle_Necropolis_Imperial_Rome:R49:Antonio_20 19

5.15021359
ETR013:Etruscan_Pre-Print_2021

5.17129578
C6-Villa_Magna_MA:R65:Antonio_2019

5.22837451
C6-Celio_Late_Antiquity:R35:Antonio_2019

5.38457984
C6-Centocelle_Necropolis_Imperial_Rome:R47:Antonio_20 19

5.41330768
C6-Villa_Magna_MA:R1290:Antonio_2019

5.41936343
C6-S_Ercolano_Necropolis_Ostia_Late_Antiquity:R117:An tonio_2019

5.92514979
C6-Tivoli_Palazzo_Cianti_MA:R973:Antonio_2019

6.29974603
VEN015:Etruscan_Pre-Print_2021

6.60195426
C6-S_Ercolano_Necropolis_Ostia_Late_Antiquity:R118:An tonio_2019

6.65120290
Balkan_(Bulgaria)_IA:I5769:Mathieson_2018

6.74048960
C6-Villa_Magna_MA:R58:Antonio_2019

6.75876468
C6-Villa_Magna_MA:R53:Antonio_2019

6.85132834
C6-Villa_Magna_MA:R59:Antonio_2019

6.86230282
C6-Villa_Magna_MA:R57:Antonio_2019



Distance to:
C6_Iron_Age_Mediterranean:R437_(Latin_Prenestini_T ribe)_Palestrina_Selicata

4.78842354
Italian_Campania

6.09424319
Italian_Abruzzo

6.53940364
Italian_Sicily

6.86971615
Italian_Calabria

8.29677046
Ashkenazi_Jews

8.48859847
Italian_Marche

8.83920245
Italian_Apulia

9.52056196
Moldovan_Jewish

9.63911303
Italian_Lazio

9.86986829
Italian_Jews

10.12004447
Greek_Lemnos

10.62487647
Greek_Fournoi

10.75777393
Greek_Izmir

10.76664293
Greek_Foca

10.97605576
Greek_Athens

11.12096219
Greek_Central

11.12913743
Greek_Icaria

11.40172794
Sephardic_Jews

11.63032244
Italian_Romagna

11.74761678
Greek_Crete

12.38374338
French_Corsica

12.50016000
Greek_Kos

12.84365602
Greek_Rhodes

12.92229856
Morocco_Jews

13.22422398
Greek_Peloponnese

----------


## Angela

Never meant to imply that I believe all the "Eastern Med", or perhaps more accurately, Anatolian Bronze and Iron Age, or Aegean Iron Age first went to Southern Italy with the Greek settlers and then northwards. 

I'm pretty sure some would have gone directly to Italy, certainly in the Imperial Age, but perhaps even in the Iron Age. Why not, after all?

My rather tongue in cheek example and comparison had to do with the fact that Latins, and IRON AGE people who leaned more toward the Eastern Med but were already in Central Italy in the Iron Age, can pretty well explain the genetics of a person of North-Central ancestry. I'm at a respectable distance to some Italics and Etruscans as well.

As for Southern Italians, did everyone just ignore all the results showing how close a lot of Southern Italians are to R437?

It amazes me that when the subject was the Balkans, the Near Eastern cluster, which wasn't Levantine, btw, was NOT used to model Modern Balkanites, but when people are modeling Central to South Italians, or even North and North/Central Italians, they insist that every single C3 and C4 sample found in Imperial Rome had to belong to people who came to Rome to settle down, and their descendants blended into the Italian gene pool. Some, doubtless, but ALL? None of them could have been slaves who died without manumission and issue, sailors who got sick in port, merchants who went home? No one has even done any analysis to see where they lived most of their lives, i.e. if they were locals. 

As for the following comment, maybe, maybe not. The first colonies of Magna Graecia, 8th century B.C. were in Calabria *and* Napoli. Do you know how close it is from Napoli to the border of Lazio? I'll tell you. :) If you walk it, 18 hours. If you take a boat up the coast, easier and less tiring, and a shorter trip. I will be very interested to see in detail how close the Greeks from Campania were to the Iron Age Italian_Greeks. It will also be interesting to see the Iron Age Sicilians, who according to the abstract which was posted, replicate the heterogeneity of Bronze Age Sicily. 


" *I believe the Magna Greacia impact goes this way:
Calabria>Sicily>Campania>Lucania>Apulia, "





*

----------


## Angela

> [TR]
> [TH="align: right"]Distance to:[/TH]
> [TH="align: left"]C6_Iron_Age_Mediterranean:R437_(Latin_Prenestini_T ribe)_Palestrina_Selicata[/TH]
> [/TR]
> [TR]
> [TD="bgcolor: #32FF00, align: right"]1.47349924[/TD]
> [TD]Prenestini_o_IA:R437:Antonio_2019[/TD]
> [/TR]
> [TR]
> ...


How can you possibly know that R850 wasn't a Greek? What if he was from a Greek polis in Anatolia? Or perhaps he was from Crete. He's certainly damn close to the modern people of Crete and Kos. 

You just can't admit your modeling was wrong. 

The point is that both R437 and R850 *prove* that "Eastern Med ancestry" was already in Rome in the Iron Age and can be found in Latin burial contexts. Do you know how few samples we have who are Iron Age Latin Romans? Yet two samples show that ancestry. 

This isn't some freak coincidence of one sample out of dozens and dozens. 

The Etruscans may have been different. They may have admixed less. We'll have to see when we get more samples. Or maybe it all has to do with more proximity to the south. That I don't know, but time will tell. 

