Genetic study The Picenes and the Genetic Landscape of Central Adriatic Italy in the Iron Age.

If I was petty I would have rubbed it in your face when the paper came, but I am not about such childish behavior, although I thought and laughed about it.

Yet I wonder what time it is where you at, you might wanna double check that clock of yours.

What paper ?
Something I often say about debates is that claiming that "you won't do something" is only a way to "do it without assuming doing it".

Apparently, you seems to believe that the fact we obtained a Z597+ sample from southern Germany EIA, exactly where I claimed for years that we have signal of a IA-related sub-diversity spot, would somehow invalidate my claims !!!
You realize that you start to have an incoherent behavior ?
I already showed that for some peoples with a big cognitive dissonance when they are confronted to the reality.

Or do you think that the lack of sample in France and Czechia during IA will make dispear MAG006 and RMPR116 ?
Because, this is not how are working data.
Look MAG006 and his admixture, the lineage have been there for centuries.

We have ancient DNA, we have statistical diversity signal, we have clade segregation signal ... we have everything.
Yet you refuse the data because it didn't fits with your narrative.

At this point it is a comedy.

PS: as this is a Picene-related topic ... I will stop here this non-discussion. No point in polluting this topic with your issues about recent data. Feel free to take the final non-sense !
 
Last edited:
And here I thought you would write just one psychological dissertation. You wrote two.
Imagine if it was two L283 samples, instead of 1/600.
 
Is the sardinian sample (ORC007) really J-YP91 + ?
Personally I tend to trust more on yfull than Trojet, not for any other reason than that i never saw then made a reading mistake but Trojet did, no ofense intended.
If anyone that holds no animosity towards this fading piece of fetishised dna could take a look in ORC007 's Y snps it would be cool i guess.
Yfull is a Russian owned third party service for uniparental clade placement. Their upload policy for aDNA samples is flawed as is often times their analysis, plenty such examples exist.

I have literally never witnessed any major mistake in Flor's analysis. Matter of fact I have witnessed him correcting others on their mistakes.
 
Mate your claim was that L283 has nothing to do with the steppe and was a local Sardinian like haplogroup, you were even claiming that once we got more samples from France and Germany you would be vindicated. Telling us time will tell, this and that.

Funnily enough, now that we got like 500+ samples from Central Europe and France and all we found was one single L283...? Is that your smoking gun, is that your vindication?

If I was petty I would have rubbed it in your face when the paper came, but I am not about such childish behavior, although I thought and laughed about it.

Yet I wonder what time it is where you at, you might wanna double check that clock of yours.
Hundreds of samples from the steppe and not a single J2b-L283 yet. No evidence this was a steppe halplo
 
Hundreds of samples from the steppe and not a single J2b-L283 yet. No evidence this was a steppe halplo

Can't rule it out being Caucasus Hunter Gatherer, Yamnaya had a big amount of CHG autosomal ancestry

Other possibility is being an Anatolian Neolithic Farmer line which makes more sense for Sardinians
 
Last edited:
Hundreds of samples from the steppe and not a single J2b-L283 yet. No evidence this was a steppe halplo
First correct statement I have seen you utter in years. I tend to be on Polska's camp on this one. But you wont see me hallucinating facts and making up fairy tales to back some horse where the evidence is lacking.

All we have so far is an overwhelming steppe signal for L283 in the Balkans, and all but 4(?, 3 Nuragic, 1 Caucasus) L283 samples out of a hundred that show this signal. So chances are it got incorporated into steppe movements on its way to the Western Balkans.

But the great thing is that as any sound hypothesis this can be easily falsifiable, unlike fairy-tales about daco-thraco-myso-bassarabis. All we need is a 4-5kbc sample from around Moldova and its autosomal signature. Then we are able to tell if this was non-steppe (CHG+EEF) at the time of its incorporation into the IE movements, or if its an earlier components of said Steppe movements (CHG+EHG+EEF). Last I heard Patterson was working on something regarding the pre-Yamnaya populations of said region, so chances are we will soon find out.
 
