Tuscany had a middle age admixture event?

[joeyc]

You mysteriously forget that in this "battlefield" were also the Arabs and the Byzantines (who employed Near Eastern peoples in their armies as well.) In any event, all of these military intruders, including the Germanics, were nothing but small minorities.

Arabs? Only in Sicily and few raids on the coasts. Overall Arab presence in Southern France and parts of Swizterland was longer than on Italian mainland.

Byzantine territories were de facto indipendent and had to defent themselves without any help of the Empire. Anyway the only "middle easterners" in the Byzantine army (which included large numbers of Slavs, Varangians and other Northern Europeans) were few Armenians, who barely set foot outside of Anatolia.

 

[Hauteville]

E-M81 if it was also founded in north Italy, even in small percentages (but it's true also for Sicily) which means that most of that it was introduced in the early eras more than to Saracen raids or conquest.

 

[Angela]

You mysteriously forget that in this "battlefield" were also the Arabs and the Byzantines (who employed Near Eastern peoples in their armies as well.) In any event, all of these military intruders, including the Germanics, were nothing but small minorities.

It depends on the particular group under discussion. It should be clear to anyone who has done any study in this area that the Ostrogoths and Vandals, and the Byzantines, were either small elite groups or armies composed, in the case of the Byzantines, of many different ethnic groups. The Lombards are a case apart in Italy. That was an attested folk migration.

 

[Drac II]

The earliest date for this admixture, according to Hellenthal, is 522 AD. This is a timeline of the history of the peninsula for that time and the immediately prior period, for anyone who skipped Roman history class.

"5th century to 6th century on the Italian peninsula.

• 410– Rome is sacked by Alaric I
• 423– After a long and disastrous reign, Honorius dies; succeeded by the usurper Joannes
• 425– Valentinian III becomes Western emperor
• 447– Eastern Rome loses to Attila the Hun
• 452– Attila the Hun is turned away from Rome by Pope Leo I.
• 455– Valentinian III is assassinated and succeeded by Petronius Maximus as emperor. Rome is plundered by the Vandals, and Maximus is killed during mob violence. Avitus becomes emperor of the west.
• 457– Avitus is deposed by the magister militum Ricimer and killed. Majorian is installed as Western emperor.
• 461– Majorian is deposed by Ricimer. Libius Severus becomes Western emperor.
• 465– Libius Severus dies, possibly poisoned by Ricimer.
• 467– Anthemius becomes western emperor with the support of Leo I.
• 468– War against the Vandals by the joint forces of both empires. Naval expedition ends in failure.
• 472– Ricimer kills Anthemius and makes Olybrius new western emperor. Both Ricimer and Olybrius die of natural causes. Gundobad becomes magister militum in Italy.
• 473– Gundobad makes Glycerius new western emperor.
• 474– Gundobad leaves Italy to take part in a succession struggle among the Burgundians. Glycerius is deposed by Julius Nepos who proclaims himself western emperor.
• 475– Julius Nepos forced to flee to Dalmatia by his magister militum Orestes. Orestes proclaims his own son Romulus Augustulus as western emperor.
• 476– Germanic general Odoacer kills Orestes, forces Romulus Augustus to abdicate and proclaims himself King of Italy. Traditional date for the fall of the western Roman Empire. The Eastern Roman Empire (later known as the Byzantine Empire) continues on.
• 480– Julius Nepos, still claiming to be emperor, is killed in Dalmatia.
• 533– Justinian I begins to restore the empire in the west; Belisarius defeats the Vandals at the Battle of Ad Decimum and the Battle of Tricamarum
• 536– Belisarius recaptures Rome from theOstrogoths
• 552– Narses defeats the Ostrogoths at the Battle of Taginae
• 553– Narses defeats the Ostrogoths at the Battle of Mons Lactarius
• 568– TheLombards invade Italy; no further attempts to restore the empire"

All of those tribes and all of those Kings were Germanic. That was the new gene flow that was going into Tuscany at that time, even if I don't believe it amounted to anywhere near 60% of the total.