You also haven't admitted you were wrong about saying MOST of the Imperial samples were south and south east of modern Southern Italians. These are the mistakes people make when they don't know the samples inside/out. 

Nor have you addressed the fact that the C3 and C4 disappear by the latter part of the Imperial Age. So, why give them equal weight to the C5/C6?

You'll believe what you want to believe, just like your buddies; doesn't mean that your logic can't be shown to be faulty.

----------


## ihype02

> How can you possibly know that R850 wasn't a Greek? What if he was from a Greek polis in Anatolia? Or perhaps he was from Crete. He's certainly damn close to the modern people of Crete and Kos. 
> 
> You just can't admit your modeling was wrong. 
> 
> The point is that both R437 and R850 *prove* that "Eastern Med ancestry" was already in Rome in the Iron Age and can be found in Latin burial contexts. Do you know how few samples we have who are Iron Age Latin Romans? Yet two samples show that ancestry. 
> 
> This isn't some freak coincidence of one sample out of dozens and dozens. 
> 
> The Etruscans may have been different. They may have admixed less. We'll have to see when we get more samples. Or maybe it all has to do with more proximity to the south. That I don't know, but time will tell. 
> ...



I don't have hard time admitting I am wrong. If the Hellenistic Era Italian-Greeks are mostly Cretan-like or close to it I will openly admit I was wrong. (if I am around here because maybe we wont find out that in 10 years or more)
As for Imperial Romans most of them are south of Italians in the PCA, unless I have an eye problem:
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/bior...600&carousel=1
 
And I don't find it unbelievable that there were Greeks in Rome before the Imperial period. There were 3 or 4 Northern African admixed Etruscans, given the geography and cultural difference that is way more unlikely for that to happen than some Greek stepping foot in Rome. It's just that I don't believe that particular sample was Greek. 
I would be surprised if we did not find any Greek sample in Rome before the Imperial period. 

Have you ever taken in consideration maybe the reason that the "tail" disappeared is because they became more mixed the native Italic people? Maybe just saying.

----------


## Angela

> I don't have hard time admitting I am wrong. *If the Hellenistic Era Italian-Greeks are mostly Cretan-like* or close to it I will openly admit I was wrong. (if I am around here because maybe we wont find out that in 10 years or more)
> As for Imperial Romans most of them are south of Italians in the PCA, unless I have an eye problem:
> https://www.biorxiv.org/content/bior...600&carousel=1
> 
> And I don't find it unbelievable that there were Greeks in Rome before the Imperial period. There were 3 or 4 Northern African admixed Etruscans, given the geography and cultural difference that is way more unlikely for that to happen than some Greek stepping foot in Rome. It's just that I don't believe that particular sample was Greek. 
> I would be surprised if we did not find any Greek sample in Rome before the Imperial period. 
> 
> Have you ever taken in consideration maybe the reason that the "tail" disappeared is because they became more mixed the native Italic people? Maybe just saying.


When are you going to stop trying to put words in my mouth? Those are called straw man arguments. 

I neither said nor implied that all the Greeks who came to Italy would be Cretan like. You're virtually saying none were; it was some freakish once in a blue moon coincidence.

I also never said that none of the C3 and C4 people admixed into the population. It's another straw man argument. ALL of them, however? Then, all of a sudden they disappear from the record?

Did it ever occur to you that they disappeared because people from that part of the world were not all settlers, but a good number were merchants, sailors, artisans, and as Rome became less important they left to go to, say, Constantinople? 

However, let's by all means explore all the possibilities. Do you think I would care if half my husband's ancestry came from Syrians or Lebanese or Jews? I feel much closer to Jews than to Northern Europeans, I can tell you.

It just makes no sense to me that the only people from the Empire who went to Toscana, for example, were from the Levant. No Anatolians, no Greeks, no Gauls, no Germanics, just Levantines went to Etruria and Lazio during the Imperium. That makes sense to you?

I gave you all the coordinates for the Imperial Age samples, grouped and labeled by cluster. Since you like modeling, why don't you try to model the modern Southern Italians, say, by using combinations of those clusters plus Italics plus something like Sicilian Bronze Age, until we get Southern Italian Bronze and Iron Age samples. I don't know what you'll get, and it may not reflect reality, but it would be interesting to see. What I know for sure is that the results will probably be more accurate than just taking an average of all the Imperial samples. What I know for sure is that it is illogical to propose that only C3 and C4 people were part of the admixture.

----------


## Çerç

> It just makes no sense to me that the only people from the Empire who went to Toscana, for example, were from the Levant. No Anatolians, no Greeks, no Gauls, no Germanics, just Levantines went to Etruria and Lazio during the Imperium.


I don't think anyone is saying that. Levantines were one of the groups, for some time probably the main one, but only one of the many.

----------


## Jovialis

> I don't think anyone is saying that. Levantines were one of the groups, for some time probably the main one, but only one of the many.


The main group?! Thats just idiotic.

The majority found in this study was C6 and C5 for the imperial era.

----------


## Jovialis

_Instead, two-thirds of Imperial individuals (31 out of 48) belong to two major clusters (C5 and C6) that overlap in PCA with central and eastern Mediterranean populations, such as those from southern and central Italy, Greece, Cyprus, and Malta (Fig. 4B). An additional quarter (13 out of 48) of the sampled Imperial Romans form a cluster (C4) defined by high amounts of haplotype sharing with Levantine and Near Eastern populations, whereas no pre-Imperial individuals appear in this cluster (Fig. 4AC)._

The number in later eras is a big fat *ZERO*.

