PDA

View Full Version : J1 and Northern Italy (Tuscany)



GeoFan
13-04-15, 23:30
Hello Eupedia, this is my 1st post. I found this forum by searching Google for info on my:

Northern Italian (Tuscan) Paternal J1 haplogroup.


Any helpful hints?

My father, paternal grandfather, and great-grandfather all had Tuscan roots. (Any other TSI: Toscans in Italy, J1?)


My paternal grandparents both emigrated from Italy to California in the early 1900s. As a child, I was told many times that they were 100% Northern Italian (and 100% Toscano.)


23andMe test results show that my Y-DNA haplogroup is J1. Paternal Haplogroup J-M267 (J1) with a LOT more haplogroup data to dig into (View differences from ancestral Y as CSV) do I want to do that?

On discussions in 23andMe there are a handful of J1 Northern Italians/Tuscans participating.


According to official records (Vecchiano Registry Office, which is less than 10 km from my grandmother's birthplace near Migliarino, Pisa, Italy) my grandparents and great-grandparents were local to the area in Tuscany between Pisa, Lucca, and Viareggio in the late 1800s and early 1900s. That is confirmed by my oral family history and Italian passports (early 1900s) from my grandparents. Today, in Italy, their surnames are found mostly within a hundred km of this locality.


Checked my surname population density in current Italian phone books here:

www dot gens dot info (use the button: Cognomi or Cerca, fill in the box, then click Trova, to see results on map.)

. . . . . Tried to post image here but need 10 posts first...


It was interesting to learn that a nearby town in Tuscany, where my surname is often found (between Pisa, Lucca, and Florence) is about 7.5% J1 but the average in Tuscany is only about 2% or 3% J1 with a lot of variation from town to town.


Other sites have discussed that J1 could be more common with the (ancient) Etruscans in Tuscany.


There is much to learn... genomics and genetic genealogy are very rapidly developing, it seems the picture may become clearer in the future. Current sample sizes in any given location of Tuscany are fairly small. Being new to DNA anthropology and DNA genealogy, I am very curious.

LeBrok
14-04-15, 06:13
Welcome GeoFan to Eupedia. Don't forget to check Maciamo's write up about J1.
http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_J1_Y-DNA.shtml

Pax Augusta
14-04-15, 17:23
It was interesting to learn that a nearby town in Tuscany, where my surname is often found (between Pisa, Lucca, and Florence) is about 7.5% J1 but the average in Tuscany is only about 2 or 3% J1.

Other sites have discussed that J1 could be more common with the (ancient) Etruscans in Tuscany.

J1 isn't one of the most common hgs in Tuscany and neither in North-Central Italy. We don't know for sure, but it could be linked with the Etruscans (but I don't think that was the most common hg among the Etruscans), with Greeks (also in this case not the most common hg among Greeks) but also with foreigner merchants who settled in the maritime Republic of Pisa in the middle ages. J1 is also found in France, Greece, Bulgaria, Albania, Slovenia, Portugal and Spain and they are all mostly J-M267. The highest are the Cretans in Europe. While J1-Z2223 is found in Germany, Belgium, Spain and Ireland according to Eupedia.

Alan
14-04-15, 18:02
J1 m267 in Tuscany most likely Etruscan, but could have also come with merchants or warriors from the east.

Angela
14-04-15, 18:05
J1 m267 in Tuscany most likely Etruscan, but could have also come with merchants or warriors from the east.

On what do you base that opinion, Alan?

Angela
14-04-15, 18:08
Hello Eupedia, this is my 1st post. I found this forum by searching Google for info on my:

Northern Italian (Tuscan) Paternal J1 haplogroup.


My father, paternal grandfather, and great-grandfather all had Tuscan roots. (Any other TSI: Toscans in Italy?)


My paternal grandparents both emigrated from Italy to California in the early 1900s. As a child, I was told many times that they were 100% Northern Italian (and 100% Toscano.)


23andMe test results show that my Y-DNA haplogroup is J1. Paternal Haplogroup J-M267 (J1) with a LOT more haplogroup data to dig into (View differences from ancestral Y as CSV) do I want to do that?

On discussions in 23andMe there are a handful of J1 Northern Italians/Tuscans participating.


According to official records (Vecchiano Registry Office, which is less than 10 km from my grandmother's birthplace near Migliarino, Pisa, Italy) my grandparents and great-grandparents were local to the area in Tuscany between Pisa, Lucca, and Viareggio in the late 1800s and early 1900s. That is confirmed by my oral family history and Italian passports (early 1900s) from my grandparents. Today, in Italy, their surnames are found mostly within a hundred km of this locality.


Check surname population density in current Italian phone books here:

www dot gens dot info (use the button: Cognomi or Cerca, fill in the box, then click Trova, to see results on map.)

. . . . . Tried to post image here but need 10 posts first...

It was interesting to learn that a nearby town in Tuscany, where my surname is often found (between Pisa, Lucca, and Florence) is about 7.5% J1 but the average in Tuscany is only about 2 or 3% J1.


Other sites have discussed that J1 could be more common with the (ancient) Etruscans in Tuscany.


Genomics and genetic genealogy are very rapidly developing, it seems the picture may become clearer in the future. Current sample sizes in any given location of Tuscany are fairly small.

Yes indeed, Geofan, welcome.

In order to get a handle on the path your J1 ancestor took into Italy, it is helpful to get further subclade resolution. Did you test only at 23andme and is this the only information you were given?

Alan
14-04-15, 18:55
On what do you base that opinion, Alan?

I think it is unlikely that J1 is Neolithic. And even less likely mesolithic. At earliest it must be Bronze Age. So maybe minor Indo European lineage? Otherwise Etruscan makes sense because Tuscany is known for it. And if not that it might be a lineage of the various mercenaries among the Roman legions (Sarmatian? Greek? Anatolian? Syrian? Caucasian?).

Pax Augusta
14-04-15, 20:16
I think it is unlikely that J1 is Neolithic. And even less likely mesolithic. At earliest it must be Bronze Age. So maybe minor Indo European lineage? Otherwise Etruscan makes sense because Tuscany is known for it. And if not that it might be a lineage of the various foreign soldiers among the Roman legions. (Sarmatian? Anatolian? Syrian?)

Unlikely? Why? The type of distribution (broader area of central-southern Europe, low percentages) would make think the opposite.

I think that there could be many different sources. Of course, the one does not exclude the other.

mihaitzateo
14-04-15, 21:44
Please see this detailed testing of Italians,from whole Italy.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/asset?unique&id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0065441.s013
It is a table (.xls) download it on your computer and look in it,are males from all over Italy.Are 884 samples of males,so is a lot to look on.
Here is the test:
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0065441
And here is the table with the areas from where samples were collected:
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0065441

I think you should make some autosomal testing,to know more about your genetics.

Sile
14-04-15, 22:00
Hello Eupedia, this is my 1st post. I found this forum by searching Google for info on my:

Northern Italian (Tuscan) Paternal J1 haplogroup.


My father, paternal grandfather, and great-grandfather all had Tuscan roots. (Any other TSI: Toscans in Italy?)


My paternal grandparents both emigrated from Italy to California in the early 1900s. As a child, I was told many times that they were 100% Northern Italian (and 100% Toscano.)


23andMe test results show that my Y-DNA haplogroup is J1. Paternal Haplogroup J-M267 (J1) with a LOT more haplogroup data to dig into (View differences from ancestral Y as CSV) do I want to do that?

On discussions in 23andMe there are a handful of J1 Northern Italians/Tuscans participating.


According to official records (Vecchiano Registry Office, which is less than 10 km from my grandmother's birthplace near Migliarino, Pisa, Italy) my grandparents and great-grandparents were local to the area in Tuscany between Pisa, Lucca, and Viareggio in the late 1800s and early 1900s. That is confirmed by my oral family history and Italian passports (early 1900s) from my grandparents. Today, in Italy, their surnames are found mostly within a hundred km of this locality.


Check surname population density in current Italian phone books here:

www dot gens dot info (use the button: Cognomi or Cerca, fill in the box, then click Trova, to see results on map.)

. . . . . Tried to post image here but need 10 posts first...

It was interesting to learn that a nearby town in Tuscany, where my surname is often found (between Pisa, Lucca, and Florence) is about 7.5% J1 but the average in Tuscany is only about 2 or 3% J1.


Other sites have discussed that J1 could be more common with the (ancient) Etruscans in Tuscany.


Genomics and genetic genealogy are very rapidly developing, it seems the picture may become clearer in the future. Current sample sizes in any given location of Tuscany are fairly small.

welcome

in regards to surnames...gens was good , best to use

http://www.cognomix.it/mappe-dei-cognomi-italiani/LOVISON

example of one of my ancestors

you can drill down further into each region , basically to town level

and also

http://www.ganino.com/cognomi_italiani_l
which you can translate to english on the site

Alan
14-04-15, 23:34
Unlikely? Why? The type of distribution (broader area of central-southern Europe, low percentages) would make think the opposite.

I think that there could be many different sources. Of course, the one does not exclude the other.

Unlikely because no J found in neolithic Europe.

Angela
15-04-15, 00:04
I'm assuming we're speaking about J1 M267 here? Well, it's certainly true we haven't found it or any Neolithic era J1 in Italy yet, but that isn't to say that we won't find any. It's certainly also possible that this clade in particular was a minor Indo-European lineage. I don't think many people expected to see a Bronze Age Indo-European from Hungary carrying J2a, either.

GeoFan
15-04-15, 04:42
Thanks for all the good tips. The links that Sile posted were very interesting to me.

Here is the complete info provided on Y-DNA by 23andMe...

My 23andme Results Y-DNA 20150414 .txt

ANCESTRY TOOLS :: HAPLOGROUP TREE MUTATION MAPPER

The 23andMe Personal Genome Service® uses thousands of SNPs to describe hundreds of mitochondrial DNA and Y chromosome haplogroups. This experimental feature will tell you which SNPs we use to define a given haplogroup. The list begins with the mutation that defines that haplogroup's most recent branch on the mitochondrial or Y chromosome tree and works backward to the root. Because the Haplogroup Tree Mutation Mapper is an experimental feature in 23andMe Tools, it may not work as well or provide as much documentation as our supported features.

