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

[Vitruvius]

Whenever the Germanic admixture in North Italy is 5%, 10% or 15%, I am sure there is a model for every single percentage so we cannot really tell. But fact is that there is 15%-20% Germanic y-dna in there. And another fact is that this admixture is not zero or very close to zero.

The only fact is that there is not a single Germanic profile is found in EMA Torino-lavazza, EMA Bardonecchia, EMA Alto Adige, late antiquity Rome, Imperial era rome, EMA Rome and EMA Venosa. Other facts include that current northern Italians show direct continuity with IA Italic populations such as the Picenes without any additional northern admixture. Every single shred of evidence that could be used to quantify German ancestry is screaming ~0% German input in modern Italians. So far recovered samples have rejected even a modest scenario of Germanic input. Even the Collegno Langobard burials were only about 33% Germanic/N. Euro profiles when you actually look at them. Ironically Your figure of 20% german ancestry is actually most applicable to the 1st-2nd gen Germanic invaders due to how many Italians they immediately assimilated into their families.

 

[Ghurier]

You've totally missed the point and this argument you present is absolute nonsense. You are still dead set on the fictional idea that blondeness is some some sort of trait exclusive to Germanic populations when every ounce of evidence has told us otherwise both in the ancient world and now.

Two things :
1/ Not my argument ... I just said that the argument of your pal is "very bad", that's all.
2/ No, blondess is not purely Germanic, I said it right at the beginning.

Your friends think that because there is not a massive scandinavians population in modern North Italy it means that there haven't been Germanic-tribe DNA injection some 1500 years ago.
All I said is that such consideration is absurd, and in fact shows a total confusion about how works DNA and admixtures (in particular for recessive traits that concerns the most typical phenotypipal traits associated to "scandinavians").
I just illustrated with numbers that you can inject significant foreign DNA, without expecting to find massive population of "foreign" phenotypes in the merged population (which was the argument of your friend).

Now my only argument is about "diverse" Y-DNA connecting Italy to Germanic tribes some ~2000-1500 years ago.
Which in fact attest of a population movement. We have everything, the Y-DNA connection and the decoupling time at the right moment (in fact you even have two injections, one around Roman times and one around Longobard migration)
What can be debated is the exact amplitude of the movement, discussing the existence movement itself is, at best, totally absurd.
After, if you want to deny a population movement for which we have DNA tracers and historical documentation, it is up to you ... but sounds weird, and definitely not motivated by scientific motives.

 

[Ghurier]

The only fact is that there is not a single Germanic profile is found in EMA Torino-lavazza, EMA Bardonecchia, EMA Alto Adige, late antiquity Rome, Imperial era rome, EMA Rome and EMA Venosa. Other facts include that current northern Italians show direct continuity with IA Italic populations such as the Picenes without any additional northern admixture.

You will never demonstrates that with PCAs ... a PCA can't demonstrates continuity.
What can demonstrates continuity is a segment based analysis (what is in a very noisy way the Y-DNA).

If you receives genetic inputs from surrounding regions, as Europe is mainly an "autosomal DNA continuum" in PCA space, it will average out.
That's why for exemple, in my region, despite a lot of successive small movements since ~4000 years, we still have roughly the same profile than the Bell-Beaker that used to be there ... but that's not a proof of strict continuity. Just that the oter components added on the way averaged to the same global "PCA location".

European sub-regions lack sufficient peculiar DNA drift in PCA space, because since the build-up of the European populations, not enough time have ellapsed.
Therefore, in PCA space you have a statistically "degenerated" situation, that makes PCA not suitable for blindly inverting intra-European admixtures. At best you can use PCA as a validation to look if a mixture model is dooable.
But trying to deconvolves a PCA for intra-European population ... is loughable, this is not even working for modern high resolution samples.

PS: fun fact, in France some regions are making a G25 distance of ~3% with Solutreans ... lucky we are, we have no one who tries to claim continuity since the LGM !!! But maybe we will have some too .

 

[Vallicanus]

Two things :
1/ Not my argument ... I just said that the argument of your pal is "very bad", that's all.
2/ No, blondess is not purely Germanic, I said it right at the beginning.

Your friends think that because there is not a massive scandinavians population in modern North Italy it means that there haven't been Germanic-tribe DNA injection some 1500 years ago.
All I said is that such consideration is absurd, and in fact shows a total confusion about how works DNA and admixtures (in particular for recessive traits that concerns the most typical phenotypipal traits associated to "scandinavians").
I just illustrated with numbers that you can inject significant foreign DNA, without expecting to find massive population of "foreign" phenotypes in the merged population (which was the argument of your friend).

