italian genetics

[Yetos]

@ considering that all ancient writers mention them as very old in area, herodotus comsiders them as before cataclysm,

then we have a subject on how old is IE in Italy,
I mean can we guess or exctract a resume, on Italian linguistics by that?

I mean if umbrians are so old, means that the other languages are younger, right?

I am not focusing in something, simply, I am wondering,

 

[Yaan]

I was about to post this, but Zanipolo beat me to it.

Here is the link to the actual study. The data corresponds very closely to the one I compiled in the Y-DNA tables based on other studies to date. Boattini et al. note that the gradient within Italy is not north-south but rather north-west to south-east + Sardinia, which is exactly what my maps have shown. You can see this most clearly by comparing the R1 map with the E+G+J+T map.

The authors confirm that most Y-DNA lineages in Italy appear to date from the Late Neolithic to the Bronze Age. This is the first official study finally acknowledging what I have been saying for many years, namely that R1b and J2, and not just R1a, came to Europe during the Bronze Age and not the Neolithic.


The strong point of this new study is the depth of the subclades tested. The weak point is the sample size, which would be enough for top-level haplogroups, but is much too small to give a reliable image of the distribution of deep subclades. The deeper the level tested and the larger the sample size should be. There are only about 900 individuals for a country of 60 million inhabitants with a very big historical population. This is less than the Larmuseau et al. study about Flanders which was barely sufficient to show regional disparities at the deep subclade level. Besides the regional diversity in mountainous Italy is far greater than in flat and homogeneous Flanders. I would therefore advise a sample size of at least 1000 for each of Italy's 20 regions to have a reasonable picture at the deep clade level.

Of interest, though to take with a pinch of salt considering the small sample size.

- The hotspot of R1b-L21 (10%) is Emilia-Romagna, a region supposedly settled by Celtic people.

- The highest frequency of R1b-U152 + subclades are found in Tuscany (37.4%), Emilia-Romagna (31%), Piedmont-Lombardy (31%) and Lazio-Umbria-Marche (21%). This roughly correspond to my R1b-U152 map and is in line with my hypothesis that U152 represents the Bronze Age Italic people. If U152 were merely Gaulish Celtic it wouldn't peak in Tuscany and would not be so high in Central Italy in general.

- Germanic migrations can be traced back through R1b-S21, which peaks in Northeast Italy (presumably due to the Langobardi) and Sicily (undeniably because of the Normans). I1 peaks in Emilia-Romagna (11%) and Northeast Italy (10.3%), but is oddly very low in Lombardy-Piedmont (3.1%) and Sicily (1.4%). I guess that this is due to undersampling. My data from other studies had an average of 3% for Sicily. The strangest results come from I2b1 (M223), which is absent from regions with heavy Germanic settlements like Northeast Italy, but highest in southern Italy (2.4%). Also undersampling, I suppose.

- The regional percentages reported for R1a are somewhat contradictory with previous studies. It shows no R1a at all in Northeast Italy, which is supposed to be the region with the highest frequency of R1a. On the other hand the percentages for Sicily (5.7%), Tuscany (4.9%), South Italy (4%) and Lazio-Umbria-Marche (3.9%) is a few points higher than expected.

- Unsurprisingly G peaks in Central Italy (14.3%) and South Italy (16.2%) and is lowest in Northeast Italy (6.8%) and Tuscany (5.7%). On the other hand, the frequency of G appears a bit higher everywhere than in the earlier data.

- Let's note also the very odd 8.2% of L in Northeast Italy and 6.9% of J1e in Bologna. The earlier J1 hotspot in Tuscany is also contradicted by this study, which only found 1.4%.