Inconvenience of fact is ruining your little game.

----------


## Çerç

> _Instead, two-thirds of Imperial individuals (31 out of 48) belong to two major clusters (C5 and C6) that overlap in PCA with central and eastern Mediterranean populations, such as those from southern and central Italy, Greece, Cyprus, and Malta (Fig. 4B). An additional quarter (13 out of 48) of the sampled Imperial Romans form a cluster (C4) defined by high amounts of haplotype sharing with Levantine and Near Eastern populations, whereas no pre-Imperial individuals appear in this cluster (Fig. 4AC)._
> The number in later eras is a big fat *ZERO*.
> Inconvenience of fact is ruining your little game.




We were talking about who went to Toscana during the Empire. If you manage to calm down later you will realize pre-Imperial samples have nothing to do with what was being discussed.

----------


## Jovialis

I forgot which idiot wanted to invoke occam's razor. Well, applying some convoluted trajectory of everyone in Italy somehow all being 100% Italic, who mixed with solely Levantines, and then Germanics, is not using occam's razor.

Rather the simplest explanation is that this ancestry was there in Italy and formed around the Iron Age by local sources (R1+Aegean_IA). Which is why there are people in Italy since the IA approximate modern Italians. That would be applying Occam's Razor.

----------


## Jovialis

> We were talking about who went to Toscana during the Empire. If you manage to calm down later you will realize pre-Imperial samples have nothing to do with what was being discussed.


There is ZERO C4 in Imperial Tuscany.

Four were C6, one was C5, and one was C3.

----------


## Jovialis

Also, this thread is about Rome.

Lazio was also in discussion in the very post you were referring to.

At least read what people are saying to you.

----------


## ihype02

> When are you going to stop trying to put words in my mouth? Those are called straw man arguments. 
> 
> I neither said nor implied that all the Greeks who came to Italy would be Cretan like. You're virtually saying none were; it was some freakish once in a blue moon coincidence.


I have said before that some East Med Greek people probably did exist in Magna Graecia just like some Italic outliers too. I was wrong about dismissing him immediately as a Greek but the probability of finding a Cretan-like Greek in Rome by the time of 500BC to 800BC is slim. I doubt these genetic profiles were even common in Crete and Aegean Islands by time of 500BC-800BC. 




> I also never said that none of the C3 and C4 people admixed into the population. It's another straw man argument. ALL of them, however? Then, all of a sudden they disappear from the record?


Again I do not know the timing aside from the fact that they are from Imperial Rome. "Not all" is a vague saying. 98% is not all too. But how was the Southern Italian cluster formed in Imperial Rome/Late Antiquity? Ancient Greeks mixed with Italic people in Campania as we have seen in the leaked PCA does not match it. And why are Central Italians significantly more southern shifted than Latins and Etruscans even after some negligible Germanic admixture? Of course the amount of genetic influence is debatable.





> Did it ever occur to you that they disappeared because people from that part of the world were not all settlers, but a good number were merchants, sailors, artisans, and as Rome became less important they left to go to, say, Constantinople?


To a certain extend yes. Also that rural zones are more likely to get hit by plagues and wars. Rome was sacked by Visigoths after all. 




> However, let's by all means explore all the possibilities. Do you think I would care if half my husband's ancestry came from Syrians or Lebanese or Jews? I feel much closer to Jews than to Northern Europeans, I can tell you.


I never implied so.




> It just makes no sense to me that the only people from the Empire who went to Toscana, for example, were from the Levant. No Anatolians, no Greeks, no Gauls, no Germanics, just Levantines went to Etruria and Lazio during the Imperium. That makes sense to you?


No it does not, they are shifted in three direction towards Anatolia and Armenia, some few towards Northern Africa and the bulk seem towards Levant for whatever reason.



> I gave you all the coordinates for the Imperial Age samples, grouped and labeled by cluster. Since you like modeling, why don't you try to model the modern Southern Italians, say, by using combinations of those clusters plus Italics plus something like Sicilian Bronze Age, until we get Southern Italian Bronze and Iron Age samples. I don't know what you'll get, and it may not reflect reality, but it would be interesting to see. What I know for sure is that the results will probably be more accurate than just taking an average of all the Imperial samples. What I know for sure is that it is illogical to propose that only C3 and C4 people were part of the admixture.


When I said most Imperial Romans are South of Southern Italians I was talking for the 2019 Imperial Rome paper that I quoted. I haven't run yet the samples (expect the Greek ones).

----------


## Jovialis

> We were talking about who went to Toscana during the Empire. If you manage to calm down later you will realize pre-Imperial samples have nothing to do with what was being discussed.


READ!

This excerpt is specifically about the imperial era. Jesus Christ!

----------


## Jovialis

Anthrogenica is a disease of the mind.

----------


## Jovialis

> When are you going to stop trying to put words in my mouth? Those are called straw man arguments. 
> 
> I neither said nor implied that all the Greeks who came to Italy would be Cretan like. You're virtually saying none were; it was some freakish once in a blue moon coincidence.
> 
> I also never said that none of the C3 and C4 people admixed into the population. It's another straw man argument. ALL of them, however? Then, all of a sudden they disappear from the record?
> 
> Did it ever occur to you that they disappeared because people from that part of the world were not all settlers, but a good number were merchants, sailors, artisans, and as Rome became less important they left to go to, say, Constantinople? 
> 
> However, let's by all means explore all the possibilities. Do you think I would care if half my husband's ancestry came from Syrians or Lebanese or Jews? I feel much closer to Jews than to Northern Europeans, I can tell you.
> ...