Italian genetics, for all the work done on its modern populations, will only be understood once we have MN samples from further south than Remedello (who, I would remind readers, was very EEF like despite being culturally "Indo-European"), and from various subsequent time periods so that we know how much autosomal change was actually brought by the "Indo-Europeans" when they arrived, by any subsequent "Aegean" migrants, if there actually was such a migration, the Celts, the Lombards, and any slaves who might have been absorbed, whether they came from Gaul, Germania, Britain, Dacia, Pannonia, or from points south and east.

Until then it's all just speculation. However, some speculations are definitely improbable.

Ed. As for the signal from "Turks" being stronger in Eastern Europe than in Italians, I'm not sure about that looking at the data again, but it may be a slightly different signal, with the Near Eastern signal in eastern Europeans being weighted perhaps more to the kind of ANE heavy Near Eastern ancestry that went into Yamnaya, versus the Italians having proportionately more of the EEF as well as having more as an absolute number.

As I said, we need more ancient dna from Italy. Hopefully it will be analyzed by some geneticists who aren't completely ignorant of history.

The idea that the Italy invaded by Vandals and Goths and then ravaged and laid prostrate by the Gothic Wars would have been a haven to anyone is indeed rather laughable, not to mention that there is no historical record of any such thing.

This timeline does not take into account the presence of slaves and free foreigners in Roman Italy, which, as discussed in other threads, is well attested by historical evidence. These people did not just vanish into thin air, presumably. What Hellenthal et al. picked up might be partly the result of the gradual assimilation of these foreign populations, which must have taken centuries to develop. It should also be remembered that this possible admixture in Tuscany from late Roman times is not only of the Near Easterners in question but also includes Europeans (the "French-like side"), so slaves, free citizens and military invaders coming from north of the Alps would also be taken into account.

 

[Hauteville]

You mysteriously forget that in this "battlefield" were also the Arabs and the Byzantines (who employed Near Eastern peoples in their armies as well.) In any event, all of these military intruders, including the Germanics, were nothing but small minorities.

Dude you are an hypocrite.
You deny every North African contribute in Iberian gene-pool in the Moorish and Carthaginian conquest (even if the latter were Phoenicians, so Eastern Mediterranean people transplanted in North Africa) but in the meantime you want to links Italy to MENA world?:innocent:

 

[Drac II]

It depends on the particular group under discussion. It should be clear to anyone who has done any study in this area that the Ostrogoths and Vandals, and the Byzantines, were either small elite groups or armies composed, in the case of the Byzantines, of many different ethnic groups. The Lombards are a case apart in Italy. That was an attested folk migration.

Even the Lombards were only a small minority. I posted some estimates for their numbers in Italy in another thread.

 

[Angela]

As to the impact of these armies, it depends on the particular group under discussion. It should be clear to anyone who has done any research into this period that the Ostrogoths and Vandals, and the Byzantines, were either small elite groups or armies composed, in the case of the Byzantines in particular, of many different ethnic groups. They may have made a difference in terms of a few yDna lines, but they wouldn't have had a significant impact on autosomal composition.The Lombards are a case apart in Italy. That was an attested folk migration.

 

[Arame]

Thanks Angela
I will keep with Your theory that this admixture if anything is real in it should be viewed the other way around, from North to Tuscany if there is no valid explanation for near eastern influence. Of course much lower than 60% for North.
BTW when saying Saracens I didn't mean they came all from Near East.

Armenians and southern Europeans share ancestry since the Neolithic and this was reinforced by shared ancestry from Yamnaya incursions. Why would the admixture event show up only in Toscana, and only at this time?

I don't know why. I opened this thread for searching the answer.
The other explanation could be that Toscans preserved the best the ENF genetic legacy.

 

[joeyc]

Dude you are an hypocrite.
You deny every North African contribute in Iberian gene-pool in the Moorish and Carthaginian conquest (even if the latter were Phoenicians, so Eastern Mediterranean people transplanted in North Africa) but in the meantime you want to links Italy to MENA world?:innocent:

Have you read him?

Well attested by historical evidence.

1 or 2 historians from the XIX century who thought that slaves in ancient Rome were Arabs and North Africans because many of them had GREEK names. This of course only by looking to a limited number of slaves from Rome, ignoring the rest of the Peninsula and the Empire.

If you think you're going to be able to slip in some off topic discussion about relative North African ancestry in Italy versus Iberia so you can get your ridiculous anthrofora war between racist Italians and Spaniards going on this thread, think again. Any such further posts by anyone will be deleted and there will be other consequences as well.