Last edited:
Is the sardinian sample (ORC007) really J-YP91 + ?
Personally I tend to trust more on yfull than Trojet, not for any other reason than that i never saw then made a reading mistake but Trojet did, no ofense intended.
If anyone that holds no animosity towards this fading piece of fetishised dna could take a look in ORC007 's Y snps it would be cool i guess.
Just to clarify. ORC007 is low coverage, it has a single YP91+ read. This mutation is a C → T transition which is prone to aDNA damage. Combined with the fact that he has no coverage at J-Z600, I'm simply not convinced he is YP91+ or anything else under J-Z622 with the data we have, hence he is classified as J-L283>Z622>? in the aDNA map (it would be different if it had two or more positive reads at J-YP91, or if there was at least one negative read at J-Z600). FTDNA has not placed him anything more specific than J-L283 either (sample S'Orku 7): https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/J-L283/tree
Others are free to place him as J-YP91.

So I do not see what where the "mistake" is. Speaking of which, YFull initially had ORC007 as J-L283* (meaning negative at J-Z622) as can be seen: https://www.yfull.com/arch-10.00/tree/j-l283/. It was me who reached out to them and asked them to look into it because there was no evidence of that:
YFull1.jpg




They also had misplaced the J-YP9 subclade (sample ERS256805) as can be seen: https://www.yfull.com/arch-7.02/tree/J-Z638/

YFull2.jpg
 
Last edited:
The firmly southern Italian-like outliers for the Piceni and Dauni are rather interesting to note due to their age. From my recollection we also see two of these types of outliers in the Kerkouane study when looking at the IA Etruscans. They do not look Sicani drifted at all like most of the Himeran greek samples do. I'm guessing these are probably more representative of purer Greek transplants from the Aegean and Southern Greek mainland.

8eupxj.jpg


aqzcva.jpg
 
We also have two similar outliers from Iron Age Latium (Preneste and Ardea)
Yes. This implies that they are not random admixtures, but a distinct profile that existed in the EIA and some of these individuals ended up as merchants, slaves or various workers in foreign towns. The most obvious source to me here is Magna Graecian given the locations. There are likely many Greek settlements that remained more isolated than Himera within Italy and it's not surprising to see some of these types of individuals outside of their political spheres.
 
Last edited:
Yes. This implies that they are not random admixtures, but a distinct profile that existed in the EIA and some of these individuals ended up as merchants, slaves or various workers in foreign towns. The most obvious source to me here is Magna Graecian given the locations. There are likely many Greek settlements that remained more isolated than Himera within Italy and it's not surprising to see some of these types of individuals outside of their political spheres.
One of the oldest (if not the oldest) attestation of Greek alphabet is believed to be (but the interpretation is not univocal) an inscription on a terracotta vase from early Iron age Latium (Osteria dell'Osa, near Rome). So, the presence of Greek merchant and artisans from mainland Greece or from the newly established colonies in Magna Grecia is a plausible possibility.
 
One of the oldest (if not the oldest) attestation of Greek alphabet is believed to be (but the interpretation is not univocal) an inscription on a terracotta vase from early Iron age Latium (Osteria dell'Osa, near Rome). So, the presence of Greek merchant and artisans from mainland Greece or from the newly established colonies in Magna Grecia is a plausible possibility.
Right. In this era the Magna Graecian colonies were still a blossoming demographic phenomenon and direct migrants from the aegean to these colonial cities would've been exceedingly common. This influx of Greek demography would continue until roughly the beginnings of the Alexandrian era from which point it slows considerably. By that point, the cities they occupied were already extremely large in population.
 
Last edited:
The Calabrese paper preview attested that both Aegean and Near Eastern components were part of the shift and their claim is correct.

South Italic people of ancient times coming up as more southern version of Latins and Etruscan really makes sense as using Sicinians as a source does not work for Italians at all in my previous attempts of modeling them.