Paternal line (Y chromosome)

J1 defining mutations

variant :: call anc der

rs9341313 (M267) G T G


J defining mutations

rs13447352 (M304) C A C


I/J defining mutations

rs17250163 (P126) G C G
rs17250887 (P130) T A T
rs17306671 (M429) A T A
rs17306699 (P129) G A G
rs17315772 (P124) C A C
rs17315821 (P123) C T C
rs7892893 (P127) T C T


I/J/K defining mutations

rs9786139 (L15) A G
rs9786714 (L16) G A


F defining mutations

i4000053 (P14) I D I
rs16980391 (P149) A G A
rs16980396 (P148) T C T
rs16980459 (P139) G A
rs16980478 (P138) C T C
rs16980499 (P166) T C T
rs16980711 (P133) G A
rs16981340 (P146) C T
rs17174528 (P187) G T
rs17842387 (P145) A G A
rs2032652 (M89) T C T
rs2032665 (M213) C T C
rs4589047 (P163) T A T
rs4988808 (P142) G A
rs7067496 (M235) T G
rs9306845 (P141) A G A
rs9306848 (P160) C A C
rs9785905 (P159) A C A
rs9785908 (P136) G T G
rs9785913 (P158) T C T
rs9786095 (P157) C T C
rs9786502 (P135) T C T
rs9786636 (P140) C G C
rs9786707 (P151) C T C
rs9786877 (P134) C G


C/F defining mutations

rs4141886 (P143) A G A


C/T defining mutations

i4000227 (P9.1) C A
rs2032595 (M168) T C T
rs9341317 (M294) T C T


B/T defining mutations

i4000077 (M139) D I D
rs13447347 (M299) G T G
rs2032630 (M42) T A T
rs2032647 (M94) A C A


===

View differences from ancestral Y as CSV

# Differences between user's SNP calls and the ancestral state, for all SNPs on the 23andMe Y tree
# This does not include SNPs for which the ancestral state is not stored (i.e. those not on the tree)
# Format:
# chromosome,snp_id,chromosome_position,user_call,an cestral_call

Y,i4000095,2649694,T,G
Y,i4000275,6740172,G,T
Y,rs9306845,6941218,A,G
Y,rs17842387,8424089,A,G
Y,rs9306848,8474189,C,A
Y,rs17250887,8558969,T,A
Y,rs7892893,8590752,T,C
Y,rs9786707,8680661,C,T
Y,rs17306671,14031334,A,T
Y,rs17306699,14144593,G,A
Y,rs4141886,14197867,A,G
Y,rs16980478,14199284,C,T
Y,rs2032595,14813991,T,C
Y,i4000152,14819693,T,G
Y,i4000140,15478017,G,A
Y,rs2032665,15526751,C,T
Y,rs4589047,16242316,T,A
Y,rs16980499,17256018,T,C
Y,i4000287,17287673,T,G
Y,rs9786636,17311975,C,G
Y,i4000053,17398597,I,D
Y,rs9785913,17493513,T,C
Y,rs9785905,18097251,A,C
Y,rs16980391,18578476,A,G
Y,rs17315772,19038302,C,A
Y,i4000127,19092559,C,G
Y,rs17315821,19166861,C,T
Y,rs16980396,19349615,T,C
Y,rs17250163,21225770,G,C
Y,rs4481791,21409706,G,C
Y,rs9786502,21618856,T,C
Y,i4000077,21706386,D,I
Y,i4000065,21765281,T,A
Y,i4000086,21866675,A,G
Y,rs2032630,21866840,T,A
Y,rs2032651,21907538,D,I
Y,rs2032652,21917313,T,C
Y,rs2032647,21938158,A,C
Y,rs9341312,22741728,T,A
Y,rs9341313,22741818,G,T
Y,rs9341317,22744945,T,C
Y,rs13447347,22748506,G,T
Y,rs13447352,22749853,C,A
Y,rs9785908,23040647,G,T
Y,rs9786095,24359931,C,T
Y,rs2268591,24464597,G,C


As a beginner, I am very curious about family DNA and ancestral DNA, and am just beginning to understand some of this.

If anything interesting jumps out at anyone, I'd like to know more.

Is M267 the most important fact here?

Any online tools that will accept the 23andMe (V4) data and give me more info?

It's very frustrating that GEDmatch has been unable to accept any new registrations due to a technical glitch for many weeks now.

Sile
15-04-15, 08:55
Thanks for all the good tips. The links that Sile posted were very interesting to me.

Here is the complete info provided on Y-DNA by 23andMe...

My 23andme Results Y-DNA 20150414 .txt

ANCESTRY TOOLS :: HAPLOGROUP TREE MUTATION MAPPER

The 23andMe Personal Genome Service® uses thousands of SNPs to describe hundreds of mitochondrial DNA and Y chromosome haplogroups. This experimental feature will tell you which SNPs we use to define a given haplogroup. The list begins with the mutation that defines that haplogroup's most recent branch on the mitochondrial or Y chromosome tree and works backward to the root. Because the Haplogroup Tree Mutation Mapper is an experimental feature in 23andMe Tools, it may not work as well or provide as much documentation as our supported features.

Paternal line (Y chromosome)

J1 defining mutations

variant :: call anc der

rs9341313 (M267) G T G


J defining mutations

rs13447352 (M304) C A C


I/J defining mutations

rs17250163 (P126) G C G
rs17250887 (P130) T A T
rs17306671 (M429) A T A
rs17306699 (P129) G A G
rs17315772 (P124) C A C
rs17315821 (P123) C T C
rs7892893 (P127) T C T


I/J/K defining mutations

rs9786139 (L15) A G
rs9786714 (L16) G A


F defining mutations

i4000053 (P14) I D I
rs16980391 (P149) A G A
rs16980396 (P148) T C T
rs16980459 (P139) G A
rs16980478 (P138) C T C
rs16980499 (P166) T C T
rs16980711 (P133) G A
rs16981340 (P146) C T
rs17174528 (P187) G T
rs17842387 (P145) A G A
rs2032652 (M89) T C T
rs2032665 (M213) C T C
rs4589047 (P163) T A T
rs4988808 (P142) G A
rs7067496 (M235) T G
rs9306845 (P141) A G A
rs9306848 (P160) C A C
rs9785905 (P159) A C A
rs9785908 (P136) G T G
rs9785913 (P158) T C T
rs9786095 (P157) C T C
rs9786502 (P135) T C T
rs9786636 (P140) C G C
rs9786707 (P151) C T C
rs9786877 (P134) C G


C/F defining mutations

rs4141886 (P143) A G A


C/T defining mutations

i4000227 (P9.1) C A
rs2032595 (M168) T C T
rs9341317 (M294) T C T


B/T defining mutations

i4000077 (M139) D I D
rs13447347 (M299) G T G
rs2032630 (M42) T A T
rs2032647 (M94) A C A


===

View differences from ancestral Y as CSV

# Differences between user's SNP calls and the ancestral state, for all SNPs on the 23andMe Y tree
# This does not include SNPs for which the ancestral state is not stored (i.e. those not on the tree)
# Format:
# chromosome,snp_id,chromosome_position,user_call,an cestral_call

Y,i4000095,2649694,T,G
Y,i4000275,6740172,G,T
Y,rs9306845,6941218,A,G
Y,rs17842387,8424089,A,G
Y,rs9306848,8474189,C,A
Y,rs17250887,8558969,T,A
Y,rs7892893,8590752,T,C
Y,rs9786707,8680661,C,T
Y,rs17306671,14031334,A,T
Y,rs17306699,14144593,G,A
Y,rs4141886,14197867,A,G
Y,rs16980478,14199284,C,T
Y,rs2032595,14813991,T,C
Y,i4000152,14819693,T,G
Y,i4000140,15478017,G,A
Y,rs2032665,15526751,C,T
Y,rs4589047,16242316,T,A
Y,rs16980499,17256018,T,C
Y,i4000287,17287673,T,G
Y,rs9786636,17311975,C,G
Y,i4000053,17398597,I,D
Y,rs9785913,17493513,T,C
Y,rs9785905,18097251,A,C
Y,rs16980391,18578476,A,G
Y,rs17315772,19038302,C,A
Y,i4000127,19092559,C,G
Y,rs17315821,19166861,C,T
Y,rs16980396,19349615,T,C
Y,rs17250163,21225770,G,C
Y,rs4481791,21409706,G,C
Y,rs9786502,21618856,T,C
Y,i4000077,21706386,D,I
Y,i4000065,21765281,T,A
Y,i4000086,21866675,A,G
Y,rs2032630,21866840,T,A
Y,rs2032651,21907538,D,I
Y,rs2032652,21917313,T,C
Y,rs2032647,21938158,A,C
Y,rs9341312,22741728,T,A
Y,rs9341313,22741818,G,T
Y,rs9341317,22744945,T,C
Y,rs13447347,22748506,G,T
Y,rs13447352,22749853,C,A
Y,rs9785908,23040647,G,T
Y,rs9786095,24359931,C,T
Y,rs2268591,24464597,G,C


As a beginner, I am very curious about family DNA and ancestral DNA, and am just beginning to understand some of this.

If anything interesting jumps out at anyone, I'd like to know more.

Is M267 the most important fact here?

Any online tools that will accept the 23andMe (V4) data and give me more info?

It's very frustrating that GEDmatch has been unable to accept any new registrations due to a technical glitch for many weeks now.





download your 23andme raw data, then go to this site
http://www.y-str.org/2014/04/23andme-to-ysnps.html

and download the tool, then upload your raw 23andme data into the tool and it will find your positive and negative SNP's

then you can use chris Morley data to upload the results and it will give you an idea where you sit in the tree OR upload it instead , here
http://www.y-str.org/2014/04/isogg-y-tree-addon-for-google-chrome.html
if you use chrome

GeoFan
15-04-15, 20:13
Thanks. I will try that. Thanks again to everyone for your additions above.

giuseppe rossi
25-04-15, 14:10
J1 m267 in Tuscany most likely Etruscan, but could have also come with merchants or warriors from the east.


I think it is unlikely that J1 is Neolithic. And even less likely mesolithic. At earliest it must be Bronze Age. So maybe minor Indo European lineage? Otherwise Etruscan makes sense because Tuscany is known for it. And if not that it might be a lineage of the various mercenaries among the Roman legions (Sarmatian? Greek? Anatolian? Syrian? Caucasian?).


Unlikely because no J found in neolithic Europe.

All neolitich samples so far are from Germany, Sweden, Spain, Hungary and Russia, so we don't know what there was in the Balkans or Italy back then. Do not forget that before Haak et al, everyone believed that R1b and R1a arrived into Europe from the Levant, so...

Anyway Etruscans originated from the German Urnfield culture and are related to the Rhaetians of Austria and Southern Germany.

J1 in Italy is frequent on the Apennines but rare on the costal areas of Tuscany, Latium and Campania where major Etruscan cities were located.

http://apprendereinrete.altervista.org/alterpages/files/mappa_etruschi.jpg

http://cdn.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup-J1.gif

Angela
25-04-15, 18:32
giuseppe rossi;455763]All neolitich samples so far are from Germany, Sweden, Spain, Hungary and Russia, so we don't know what there was in the Balkans or Italy back then. Do not forget that before Haak et al, everyone believed that R1b and R1a arrived into Europe from the Levant, so...


That's correct.


J1 in Italy is frequent on the Apennines but rare on the costal areas of Tuscany, Latium and Campania where major Etruscan cities were located.

http://apprendereinrete.altervista.org/alterpages/files/mappa_etruschi.jpg

http://cdn.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup-J1.gif[/QUOTE]

This is a map of all of J1, not just the subclade under discussion. Still, the relative paucity of J1 in the central Etrurian area certainly mitigates against it being specifically associated with the Etruscans.


Anyway Etruscans originated from the German Urnfield culture and are related to the Rhaetians of Austria and Southern Germany.

That's only one theory, which I'm sure you know. For what it's worth, given the J2 that was found in Bronze Age Hungary, and the autosomal analysis of the Urnfield culture showing some slightly higher West Asian component in them compared to other Bronze Age groups, I don't think it's impossible. However, we need an autosomal and ydna analysis of ancient Etruscan samples, and ancient dna samples from the Greeks as well, for that matter, because I don't think that the Haak et al paper elucidates all the migrations of the "Indo-Europeans" into Europe. Even then, I don't know if we will be absolutely sure, because we will in all probability never be able to get dna for the Villanovans, and the elite Etruscans who would provide the samples might not be representative of the mass of the population. (We do have some analysis of ancient Etruscan mtDna, 27 samples in fact, but the latest papers indicate that at the level of resolution that they did it's impossible to know when those lineages arrived in Italy. Unfortunately, from Barbujani's speech as recorded in a youtube video, my impression was that the samples can't be retested because the process actually destroys the bone. So, we will need new samples. I'm sure that there are other bones available in museums; I just hope that things have progressed enough that testing won't destroy the samples.)