Personally, I have quite a number of Jewish friends IRL. I like their history, I find the Old Testament to be fascinating; I respect their culture. It would not bother me either to have Levantine admixture. Nevertheless, I doubt it would anything beyond a very marginal percentage; less than a percent even. If it happens to be more than that, I would not care either. However, I find the model I have put forward, of R1-like ancestry, combined with the legacy of Magna Graecia to be compelling. To me, this does justice to *reality*.

----------


## Angela

> We were talking about who went to Toscana during the Empire. If you manage to calm down later you will realize pre-Imperial samples have nothing to do with what was being discussed.





> There is ZERO C4 in Imperial Tuscany.
> Four were C6, one was C5, and one was C3.


How the authors of the Etruscan paper went from that to the graph they posted is incredible and ludicrous.

----------


## kingjohn

michaelis anthrogenica 

 Originally Posted by *Yupi* 
Try modeling Imperial Romans with Levantines, MLBA Syrians, Classical Greeks and West Med Italic people and see what happens.



*Wait until Hellenistic Pompeiians, Greeks, and Western Anatolians are released and you can try the same thing. The East Med profile in Southern Italy* _will predate the Roman Empire. I'm telling you guys you need to prepare for this inevitability because it's coming at you like a bullet train.

__



p.s
_we will see time will tell not that i personally care 
that much if they would have east med ancestery yes or no  :Thinking:

----------


## Angela

> ihype02;633285]I have said before that some East Med Greek people probably did exist in Magna Graecia just like some Italic outliers too. I was wrong about dismissing him immediately as a Greek but the probability of finding a Cretan-like Greek in Rome by the time of 500BC to 800BC is slim. *I doubt these genetic profiles were even common in Crete and Aegean Islands by time of 500BC-800BC.*


There's no way you can possibly know that. We have no idea what the people of Crete were like in the Iron Age. You think they also were massively settled by people from the Levant? My God, how were there any people left to rebel against the Romans?




> Again I do not know the timing aside from the fact that they are from Imperial Rome. "Not all" is a vague saying. 98% is not all too. But how was the Southern Italian cluster formed in Imperial Rome/Late Antiquity? Ancient Greeks mixed with Italic people in Campania as we have seen in the leaked PCA does not match it. And why are Central Italians significantly more southern shifted than Latins and Etruscans even after some negligible Germanic admixture? Of course the amount of genetic influence is debatable.


Yes, Tuscans and Romans of the Modern Era are more southern shifted than the Etruscans and the Latins. No one is denying it. However, to say that there was this massive migration of Levantines to Etruria followed by a big German migration makes no sense. The y Dna doesn't support it, for one thing, and neither do the samples they're using, as Jovialis has pointed out. This is what comes of averaging a small number of samples to model historical genetic change. Hell, even the authors waffle, saying they don't know whether the admixture was Levantine or Anatolian. That's a pretty big difference.

As to the Roman paper which is the subject of this thread, as Jovialis has pointed out again and again, only a quarter of the Imperial samples are from the Near East. Then there are two C3 samples. How many times do people need to see the authors' own words before it sinks in?

"*Instead, two-thirds of Imperial individuals (31 out of 48) belong to two major clusters (C5 and C6) that overlap in PCA with central and eastern Mediterranean populations, such as those from southern and central Italy, Greece, Cyprus, and Malta (Fig. 4B). An additional quarter (13 out of 48) of the sampled Imperial Romans form a cluster (C4) defined by high amounts of haplotype sharing with Levantine and Near Eastern populations, whereas no pre-Imperial individuals appear in this cluster (Fig. 4AC)."
* 





> To a certain extend yes. Also that rural zones are more likely to get hit by plagues and wars. Rome was sacked by Visigoths after all.


 You mean "urban", but I think everyone understood.





> I never implied so.


Well, that seems to be the subtext for so many of these discussions. It makes my skin crawl. Maybe it is true for some Italians. There are lots of strange people in this hobby. I can't imagine any Italian-American, or someone like me, who has spent decades here, feeling like that. Lord, there's so much inter-marriage between the two groups, despite the huge difference in religion.





> No it does not, they are shifted in three direction towards Anatolia and Armenia, some few towards Northern Africa and the bulk seem towards Levant for whatever reason.


Where the heck are you getting that? *ONLY 1/4 of the Imperial Samples were from the Near East.* Then, that "tail into the Levant" disappears. How many times does it have to be repeated??? Maybe they're saying that in the Etruscan paper, but they certainly didn't say it in Antonio et al. It's just the anthrogenica types who are saying it. 




> When I said most Imperial Romans are South of Southern Italians I was talking for the 2019 Imperial Rome paper that I quoted. I haven't run yet the samples (expect the Greek ones).


I want you to run them, although I already have, and Jovialis already has, but *MOST IMPORTANTLY, the authors already have*. Only 1/4 are from the Near East (including Anatolia), and two more samples are C3. 

I honestly don't get this. Maybe you have been brainwashed by the anthrogenica people or your fellow Albanians so that you don't absorb what the authors of Antonio et al pointed out, and the inconsistencies in the Etruscan paper.

You're worn me out. Believe what you want.

What is true of politics today is also now true of genetics, I guess. There's no search for objective truth; there's just different groups with different agendas.

----------


## Salento

R437 - K36 map: Modern Apulian

----------


## Palermo Trapani

> R437 - K36 map: Modern Apulian


Salento: How are you? Thanks for the R437 K36 heat map. R437 looks pretty damn Southern Shifted to me here which is in line with Dodecad 12B and my own Distances with that one (yours and Jovialis as well).