Now my only argument is about "diverse" Y-DNA connecting Italy to Germanic tribes some ~2000-1500 years ago.
Which in fact attest of a population movement. We have everything, the Y-DNA connection and the decoupling time at the right moment (in fact you even have two injections, one around Roman times and one around Longobard migration)
What can be debated is the exact amplitude of the movement, discussing the existence movement itself is, at best, totally absurd.
After, if you want to deny a population movement for which we have DNA tracers and historical documentation, it is up to you ... but sounds weird, and definitely not motivated by scientific motives.

You really are living in a parallel universe.

Vitruvius explained the matter clearly to you concerning LA/EMA Italian autosomal DNA but you just go marching on with your pseudo-science.

 

[Vallicanus]

You will never demonstrates that with PCAs ... a PCA can't demonstrates continuity.
What can demonstrates continuity is a segment based analysis (what is in a very noisy way the Y-DNA).

If you receives genetic inputs from surrounding regions, as Europe is mainly an "autosomal DNA continuum" in PCA space, it will average out.
That's why for exemple, in my region, despite a lot of successive small movements since ~4000 years, we still have roughly the same profile than the Bell-Beaker that used to be there ... but that's not a proof of strict continuity. Just that the oter components added on the way averaged to the same global "PCA location".

European sub-regions lack sufficient peculiar DNA drift in PCA space, because since the build-up of the European populations, not enough time have ellapsed.
Therefore, in PCA space you have a statistically "degenerated" situation, that makes PCA not suitable for blindly inverting intra-European admixtures. At best you can use PCA as a validation to look if a mixture model is dooable.
But trying to deconvolves a PCA for intra-European population ... is loughable, this is not even working for modern high resolution samples.

PS: fun fact, in France some regions are making a G25 distance of ~3% with Solutreans ... lucky we are, we have no one who tries to claim continuity since the LGM !!! But maybe we will have some too .

This nonsense is a waste of time you writing it and a waste of time my reading it.

 

[Vallicanus]

You just don't know what you are talking about. Sorry.

Sources please for this gobbledygook!

 

[Vallicanus]

You keep answering with a silly laughing face icon.

Mind you, when your arguments are so ridiculous, a laughing face icon is about the limit of your actual knowledge.

Your woke-ish pseudo-science just does not cut it.

 

[HereToLearn]

Keep looking for scandinavians ... good luck

I see very few Scandinavian looking types (let's say Haaland-like) in northern Italy and most of those very few would probably be confined to Alto Adige.

Then again, I see very few Iranian-Anatolian types in northern Italy and I've been reading that this should be one of the main genetic components of Italians.

That is why I suppose that when it comes to physical traits sexual selection may be at play and genetics only one of the reasons why a population looks the way it does, please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[ihype02]

You will never demonstrates that with PCAs ... a PCA can't demonstrates continuity.
What can demonstrates continuity is a segment based analysis (what is in a very noisy way the Y-DNA).

If you receives genetic inputs from surrounding regions, as Europe is mainly an "autosomal DNA continuum" in PCA space, it will average out.
That's why for exemple, in my region, despite a lot of successive small movements since ~4000 years, we still have roughly the same profile than the Bell-Beaker that used to be there ... but that's not a proof of strict continuity. Just that the oter components added on the way averaged to the same global "PCA location".

European sub-regions lack sufficient peculiar DNA drift in PCA space, because since the build-up of the European populations, not enough time have ellapsed.
Therefore, in PCA space you have a statistically "degenerated" situation, that makes PCA not suitable for blindly inverting intra-European admixtures. At best you can use PCA as a validation to look if a mixture model is dooable.
But trying to deconvolves a PCA for intra-European population ... is loughable, this is not even working for modern high resolution samples.

PS: fun fact, in France some regions are making a G25 distance of ~3% with Solutreans ... lucky we are, we have no one who tries to claim continuity since the LGM !!! But maybe we will have some too .

This is his census;
-> Rejects the idea of Northern Italians having 10% or even 5% Germanic DNA.
-> Claims Central Italians from Marche are 52% Greek transplant.

 

[Pax Augusta]

This is Renato Biasutti's map of the distribution of blond hair in Italy (I think the last edition published by Utet of his book is 1967) based on Livi's mid-19th century data. The peaks above 20% are in areas inhabited by linguistic minorities (Aosta Valley, South Tyrol, Eastern Friuli). I do not think they can prove something in favour of the alleged Longobard admixture.

 

[HereToLearn]

This is Renato Biasutti's map of the distribution of blond hair in Italy (I think the last edition published by Utet of his book is 1967) based on Livi's mid-19th century data. The peaks above 20% are in areas inhabited by linguistic minorities (Aosta Valley, South Tyrol, Eastern Friuli).

Above 20% looks "generous" for Aosta Valley. Of course it's based only on my personal experience in that region (substantial as it may be), so make of that what you will...

 

[Pax Augusta]

Above 20% looks generous for Aosta Valley.