So r u going to upgrade the results page on the page
I1 2.5%- from new sample 3.52% so 1 % more
I2+I2a-3% from new sample 5.65% so almost 3% more
I2b-1% from the new sample- 1.02%-perfect
R1a-2.5% from the new sample- 3.39% so 1 % more
R1b-49%- from the new sample- 38.7% so 10% less
G2a- 7%- from the new sample- 11.65% so almost 5% more
J2- 18%- from the new sample- 13.58% so 4.5% less
J1- 2%- from the new sample- 3.62% so 1.5% more
E1b1b-11%- from the new sample- 13.91% so 3% more
T-4% - from the new sample- 2.37% so 1.5% less
I do not think L in North east Italy is odd, L is found in Switzerland and Austria so logical.
Also would u change the data for Bulgarian u did not based it solely on the new research but mixed it with unreliable Family Tree etc,
I2 +I2a for Bulgarians is not 19.5% but 20.6%
R1a for Bulgarians is not 17% but 17.7 or even better 18%
J2 for Bulgarians is not 11% but 10.5
J1 is slightly more maybe 3.5
but
E1b1b for Bulgarians is not 24% but 22.1%
Thanks.

 

[MOESAN]

Oh, you mean the Irish-American soldier ref;
who knows, def. not an option that is the primary, but an option nonetheless;



I dont know, why you consider the Umbrians as the the last Indo-European wave, given what the classical authors wrote:

Pliny - Natural History (79 AD)
The race of the Umbri is considered the oldest in Italy. —(C. Plin. lib. ii. Nat. Hist. c. 14.)

Dionysius - The Roman Antiquities (29 BC)
The Umbri inhabited a great many other parts of Italy, and were an exceeding great, and ancient people.

Cambrian Institute - The Cambrian Journal (1862)
from Caius Sempronius (De Divis. Ital.);
"The portion of the Apennines from the sources of the Tiber to the Nar, the Umbri inhabit, the oldest stock of the Old Gael, (Veteres Galli), as Augustus writes."
[Apenninum colunt Ligures, portionem vero Apennini inhabitant Umbri, prima veterum Gallorum proies, ut Augustus scribit]

Also, the Herodotus map only mentions the Ombri - [next to Thyrreni, Eneti, Ligyes]

The Ligurians are a key people in the Po valley, (also Rhone Valley and Maritime Alps);
It seems [based on Anthropology] that the Ligurians were already present in the Neolithic and were [Brachycephalic] Pre-Indo-Europeans akin to Lapps.

Smithsonian Institution - Report of the Board of Regents: Vol.45 (1891)
In another Neolithic cave, called the Caverna della Matta [north Italy], an Iberian skull was found with an index of 68, and a Ligurian skull with an index of 84. No anthropologist would admit that these skulls could have belonged to men of the same race.

Roberto Bosi - The Lapps (1977)
Then [Rudolf Karl] Virchow. examining a number of Lappish skulls at Helsinki, Lund and Copenhagen, in conjunction with ancient Ligurian skulls, discovered many mutual features suggesting an identical strain.

The Umbrians must have mixed with the Ligurians,
as Plutarch informs us that the Ligurians referred to themselves as AMBROnes in connections to their Origins;

Anthropological evidence:

Anthropological Society of London - Anthropological review: Vol.V (1867)
"when I look upon the delineations of the crania, the photographs and the figures given by M. Nicolucci himself, it appears to me that the difference between Ligurians and Umbrians, is about equal to the differences between Allemands and Germans.

The same scenario happened in the Swiss Lake Dwellings - Indo-Europeans mixed with a Brachycephalic (pos. Ligures) Pre-Indo-European people.

George Bradshaw - Bradshaw's illustrated hand-book to Switzerland and the Tyrol (1899)
Swiss Lake-dwellings - In his careful investigations of pile dwellings, Dr. Studer met with two extreme types of skulls, the brachycephalic and the dolikoccphalic; the former, at Schaffis and Lüschery (Lake of Bienne), belonging to the pure Stone period, and the latter, at Vinolz and Sutz, to the Bronze period. The facts point to an invasion by the Bronze men, involving a complete transformation of the group of domestic animals; the horse appears for the first time, and new races of sheep and dogs replace the older forms of the Stone period. The occurrence of mesocephalic, and even considerably shortened skulls, in the Bronze period, shows that there was no extinction of the brachycephalic race, but that the two races mixed.