----------


## Salento

> Salento: How are you? Thanks for the R437 K36 heat map. R437 looks pretty damn Southern Shifted to me here which is in line with Dodecad 12B and my own Distances with that one (yours and Jovialis as well).


I'm OK PT, thank you, 
R437 (y R1b) and R850 (y T) although a little different from each other are Iron-Age Italians, and that's it !!! :)

----------


## Palermo Trapani

> I'm OK PT, thank you, 
> R437 (y R1b) and R850 (y T) although a little different from each other are Iron-Age Italians, and that's it !!! :)


R1b and T (your Y Haplogroup). R437 is also really close to the Basilicata samples from 600 to 800 AD reported in the Estruscan paper in Dodecad 12B, I put those distances in an earlier post.

----------


## Salento

> R1b and T (your Y Haplogroup). R437 is also really close to the Basilicata samples from 600 to 800 AD reported in the Estruscan paper in Dodecad 12B, I put those distances in an earlier post.


Makes sense, … Venosa (Basilicata), according to AncestryDNA is part of the Genetic Community of Puglia.

----------


## Jovialis

> michaelis anthrogenica 
>  Originally Posted by *Yupi* 
> Try modeling Imperial Romans with Levantines, MLBA Syrians, Classical Greeks and West Med Italic people and see what happens.
> 
> 
> *Wait until Hellenistic Pompeiians, Greeks, and Western Anatolians are released and you can try the same thing. The East Med profile in Southern Italy* _will predate the Roman Empire. I'm telling you guys you need to prepare for this inevitability because it's coming at you like a bullet train.
> __
> p.s
> _we will see time will tell not that i personally care 
> that much if they would have east med ancestery yes or no


We can see from the Olalde et al. 2021 paper that Anatolian during the Imperial era could be modelled as Anatolian_ChL+Iran_N.

The Greeks of IA Campania were similar to Aegean BA, and in between R437 and R850, of which R850 forms a clade with Anatolia_ChL.

Raveane et al. 2018 demonstrates a possible Anatolian_BA-like movement in the EBA, in Italy.

Daunian pre-print demonstrates Anatolian_n+CHG is a main feature of the Mediterranean Genetic Continuum.

To me, the evidence points to Anatolian influence that impacted not only south Italy, but also the Balkans, and as far as the west Mediterranean.

----------


## Leopoldo Leone

It is surprising to me to see how heated a simple discussion about archeogenetics have turned, since I am not used to see them here, but for what it is worth, what I've come to believe is that whatever later augmentations might have been before drawing any conclusions one must wait for samples from all Italy from the relevant time periods, and I suspect that the overwhelmingly majority of the "east med" gene flow came from within Italy, that is from the region of south Italy, which might have been inhabitated by people on a cline between north italy_BA/IA and Sicily_BA/IA, with a steeper gradient south of Latium. 
Whatever later gene flows might have played a role, I think that a priori the likeliest source of it would be the Balkans, simply for geographic proximity, and then other places farther away; other possibilities aren't impossible but as long as there's a lack of evidence of those scenarios' being real then the safest bet is to hold a simple geographical paradigm.
The only time I've been more "vocal" was when I argued against one holding that G25 Italian samples were so reliable that one could even draw results contradicting results from the then available papers (suggesting that "G25 results gave just a more detailed picture"), a position I still hold, but if the evidence points to X's being the genetic make up of Italy, I honestly do not give a damn: many people that are on this "hobby" just want to "LARP" as ancient ethnicity x, and/or find a sense of identity in what paper X says about their genetic make up; I have just historical curiosity.
Even if X's being the genetic make up of Italy somewhat turns out to coincide with what the "anthro community" claimed, I shouldn't say they "knew" it since it would be akin a charlatan repeating every day prophecies and a day one of them becomes reality.

----------


## ihype02

> michaelis anthrogenica 
> 
>  Originally Posted by *Yupi* 
> Try modeling Imperial Romans with Levantines, MLBA Syrians, Classical Greeks and West Med Italic people and see what happens.
> 
> 
> 
> *Wait until Hellenistic Pompeiians, Greeks, and Western Anatolians are released and you can try the same thing. The East Med profile in Southern Italy* _will predate the Roman Empire. I'm telling you guys you need to prepare for this inevitability because it's coming at you like a bullet train.
> 
> ...


Agamemnon has moved from South Italians were nearly completely replaced by Greeks and also Phoenicians in Sicily inland and in the coast to the "overcrowded cities of Magna Greacia carried most of the population of Southern Italy". After the Campania and Apulia native people were revealed.

I have told them that Carthaginians were wiped of Sicily before they came as Northern African and native in Sardinia genetically. Trust history a little bit more. Imperial Rome was not Syracuse deluxe 2.0.

----------


## Jovialis

The Anatolia_ChL/Iran_N genetic profile from the Imperial era, like the Latins, and Etruscans, no longer exist.

Wasn't there a recent paper that shows the ancestors of contemporary Near Easterners descend from what ultimately sourced as Sidon_BA? Levant_BA is not too different from the Ancient Egyptian genetic profile. Clearly Anatolia_ChL/Iran_N is different from ancient Egypt. Ancient Egyptians, and Levant_BA is only Half-Anatolian/Iran_N.