My own personal opinion is that given the archaeological record, which shows no discontinuity at all, it's unlikely that there was a mass migration from Anatolia to Toscana in the 8th century BC. Other than that, I am keeping an open mind.

At any rate, if people want to get into a detailed discussion of Etruscan ethnicity, please go to the following:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/28937-Etruscans-where-from-Anatolia-Africa-or-Italy?p=435782&highlight=Etrucans#post435782

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30476-A-Genome-Wide-Study-of-Modern-Day-Tuscans-Revisiting-Herodotus-s-Theory-on-the-Origi?highlight=Etruscan+mtDna

As to Urnfield in this context, see this thread where the last post by Moesan is of particular interest.
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30968-Autosomal-analysis-of-Unetice-and-Urnfield-genomes?highlight=Urnfield

giuseppe rossi
25-04-15, 18:39
Etruscans were related ONLY to the Urnfield people of Austria and Southern Germany, aka the Rhaetians.

If Etruscans were Anatolian, then also the Rhaetians were.

Angela
25-04-15, 18:52
Etruscans were related ONLY to the Urnfield people of Austria and Southern Germany, aka the Rhaetians.

If Etruscans were Anatolian, then also the Rhaetians were.

You have absolutely no way of knowing that given the current level of verifiable data either archaeological or genetic. We just don't know yet. Vallicanus' statement about J1 being all African and Syrian is even worse, because we know it is in fact not the case.

No one who approaches these matters objectively with any kind of scientific or historical rigor is at all persuaded by these kinds of statements.

Taranis
25-04-15, 18:58
Etruscans were related ONLY to the Urnfield people of Austria and Southern Germany, aka the Rhaetians.

If Etruscans were Anatolian, then also the Rhaetians were.

If you have any evidence for Etruscan (or a related language, i.e. Raetian - which is only attested from southern Tyrol) ever been used north of the Alps (Southern Germany), I'd really like to see your linguistic evidence. Where are your Etruscan place names in southern Germany? :)

Conversely, I'd like to bring up that there's another language related to Etruscan attested from the Agaean, Lemnian (from the island of Lemnos), which is located off the coast of... you've guessed it, Anatolia.

giuseppe rossi
25-04-15, 19:38
Lemnians were Etruscan colonists in Greece.

There have been found plenty of Italic and Etruscan inscriptions in the East Med area.

Read this article.

http://dienekes.blogspot.it/2015/02/italic-eteocretan-sea-peoples.html#uds-search-results

Rhaetian inscriptions have been found mostly in Tyrol and Western Austria.

Distributions of Tyrsenian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrsenian_languages) languages.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/70/Tyrsenian_languages.svg/1024px-Tyrsenian_languages.svg.png

It includes Southern Germany.

Taranis
25-04-15, 19:57
Lemnians were Etruscan colonists in Greece.

Why is it that there's common Etruscan and Hittite religious material, in particular the Etruscan Tarkhun (whence the Roman name "Tarquinius") and the Hittite "Tarhun"? Its more likely that the Etruscans of Etruria were colonists from Anatolia, than the other way round.


There have been found plenty of Italic and Etruscan inscriptions in the East Med area.

Read this article.

http://dienekes.blogspot.it/2015/02/italic-eteocretan-sea-peoples.html#uds-search-results

First, Dienekes talks about Osco-Umbrian, and I have to say, I find the idea that Eteocretan/Minoan is Osco-Umbrian quite hair-raising. No offense to him, but has the guy actually ever taken a look at the Linear B or Linear A scripts?!


Rhaetian inscriptions have been found mostly in Tyrol and Western Austria.

Distributions of Tyrsenian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrsenian_languages) languages.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/70/Tyrsenian_languages.svg/1024px-Tyrsenian_languages.svg.png

It includes Southern Germany.

That map is from Wikipedia, its inaccurate about the distribution of Raetian (my idea is that they take the provincial boundaries of Roman Raetia and make that as language distribution - which works totally well, of course). There are no Raetian inscriptions from southern Germany, and I'm also unaware of any Raetian inscriptions from Vorarlberg, the Salzburger Land or even Upper Austria (Oberösterreich), which that map claims. If I'm wrong there, please pinpoint me to any inscriptions that I'm not aware of. Likewise, where are your Etruscan names (from Greek or Roman sources, maybe) north of the Alps?

giuseppe rossi
25-04-15, 20:10
^^

First of all Hittites were not native of Anatolia, but recent incomers from the Russian steppe. The fact that the Hittite and Etruscan languages share 1 or 2 words means very little, otherwise I could also claim that Indo Europeans came from India.

Then the Etruscans were a mixture of native neolich farmers and Urnfielders from Central Europe. That's supported by archeology.

On the other hand the theory of the Anatolian origin of the Etruscans is neither supported by linguistics or archeology.

Actually I don't get your point: the distribution of Raetian language is based on the archeology. Otherwise since we have very little or no Slavic, Germanic and Celtic inscriptions in Europe, we must suppose that those people originated on Mars.

MOESAN
25-04-15, 21:03
I'm not sure it could push things forwards but concerning Y-J1-M267, Wiki says it's the basic SNP of J1 nothing else - but it says too the most of the semitic speaking populations of Near-Eastern and Arabia, AND Africa had developped a high percentage of P58 upon this M267 "root" what is not the case concerning Europeans and Caucasus people of today. they are not sure of a birthpalce of J1-M267, helas.
what can that tell us? a few chances it came to Europe from semitic Phoenicians or we have to think the P58 is recent, I don't know (shame!)- it has more chances to be come here brought by people from Caucasus or Anatolia, what DOESN'T ELIMINATE A NEOLITHIC INTRODUCTION by the way. the distribution in Eastern Europe in Slavic lands doesn't tell us a lot of things; it's not too far from the distribution of tthers southeastern haplo's or aDNA among whoù we cannot tell the Neolithic part from the Metals part; the only but uncertain fact we have today is the absence of J-M267 among the ancient Neolithikers aDNA...
the low frequence in Galicia, rich for other southern haplos, even "semitic-like", doesn' t speak more for Phoenicians so not too much more for Maures - but Etruscans in Portugal? I don't know, so the Neolithic hypothesis cannot be ruled out completely. more than a wave has been suggested by surveys. We need surveys about subclades, even upon STRs (I'm not too found of but?)

MOESAN
25-04-15, 21:14
^^

First of all Hittites were not native of Anatolia, but recent incomers from the Russian steppe. The fact that the Hittite and Etruscan languages share 1 or 2 words means very little, otherwise I could also claim that Indo Europeans came from India.

Then the Etruscans were a mixture of native neolich farmers and Urnfielders from Central Europe. That's supported by archeology.

On the other hand the theory of the Anatolian origin of the Etruscans is neither supported by linguistics or archeology.

Actually I don't get your point: the distribution of Raetian language is based on the archeology. Otherwise since we have very little or no Slavic, Germanic and Celtic inscriptions in Europe, we must suppose that those people originated on Mars.


OK, some of your points are logical, but not all of them - Archeology, you say? it doesn't give us always what ethny is concerned, some material cultural traits have been shared by different ehtnies (it seems it is the case for late Urnfields) - we need linguistic inscriptions, or reports about place-names: Celtic, Germanic or Slavic place-names and anthroponyms are known. And the thesis about linguistic links between etruscan and some western anatolian (pre-I-E) or egean toponyms is not completley dispelled for I kow

Sile
25-04-15, 22:04
Trying to link Raetian with Etruscan seems to be old school.
with new evidence showing Raetian archaeology dated 3000BC having being found in Val Venosta ( Alta-Adige) ( south tyrol ) , home of the vennotes tribe of which oetzi was part of and trying to link these Raetians with Etruscans whose earliest known date in Italy is circa 800BC needs more proof.

Taranis
25-04-15, 22:07
^^

First of all Hittites were not native of Anatolia, but recent incomers from the Russian steppe. The fact that the Hittite and Etruscan languages share 1 or 2 words means very little, otherwise I could also claim that Indo Europeans came from India.

It means common mythological ideas and cultural contact.


Then the Etruscans were a mixture of native neolich farmers and Urnfielders from Central Europe. That's supported by archeology.

On the other hand the theory of the Anatolian origin of the Etruscans is neither supported by linguistics or archeology.

Actually, I'm not saying that Etruscan is actually related with Anatolian, but that they had contact with speakers of Anatolian. And, you're overlooking the fact that by the time of classical Etruria, the Hittite Empire had long-since disappeared. How do you explain a contact if the Etruscans weren't originally in Anatolia? If the Etruscans were Urnfielders form north of the alps, where's your linguistic evidence for such a presence? Is there an Etruscan substrate in Germanic?


Actually I don't get your point: the distribution of Raetian language is based on the archeology. Otherwise since we have very little or no Slavic, Germanic and Celtic inscriptions in Europe, we must suppose that those people originated on Mars.

Technically we actually do have some inscriptions, there's (short) Celtic graffiti from southern Germany (Manching), Switzerland (Bern) and Austria (Grafenstein), written in Greek and North Italic alphabets from the last century or so before the Roman conquest of that area.

Also, you should be aware that there's this field of linguistics called "onomastics". Hence why I'm asking you to come up with evidence for Etruscan place names from north of the Alps if you say that area was actually Etruscan.

giuseppe rossi
25-04-15, 22:14
Trying to link Raetian with Etruscan seems to be old school.
with new evidence showing Raetian archaeology dated 3000BC having being found in Val Venosta ( Alta-Adige) ( south tyrol ) , home of the vennotes tribe of which oetzi was part of and trying to link these Raetians with Etruscans whose earliest known date in Italy is circa 800BC needs more proof.

There are many linguistical evidence linking Etruscans and Rhaetians.


It means common mythological ideas and cultural contact.



Actually, I'm not saying that Etruscan is actually related with Anatolian, but that they had contact with speakers of Anatolian. And, you're overlooking the fact that by the time of classical Etruria, the Hittite Empire had long-since disappeared. How do you explain a contact if the Etruscans weren't originally in Anatolia? If the Etruscans were Urnfielders form north of the alps, where's your linguistic evidence for such a presence? Is there an Etruscan substrate in Germanic?



Technically we actually do have some inscriptions, there's (short) Celtic graffiti from southern Germany (Manching), Switzerland (Bern) and Austria (Grafenstein), written in Greek and North Italic alphabets from the last century or so before the Roman conquest of that area.

Also, you should be aware that there's this field of linguistics called "onomastics". Hence why I'm asking you to come up with evidence for Etruscan place names from north of the Alps if you say that area was actually Etruscan.

Both Etruscan and Raetic languages are little understood right now, so we are not able to detect substratums and onomastics for sure.

Pax Augusta
26-04-15, 03:26
J-M267 is found in many sub-populations in southern Europe, so the Etruscans can't be the reason. Or better, it can not be ruled out but certainly J-M267 is not related with the Etruscans only. And the highest percentages of J-M267 in Italy and Europe are not found in Tuscany.