I will post more about the Ligures in History & Civilisations > Who were the Sabines?


Personally, i think the last Indo-Europeans arriving in Italy were
the Illyrians in the South-East [Messapii / Iapyges]




I disagree about your Y-DNA Hg E analysis.
Area I = Liguria + Lombardy + Piedmont and is only high on E-V13 [9.3%]
1.8% other E-M78 sub-clades and 0.6% E-M123; thats all;
- so i wouldnt consider Liguria isolated to be any stronger;

I agree with your view about the present-Ligurians in contrast to the ancient-Ligurians;
but there is an historic region Lunigiana that was/is still very remote and has a grand ancient-Ligurian (Archaeological) Legacy.
One sample-set of Tuscany (in Boattini et al 2013) is from that region. Tuscany being 37% R1b-U152

classical writers wrote useful things sometimes and too a lot of unprecise testimonies - we cannot neither totally reject nor accept their testimonies - I see here no proof of very early presenc eof Umbrians in Italy, sorry -
concerning sampling I affirm and say again this survey as other ones (for money reasons) mix in the same bag regions classical anthropologists knew as diverse (and historians knew too) -
I agree totally Ligurians were a mix of pre-I-Eans with new arrived I-Eans
my thoughts concerning Umbrians are based on several archeologic surveys, but I agree archeologic remnant sdo not tell us their precise cultural affiliation...
So i write here and there my "religion", I do not say I KNOW...
Myu thought is: if Terramare were not under latin or akin influence, then, when arrived Latins and Sabins???
on the linguistic side, I think the P- I-E languages bearers came after the Kw- ones spite the new "wave" of thinking... and Osques and Umbrians as La Tene Celts and Dorians were *P-I-E speakers; before the opposite proof will be send...





s

 

[Nobody1]

@Moesan @Yetos


The Bronze Age Terremare culture is the oldest (substantial / after Remedello II) Indo-European culture [1500-1100 BC] in Italy (Po Valley);

Paul MacKendrick - The Mute Stones Speak (1962)
The terremare are important: they preserve the memory of an immigrant population, distinct in culture from the aborigines. The distinguishing marks of this new culture are knowledge of metal-working, a pottery identifiable by its exaggerated half-moon handles, and the practice of cremation rather than inhumation. On the evidence, we must suppose that this new culture emerged about 1500 B.C. as a fusion of indigenous hut-dwellers and immigrant lakedwellers. Bronze (Horse) bits found in their settlements show that they had domesticated the horse, and there is some evidence, outside the terremare, for dogs as well, described by Randall-Maclver as "doubtless good woolly animals of a fair size."

Isaac Taylor (-based on Helbig) attests a direct Umbrian connection with the Archaeological fundamentals akin to the Swiss Lake Dwellings,

also Linguistically attested:

Franz Altheim - Grundlagen und Grundbegriffe (1956)
Später wurden die Ligurer von einem Stamm indogermanischer Herkunft überschichtet: den Ambronen. Ihr Name hat sich in zahlreichen Resten innerhalb des gesamtligurischen Gebietes erhalten.
TRANSLATION -
Later, the Ligurians were overlaid by a tribe of Indo-European origin: the Ambrones.
Their name has been preserved in numerous residues within the total Ligurian region.


Historically, all the ancient authors credit the Indo-European Umbrians as the oldest stock,
so it is also logical to assume the earliest emergence of the Indo-European Umbrians to be with the earliest Indo-European culture [Terremare 1500 BC -1100 BC]

However;
If you consider that the Terremare (beginning 1500 BC) is too early; than (latest) the Indo-European Urnfield Cultures [Villanova - Golasecca - Este] emerging ~1300 BC; def. signals the arrival of the Indo-European Umbrians.