----------


## Angela

> Agamemnon has moved from South Italians were nearly completely replaced by Greeks and also Phoenicians in Sicily inland and in the coast to the "overcrowded cities of Magna Greacia carried most of the population of Southern Italy". After the Campania and Apulia native people were revealed.
> I have told them that Carthaginians were wiped of Sicily before they came as Northern African and native in Sardinia genetically.I have told them that Carthaginians were wiped of Sicily before they came as Northern African and native in Sardinia genetically. Trust history a little bit more. Imperial Rome was not Syracuse deluxe 2.0.


For the first time ever, probably, I partially agree with him. Of course most of the population would have lived in the cities. That's true in the U.S. today, and England, and Germany, and Italy. Why is that surprising? More importantly, why does the important Greek influence on Italy seem to upset you and other Albanians so much? I sense a subtext here?

As for this statement, sorry, but I can't respond because I don't understand it. 
"I have told them that Carthaginians were wiped of Sicily before they came as Northern African and native in Sardinia genetically.

As to the Carthaginians, their foothold on Sicily was only in the northwest section. It is true that eventually they ruled all of Sicily, but the facts are well known that a vast majority of their troops were mercenaries, some my own Ligures, a lot of Spaniards etc. Everyone should read more history. 

They should also read more genetics papers. My reading of the one on the Phoenicians and the Carthaginians in Sardinia is that their influence was pretty localized to the southwestern section, although in modern times there has been more movement there as everywhere. The genetic landscape of La Spezia, where generations of the men in my family worked, is very different now than it was even when I was born and growing up there. 

The Phoenicians and Carthaginians after them established emporia, and farms to feed them, and mines. They were not families forced out of their homes by famine or young men cast out for their politics and searching out new lands to colonize for themselves and their descendants, as was the case with the Greeks.

----------


## Jovialis

I am not sure if it was this documentary or not, but I recall that the people of Carthage were not so warm to Hannibal upon his return. Basically claiming he had more to do with foreigners in Iberia and abroad from his exploits; basically calling him a sellout.

----------


## Jovialis

> I am not sure if it was this documentary or not, but I recall that the people of Carthage were not so warm to Hannibal upon his return. Basically claiming he had more to do with foreigners in Iberia and abroad from his exploits; basically calling him a sellout.


@28:49, they say Hannibal was shunned by Carthage as a foriegner.

Around @23:24 they talk about how his father Hamlicar was distrusted by the old Carthage, and was basically creating a rouge state in Spain.

In between that time, as they talk about Hannibal's march towards Rome, he had to constantly stop to recruit mercenaries from Iberia and Gaul.

----------


## Angela

> For the first time ever, probably, I partially agree with him. Of course most of the population would have lived in the cities. That's true in the U.S. today, and England, and Germany, and Italy. Why is that surprising? More importantly, why does the important Greek influence on Italy seem to upset you and other Albanians so much? I sense a subtext here?
> 
> As for this statement, sorry, but I can't respond because I don't understand it. 
> "I have told them that Carthaginians were wiped of Sicily before they came as Northern African and native in Sardinia genetically.
> 
> As to the Carthaginians, their foothold on Sicily was only in the northwest section. It is true that eventually they ruled all of Sicily, but the facts are well known that a vast majority of their troops were mercenaries, some my own Ligures, a lot of Spaniards etc. Everyone should read more history. 
> 
> They should also read more genetics papers. My reading of the one on the Phoenicians and the Carthaginians in Sardinia is that their influence was pretty localized to the southwestern section, although in modern times there has been more movement there as everywhere. The genetic landscape of La Spezia, where generations of the men in my family worked, is very different now than it was even when I was born and growing up there. 
> 
> The Phoenicians and Carthaginians after them established emporia, and farms to feed them, and mines. They were not families forced out of their homes by famine or young men cast out for their politics and searching out new lands to colonize for themselves and their descendants, as was the case with the Greeks.


Sorry, forgot to post the map. Terrible what has happened to most of Southern Italy; it wasn't like this in the days of Magna Graecia, or even under the Muslims. Parts of the center and north have suffered the same fate too. The rural villages where my ancestors lived for at least 1000 years, and probably more, are almost ghost towns except for August and a few holidays. They've all moved for work, to other cities in Italy, to other countries in Europe, to the U.S. and Canada and Latin America and Australia. We've always been too many people for the terrain, for the amount of food we can produce. We haven't been able to feed ourselves, have been dependent on imports, since the Roman Era. 



The vast majority of the white areas are mountains. The only "flat" areas with good soil are the Po Plain, a small plain around La Spezia and the area around Napoli. Puglia (and nearby Basilicata) and the area of Toscana from the sea to Firenze isn't bad either. Some parts of Sicily were once a bread basket for Italy until foreign rulers after the Muslims despoiled it. That's why I've never understood how some Southern Italians/Sicilians pine for their Spanish Bourbon kings; just more foreign parasites, imo, but then I was born and raised in a hot bed or anarchism, where every other folk song curses our noble families and/or celebrates revolution. In the old days the guillotine would have gone over really big had we been organized enough, and had not Austria Hungary always been breathing down our necks, or the French once in a while for a change of pace. Napoleon was admired because he took away the power of the nobles and the church, and promulgated and enforced "The Rights of Man". There's even a big festival in his honor in Sarzana. Not that I support murder, you understand, but I understand the impulse.

----------


## ihype02

> For the first time ever, probably, I partially agree with him. Of course most of the population would have lived in the cities. That's true in the U.S. today, and England, and Germany, and Italy. Why is that surprising? More importantly, why does the important Greek influence on Italy seem to upset you and other Albanians so much? I sense a subtext here?