Population
Sample size
Total J-M267
J-M267(xP58)
J-P58



publication


Malta (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malta)
90
7.8%
NA
NA
El-Sibai 2009 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M267#CITEREFEl-Sibai2009)[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M267#cite_note-6)


Crete (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crete)
193
8.3%
NA
NA
King 2008 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M267#CITEREFKing2008)


Greece (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greece) (mainland)
171
4.7%
NA
NA
King 2008 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M267#CITEREFKing2008)


Macedonia (Greece) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonia_%28Greece%29)
56
1.8%
NA
NA
Semino 2004 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M267#CITEREFSemino2004)


Greece
249
1.6%
NA
NA
Di Giacomo 2004 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M267#CITEREFDi_Giacomo2004)


Bulgaria (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgaria)
808
3.4%
NA
NA
Karachanak 2013 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M267#CITEREFKarachanak2013)


Romania (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romania)
130
1.5%
NA
NA
Di Giacomo 2004 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M267#CITEREFDi_Giacomo2004)


Russia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia)
223
0.4%
NA
NA
Di Giacomo 2004 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M267#CITEREFDi_Giacomo2004)


Republic of Macedonia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Macedonia) Albanian speakers
64
6.3%
NA
NA
Battaglia 2008 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M267#CITEREFBattaglia2008)


Albania (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albania)
56
3.6%
NA
NA
Semino 2004 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M267#CITEREFSemino2004)








Slovenia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slovenia)
75
1.3%
NA
NA
Battaglia 2008 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M267#CITEREFBattaglia2008)


Italians (northeast)
67
0.0%
NA
NA
Battaglia 2008 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M267#CITEREFBattaglia2008)


Italians (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italians)
915
0.7%
NA
NA
Capelli 2009 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M267#CITEREFCapelli2009)


Sicily (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicily)
236
3.8%
NA
NA
Di Gaetano 2008 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M267#CITEREFDi_Gaetano2008)


Provence (France) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provence)
51
2%
NA
NA
King 2011 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M267#CITEREFKing2011)


Portugal (North)
101
1.0%
NA
NA
Gonçalves 2005 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M267#CITEREFGon.C3.A7alves2005)


Portugal (Centre)
102
4.9%
NA
NA
Gonçalves 2005 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M267#CITEREFGon.C3.A7alves2005)


Portugal (South)
100
7.0%
NA
NA
Gonçalves 2005 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M267#CITEREFGon.C3.A7alves2005)


Açores (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A%C3%A7ores)
121
2.5%
NA
NA
Gonçalves 2005 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M267#CITEREFGon.C3.A7alves2005)


Madeira (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madeira)
129
0.0%
NA
NA
Gonçalves 20 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M267#CITEREFGon.C3.A7alves2005)05







but Etruscans in Portugal? I don't know, so the Neolithic hypothesis cannot be ruled out completely. more than a wave has been suggested by surveys. We need surveys about subclades, even upon STRs (I'm not too found of but?)

I agree.

Pax Augusta
26-04-15, 05:16
The most common mistake is thinking that the Etruscans were a genetically homogeneous people. As remembered by Angela some genetics tested ancient Etruscans samples: 27 sequences, 5 were found in Anatolia, 7 were found in Germany and only 2 in Tuscany. What we know for sure is that in the territories known as Etruria before the appearance of the Etruscan civilization there was the Villanovan culture. That's a fact. The proto-Villanovan culture descends from the Urnfield culture according to many scholars and archeological evidences. And the Villanovan culture was a key player in the make-up of the Etruscans, probably one of the most important. So it's correct to say that Etruscans descends in a way from the Urnfield culture. But more likely not only, at least culturally, from the Urnfield culture because the question still remains relevant: how did an Indo-European civilization as the Villanovan culture become the Etruscan civilization with a non-Indo-European language?



Actually, I'm not saying that Etruscan is actually related with Anatolian, but that they had contact with speakers of Anatolian. And, you're overlooking the fact that by the time of classical Etruria, the Hittite Empire had long-since disappeared. How do you explain a contact if the Etruscans weren't originally in Anatolia? If the Etruscans were Urnfielders form north of the alps, where's your linguistic evidence for such a presence? Is there an Etruscan substrate in Germanic?

Is there any evidence of a Germanic language around 800 BC in the Urnfield culture? More likely also the Celts and the last wave of Italics were Urnfielders.


Technically we actually do have some inscriptions, there's (short) Celtic graffiti from southern Germany (Manching), Switzerland (Bern) and Austria (Grafenstein), written in Greek and North Italic alphabets from the last century or so before the Roman conquest of that area. Also, you should be aware that there's this field of linguistics called "onomastics". Hence why I'm asking you to come up with evidence for Etruscan place names from north of the Alps if you say that area was actually Etruscan.

The North Italic alphabets is nothing more than a variant of the Etruscan alphabet (derived from the Euboean variant of the Greek alphabet). And in northern Italy were the Etruscans, not the Italics (even if some of civilizations in northern Italy like were genetically related to the Italics).



Why is it that there's common Etruscan and Hittite religious material, in particular the Etruscan Tarkhun (whence the Roman name "Tarquinius") and the Hittite "Tarhun"? Its more likely that the Etruscans of Etruria were colonists from Anatolia, than the other way round.

Hittite language is Indo-European while Etruscan is not considered Indo-European. Despite the numerous studies has not yet really been proven that the Etruscans were settlers who came from Anatolia. Furthermore there are no historical and archeological evidence of a mass migration from Anatolia to central Italy around 800 BC. Not to mention that there are no archaeological evidence of an Etruscan civilization outside Italy. Were there contacts between Etruria and Anatolia? Yes, for sure. The Etruscans were one of the most developed civilizations in Europe and Anatolia at that time was one of the most important places on the planet.


Also, you should be aware that there's this field of linguistics called "onomastics". Hence why I'm asking you to come up with evidence for Etruscan place names from north of the Alps if you say that area was actually Etruscan.

North of the Alps I don't know but in south Tyrol and Veneto there are place names of supposed Etruscan origin. Next days I look in the books I own if there is something more to the north.




My own personal opinion is that given the archaeological record, which shows no discontinuity at all, it's unlikely that there was a mass migration from Anatolia to Toscana in the 8th century BC. Other than that, I am keeping an open mind.

At any rate, if people want to get into a detailed discussion of Etruscan ethnicity, please go to the following:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/28937-Etruscans-where-from-Anatolia-Africa-or-Italy?p=435782&highlight=Etrucans#post435782

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30476-A-Genome-Wide-Study-of-Modern-Day-Tuscans-Revisiting-Herodotus-s-Theory-on-the-Origi?highlight=Etruscan+mtDna

As to Urnfield in this context, see this thread where the last post by Moesan is of particular interest.
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30968-Autosomal-analysis-of-Unetice-and-Urnfield-genomes?highlight=Urnfield


I agree with the Angela's suggestion to continue this discussion in more appropriate threads.

Yetos
26-04-15, 10:19
the problem with Villanovan culture is that show/have simmilar IE burial
but not in weaponry, which seems influenced by not IE
IE weaponry used socket sword handlle, Villanovan is using with peers, like Corinthians, Aegeans and generally Pelasgian,

some scientists create Villanovan 1 & 2 and used time limits, cultural etc
villanovan 1 is IE
villanovan 2 is Etruscan


you can see the difference amond a socket one and one with peers for the handlle


http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?id=JN.bcex2kh22bvC49KaMI7U8w&pid=15.1&H=114&W=160



http://ts4.mm.bing.net/th?id=JN.I2qJrlP8XuKCD2Wzy%2bAtSw&pid=15.1&H=116&W=160



there is also the case of a fat ring in the handlle, that seems until now that proto-used in Near East

Vallicanus
26-04-15, 10:30
@Angela

I think there has been a misunderstanding.

I mentioned in the Frontex thread that the migrants in the Med were mostly African and Syrian.

I did not mention J1 and Etruscans.

giuseppe rossi
26-04-15, 10:55
J-M267 is found in many sub-populations in southern Europe, so the Etruscans can't be the reason. Or better, it can not be ruled out but certainly J-M267 is not related with the Etruscans only. And the highest percentages of J-M267 in Italy and Europe are not found in Tuscany.




Population
Sample size
Total J-M267
J-M267(xP58)
J-P58



publication


Malta (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malta)
90
7.8%
NA
NA
El-Sibai 2009 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M267#CITEREFEl-Sibai2009)[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M267#cite_note-6)


Crete (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crete)
193
8.3%
NA
NA
King 2008 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M267#CITEREFKing2008)


Greece (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greece) (mainland)
171
4.7%
NA
NA
King 2008 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M267#CITEREFKing2008)


Macedonia (Greece) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonia_%28Greece%29)
56
1.8%
NA
NA
Semino 2004 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M267#CITEREFSemino2004)


Greece
249
1.6%
NA
NA
Di Giacomo 2004 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M267#CITEREFDi_Giacomo2004)


Bulgaria (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgaria)
808
3.4%
NA
NA
Karachanak 2013 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M267#CITEREFKarachanak2013)


Romania (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romania)
130
1.5%
NA
NA
Di Giacomo 2004 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M267#CITEREFDi_Giacomo2004)


Russia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia)
223
0.4%
NA
NA
Di Giacomo 2004 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M267#CITEREFDi_Giacomo2004)


Republic of Macedonia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Macedonia) Albanian speakers
64
6.3%
NA
NA
Battaglia 2008 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M267#CITEREFBattaglia2008)


Albania (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albania)
56
3.6%
NA
NA
Semino 2004 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M267#CITEREFSemino2004)








Slovenia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slovenia)
75
1.3%
NA
NA
Battaglia 2008 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M267#CITEREFBattaglia2008)


Italians (northeast)
67
0.0%
NA
NA
Battaglia 2008 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M267#CITEREFBattaglia2008)


Italians (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italians)
915
0.7%
NA
NA
Capelli 2009 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M267#CITEREFCapelli2009)


Sicily (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicily)
236
3.8%
NA
NA
Di Gaetano 2008 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M267#CITEREFDi_Gaetano2008)


Provence (France) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provence)
51
2%
NA
NA
King 2011 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M267#CITEREFKing2011)


Portugal (North)
101
1.0%
NA
NA
Gonçalves 2005 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M267#CITEREFGon.C3.A7alves2005)


Portugal (Centre)
102
4.9%
NA
NA
Gonçalves 2005 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M267#CITEREFGon.C3.A7alves2005)


Portugal (South)
100
7.0%
NA
NA
Gonçalves 2005 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M267#CITEREFGon.C3.A7alves2005)


Açores (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A%C3%A7ores)
121
2.5%
NA
NA
Gonçalves 2005 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M267#CITEREFGon.C3.A7alves2005)


Madeira (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madeira)
129
0.0%
NA
NA
Gonçalves 20 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M267#CITEREFGon.C3.A7alves2005)05








I agree.

Indeed, J1 is more frequent in Greece, Malta, Albania and parts of Iberia.

Yetos
26-04-15, 11:26
@Angela

I think there has been a misunderstanding.

I mentioned in the Frontex thread that the migrants in the Med were mostly African and Syrian.

I did not mention J1 and Etruscans.

@ Vallicanus

Is it true that Scott and Skoda and Skudra and Scythians are the same name and meaning?

Perhaps FRONTEX should also patrol East boarders for immigrants, the central Asians,

Vallicanus
26-04-15, 12:37
@ Vallicanus

Is it true that Scott and Skoda and Skudra and Scythians are the same name and meaning?

Perhaps FRONTEX should also patrol East boarders for immigrants, the central Asians,


It's "SCOT".

No, the connection is bogus.

Your racism is showing.