So its a question between 1500 BC and 1300 BC;

I think the P- I-E languages bearers came after the Kw- ones spite the new "wave" of thinking... and Osques and Umbrians as La Tene Celts and Dorians were *P-I-E speakers; before the opposite proof will be send...

The Umbrians [Italics] were def. in Italy with the emergence of the Urnfield Cultures ~1300 BC / pos. even emergence of Terremare ~1500 BC / long before the Iron-Age (LaTene) Gallic migrations ~400 BC

The Hellenic Dorians only had an impact in Magna Graecia Sicily,
Magna Graecia Italy was largely Ionian / Achaean - Tarentum was Doric

---
The Sabines are an Umbrian people - History & Civilisations > Who were the Sabines? - p.1 - post # 13

Equally the Insubres (isOMBRI) of the Po Valley are Umbrians - History & Civilisations > Who were the Sabines? - p.1 - post # 18

Their language is attested by the Lepontic inscriptions:
http://www.ancient-celts.com/LanguagesLepontic.html

John T. Koch - The Celts: History, Life, and Culture (2012)
The area occupied by the Golasecca culture is roughly consistent with the Celtic peoples
of the Insubres, Oromobii, and Lepontii mentioned in classical literature.

Prof. Whatmough argued a Ligurian linguistic strain - amongst the Lepontic Inscriptions; also among place and river names:

Franz Altheim - Grundlagen und Grundbegriffe (1956)
Auch die Namen der Rhone und des Po, Rhodanus und Bodincus, des lacus Lemannus und der an ihm gelegenen Stadt *Genua oder Genava sowie das heutige Dialektwort 'calanca' - „Schlucht", dürfen als ligurisch gelten.
TRANSLATION -
The names of the Rhone and the Po, Rhodanus and Bodincus, the lacus Lemannus and the next to him located town *Genua or Genava as well as the current dialect word 'calanca' - "Canyon" may be considered as Ligurian.

---

Linguistically the Umbrians are only attested after they adopted the Etruscan Alphabet [~400 BC]

Umbrian - Oscan - Sabellians are the closest related of the proto-Italic Branch
Latin-Faliscan more distant related (within proto-Italic Branch)

http://www.ancientscripts.com/umbrian.html - ref. Umbrian
http://www.ancientscripts.com/oscan.html - ref. Oscan

Oscan Inscription (Pompeii 2nd cen BC) --- Umbrian Inscription (Gubbio 2nd cen BC)

concerning sampling I affirm and say again this survey as other ones (for money reasons) mix in the same bag regions classical anthropologists knew as diverse (and historians knew too) -

I disagree, i think this study chopped the Italian samples in very good manner;
reveals alot about the Historic [Medieval] regions of Italy (Tuscany, Lombardy, Kingdom of Sicily, Papal States, Venetia);

 

[Nobody1]

@ Yetos


Im not sure which passage of Herodotus you are referring to (cataclysm); are you referring to the "mythical" flood?

Umbrian Origins:

Guy Bradley - Ancient Umbria (2000) [Oxford Uni. Press]
There is an interesting tradition that the name of the Umbrians came from their survival of a mythical flood: see Pliny, NH 3. 112. This tradition could go back at least to Marcus Antonius (Gnipho) in early 1st cent. BC. See Servius, Aen. 12. 753: sane Umbros Gallorum veterum propaginem esse Marcus Antonius refert: hos eosdem, quod tempore aquosae cladis imbribus superfuerunt Ombrous ἡ Ὀμβρική / Ὀμβρικός cognominatos. "Indeed Marcus Antonius reports that the Umbrians are an offspring of the ancient Gauls; and that this same people, because they survived the rains in a time of watery disaster, were called the Ombroi' "

 

[Yetos]

@ nobody,

mythical flood = κατακλυσμος (cataclysm)

rain = ομβρος = ombros

 