He said Greek cities not all cities. Do you believe majority of people in Southern Italy were in Greek cities? Do you think majority of people of Apulia lived in 3 Greek cities?
It does *not* upset me 100%, it does however upset me that you think that way. It's just that I vocalize myself too much and it looks that way to ... _you_. 
I will probably not talk about this topic anymore.
Who are those other Albanians you speak of?

----------


## torzio

> Agamemnon has moved from South Italians were nearly completely replaced by Greeks and also Phoenicians in Sicily inland and in the coast to the "overcrowded cities of Magna Greacia carried most of the population of Southern Italy". After the Campania and Apulia native people were revealed.
> I have told them that Carthaginians were wiped of Sicily before they came as Northern African and native in Sardinia genetically. Trust history a little bit more. Imperial Rome was not Syracuse deluxe 2.0.



Carthage was founded in 810BC from Phoenicians from Tyre

they began to settle in sicily circa 500BC

It had a Thalassocracy system the same system as the Liburnians ( liburnians actually first traded with carthage from 730BC for pottery mainly )

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

within 2 generations in sicily ......they where fighting the indigenous people of sicily

they even fought Phyrhus of Epirus after he attacked Italy as he demanded sicily from the Carthagians

I doubt the carthagians had much luck in sicily......they seem to have better fortunes in sardinia and Spain

----------


## torzio

> He said Greek cities not all cities. Do you believe majority of people in Southern Italy were in Greek cities? Do you think majority of people of Apulia lived in 3 Greek cities?
> It does *not* upset me 100%, it does however upset me that you think that way. It's just that I vocalize myself too much and it looks that way to ... _you_. 
> I will probably not talk about this topic anymore.
> Who are those other Albanians you speak of?



the only Greeks I know about in Apulia was early bronze-age trade with Myceneans

*The Mycenaeans and Apulia. An Examination of Aegean Bronze Age Contacts with Apulia in Eastern Magna Grecia.

by Elizabeth A. Fisher*

then after the Dalmatians/Iagypes arrived circa 1000BC ....the only Greek city was Taranto under Corinthians Greeks and later became a spartan city around 400BC

----------


## Angela

> He said Greek cities not all cities. Do you believe majority of people in Southern Italy were in Greek cities? Do you think majority of people of Apulia lived in 3 Greek cities? Why Calabria has only 7% E-V13 ( around 5-10% like the rest of Italy from the Northern to the South) and Peloponnese 25%? Given the Greek colonization was at least slightly male biased. 
> 
> It does *not* upset me 100%, it does however upset me that you think that way. It's just that I vocalize myself too much and it looks that way to ... _you_. 
> I will probably not talk about this topic anymore.
> Who are those other Albanians you speak of?


OK., I'll take you at your word as far as letting any possible agendas affect you. You seem a reasonable man most of the time.

As to the cities of Southern Italy and Sicily, I'll have to go back and check my books and maps, but until the coming of the Greeks and then later the Roman Era, I don't think there "were" any "cities" as we would understand them with the exception of the large settlements in northern Puglia. 

Are you aware of any? I'm always willing to learn new things. 

Why does it seem so improbable to you that a few cities might concentrate most of the population of a whole province? Did you look at the map I posted? Where is the majority of the population of Campania? How about Piemonte, or Lazio, or Liguria? The Po Plain is slightly different because it's fertile. Puglia might have been different too because it is flatter. The only fertile areas of Calabria are on a strip of coastline circling it. Yes, I think probably the majority of the people of Calabria at that time lived in cities on that coast, and yes, I think they were Greek city-states. What were they supposed to eat, only ficchi d'india and whatever wild game they can kill and berries they can find? People gravitate to where the living is easier. Campania has its very fertile areas on the fertile volcanic soil from Vesuvius. They plant all the way up the volcano almost to the crater. The population congregated there because that's where you can produce the most food. 

It's been like this throughout human history. Large concentrations of people form where there is fresh water and fertile soil and access to transportation. Even before farming it was like this. The largest human settlements of the "Western World" were in the Levant, because after the Last Glacial Maximum, the soil and climate supported so much flora and fauna for the taking that it could support a large group of HGs who didn't have to trek miles every day just to find something to eat. No wonder they had a memory of a place they called "The Garden of Eden". 

Note that before the Romans drained it, much of the now green Po Plain was marshland; that's why the Roman built cities line the southern rim of it.

----------


## torzio

> the only Greeks I know about in Apulia was early bronze-age trade with Myceneans
> *The Mycenaeans and Apulia. An Examination of Aegean Bronze Age Contacts with Apulia in Eastern Magna Grecia.
> by Elizabeth A. Fisher*
> then after the Dalmatians/Iagypes arrived circa 1000BC ....the only Greek city was Taranto under Corinthians Greeks and later became a spartan city around 400BC



Apulia might have become more Greek/Epirote after Phyrhus of Epirus invasion ..............I am not sure

----------


## real expert

> michaelis anthrogenica 
> 
>  Originally Posted by *Yupi* 
> Try modeling Imperial Romans with Levantines, MLBA Syrians, Classical Greeks and West Med Italic people and see what happens.
> 
> 
> 
> *Wait until Hellenistic Pompeiians, Greeks, and Western Anatolians are released and you can try the same thing. The East Med profile in Southern Italy* _will predate the Roman Empire. I'm telling you guys you need to prepare for this inevitability because it's coming at you like a bullet train.
> 
> ...



