Vallicanus
Active member
- Messages
- 1,325
- Reaction score
- 653
- Points
- 113
- Ethnic group
- Italian
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- R1b Z36
Why do they refer to sample CAS054 as SubSaharan when figure 6.15 shows that this sample from Casalecchio is over 80pc Anatolian Neolithic+Yamnaya_Samara (no WHG) with under 20pc Moroccan Early Neolithic.Tuscan-like moderns clustering with the Felsina Roman Imperial average is a big revelation with this study. It's only four samples but the implication here is that Aegean ancestry is dropping significantly by the time it reaches the southern extent of Po Valley. The next major question is the cross comparison between iron age and imperial populations of Lombardy, Veneto, FVG and Piedmont. Based off this trend, changes will be even smaller or none. We are now piecing together an imperial cline which showed stronger aegean influence compared to modern Italy. Despite this, there is a very high likelyhood all of the modern Italian genomic cline will still be represented within it. Consider for a moment that the modern Tuscan genetic structure is quite close to that of Emilia Romagna so as we continue to venture North from Central Italy it would appear the genetic structure is becoming less and less modified from the imperial era and probably also the iron age.
View attachment 16263
Interesting to see a YHG: J2-L24 (J2a1a4, CAS090) from Casalecchio del Reno, probably from Imperial times, ( from Pg 102 "anche i due campioni non ancora datati provenienti da Casalecchio di Reno (CAS090 e CAS095) possono essere verosimilmente associati al periodo imperiale.") probably a descendant of a Roman colonist from the central/souther part of the peninsula mixed with local Etruscans (Bologna_Imperial), due to his ADmixture. It would be great to have a further subclade of this J2-L24, I suppose J2L70 could be a chance, we already have an ancient (Republican/imperial) sample, from Marche (Urbino area), and is the most spread J2 subclade in the whole peninsula.
I agree. L70, and more specifically its Z435 subclade, is the branch of J2 that I predicted would be found among ancient Romans/Latins/Etruscans in my genetic history of the Italians in 2013. If I'm not mistaken this is the first Etruscan J2a1 sample. There has been a few J2b before though.
Why do they refer to sample CAS054 as SubSaharan when figure 6.15 shows that this sample from Casalecchio is over 80pc Anatolian Neolithic+Yamnaya_Samara (no WHG) with under 20pc Moroccan Early Neolithic.
Only the mtDNA is typically SubSaharan but also found in North Africa.
This study says: "gli antenati degli Etruschi, originari della zona dell’attuale Iran, si sarebbero dapprima espansi verso il Caucaso meridionale ed in seguito verso le coste occidentali della Turchia da qui, attraversando il Mediterraneo, avrebbero poi raggiunto l’Italia Centrale intorno a 2600-3100 anni fa, entrando in contatto con le popolazioni locali."
Translation:
"the ancestors of the Etruscans, originating from the area of present-day Iran, would have first expanded towards the southern Caucasus and later towards the western coasts of Turkey from here, crossing the Mediterranean, they would then have reached Central Italy around 2600-3100 years ago, coming into contact with local populations."
??
The ancestors of the Etruscans did not come from the area of Iran.This study says: "gli antenati degli Etruschi, originari della zona dell’attuale Iran, si sarebbero dapprima espansi verso il Caucaso meridionale ed in seguito verso le coste occidentali della Turchia da qui, attraversando il Mediterraneo, avrebbero poi raggiunto l’Italia Centrale intorno a 2600-3100 anni fa, entrando in contatto con le popolazioni locali."
Translation:
"the ancestors of the Etruscans, originating from the area of present-day Iran, would have first expanded towards the southern Caucasus and later towards the western coasts of Turkey from here, crossing the Mediterranean, they would then have reached Central Italy around 2600-3100 years ago, coming into contact with local populations."
??