[zanipolo]

the new split of gedrosia ( west-asian ) due to this new paper

Population N ....Gedrosia ....NW_Afr... Atlantic_Med.... N_Euro... SW_Asian... Caucasus
German_D 18.............. 7.3... 0.... 33 ... 48.2 ...1.7.... 9.8
British_D 11 ............ 11.3.... 0 ....43.5 . 43.6 ..0.3 ... 1.3
English_D 10 ........... 10.6 ... 0 ....41.5 ...44.5.. 0.1 ....3.1
British_Isles_D 8........ 9.5 .... 0 ....42.5 .. 45.7 .. 0 .... 2.2
Irish_D 14................ 11.9..... 0 ... 42.7 ...45.1... 0.... 0.2
French 27................. 7.9..... 0.2 ...44.4 ...36.5 .. 2.5 ..8.4
French_D 13............. 8.1 ... 0.6 ....43.9 .. 36.9 .. 2.7 .. 7.9
French_Basque 21 .... 9.8 .....0 ..... 73.1 .. 17.1... 0 ..... 0
Spanish_D 20............ 6.2 ... 5.1 ...52.5 ....22.7 ...4 .....8.8
Portuguese_D 9........... 6 .....7.7 ....47.5 ....22.3... 5 ... 9.7
N_Italian_D 5 .............5.7 ....0.9 ....41.2 ... 23.7 .. 5.6.. 22.8
North_Italian 11 ......... 4.5 .. 0.7 .... 44 ..... 22...... 5.8 ... 22.9
C_Italian_D 13............ 4.8 ... 2.3 ...34.8 ....17.1.... 8.7 ....32.1
S_Italian_Sicilian_D 10.. 5.5 ... 2.5 ... 29.9 .. 11.8... 12.5 ...36.5
Sicilian_D 15................ 4.5 ... 4.1 .....30..... 11.9 .. 11.9 ....36.5
Sardinian 24 ................ 0...... 2.6 ....70.5..... 0....... 5.8..... 20.9

clearly people moved from persia to british isles over time, mostly in a direct land path.
- D after a name means derived ( original )
- N_italian is NEI other is NWI
- SW_Asian is the arabian peninsula

Of the west-asian...zero in Sardinia ! and also zero in N_euro.
While another chart states that one of the I ( cluster I ) is only a 1207 year old ....either Norman or aragonese

@adamo
someone send me an email stating that 21% of L'Aquila ( abruzzo) has T ydna . i cannot see it. Do you know about these numbers from anywhere?

 

[zanipolo]

So r u going to upgrade the results page on the page
I1 2.5%- from new sample 3.52% so 1 % more
I2+I2a-3% from new sample 5.65% so almost 3% more
I2b-1% from the new sample- 1.02%-perfect
R1a-2.5% from the new sample- 3.39% so 1 % more
R1b-49%- from the new sample- 38.7% so 10% less
G2a- 7%- from the new sample- 11.65% so almost 5% more
J2- 18%- from the new sample- 13.58% so 4.5% less
J1- 2%- from the new sample- 3.62% so 1.5% more
E1b1b-11%- from the new sample- 13.91% so 3% more
T-4% - from the new sample- 2.37% so 1.5% less
I do not think L in North east Italy is odd, L is found in Switzerland and Austria so logical.
Also would u change the data for Bulgarian u did not based it solely on the new research but mixed it with unreliable Family Tree etc,
I2 +I2a for Bulgarians is not 19.5% but 20.6%
R1a for Bulgarians is not 17% but 17.7 or even better 18%
J2 for Bulgarians is not 11% but 10.5
J1 is slightly more maybe 3.5
but
E1b1b for Bulgarians is not 24% but 22.1%
Thanks.

you mean to add to it and not replace it.

He needs to find a way to incorporate the figures

 

[adamo]

It is true, its on Wikipedia, some 31% of men from Aquila are T+L. It's quite evident at this point that the Umbrians where an early Gallic substratum of celts.

 

[Vallicanus]

It is true, its on Wikipedia, some 31% of men from Aquila are T+L. It's quite evident at this point that the Umbrians where an early Gallic substratum of celts.