I like your sense of humor. Nice pic. Some people take the field of population genetics, archaeogenetics, etc. too seriously and too personally, thus they can't handle unpleasant outcomes. Surely, we all want to be as close to our ancestors as we can get. However, sometimes things are a bit complicated and quite messy. The genetic ancestry of some populations sometimes does reveal the complicated intersection of genetics, history, and ethnicity.

----------


## ihype02

> Yes, Tuscans and Romans of the Modern Era are more southern shifted than the Etruscans and the Latins. No one is denying it. However, to say that there was this massive migration of Levantines to Etruria followed by a big German migration makes no sense. The y Dna doesn't support it, for one thing, and neither do the samples they're using, as Jovialis has pointed out. This is what comes of averaging a small number of samples to model historical genetic change. Hell, even the authors waffle, saying they don't know whether the admixture was Levantine or Anatolian. That's a pretty big difference.


I missed this one. Where was the *massive* migration of Levantines in Tuscany even suggested by me? Modern Tuscans are closer to IA Etruscans than to Imperial Romans. I only modelled Imperial Romans as mix of Middle Easterners and West Med Ancient Italians, showing the Italian ancestry at 30%. A model that is not meant to be taken literally. But still I think that the overall cluster of Imperial Romans is coincidental.

The Northern African admixture in some Iberians post 100BC reaches 10%. Considering Northwestern African admixture causes a greater pull, so I think it's about the same percentage in Tuscany maybe add 5% in it. But with different sources.

----------


## Angela

> I missed this one. *Where was the massive migration of Levantines in Tuscany even suggested by me?* Modern Tuscans are closer to IA Etruscans than to Imperial Romans. I only modelled Imperial Romans as mix of Middle Easterners and West Med Ancient Italians, showing the Italian ancestry at 30%. A model that is not meant to be taken literally. But still I think that the overall cluster of Imperial Romans is coincidental.
> 
> The Northern African admixture in some Iberians post 100BC reaches 10%. Considering Northwestern African admixture causes a greater pull, so I think it's about the same percentage in Tuscany maybe add 5% in it. But with different sources.


I'm having great difficulty understanding your meaning in this post; AGAIN. Perhaps you should only post earlier in the day when you're not as tired. I realize it is difficult discussing such dense and complicated material in a language not your own. 

The bolded sentence was the model showed by the authors in the body of the paper, although in the Supplement they waffle and point toward Bronze/Iron Age Anatolia. I didn't direct it specifically at you, but it seemed to me you had accepted that model since you were essentially trying to recreate it.

You took their handful of samples, averaged them, and came up with modeling which I think is beyond faulty, particularly if you're trying to say that modern Tuscans only have 30% ancient Italian ancestry. I am half Tuscan and I can be modeled as 60-70% Latin and Etruscan, so something is wrong with your "modeling".

If your modeling wasn't meant to be taken seriously, why do it? I suggested some alternative scenarios you could explore, but it seems you're not interested.

I have the results of 100% modern Tuscans. 10-15% Northwest African is ludicrous. Nothing like that has ever shown up in their results from reputable testing companies. Even Sicilians who were under the domination of the Moors for 200 years don't have results like that. Certainly other Southern Italians don't, and I know because I've seen their results. Yet, Tuscans have 10-15%? Get serious.

----------


## ihype02

> You took their handful of samples, averaged them, and came up with modeling which I think is beyond faulty, particularly if you're trying to say that modern Tuscans only have 30% ancient Italian ancestry. I am half Tuscan and I can be modeled as 60-70% Latin and Etruscan, so something is wrong with your "modeling".


My quote:

_"Modern Tuscans are closer to IA Etruscans than to Imperial Romans. I only modelled Imperial Romans as mix of Middle Easterners and West Med Ancient Italians, showing the Italian ancestry at 30%."

_I said Tuscans are closer to IA Etruscans than to Imperial Romans, whereas I modelled Imperial Romans as +30% Ancient Italian. Logically considering Tuscans are closer to IA Etruscans than to Imperial Romans this would imply that modern Tuscans are waaaaay more than just 30% Italic and Etruscan. _
_Right? 

About this one:
_The Northern African admixture in some Iberians post 100BC reaches 10%. Considering Northwestern African admixture causes a greater pull, so I think it's about the same percentage in Tuscany maybe add 5% in it. But with different sources.



_

Look at bolded part. If Iberians have 10% Northern African admixture with similar distance to IA Iberians that Tuscans have to IA Etruscans. Wouldn't it make sense that Modern Tuscans have around 10% Eastern Mediterranean ancestry but *not* Northwestern African. (Hence I said different source.)

----------


## Angela

> My quote:
> 
> _"Modern Tuscans are closer to IA Etruscans than to Imperial Romans. I only modelled Imperial Romans as mix of Middle Easterners and West Med Ancient Italians, showing the Italian ancestry at 30%."
> 
> _I said Tuscans are closer to IA Etruscans than to Imperial Romans, whereas I modelled Imperial Romans as +30% Ancient Italian. Logically considering Tuscans are closer to IA Etruscans than to Imperial Romans this would imply that modern Tuscans are waaaaay more than just 30% Italic and Etruscan. _
> _Right? 
> 
> About this one:
> _The Northern African admixture in some Iberians post 100BC reaches 10%. Considering Northwestern African admixture causes a greater pull, so I think it's about the same percentage in Tuscany maybe add 5% in it. But with different sources.
> ...


Ok. Thanks for the explanation.

Fwiw, as I said, I'm half Tuscan like (including the La-Spezia ancestry), and I get about 3-4% East Med depending on the calculator.

----------