Yetos
26-04-15, 13:07
It's "SCOT".

No, the connection is bogus.

Your racism is showing.

who cares if it is Scot or Scott or Scuth?

none is European,
neither Scot, neither Etruscan,
thank you I have never hide, I am a racist
and since probably you are not a racist,
would you like to share the weight of illegal immigration? and take 200 000 in your town?

Vallicanus
26-04-15, 13:19
who cares if it is Scot or Scott or Scuth?

none is European,
neither Scot, neither Etruscan,
thank you I have never hide, I am a racist
and since probably you are not a racist,
would you like to share the weight of illegal immigration? and take 200 000 in your town?

The Scots and other Britons are more "European" than your people.

Your racism will not stop the flows from Africa and Asia.

European racism is a bit of a joke given that most features of civilisation there, even agriculture, came from the Fertile Crescent.

Yetos
26-04-15, 13:52
The Scots and other Britons are more "European" than your people.

Your racism will not stop the flows from Africa and Asia.

European racism is a bit of a joke given that most features of civilisation there, even agriculture, came from the Fertile Crescent.

since when? and why? is ?Gedrosian or Altaic component dismissed in your DNA?
and who are my people?
Yes I am a racist,
since you are not? why you do not take these new comers to your 'Europe"?
Besides it was Europe's policies to create that tsunami,
and help to an equal distribution?
But your laws and treaties say that these people must return to the country of entrance,
so we allow people to travel through out Europe and find a job, but we do not allow these people, and we gather them in the countries of entrance,
thank you mr 'Non Racist',

MOESAN
26-04-15, 13:56
helas racism is not the only question concerning immigration, a geographic problem -World demic density of today has nothing in common with Neolithic times! - no easy answer to the problems send by massive immigration caused by more than a reason - only politicians and teenagers give simplistic explanations and solutions.
By the way I don't see too well the link with the present thread, Y-J1 in N EItaly

Pax Augusta
26-04-15, 15:17
Yetos and Vallicanus, please stop with your senseless off-topic.

Angela
26-04-15, 16:58
@Angela

I think there has been a misunderstanding.

I mentioned in the Frontex thread that the migrants in the Med were mostly African and Syrian.

I did not mention J1 and Etruscans.

You're correct. It was my mistake.

Angela
26-04-15, 17:02
Vallicanus and Yetos, any discussion of immigration into Europe should take place in the appropriate thread. However, keep it civil and fact based. Your comments are objectionable. Consider yourselves both cautioned.

Angela
26-04-15, 17:08
J-M267 is found in many sub-populations in southern Europe, so the Etruscans can't be the reason. Or better, it can not be ruled out but certainly J-M267 is not related with the Etruscans only. And the highest percentages of J-M267 in Italy and Europe are not found in Tuscany.




Population
Sample size
Total J-M267
J-M267(xP58)
J-P58



publication


Malta (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malta)
90
7.8%
NA
NA
El-Sibai 2009 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M267#CITEREFEl-Sibai2009)[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M267#cite_note-6)


Crete (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crete)
193
8.3%
NA
NA
King 2008 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M267#CITEREFKing2008)


Greece (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greece) (mainland)
171
4.7%
NA
NA
King 2008 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M267#CITEREFKing2008)


Macedonia (Greece) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonia_%28Greece%29)
56
1.8%
NA
NA
Semino 2004 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M267#CITEREFSemino2004)


Greece
249
1.6%
NA
NA
Di Giacomo 2004 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M267#CITEREFDi_Giacomo2004)


Bulgaria (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgaria)
808
3.4%
NA
NA
Karachanak 2013 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M267#CITEREFKarachanak2013)


Romania (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romania)
130
1.5%
NA
NA
Di Giacomo 2004 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M267#CITEREFDi_Giacomo2004)


Russia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia)
223
0.4%
NA
NA
Di Giacomo 2004 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M267#CITEREFDi_Giacomo2004)


Republic of Macedonia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Macedonia) Albanian speakers
64
6.3%
NA
NA
Battaglia 2008 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M267#CITEREFBattaglia2008)


Albania (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albania)
56
3.6%
NA
NA
Semino 2004 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M267#CITEREFSemino2004)








Slovenia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slovenia)
75
1.3%
NA
NA
Battaglia 2008 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M267#CITEREFBattaglia2008)


Italians (northeast)
67
0.0%
NA
NA
Battaglia 2008 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M267#CITEREFBattaglia2008)


Italians (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italians)
915
0.7%
NA
NA
Capelli 2009 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M267#CITEREFCapelli2009)


Sicily (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicily)
236
3.8%
NA
NA
Di Gaetano 2008 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M267#CITEREFDi_Gaetano2008)


Provence (France) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provence)
51
2%
NA
NA
King 2011 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M267#CITEREFKing2011)


Portugal (North)
101
1.0%
NA
NA
Gonçalves 2005 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M267#CITEREFGon.C3.A7alves2005)


Portugal (Centre)
102
4.9%
NA
NA
Gonçalves 2005 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M267#CITEREFGon.C3.A7alves2005)


Portugal (South)
100
7.0%
NA
NA
Gonçalves 2005 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M267#CITEREFGon.C3.A7alves2005)


Açores (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A%C3%A7ores)
121
2.5%
NA
NA
Gonçalves 2005 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M267#CITEREFGon.C3.A7alves2005)


Madeira (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madeira)
129
0.0%
NA
NA
Gonçalves 20 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M267#CITEREFGon.C3.A7alves2005)05








I agree.

Thank you for the data Pax Augusta, but could you post the paper from which it is drawn?

Angela
26-04-15, 17:15
Indeed, J1 is more frequent in Greece, Malta, Albania and parts of Iberia.

As helpful as it is, this is one paper. The Eupedia map of the distribution of J1 is more informative because it shows an average of many papers. It's true that it doesn't break it down into subclades, but for the purposes of this discussion, it doesn't matter, because it shows a paucity of any of it in Toscana, and therefore there is no strong evidence of a "particular" link of J1 with the Etruscans. However, I never expected Y dna C in Mesolithic Europe either. Ancient dna always seems to surprise.

Pax Augusta
26-04-15, 18:02
Thank you for the data Pax Augusta, but could you post the paper from which it is drawn?

From this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M267#Europe

giuseppe rossi
26-04-15, 18:47
As helpful as it is, this is one paper. The Eupedia map of the distribution of J1 is more informative because it shows an average of many papers. It's true that it doesn't break it down into subclades, but for the purposes of this discussion, it doesn't matter, because it shows a paucity of any of it in Toscana, and therefore there is no strong evidence of a "particular" link of J1 with the Etruscans. However, I never expected Y dna C in Mesolithic Europe either. Ancient dna always seems to surprise.

The complete absence of J1 in the Raetic homeland on the Alps is even a better evidence.

Hauteville
26-04-15, 19:21
Thanks Pax, these datas are perfect for some pathetic people who says that southern Italians are Arabs in Europe. lol

Angela
26-04-15, 19:37
From this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M267#Europe

Sorry, Pax, the papers are listed on the side. I hadn't had my coffee yet! :)

Angela
26-04-15, 20:40
In Boattini et al 2013, which covers all of Italy, Table S1 shows frequencies by area and also divides J1 up into "J1e", the so called "Arabic" J1 marker, versus the rest. I think that's a bit of a misnomer, by the way. J1e has its overwhelming presence in Saudi Arabia and parts of the southern Levant because of founder effect. It doesn't mean there isn't J1e which was never in the Arabian peninsula. Therefore, J1e in other parts of the world did not necessarily come by way of the Arabian peninsula or even the southern Levant, much less the non J1e varieties. We'd need a lot more subclade resolution, in my opinion, to make these kinds of determinations.

This is the link to the paper. Then just click on Table S1.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0065441

Area IV would include the original "Etruria". J1e is 1.6%, and the non J1e percentage is also 1.6%.

Table S2 is more detailed in that it lists the clade, the STR values, and the specific town of origin.

The J1 generally seems to come from Grosseto/Siena and Pistoia because there is only one J1 in La Spezia.

As good as I think the Boattini paper is, the sample numbers are small. For the purposes of this topic I think Maciamo's map shows that J1 doesn't look like it would be the Etruscan marker, but ancient dna always surprises, so who knows. If it was involved, I don't think it would have been of the J1e variety.

giuseppe rossi
26-04-15, 21:01
Thanks Pax, these datas are perfect for some pathetic people who says that southern Italians are Arabs in Europe. lol

LOL

Read here.

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/28666-Distribution-of-haplogroup-J1-in-Italy-(Boattini-et-al-)?p=455922&viewfull=1#post455922

Sile
26-04-15, 21:46
since when? and why? is ?Gedrosian or Altaic component dismissed in your DNA?
and who are my people?
Yes I am a racist,
since you are not? why you do not take these new comers to your 'Europe"?
Besides it was Europe's policies to create that tsunami,
and help to an equal distribution?
But your laws and treaties say that these people must return to the country of entrance,
so we allow people to travel through out Europe and find a job, but we do not allow these people, and we gather them in the countries of entrance,
thank you mr 'Non Racist',



problem is that a law needs to be in place in Europe........no papers, we send you back to where your boat came from. When we have your papers, then we proceed with your acceptance or decline for immigration. lost papers is not an excuse, neither is stolen papers etc ..............Europe is not united because it has nations, remove nations, and give power to brussels. If you do not like this, then leave the EU and make your own rules ........what are they going to do if you refuse to take in 100% illegal immigrants
Malta refuses 100% , they boat them to Italy and Greece

Sile
26-04-15, 21:51
Thanks Pax, these datas are perfect for some pathetic people who says that southern Italians are Arabs in Europe. lol

The term arab is wrong as it represents a creation from after the Roman period, the correct term is Bedouin. Arabs came from southern arabia and pushed into the middle-east and north africa less than 2000 years ago. So ancient J1 are not arabs, but it is a semetic marker

Angela
26-04-15, 22:11
problem is that a law needs to be in place in Europe........no papers, we send you back to where your boat came from. When we have your papers, then we proceed with your acceptance or decline for immigration. lost papers is not an excuse, neither is stolen papers etc ..............Europe is not united because it has nations, remove nations, and give power to brussels. If you do not like this, then leave the EU and make your own rules ........what are they going to do if you refuse to take in 100% illegal immigrants
Malta refuses 100% , they boat them to Italy and Greece

Did you miss the post where I stated that this discussion is off topic and to post it in the appropriate thread?

See post #41: any discussion of immigration into Europe should take place in the appropriate thread.

Sile
26-04-15, 22:30
Did you miss the post where I stated that this discussion is off topic and to post it in the appropriate thread?

See post #41: any discussion of immigration into Europe should take place in the appropriate thread.

due to the fact I have to log in 2 to 3 times ( in a hurry as I might loose everything ) to write anything, then of course I missed it.................fix my issue and it will not happen again

Angela
26-04-15, 22:36
due to the fact I have to log in 2 to 3 times ( in a hurry as I might loose everything ) to write anything, then of course I missed it.................fix my issue and it will not happen again

I merely called the fact to your attention.

If you have complaints about the way the program is timing you out, I'm afraid I can't help you as I'm not the owner of the forum.

giuseppe rossi
26-04-15, 22:48
The term arab is wrong as it represents a creation from after the Roman period, the correct term is Bedouin. Arabs came from southern arabia and pushed into the middle-east and north africa less than 2000 years ago. So ancient J1 are not arabs, but it is a semetic marker

Eupedia about J1:

The first J1 men lived in the Late Upper Paleolithic, shortly before the end of the last Ice Age. Like many other successful lineages from the Middle East, J1 is thought to have undergone a major population expansion during the Neolithic period.