The new Boattini study on Italian uniparental markers has a sample of Y-dna from modern Foligno in Umbria and the figures do not support your claim of a Gallic link in Umbria.

SOURCE: Uniparental Markers in Italy Reveal a Sex-Biased Genetic Structure and Different Historical Strata by Alessio Boattini et alia (2013)

 

[Maciamo]

It is true, its on Wikipedia

You are not going to convince a lot of people with that kind of argument.

 

[Maciamo]

So r u going to upgrade the results page on the page
I1 2.5%- from new sample 3.52% so 1 % more
I2+I2a-3% from new sample 5.65% so almost 3% more
I2b-1% from the new sample- 1.02%-perfect
R1a-2.5% from the new sample- 3.39% so 1 % more
R1b-49%- from the new sample- 38.7% so 10% less
G2a- 7%- from the new sample- 11.65% so almost 5% more
J2- 18%- from the new sample- 13.58% so 4.5% less
J1- 2%- from the new sample- 3.62% so 1.5% more
E1b1b-11%- from the new sample- 13.91% so 3% more
T-4% - from the new sample- 2.37% so 1.5% less
I do not think L in North east Italy is odd, L is found in Switzerland and Austria so logical.
Also would u change the data for Bulgarian u did not based it solely on the new research but mixed it with unreliable Family Tree etc,
I2 +I2a for Bulgarians is not 19.5% but 20.6%
R1a for Bulgarians is not 17% but 17.7 or even better 18%
J2 for Bulgarians is not 11% but 10.5
J1 is slightly more maybe 3.5
but
E1b1b for Bulgarians is not 24% but 22.1%
Thanks.

My current sample size for Italy of over 5000. It is far more accurate than this study alone. I will add this study when I have time.

 

[Maciamo]

the new split of gedrosia ( west-asian ) due to this new paper

Population N ....Gedrosia ....NW_Afr... Atlantic_Med.... N_Euro... SW_Asian... Caucasus
German_D 18.............. 7.3... 0.... 33 ... 48.2 ...1.7.... 9.8
British_D 11 ............ 11.3.... 0 ....43.5 . 43.6 ..0.3 ... 1.3
English_D 10 ........... 10.6 ... 0 ....41.5 ...44.5.. 0.1 ....3.1
British_Isles_D 8........ 9.5 .... 0 ....42.5 .. 45.7 .. 0 .... 2.2
Irish_D 14................ 11.9..... 0 ... 42.7 ...45.1... 0.... 0.2
French 27................. 7.9..... 0.2 ...44.4 ...36.5 .. 2.5 ..8.4
French_D 13............. 8.1 ... 0.6 ....43.9 .. 36.9 .. 2.7 .. 7.9
French_Basque 21 .... 9.8 .....0 ..... 73.1 .. 17.1... 0 ..... 0
Spanish_D 20............ 6.2 ... 5.1 ...52.5 ....22.7 ...4 .....8.8
Portuguese_D 9........... 6 .....7.7 ....47.5 ....22.3... 5 ... 9.7
N_Italian_D 5 .............5.7 ....0.9 ....41.2 ... 23.7 .. 5.6.. 22.8
North_Italian 11 ......... 4.5 .. 0.7 .... 44 ..... 22...... 5.8 ... 22.9
C_Italian_D 13............ 4.8 ... 2.3 ...34.8 ....17.1.... 8.7 ....32.1
S_Italian_Sicilian_D 10.. 5.5 ... 2.5 ... 29.9 .. 11.8... 12.5 ...36.5
Sicilian_D 15................ 4.5 ... 4.1 .....30..... 11.9 .. 11.9 ....36.5
Sardinian 24 ................ 0...... 2.6 ....70.5..... 0....... 5.8..... 20.9

clearly people moved from persia to british isles over time, mostly in a direct land path.
- D after a name means derived ( original )
- N_italian is NEI other is NWI
- SW_Asian is the arabian peninsula

That's twisted logic. The Gedrosia admixture is higher in the British Isles because the percentage of R1b is higher there, not because people with Gedrosian admixture arrived there first. When the Indo-Europeans migrated to Western Europe, they replace more thoroughly the populations of the Atlantic fringe, probably because population density was lower and/or because they killed more locals, whatever the reason (more local resistance, less compatible cultures, bigger technological gap, etc.).