As for "L", it has a tiny presence in Italy, and anyway, it's most likely Neolithic. That looks very much like a Cardial spread. "JI" in Italy, as discussed extensively on this Board, is not divided very well into subclades. Only part of it can be attributed to the "Arabic" and "Moorish" type. As has been explained before, a lot of it seems to cluster in refugial mountain zones that also harbor G2a, indicating an early arrival for a good part of it. The E-M81 figures for central and northern Italy are based on studies with extremely small sample sizes, unlike the case in southern Italy or Sicily. The E-M81 percentage for Emilia is based, for example, on one or two samples.

Perhaps you should spend some time using the search engine here and acquainting yourself with these matters. It's a much more productive use of one's time, in my opinion, than posting endless pictures of Italians and Iberians in some effort to "prove" who is "darker". Just a friendly suggestion.

In terms of U6, I would recommend that you read the excellent recent paper on it so you can get an actual scientific analysis of the complicated story of the source of U6 in southern Europe.
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/14/109

Of course, over and above all of that, there's been southern Italian immigration to the center and north since the late 1800's. I often wonder if the four grandparent rule as applied to samples taken in the late 20th and early 21st century is enough to screen all that out.

Regardless, yDna markers are subject to founder effect and sometimes have quite a limited correlation with autosomal make up, as anyone who has spent some time reading and researching these topics should know.

As for signs of Saracen and Moorish influence in southern Italy, other than in cases of attested rule in certain areas, you might want to investigate, as a Neapolitan, the Saracen presence in Salerno. Not that I'm one of those people who thinks that a few thousand troops are going to change the autosomal composition of any people, as I alluded to in the above paragraph. In terms of yDna there might be some influence, however.

As to North African autosomal signatures, I have yet to see any significant percentages in Tuscans in admixture analyses. At 23andme I've never seen a single one score it at all. As I'm sure you're aware, that is not the case for Sicilians and some southern Italians. It's in very minor percentages, of course. (Tuscans and northern Italians, .7 versus 4.1 for Sicilians.)
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...HB00SRE5L6ED2osPs9M/edit?hl=en_US&pli=1#gid=0

Half of this stuff is your personal opinion and not an established fact. There is no evidence that haplogroup L came with Neolitich farmers, since no L has been found so far in neolitich remains.

Eupedia maps are not perfects but they include data from multiple peer reviewed studies, and there large number of native samples from Emilia, Tucany,...

Anyway you should see De Gaetano et al or Brisighelli et al which found more North African admixture in North and Central Italy than in the South.

 

[Drac II]

Dude you are an hypocrite.
You deny every North African contribute in Iberian gene-pool in the Moorish and Carthaginian conquest (even if the latter were Phoenicians, so Eastern Mediterranean people transplanted in North Africa) but in the meantime you want to links Italy to MENA world?:innocent:

Perhaps you conveniently forget to read that I pointed out that all these invaders in Italy were only a minority, same as with Iberia. The hypocrites are some of your friends, who wish that the Germanic invaders somehow made a huge contribution to Italy but mysteriously forget that there were also Carthaginian, Byzantine and Arab invaders in Italy as well. In my opinion, which is based on the opinion of historians who have looked into these matters, all of these invaders were only a small percentage of the population of Italy, so trying to attribute any huge impact on any of them is mistaken.

 

[Hauteville]

The hypocrites are some of your friends, who wish that the Germanic invaders somehow made a huge contribution to Italy

You don't for Spain?according to you, Spain is a country full of Visigoths and Celts and without Mediterranean contribution.

there were also Carthaginian, Byzantine and Arab invaders in Italy as well.

Byzantines no one deny their influences in Italy even though I don't like them because in the Gothic wars they destroyed the national kingdom.
Carthaginians occupied Sardinia, the western tip of Sicily (basically small coastal towns) and then with Hannibal a war in mainland Italy but nothing of really important.
Arabs of course conquered only Sicily for a short time and some raids in the coast of Italy and temporary conquest but as we know the expulsion of muslims from Sicily in the Frederick II times (and also especially before because most of them left Sicily in the Norman conquest) left a negligible contribution in the gene pool.