The local population of Aosta Valley is very small, and it was also very small in the 19th century, and Aosta has received migrations from the rest of Italy in the last 100 years. The situation today is certainly not the same as it was in the 19th century (and this also applies to the rest of Italy).

 

[HereToLearn]

The local population of Aosta Valley is very small, and it was also very small in the 19th century, and Aosta has received migrations from the rest of Italy in the last 100 years.

Of course you're right, what part of northern Italy hasn't after all. Yet the phenotypical difference is quite apparent between native "unmixed" Aostans and South Tyroleans for example, whereas the former's phenotypes blend with much more continuity with their immediate neighbours of Piemonte.

All very interesting anyway and I'd be glad to continue this conversation in the physical anthropology section if only I had the privileges to post there.

 

[Pax Augusta]

Of course you're right, what part of northern Italy hasn't after all. Yet the phenotypical difference is quite apparent between native "unmixed" Aostans and South Tyroleans for example, whereas the former's phenotypes blend with much more continuity with their immediate neighbours of Piemonte.

All very interesting anyway and I'd be glad to continue this conversation in the physical anthropology section if only I had the privileges to post there.

Not only northern Italy also central Italy has undergone great demographic changes. However, the phenotypical question is always very subjective, too subjective. That is why I find it less interesting. The local native population of Aosta is still a Romance language speaking population after all, the main local substratum will be Celtic. Whereas the German-speaking population of South Tyrol is not, there is a high frequency of typically Germanic phenotypes, although there are also German-speaking South Tyroleans who have both dark eyes and dark hair and phenotypes not dissimilar to Italians. In the end hair and eye colour are subject to sexual selection, these are complicated discussions, it is no coincidence that physical anthropology, especially phenotypic taxonomy, is now out of fashion.

 

[HereToLearn]

The local native population of Aosta is still a Romance language speaking population after all, the main local substratum will be Celtic.

Agreed, that also confirms my comment that the percentage of blonds in the Aosta Valley should probably be lower than that shown for Alto Adige.

 

[Viramund]

Even the term "germanic y-dna" is kinda non sense in the broad generalistic manner that is always used(it could hardly be diferent), when you keep in mind gauls for example had I1 among then while germanics thenselves had a good percentage of R1b-L2, G2,E1b and J2 from their hallstatt and other southern ancentries.

 

[Ghurier]

Even the term "germanic y-dna" is kinda non sense in the broad generalistic manner that is always used(it could hardly be diferent), when you keep in mind gauls for example had I1 among then while germanics thenselves had a good percentage of R1b-L2, G2 and J2 from their hallstat and other southern ancentries.

Always ? By who ?

The wording "Germanic Y-DNA" is usually used to refer to the clades involved in the diffusion of the Germanic tribes.
You have indeed a vast diversity of clades, that can't be grouped using Y-DNA phylogeny.
Germans absorbed many clades on their way, and once absorbed, such clade becomes part of the "vectors" of the Germanic culture.
(For exemple, my own J-Z631 lineage have many subclades that have been absorbed by Germans)

You can identify such clades namely by looking at their diffusion footprint and diffusion timeframe ...
You can also consider them on a statistical point of view by analysing clade-correlation between two regions of the world (and when historical documentation exists, it becomes possible to identify the most likely direction of the migration traced by a correlation signal in the Y-DNA phylogeny).

And if you want some spoilers, Longobards by ~500 CE weren't "I1" in majority.
The ~500-600 CE movement is visible for some I1-subclades, but this isn't the strongest signal.

 

[Vallicanus]

Always ? By who ?

The wording "Germanic Y-DNA" is usually used to refer to the clades involved in the diffusion of the Germanic tribes.
You have indeed a vast diversity of clades, that can't be grouped using Y-DNA phylogeny.
Germans absorbed many clades on their way, and once absorbed, such clade becomes part of the "vectors" of the Germanic culture.
(For exemple, my own J-Z631 lineage have many subclades that have been absorbed by Germans)

You can identify such clades namely by looking at their diffusion footprint and diffusion timeframe ...
You can also consider them on a statistical point of view by analysing clade-correlation between two regions of the world (and when historical documentation exists, it becomes possible to identify the most likely direction of the migration traced by a correlation signal in the Y-DNA phylogeny).

And if you want some spoilers, Longobards by ~500 CE weren't "I1" in majority.
The ~500-600 CE movement is visible for some I1-subclades, but this isn't the strongest signal.

This thread is about Picenes, not Germanic tribes.
If you want to go on about Germanic Y-Dna and your place in that scenario feel free to start a thread on the subject.

 

[Vallicanus]

Post your pseudo-science in another thread, preferably on another forum.

 

[Vallicanus]

Failing that, please lie down in a darkened room and take your meds.