The north-south gradient in the Gedrosian admixture in Italy reflects the R1b frequencies. The South has less R1b because the Phoenicians-Carthaginians, the Greeks, then the Arabs, Berbers and Byzantines migrated there after the R1b Italics had settled over the peninsula (circa 1200 BCE).

 

[binx]

The earlier J1 hotspot in Tuscany is also contradicted by this study, which only found 1.4%.

The J1 hotspot has always been in Marche, not in Tuscany.

 

[binx]

R1b-L21 in Sicily is surprising: it could be a Normans (of France and Britain) heritage: L21 from W-Norway or from celtic lands (pre-Franks Gaul, celtic Britain) people incorporated into Normans society???

R1b-L21 in Sicily could be also widespread in the Lombard communities arrived in Sicily with the Norman conquest.

 

[Nobody1]

The new Boattini study on Italian uniparental markers has a sample of Y-dna from modern Foligno in Umbria and the figures do not support your claim of a Gallic link in Umbria.

SOURCE: Uniparental Markers in Italy Reveal a Sex-Biased Genetic Structure and Different Historical Strata by Alessio Boattini et alia (2013)

I dont think he is referring to modern-day Umbria, he is referring to the Indo-European Umbrians;

concerning modern-day Umbria:

Boattini et al 2013

Area V = 77 samples / 37 from Foligno, Umbria

Area V = 19.5% R1b-U152

That would indicate the Indo-European Umbrians [ITALICS]; pos. Sabines
Unfortunately no Y-DNA samples used from Terni, Umbria

 

[zanipolo]

That's twisted logic. The Gedrosia admixture is higher in the British Isles because the percentage of R1b is higher there, not because people with Gedrosian admixture arrived there first. When the Indo-Europeans migrated to Western Europe, they replace more thoroughly the populations of the Atlantic fringe, probably because population density was lower and/or because they killed more locals, whatever the reason (more local resistance, less compatible cultures, bigger technological gap, etc.).

The north-south gradient in the Gedrosian admixture in Italy reflects the R1b frequencies. The South has less R1b because the Phoenicians-Carthaginians, the Greeks, then the Arabs, Berbers and Byzantines migrated there after the R1b Italics had settled over the peninsula (circa 1200 BCE).

Firstly, Italy's gedrosian are all approx. equal , it cannot be R1b as you say. The atlantic and north euro is higher in the north of Italy than the south. But the south has higher african than the north.
The south has also higher arabian and higher caucasus than the north.

The gedrosian is a migration that seemed to go on until there was no more land........something like the wild west frontier of USA, .....they moved until hitting the pacific.

admixtures are not related to haplogroups
......................

BTW.. the age estimates chart clearly states Italy had G-P15 15000 years of age , next came R-P312 at 7500 years........

 

[julia90]

One thing is sure, italics people in being infoeuroean and coming from central europe Pannonia area were more phenotypically similar with celts than with non indoeuropean peole in italy from wich italians took the mediterranean phenotype

 

[Yaan]

My current sample size for Italy of over 5000. It is far more accurate than this study alone. I will add this study when I have time.

But how is this possible?This is the biggest study so far right? I mean where do u have 5000 from? Family Tree and 23andme combination is not good or combining different studies. My opinion is that a good study is a study of minimum 500 non related people from all over the country. I thought this is the only such on Italians. Can u give links to the other good studies please

 

[MMaximus]

Has anyone by chance found the STR's used for the G2a Samples? It appears as table s2 on the PDF of the study but still cannot find it...it would be interesting to see if which of the clusters mentioned L497 falls in to or can be predicted as.