Chiaroni et al. (2010) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohen_modal_haplotype) found that the greatest genetic diversity of J1 haplotypes was found in eastern Anatolia, near Lake Van in central Kurdistan. Eastern Anatolia and the Zagros mountains are the region where goats and sheep were first domesticated, some 11,000 years ago. Chiaroni et al. estimated that J1-P58 started expanding 9,000 to 10,000 years ago as pastoralists from the Fertile Crescent. Although they did not analyze the other branches, it is most likely that all surviving J1 lineages share the same origin as goat and sheep herders from the Taurus and Zagros mountains.


The mountainous terrain of the Caucasus, Anatolia and modern Iran, which wasn't suitable for early cereal farming, was an ideal ground for goat and sheep herding and catalyzed the propagation of J1 pastoralists. Having colonised most of Anatolia, J1 herders would have settled the mountainous regions of Europe, including the southern Balkans, the Carpathians, central and southern Italy (Apennines, Sicily, Sardinia), southern France (especially Auvergne), and most of the Iberian peninsula. Hotspots of J1 in northern Spain (Cantabria, Asturias) appear to be essentially lineages descended from these Southwest Asian Neolithic herders.


Most J1 Europeans belong to the J1-Z1828 branch, which is also found in Anatolia and the Caucasus, but not in Arabic countries. The Z1842 subclade of Z1828 is the most common variety of J1 in Armenia and Georgia. There are also two other minor European branches: J1-Z2223, which has been found in Anatolia, Germany, Belgium, Ireland and Spain, andJ1-M365.1, identified only in England and Spain at the moment. Their very upstream position in the phylogenetic tree and their scarcity in the Middle East suggests that these were among the earliest J1 lineages to leave the Middle East, probably in the Early Neolithic, or possibly even as Late Paleolithic hunter-gatherers that wandered outside Anatolia and ended up in western Europe.


Within the Middle East, SNP analysis shows that the J1-L136 branch migrated south from eastern Anatolia and split in three directions: the Levant, the southern Zagros (and southern Mesopotamia ?), and the mountainous south-western corner of the Arabian peninsula (mostly in Yemen), bypassing the Arabian Desert. That latter group, consisting essentially of J1-P56 lineages, crossed the Red Sea to settle Sudan, Eritrea, Djibouti and northern Somalia. The climate would have been considerably less arid than today during the Neolithic period, allowing for a relatively easy transmigration across the Middle East with herds of goats.

Neolithic J1 goat herders were almost certainly not homogenous tribes consisting exclusively of J1 lineages, but in all likelihood a blend of J1 and T1 (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_T_mtDNA.shtml) lineages. So much is evident from the presence of both J1 and T1 in north-east Africa, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, but also in the Fertile Crescent, the Caucasus and the mountainous parts of southern Europe. Maternal lineages also correlate. Wherever J1 and T1 are found in high frequency, mtDNA haplogroups HV (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_HV_mtDNA.shtml), N1 and U3 (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_U3_mtDNA.shtml)are also present, as well as J, K and T to a lower extent (=>see Correlating the mtDNA haplogroups of the original Y-haplogroup J1 and T1 herders (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/29400-Correlating-the-mtDNA-haplogroups-of-the-original-Y-haplogroup-J1-and-T1-herders)). It is unclear whether goats were domesticated by a tribe that already comprised both J1 and T1 lineages, or if the merger between the two groups happened during the Neolithic expansion, when two separate tribes would have bumped into each others, intermixed, and thereafter propagated together.

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_J1_Y-DNA.shtml

Highest frequency of J1 is found among North East Caucasians.

Pax Augusta
27-04-15, 02:36
Area IV would include the original "Etruria". J1e is 1.6%, and the non J1e percentage is also 1.6%.

Table S2 is more detailed in that it lists the clade, the STR values, and the specific town of origin.

The J1 generally seems to come from Grosseto/Siena and Pistoia because there is only one J1 in La Spezia.

As good as I think the Boattini paper is, the sample numbers are small. For the purposes of this topic I think Maciamo's map shows that J1 doesn't look like it would be the Etruscan marker, but ancient dna always surprises, so who knows. If it was involved, I don't think it would have been of the J1e variety.

Samples numbers are too small indeed. Grosseto/Siena has the same percentage of Cuneo in west Piedmont, while Pistoia (same percentage of Bologna, Emilia-Romagna) is just one sample. Ironically J1 is lower in the traditional Etruscan territories and stronger in the Appennines. It's clear that J1 can have many different origins, also Jewish in Europe but could be a minor Neolithic lineage as well. Interesting that the Kubachi and Dargins from Dagestan in the Northeast Caucasus have over 80% of J1 lineages. I think that considering the J1e an Arabic or a Proto-Semitic marker is stretching the truth.

Sile
27-04-15, 09:44
Eupedia about J1:

The first J1 men lived in the Late Upper Paleolithic, shortly before the end of the last Ice Age. Like many other successful lineages from the Middle East, J1 is thought to have undergone a major population expansion during the Neolithic period.

Chiaroni et al. (2010) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohen_modal_haplotype) found that the greatest genetic diversity of J1 haplotypes was found in eastern Anatolia, near Lake Van in central Kurdistan. Eastern Anatolia and the Zagros mountains are the region where goats and sheep were first domesticated, some 11,000 years ago. Chiaroni et al. estimated that J1-P58 started expanding 9,000 to 10,000 years ago as pastoralists from the Fertile Crescent. Although they did not analyze the other branches, it is most likely that all surviving J1 lineages share the same origin as goat and sheep herders from the Taurus and Zagros mountains.

The mountainous terrain of the Caucasus, Anatolia and modern Iran, which wasn't suitable for early cereal farming, was an ideal ground for goat and sheep herding and catalyzed the propagation of J1 pastoralists. Having colonised most of Anatolia, J1 herders would have settled the mountainous regions of Europe, including the southern Balkans, the Carpathians, central and southern Italy (Apennines, Sicily, Sardinia), southern France (especially Auvergne), and most of the Iberian peninsula. Hotspots of J1 in northern Spain (Cantabria, Asturias) appear to be essentially lineages descended from these Southwest Asian Neolithic herders.

Most J1 Europeans belong to the J1-Z1828 branch, which is also found in Anatolia and the Caucasus, but not in Arabic countries. The Z1842 subclade of Z1828 is the most common variety of J1 in Armenia and Georgia. There are also two other minor European branches: J1-Z2223, which has been found in Anatolia, Germany, Belgium, Ireland and Spain, andJ1-M365.1, identified only in England and Spain at the moment. Their very upstream position in the phylogenetic tree and their scarcity in the Middle East suggests that these were among the earliest J1 lineages to leave the Middle East, probably in the Early Neolithic, or possibly even as Late Paleolithic hunter-gatherers that wandered outside Anatolia and ended up in western Europe.

Within the Middle East, SNP analysis shows that the J1-L136 branch migrated south from eastern Anatolia and split in three directions: the Levant, the southern Zagros (and southern Mesopotamia ?), and the mountainous south-western corner of the Arabian peninsula (mostly in Yemen), bypassing the Arabian Desert. That latter group, consisting essentially of J1-P56 lineages, crossed the Red Sea to settle Sudan, Eritrea, Djibouti and northern Somalia. The climate would have been considerably less arid than today during the Neolithic period, allowing for a relatively easy transmigration across the Middle East with herds of goats.

Neolithic J1 goat herders were almost certainly not homogenous tribes consisting exclusively of J1 lineages, but in all likelihood a blend of J1 and T1 (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_T_mtDNA.shtml) lineages. So much is evident from the presence of both J1 and T1 in north-east Africa, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, but also in the Fertile Crescent, the Caucasus and the mountainous parts of southern Europe. Maternal lineages also correlate. Wherever J1 and T1 are found in high frequency, mtDNA haplogroups HV (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_HV_mtDNA.shtml), N1 and U3 (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_U3_mtDNA.shtml)are also present, as well as J, K and T to a lower extent (=>see Correlating the mtDNA haplogroups of the original Y-haplogroup J1 and T1 herders (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/29400-Correlating-the-mtDNA-haplogroups-of-the-original-Y-haplogroup-J1-and-T1-herders)). It is unclear whether goats were domesticated by a tribe that already comprised both J1 and T1 lineages, or if the merger between the two groups happened during the Neolithic expansion, when two separate tribes would have bumped into each others, intermixed, and thereafter propagated together.

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_J1_Y-DNA.shtml

Highest frequency of J1 is found among North East Caucasians.

so, you are saying J1 ydna travelled with T1 mtdna ( as per your link) ...............so, where did you find this union ?

Maleth
27-04-15, 10:14
If it can help with this discussion Malta has around 8% J1 which is probably the highest after Crete (in a Eurpean perspective). In Europe even thou it can even be considered like a small sample since the whole population of the Islands is considered like a medium sized town. Probably there are regions or Towns in southern Europe who might have a bigger percentage then this but calculated and absorbed on the General population of the country or region. However this is not the point.

We have 4 surnames (so far) in the local project which are J1. Two of them are unmistakably Jewish in origin who arrived in Malta from Spain in the 15th century and converted to Christianity anyway. Strangely enough one of them is the first documented baptism documented at the Cathedral in Mdina (that was the capital city then). There have also been many slaves brought in by the knights where piracy was at that time part of the economy. (North Africa is very high on J1 and not only E-81) Unlike what we might think some of these slaves were freed by time and some remained on the Island and even converted to Christianity and married to local women. The same is known to have happened the other way round (Maltese and other southern Europeans taken as slaves to North Africa in similar piracy and raids which must have left a similar minimal imprint of say E-V13, R1b and I2a in north Africa (or at least contributed towards it) I am not disputing the fact that J1 can also be a product of more ancient times and it has been round enough to be possible, but one cannot totally ignore much more recent inputs considering the well documented of more recent events.

Pax Augusta
27-04-15, 13:10
If it can help with this discussion Malta has around 8% J1 which is probably the highest after Crete (in a Eurpean perspective). In Europe even thou it can even be considered like a small sample since the whole population of the Islands is considered like a medium sized town. Probably there are regions or Towns in southern Europe who might have a bigger percentage then this but calculated and absorbed on the General population of the country or region. However this is not the point.

We have 4 surnames (so far) in the local project which are J1. Two of them are unmistakably Jewish in origin who arrived in Malta from Spain in the 15th century and converted to Christianity anyway. Strangely enough one of them is the first documented baptism documented at the Cathedral in Mdina (that was the capital city then). There have also been many slaves brought in by the knights where piracy was at that time part of the economy. (North Africa is very high on J1 and not only E-81) Unlike what we might think some of these slaves were freed by time and some remained on the Island and even converted to Christianity and married to local women. The same is known to have happened the other way round (Maltese and other southern Europeans taken as slaves to North Africa in similar piracy and raids which must have left a similar minimal imprint of say E-V13, R1b and I2a in north Africa (or at least contributed towards it) I am not disputing the fact that J1 can also be a product of more ancient times and it has been round enough to be possible, but one cannot totally ignore much more recent inputs considering the well documented of more recent events.