I wonder if most of Italic ancestry in Sicily comes from the mainland too?
 
The Calabrese paper preview attested that both Aegean and Near Eastern components were part of the shift and their claim is correct.

South Italic people of ancient times coming up as more southern version of Latins and Etruscan really makes sense as using Sicinians as a source does not work for Italians at all in my previous attempts of modeling them.

I wonder if most of Italic ancestry in Sicily comes from the mainland too?
From the thesis itself: "Notable, genetic outliers from the first period suggest potential Greek gene flow or incorporation of Greeks into the local Oenotrian population." And this aligns with what we've seen so far in central italy. These outliers presumably relate to one of the two pedigrees of the Oenotrean and Lucanian populations they are referring to if I'm not mistaken:

"In our ongoing archaeogenetic study, genome-wide data from 44 individuals across all phases, reveal five pedigrees, two from the Oenotrian, two from the Lucanian, and one from the Early Medieval phase."

The only point it refers to regarding the Near East is that "Early Medieval individuals are shifted more toward Aegean and Near Eastern populations." which is not the same as specifying who was responsible for this shift. The fact that they specified the Aegean in this statement, which is already part of the broad geographical region of the Near East is rather specific wording in an otherwise redundant statement. Clearly they are hinting at Greek led shift, but I don't think they have enough data to prove it since their samples seems to end by the 4th century BC. The EMA phase simply sounds like a monolithic Southern Italian/EMA Venosa/Imperial Central Italic Roman background from this reading. I don't anticipate many surprises there, but I'd bet those early greeks look pretty similar. Hopefully they publish it soon and we can all see.
 
. I don't anticipate many surprises there, but I'd bet those early greeks look pretty similar. Hopefully they publish it soon and we can all see.

I agree, I don't think they even have Ancient Greek samples not that I look onto it more. They just noticed the typical shift like in other area of Italy and left a vague comment about Greeks and Near Easters being responsible.

Don't expect anything from this study. But it's nice to see some native Calabrese. Calabria has quite a lot of G y-dna which I suspected that it might come from a typically Sicinian/Sardinian-type population source but it seems they were more similar to Latins.
 
I agree, I don't think they even have Ancient Greek samples not that I look onto it more. They just noticed the typical shift like in other area of Italy and left a vague comment about Greeks and Near Easters being responsible.

Don't expect anything from this study. But it's nice to see some native Calabrese. Calabria has quite a lot of G y-dna which I suspected that it might come from a typically Sicinian/Sardinian-type population source but it seems they were more similar to Latins.
If I recall correctly, Neolithic Calabrese samples show close association with Neolithic Greeks, i.e. populations which had very low to zero WHG like ancestry. This is rather different than the significant levels of WHG found in Northern and Central Italy during the neolithic. G being a typically Neolithic Anatolian Farmer and Caucasian haplogroup, I would assume a lot of it comes from neolithic Italy, Neolithic Anatolia and the Neolithic Caucasus.
 
Last edited:
Calabria in ancient times as per the Romans was also the Salento peninsula in Apulia

The ancient Roman geographer Strabo, however suggests that they called themselves “Apuli”, “Calabri” and “Salentini”.

These Calabri where from Dardani tribe Galabri who arrived in Italy circa 600BC ...............over 400 years after the Daunians arrived in Foggia and Gargano in late bronze-age
 
of the Roman Empire, the '* provinda Apuliae et Calabriae ^ (Lib. Colon, p. 261; Treb. Poll Tetric. 24), "Corrector Apuliae et Calabriae" (Notit Dign. ii. p. 64.), &c The Greeks sometimes used the name of lapygia, so as to in- clude Apulia as well as Messapia (Herod, iv. 99; Pol. iii. 88); but their usage of this, as well as all the other local names applied to this part of Italy, was very fluctuating. Strabo, after describing the Messapian peninsula (to which he confines the name of lapygia) as inhabited by the Salentini and Calabri,
 

This thread has been viewed 19733 times.

Back
Top