 

[Angela]

This timeline does not take into account the presence of slaves and free foreigners in Roman Italy, which, as discussed in other threads, is well attested by historical evidence. These people did not just vanish into thin air, presumably. What Hellenthal et al. picked up might be partly the result of the gradual assimilation of these foreign populations, which must have taken centuries to develop. It should also be remembered that this possible admixture in Tuscany from late Roman times is not only of the Near Easterners in question but also includes Europeans (the "French-like side"), so slaves, free citizens and military invaders coming from north of the Alps would also be taken into account.

Your agenda is always clear. My tolerance for ******** is limited, so be advised.

Your prior statement is nonsensical. "Near Eastern" ancestry has been present in Italy since the Neolithic, as it has been present in Spain, for that matter. How else did you get 81% or more EEF in some areas? You're all very "Barcin" like indeed.

A "Cypriot" like admixture didn't need to wait until the Middle Ages to appear in Tuscans, and neither did "French" like admixture. That had been making its way into Italy since the "Indo-Europeans" arrived, and then later with the Celts, and, yes, the Lombards, whose autosomal impact is measurable, even if it is largely relegated to northern areas.

How could these admixtures have happened only in the Middle Ages?

Plus, why would this only happen in Tuscany to this degree?

Have the rules of logic suddenly been suspended on this thread?

Oh wait, they're always suspended where Italy is concerned, and particularly when the Pan-Iberian front educated in the Stormfront analysis of European history and genetics appears.

 

[Hauteville]

Your agenda is always clear. My tolerance for ******** is limited, so be advised.

Your prior statement is nonsensical. "Near Eastern" ancestry has been present in Italy since the Neolithic, as it has been present in Spain, for that matter. How else did you get 81% or more EEF in some areas? You're all very "Barcin" like indeed.

A "Cypriot" like admixture didn't need to wait until the Middle Ages to appear in Tuscans, and neither did "French" like admixture. That had been making its way into Italy since the "Indo-Europeans" arrived, and then later with the Celts, and, yes, the Lombards, whose autosomal impact is measurable, even if it is largely relegated to northern areas.

How could these admixtures have happened only in the Middle Ages?

Plus, why would this only happen in Tuscany to this degree?

Have the rules of logic suddenly been suspended on this thread?

Oh wait, they're always suspended where Italy is concerned, and particularly when the Pan-Iberian front educated in the Stormfront analysis of European history and genetics appears.

Slaves in Roman Empire were really all from Near East?I really doubt of that.
Afaik many came from Gauls and Germanic soldiers enslaved.

 

[Drac II]

Have you read him?

Well attested by historical evidence.

1 or 2 historians from the XIX century who thought that slaves in ancient Rome were Arabs and North Africans because many of them had GREEK names. This of course only by looking to a limited number of slaves from Rome, ignoring the rest of the Peninsula and the Empire.

You already tried this misrepresentation of what historians say on this matter. It did not work then, it does not work now. Most historians specializing in Roman history from all through the 19th to the 21st century agree that there was a considerable population of slaves and free foreigners, and the names of the majority of these slaves and foreigners are typical of the HELLENIZED (not quite the same as simply "Greek") inhabitants of the eastern parts of the empire. On top of that some of these inscriptions also clearly mention where some of these people were coming from (I cited one for you already in that other thread where you were calling historians "charlatans".) Plus there's also the evidence of some Roman writers.

Half of this stuff is your personal opinion and not an established fact. There is no evidence that haplogroup L came with Neolitich farmers, since no L has been found so far in neolitich remains.

A while back in another thread someone else posted a reference to a study that found L in a prehistoric (but I can't remember right now exactly from when) sample from Iberia, so it has been in Europe since at least from whatever the time was that those samples were dated.

Eupedia maps are not perfects but they include data from multiple peer reviewed studies, and there large number of native samples from Emilia, Tucany,...

Anyway you should see De Gaetano et al or Brisighelli et al which found more North African admixture in North and Central Italy than in the South.

Which in the case of northern Italy does not make much sense from a historical context either, so we are once again looking at events that at least partly very likely predate historical record.

 

[Drac II]

You don't for Spain?according to you, Spain is a country full of Visigoths and Celts and without Mediterranean contribution.