This is in the of abstract of this article in English:In fact, if one reads the doctoral dissertation (which in any case contains inaccuracies here and there), one can see that the author is unable to determine whether she is a North African or a sub-Saharan. From what you understand, the autosomal DNA is more like a North African, although the mtDNA could come from sub-Saharan areas where it was formed much much much earlier.
The ancestors of the Etruscans did not come from the area of Iran.
As an ethnic group, Iron Age Etruscans were, in the main, a blend of Copper Age Italians (the majority) with Steppe-like incomers, probably Beaker folk.
This is in the of abstract of this article in English:
"Individuals dated to the Roman Imperial period are genetically distinct from the previous Iron Age samples and show an increased affinity to Iranian-related ancestry accompanied by a close genetic link to ancient Caucasian populations (mainly from Armenia and Iran)."
Who were these people?
The Admix of this sample, is labelled as: Bologna_imperial, so with some specific characteristics of that area, a mixture of local Etruscans with more "East med", related to a Roman-Etruscan culture, together with a R1b-U152!!. Although I agree with you with Etruscans, I can't be so sure yet for Latins and/or some other Central/south italics, because we haven't got yet enough samples, and the presence, specifically of J2 Z435 in central Italy is relevant, and it could be a sign of a presence of this clade long before Imperial times. Come lei sa, Roman tradition also involves an East Med (Aegean-Anatolian) component, the "Trojans", that could mean people from that part of the Mediterranean or even hellenic people, which I still think played a relevant role on the expansion of this clade in the western part of "Mare Nostrum". SalutiSorry, Maciamo, but this J2a is not an Etruscan, CAS090 is considered by the paper an Imperial Roman sample.
So, it is not true that J2a was found among Etruscans and Latins. To date it can only be said that J2a was found in Roman times.
From over 100 Etruscans tested so far, it is now clear that the Etruscans are R1b predominantly, with a minority of G2a and I2a. The only type of J2 found among the Etruscans, but which is a very tiny minority, is J2b.
Etruscans were not massacred by Romans in the Imperial period, so ancient samples from this period could be still related to Etruscans, unless you prove they were another people. It can be assumed that those Iron Age Etruscans were actually Italic people who adopted Etruscan culture.Are we talking about Imperial Rome samples? I don't know, their origin has no connection with the origin of the Etruscans anyway.
Etruscans were not massacred by Romans in the Imperial period, so ancient samples from this period could be still related to Etruscans, unless you prove they were another people. It can be assumed that those Iron Age Etruscans were actually Italic people who adopted Etruscan culture.
Come lei sa, Roman tradition also involves an East Med (Aegean-Anatolian) component, the "Trojans", that could mean people from that part of the Mediterranean or even hellenic people, which I still think played a relevant role on the expansion of this clade in the western part of "Mare Nostrum". Saluti
Likely Southern Italians who had received a large amount of ancestry from assimilated Magna Graecians. Magna Graecians in turn of course originate from both sides of the Aegean, and as all Greeks do, bare significant ancestry from the neolithic Caucasus (most specifically the Armenian highlands) which was transported in large amounts to the whole of Anatolia during the early copper age and tail end of the late neolithic.This is in the of abstract of this article in English:
"Individuals dated to the Roman Imperial period are genetically distinct from the previous Iron Age samples and show an increased affinity to Iranian-related ancestry accompanied by a close genetic link to ancient Caucasian populations (mainly from Armenia and Iran)."
Who were these people?
Thanks for clarifying this. I haven't had time to check the paper yet.Sorry, Maciamo, but this J2a is not an Etruscan, CAS090 is considered by the paper an Imperial Roman sample.
So, it is not true that J2a was found among Etruscans and Latins. To date it can only be said that J2a was found in Roman times.
From over 100 Etruscans tested so far, it is now clear that the Etruscans are R1b predominantly, with a minority of G2a and I2a. The only type of J2 found among the Etruscans, but which is a very tiny minority, is J2b.