Grazie, Maleth. Very interesting post. More likely a coincidence but the Tuscan area (Livorno, Pisa) from where the OP's ancestors are said to come from had the largest Jewish community in Tuscany, the so called "Nazione Ebrea" ("Hebrew nation") composed of Sephardi and Italkim. The other important communities were in Florence, Siena and Pitigliano (Grosseto) but not only. The Grand Duchy of Tuscany had laws generally tolerant towards the Jews but according to many sources there were many converts ("neofiti") though. J1 has clearly many different sources, most could be of Neolithic or Chalcolithic origin indeed.

Angela
27-04-15, 17:51
Grazie, Maleth. Very interesting post. More likely a coincidence but the Tuscan area (Livorno, Pisa) from where the OP's ancestors are said to come from had the largest Jewish community in Tuscany, the so called "Nazione Ebrea" ("Hebrew nation") composed of Sephardi and Italkim. The other important communities were in Florence, Siena and Pitigliano (Grosseto) but not only. The Grand Duchy of Tuscany had laws generally tolerant towards the Jews but according to many sources there were many converts ("neofiti") though. J1 has clearly many different sources, most could be of Neolithic or Chalcolithic origin indeed.

I agree with all of that. The major problem is that while R1b and R1a have been heavily analyzed and many subclades discovered and tracked, that hasn't been done for J1. Different migrations would have had different J1 subclades. One of the reasons I like the Boattini et al study is that at least it separates out the J1e which is heavily present in both the Arabian peninsula and among Jews. It is not very frequent in the Caucasus. That said, even J1e could have been part of prior migrations because, as I said, the thinking, to the best of my recollection, is that J1e formed in the north, moved south with certain groups of herders, and through patriarchy and a huge founder effect, is the predominant J1 lineage in the south. We just don't know yet.

All of that said, it's true that some of the J1e anywhere in Europe in currently non religiously or genetically Jewish people could be the result of conversions in the past. If it's within the last 2-300 years the Ashkenazi part, at least, would show up in the autosomes as measured at 23andme. The specifically Sephardi type might not, although through intermarriage with Ashkenazim, that portion of the ancestry might shown up, and might, given the area, alert the tester to Sephardi ancestry.

In terms of the important "Jewish" areas in Italy, as I'm sure you know but others may not, there were also large communities, perhaps the largest, in Rome, where Jews were resident since the days of ancient Rome, and in Piemonte, where the landscape was dotted with synogogues, the largest and most impressive being in Torino. The Jewish community of Torino was numerous, very influential after emancipation, active in the movement for Italian independence, in industry, and in the arts, and highly assimilated. Then there is, of course, Venice, which is where the word "ghetto" was first used. Sicily once had a large Jewish population, and although most of them were expelled, there is a record that some remained and converted.

The English language Wiki article is informative and pretty balanced in its representation of the see saws between tolerance and persecution in Italy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Italy

Still, the numbers of Jews present in Italy since the Middle Ages at least are infinitesimal compared to the numbers in eastern Europe. While being not at all dispositive, I've never seen an Italian score anything more than noise level Ashkenazi at 23andme. On the other hand, if posts at 23andme are anything to go by, quite a number of eastern Europeans score between 1-2% Ashkenazi. Of course, any admixture into the populations of Italy from two thousand or more years ago would be impossible to trace through 23andme, and there is difficulty, as I said, with tracing the Sephardic portion at all times.

For Italian readers, I quite like this second volume treatment of the Jews in Italy after the expulsions in Spain and Portugal up to more recent times:
http://www.librimondadori.it/libri/storia-degli-ebrei-italiani-volume-secondo-riccardo-calimani#9788852048753

For a cheaper price it's also available in e book format.

The earlier periods are covered in the first volume.

giuseppe rossi
27-04-15, 19:04
One can't compare Malta and Italy, since Jews were never expelled from the former.

The highest frequency of J1 in Italy is in the regions of Umbria, Marche and Abruzzo by the way.

Maleth
27-04-15, 19:13
Grazie, Maleth. Very interesting post.

Prego Pax Augusta.


More likely a coincidence but the Tuscan area (Livorno, Pisa) from where the OP's ancestors are said to come from had the largest Jewish community in Tuscany, the so called "Nazione Ebrea" ("Hebrew nation") composed of Sephardi and Italkim. The other important communities were in Florence, Siena and Pitigliano (Grosseto) but not only. The Grand Duchy of Tuscany had laws generally tolerant towards the Jews but according to many sources there were many converts ("neofiti") though. J1 has clearly many different sources, most could be of Neolithic or Chalcolithic origin indeed.

Sounds like it could have been a similar structure since Malta was part of the kingdom of the two Scicilies by then, who in turn could have some similar political structures in place to the regions further north. In the old capital Mdina there is a street called Jewry street which signifies the importance of the Jewish community prior to the expulsions. As you have stated and also Angela it is also very probable that J1 can also be know to be of ancient and very ancient presence too from different sources, but so far its not very clear.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Malta

Maleth
27-04-15, 19:17
One can't compare Malta and Italy, since Jews were never expelled from the former.

Malta and Sicily came under Aragonese (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_of_Aragon) rule and the 1492 Edict of Expulsion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alhambra_Decree) forced all Jews to leave the country. Because they made up such a large portion of the island's population the Spanish Crown forced them to pay compensation for the losses caused by their expulsion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Malta

John Doe
27-04-15, 19:34
One can't compare Malta and Italy, since Jews were never expelled from the former.

The highest frequency of J1 in Italy is in the regions of Umbria, Marche and Abruzzo by the way.
Thing is, Jews never numbered more than a couple of hundreds in Malta. Also, J2 and E3b are much more common among Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jews than J1 is among them, with J2 being around 20% among both, and E3b at around 15% (including myself), with only about 10% of AJs belonging to J1.

Hauteville
27-04-15, 19:48
It depends how many Jews stayed and how many Jews left Italy, Spain, Malta, Greece etc

Hauteville
27-04-15, 19:49
Malta and Sicily came under Aragonese (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_of_Aragon) rule and the 1492 Edict of Expulsion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alhambra_Decree) forced all Jews to leave the country. Because they made up such a large portion of the island's population the Spanish Crown forced them to pay compensation for the losses caused by their expulsion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Malta
Yes true

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYmF10Ofqbk

Maleth
27-04-15, 20:10
Thing is, Jews never numbered more than a couple of hundreds in Malta. Also, J2 and E3b are much more common among Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jews than J1 is among them, with J2 being around 20% among both, and E3b at around 15% (including myself), with only about 10% of AJs belonging to J1.

Thats a good point, some of the Jewish converts could also have been J2 and E3b so one can calculate when considering Sephardic ydna percentages how much of it was due to Jewish intermixing. The rest would have arrived from different sources, different ages and circumstances.

giuseppe rossi
27-04-15, 20:39
Jews in Malta were expelled in 1492, but the island was given to the Knights of Malta who imported many of Jewish slaves from Greece and Anatolia.


Thing is, Jews never numbered more than a couple of hundreds in Malta. Also, J2 and E3b are much more common among Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jews than J1 is among them, with J2 being around 20% among both, and E3b at around 15% (including myself), with only about 10% of AJs belonging to J1.

Frequencies of major haplogroups:

Ashkenazi Jews:

19% J1
19% J2
20.5% E

Sephardi Jews:

22% J1
25% J2
9% E

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml

Maleth
27-04-15, 21:12
Jews in Malta were expelled in 1492, but the island was given to the Knights of Malta who imported many of Jewish slaves from Greece and Anatolia.

The Knights of Malta brought with them a large population of Rhodians (considering the population of the time) when they lost the island (Rhodes) to the ottomans. They were not slaves but Rhodians fleeing Ottoman rule who accompanied the Knights. Slaves were brought in through raids and piracy not much different to what happened example in Venice and Genoa. Raiding and piracy was big business for maritime powers. This happened all over Europe example Northern France (St Malo) preying on English cargo and others. The knights of Malta were well known for their galleons.

Sile
27-04-15, 21:31
I agree with all of that. The major problem is that while R1b and R1a have been heavily analyzed and many subclades discovered and tracked, that hasn't been done for J1. Different migrations would have had different J1 subclades. One of the reasons I like the Boattini et al study is that at least it separates out the J1e which is heavily present in both the Arabian peninsula and among Jews. It is not very frequent in the Caucasus. That said, even J1e could have been part of prior migrations because, as I said, the thinking, to the best of my recollection, is that J1e formed in the north, moved south with certain groups of herders, and through patriarchy and a huge founder effect, is the predominant J1 lineage in the south. We just don't know yet.

All of that said, it's true that some of the J1e anywhere in Europe in currently non religiously or genetically Jewish people could be the result of conversions in the past. If it's within the last 2-300 years the Ashkenazi part, at least, would show up in the autosomes as measured at 23andme. The specifically Sephardi type might not, although through intermarriage with Ashkenazim, that portion of the ancestry might shown up, and might, given the area, alert the tester to Sephardi ancestry.

In terms of the important "Jewish" areas in Italy, as I'm sure you know but others may not, there were also large communities, perhaps the largest, in Rome, where Jews were resident since the days of ancient Rome, and in Piemonte, where the landscape was dotted with synogogues, the largest and most impressive being in Torino. The Jewish community of Torino was numerous, very influential after emancipation, active in the movement for Italian independence, in industry, and in the arts, and highly assimilated. Then there is, of course, Venice, which is where the word "ghetto" was first used. Sicily once had a large Jewish population, and although most of them were expelled, there is a record that some remained and converted.

The English language Wiki article is informative and pretty balanced in its representation of the see saws between tolerance and persecution in Italy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Italy

Still, the numbers of Jews present in Italy since the Middle Ages at least are infinitesimal compared to the numbers in eastern Europe. While being not at all dispositive, I've never seen an Italian score anything more than noise level Ashkenazi at 23andme. On the other hand, if posts at 23andme are anything to go by, quite a number of eastern Europeans score between 1-2% Ashkenazi. Of course, any admixture into the populations of Italy from two thousand or more years ago would be impossible to trace through 23andme, and there is difficulty, as I said, with tracing the Sephardic portion at all times.

For Italian readers, I quite like this second volume treatment of the Jews in Italy after the expulsions in Spain and Portugal up to more recent times:
http://www.librimondadori.it/libri/storia-degli-ebrei-italiani-volume-secondo-riccardo-calimani#9788852048753

For a cheaper price it's also available in e book format.

The earlier periods are covered in the first volume.

the bulk of jews in Venice arrived from Valencia after they where thrown out by the Spanish ...they would be Sephardic

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/vjw/Venice.html

the word Calle means street ( strada in italian ) in Venetian

After reading many books on the jews in Venice, my conclusion was that Venice wanted the state to be superior to any religious groups, this non acceptance of this line meant jews where moved on by venetians to other parts of the world...........Venice got their way. Only 2500 jews where present when Napoleon entered Venice in 1797 . this represents about 1% of the populace at the time.

in 23andme , which seeks ashkenazi lines, has me ( the most of my family tested ) as 0.3%

Hauteville
27-04-15, 22:17
Knights were from Rhodes and Cyprus and imported some of people from the two Greek islands.

John Doe
27-04-15, 22:39
Jews in Malta were expelled in 1492, but the island was given to the Knights of Malta who imported many of Jewish slaves from Greece and Anatolia.



Frequencies of major haplogroups:

Ashkenazi Jews:

19% J1
19% J2
20.5% E

Sephardi Jews:

22% J1
25% J2
9% E

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml

Guess I have been quite off, but my point stands, J2 and J1 are equal in number and more AJs belong to E, which is a euphemism for E3b in the case of AJs, and that's without talking about roughly 10% belonging to R1a, 9% to R1b, 5% to Q, 4% to I and 2% to T.