Byzantines no one deny their influences in Italy even though I don't like them because in the Gothic wars they destroyed the national kingdom.
Carthaginians occupied Sardinia, the western tip of Sicily (basically small coastal towns) and then with Hannibal a war in mainland Italy but nothing of really important.
Arabs of course conquered only Sicily for a short time and some raids in the coast of Italy and temporary conquest but as we know the expulsion of muslims from Sicily in the Frederick II times (and also especially before because most of them left Sicily in the Norman conquest) left a negligible contribution in the gene pool.

Actually bother to read my posts. I also clearly showed while debating that "Johannes" fellow that the Visigoths in Iberia were nothing but a small minority of foreign intruders.

 

[joeyc]

The fact that they had Hellenized names does not prove that they came from the Levant and the like. Last time I checked slave holders could change the names of their slaves so that de facto proves my point.

Anyway the L in Iberia has been found only in the copper age and according to to some the authours did no test for either the M or N mutation.

 

[joeyc]

Anyway this myh of MENA slaves has been debunked by Ralph and Coop et al which found that Italians (mostly southerners) don't share more ancestry with Cypriots and Turks ( a good proxy for MENAs) in the last 2500 years than most Northern and Central Europeans. Genetics is a real science, unslike ass-umptions by historians.

 

[Drac II]

Your agenda is always clear. My tolerance for ******** is limited, so be advised.

Your prior statement is nonsensical. "Near Eastern" ancestry has been present in Italy since the Neolithic, as it has been present in Spain, for that matter. How else did you get 81% or more EEF in some areas? You're all very "Barcin" like indeed.

A "Cypriot" like admixture didn't need to wait until the Middle Ages to appear in Tuscans, and neither did "French" like admixture. That had been making its way into Italy since the "Indo-Europeans" arrived, and then later with the Celts, and, yes, the Lombards, whose autosomal impact is measurable, even if it is largely relegated to northern areas.

How could these admixtures have happened only in the Middle Ages?

Plus, why would this only happen in Tuscany to this degree?

Have the rules of logic suddenly been suspended on this thread?

Oh wait, they're always suspended where Italy is concerned, and particularly when the Pan-Iberian front educated in the Stormfront analysis of European history and genetics appears.

It is not "********", it is stated by a great number of historians specializing in Rome that there was a significant amount of both slaves and free citizens that came from other areas of the empire. The funerary inscriptions of the majority of these people strongly suggest an Eastern origin.

No one is denying prehistoric Near Eastern in Italy either. However, we are talking about the admixture that Hellenthal et al. finds to be from historical times, which according to their calculations goes from late Roman to medieval times. People have been talking about military invaders, as usual, but for some reason they simply forget about other people who came to other lands by other means, in this case either as slaves or free citizens. Since Hellenthal et al.'s calculation includes late Roman times, there is no reason why we should deny outright this possible source. So if anything it is other people who have clear agendas, not me. I am simply offering a possible explanation based on Hellenthal et al.'s calculations. If their calculations had excluded Roman times then we would have to confine ourselves to trying to find any other possible explanations for it.

Hellenthal et al. also records Near Eastern admixture from what their calculations say are historical times in other parts of Italy, not just Tuscany.

 

[Drac II]

The fact that they had Hellenized names does not prove that they came from the Levant and the like. Last time I checked slave holders could change the names of their slaves so that de facto proves my point.

This argument would have more of a point if the majority of the slaves had Roman or other names typically found among ancient Italians. You could then argue that this would make it quite difficult, if not impossible, to determine how many of these slaves were from Italy itself. But why would Roman slave holders change the names of their slaves to names common in the eastern parts of the empire?

Anyway the L in Iberia has been found only in the copper age and according to to some the authours did no test for either the M or N mutation.

Copper age is quite close to the Neolithic and falls under the general rubric of "prehistoric". So its presence in Europe is not necessarily due to historical events.

 

[joeyc]

Hellenthal has been criticized by many genetists because it used a new tecnique which gave many non sensical results.

There is no way to know the exact percentage of slaves in the Roman Empire. Inscriptions from Rome alone show a large number of Hellenized names (and nothing else) which de facto don't prove a Eastern origin since slave holders changed the names of their slaves. That's some hard facts.