Hauteville
27-04-15, 22:43
Which subclades of E1b1b are common among the Jews?M123, M35 and others?

Maleth
27-04-15, 22:48
Knights were from Rhodes and Cyprus and imported some of people from the two Greek islands.

To be more precise they were monks turning to soldiers and came from the noble houses around Europe to be able to serve. That was still all Catholic at the time. They started off as hospitaliers to care for the Christian pilgrims visiting the holyland and became militants when they established themselves in Rhodes. After the protestant reformation they were left with the Portuguese, Spanish, Italian, French and British/German languages. The French languages (3) were the largest group.

Maleth
27-04-15, 23:01
Which subclades of E1b1b are common among the Jews?M123, M35 and others?

E-M34 would be the most dominant E subclade in Jewish populations. E1b1b and M35 are very generic terms and include a number of subclades. This could confuse a person who is not familiar with Ydna and complicates matters. When these are used they are not very specific and too generic for any good analysis.....and the terms keep changing too as they split further

http://cdn.eupedia.com/images/content/E1b1b-tree.gif

John Doe
28-04-15, 13:24
Which subclades of E1b1b are common among the Jews?M123, M35 and others?
Yeah, but M35 is very general, I reckon most AJs who are M35 belong to the M34 subclade while others belong to the E-V13 one.

Sile
28-04-15, 21:41
Yeah, but M35 is very general, I reckon most AJs who are M35 belong to the M34 subclade while others belong to the E-V13 one.

As per M35 in north-east Italy ......boattini states about 12% while NAtgeno states 10.5% , in this area the bulk of M35 , about 80%, are either E-L117 or E-L542

I am unsure how accurate boattini ( 2013 paper ) is, as the paper also stated 8.2% of L ydna in north-east italy

Alan
29-04-15, 01:09
It means common mythological ideas and cultural contact.



Actually, I'm not saying that Etruscan is actually related with Anatolian, but that they had contact with speakers of Anatolian. And, you're overlooking the fact that by the time of classical Etruria, the Hittite Empire had long-since disappeared. How do you explain a contact if the Etruscans weren't originally in Anatolia? If the Etruscans were Urnfielders form north of the alps, where's your linguistic evidence for such a presence? Is there an Etruscan substrate in Germanic?


The obvious archeological, cultural, linguistic connection of Etruscans with ancient Ageans and the fact that Heredotus (despite some of his claims are false most of it is correct and the Agean is just side by to Greece), calls Etruscans, descend of Lydians(Indo Europeans from Agaen), kinda speaks more for an Anatolian origin of Etruscans imo. Thats simply too much to be just "coincidence".

By the way according to Herodotus Etruscans are related to Raetians but the Raetians themselves are also descend of Lydians. The Etruscans fled from the invading Gauls towards Italy.

Pax Augusta
29-04-15, 03:38
The obvious archeological, cultural, linguistic connection of Etruscans with ancient Ageans and the fact that Heredotus (despite some of his claims are false most of it is correct and the Agean is just side by to Greece), calls Etruscans, descend of Lydians(Indo Europeans from Agaen), kinda speaks more for an Anatolian origin of Etruscans imo. Thats simply too much to be just "coincidence". By the way according to Herodotus Etruscans are related to Raetians but the Raetians themselves are also descend of Lydians. The Etruscans fled from the invading Gauls towards Italy.

There is nothing obvious, never found so far the smoking gun that show that Herodotus was right. Moreover there aren't archeological connections that link the Etruscans with ancient Ageans and actually the linguistic connection is due to one single inscription, the Lemnos stele. Etruscan language is not considered Indo-European so the connection with the Lydians is problematic as well, not to mention that there was no similar language to Etruscan in Anatolia. Furthermore all the genetic studies didn't prove a mass migration from Anatolia to Central Italy around 1000/800 BC neither the archeological nor the historical studies and Central Italy was already inhabited by a civilization called "Villanovan culture" branched from the Urnfield culture.

Well, there were certainly many contacts between Italy, Greece and Anatolia, one of the most important trade routes. Etruscans were known as experienced sailors and the Etruscan civilization passed through an Orientalizing period roughly at the same time of the archaic phase of ancient Greeks. The transformation of the "Villanovan culture" into the Etruscan civilization is most likely due also to these contacts but these contacts could date back to the Cardium Pottery culture as well because there is evidence that the Etruscan civilization developed in situ.



In terms of the important "Jewish" areas in Italy, as I'm sure you know but others may not, there were also large communities, perhaps the largest, in Rome, where Jews were resident since the days of ancient Rome, and in Piemonte, where the landscape was dotted with synogogues, the largest and most impressive being in Torino. The Jewish community of Torino was numerous, very influential after emancipation, active in the movement for Italian independence, in industry, and in the arts, and highly assimilated. Then there is, of course, Venice, which is where the word "ghetto" was first used. Sicily once had a large Jewish population, and although most of them were expelled, there is a record that some remained and converted.

The English language Wiki article is informative and pretty balanced in its representation of the see saws between tolerance and persecution in Italy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Italy

Still, the numbers of Jews present in Italy since the Middle Ages at least are infinitesimal compared to the numbers in eastern Europe. While being not at all dispositive, I've never seen an Italian score anything more than noise level Ashkenazi at 23andme. On the other hand, if posts at 23andme are anything to go by, quite a number of eastern Europeans score between 1-2% Ashkenazi. Of course, any admixture into the populations of Italy from two thousand or more years ago would be impossible to trace through 23andme, and there is difficulty, as I said, with tracing the Sephardic portion at all times.

For Italian readers, I quite like this second volume treatment of the Jews in Italy after the expulsions in Spain and Portugal up to more recent times:
http://www.librimondadori.it/libri/storia-degli-ebrei-italiani-volume-secondo-riccardo-calimani#9788852048753

For a cheaper price it's also available in e book format.

The earlier periods are covered in the first volume.

Very informative, Angela. Thanks.

Angela
29-04-15, 05:37
There is nothing obvious, never found so far the smoking gun that show that Herodotus was right. Moreover there aren't archeological connections that link the Etruscans with ancient Ageans and actually the linguistic connection is due to one single inscription, the Lemnos stele. Etruscan language is not considered Indo-European so the connection with the Lydians is problematic as well, not to mention that there was no similar language to Etruscan in Anatolia. Furthermore all the genetic studies didn't prove a mass migration from Anatolia to Central Italy around 1000/800 BC neither the archeological nor the historical studies and Central Italy was already inhabited by a civilization called "Villanovan culture" branched from the Urnfield culture.

Well, there were certainly many contacts between Italy, Greece and Anatolia, one of the most important trade routes. Etruscans were known as experienced sailors and the Etruscan civilization passed through an Orientalizing period roughly at the same time of the archaic phase of ancient Greeks. The transformation of the "Villanovan culture" into the Etruscan civilization is most likely due also to these contacts but these contacts could date back to the Cardium Pottery culture as well because there is evidence that the Etruscan civilization developed in situ.


Herodotus could be right in the end, at least in terms of some elite migration from Lydia, but I've never understood why the other ancient authors who opined on the subject are never given as much credence.

Thucydides groups them together with the Pelasgians and associates them with Lemnian pirates and with the pre-Greek population of Attica, and as for the Greek Historian Dionysius of Halicarnassus:

"For this reason, therefore, I am persuaded that the Pelasgians are a different people from the Tyrrhenians. And I do not believe, either, that the Tyrrhenians were a colony of the Lydians; for they do not use the same language as the latter, nor can it be alleged that, though they no longer speak a similar tongue, they still retain some other indications of their mother country. For they neither worship the same gods as the Lydians nor make use of similar laws or institutions, but in these very respects they differ more from the Lydians than from the Pelasgians."


This comment goes to some of the points you raised about the language of the Etruscans and what it can tell us about their origin. There doesn't seem to be any evidence that a language even remotely similar to that of the Etruscans was spoken in the area of Lydia or any area in Anatolia at the time they are supposed to be living there. The Lydians spoke a decidedly Indo-European language, which most linguists seem to feel is decidedly not the case for Etruscan. There's also the fact that we have evidence of Etruscan trading in the Aegean, so I don't know why the stele would necessarily mean the Etruscans came from the east.

Is it possible Pallottino was on the right track and they were one of the Sea Peoples who brought down the Bronze Age Civiliations? That doesn't illuminate matters very much, however, because the "Sea Peoples" were probably a group of not necessarily related peoples. They could have been Italics, Cretans, other Greeks, people from the northern Aegean...Who knows? Maybe they were some late arriving steppe or Caucasus group. Aren't there some linguists who see a link to Indo-European languages? Then there's that reference to similarities to Uralic languages.

If the linguists could agree on some of these things we might actually get somewhere.

You know, I quite liked the idea that the Etruscans were fugitive Trojans. I've always sort of been on their side...never much of a fan of the cuckolded, vengeful Menelaus, or Agamemnon, murdering his own daughter, or even of Achilles, although I always liked the wily and clever Ulysses. To be honest though, ever since it started to seem that they might have been Indo-Europeans too I haven't felt quite the same way about ancient Troy. We all have our prejudices, although I try very hard not to let them interfere with intellectual analysis. :)

Anyway, figuring out the linguistics is above my pay grade, and we've gotten sort of off topic from J1 in northern Italy and Tuscany. :)

giuseppe rossi
29-04-15, 11:33
Alan has an agenda here obviously.

Etruscans did not differ from other Urnfield groups who spread from Germany to Italy.

Both J1 and J1e arrived in Italy with late Neotlich goat herders from Southern Caucasus.

Alan
29-04-15, 15:05
There is nothing obvious, never found so far the smoking gun that show that Herodotus was right. Moreover there aren't archeological connections that link the Etruscans with ancient Ageans and actually the linguistic connection is due to one single inscription,

There is, the user Taranis listed some and as far as I remember some Etruscan pottery is also extremely similar to that of Agaens. Of course it could all be wrong. But than, I still think a Anatolian origin is very plausible and even likely. It doesn't necessary needs to be Lydians. But maybe other tribes near by. Heredotus was right in most placings but he wasn't familiar with the relationship of the tribes he was talking about. For example he knew that Massagetaens and Scythians were related and originated from the same place but he was wrong in that Massagetaens were Scythians. In fact it was the Massageteans who forced the Scythians to the westward migration into Cimmeria.

But thats all just my opinion of course.

Taranis
29-04-15, 18:49
There is, the user Taranis listed some and as far as I remember some Etruscan pottery is also extremely similar to that of Agaens. Of course it could all be wrong. But than, I still think a Anatolian origin is very plausible and even likely. It doesn't necessary needs to be Lydians. But maybe other tribes near by. Heredotus was right in most placings but he wasn't familiar with the relationship of the tribes he was talking about. For example he knew that Massagetaens and Scythians were related and originated from the same place but he was wrong in that Massagetaens were Scythians. In fact it was the Massageteans who forced the Scythians to the westward migration into Cimmeria.

But thats all just my opinion of course.

The main case for the Etruscan origin in the eastern Mediterranean, to me, is the attestation of the Lemnian language (written in an archaic variant of the Greek alphabet), from the island of Lemnos in the Aegean. Another issue is the Etruscan mythological figure of Tarc(h)un (whence the name "Tarquinia", both the city and the later Roman noble family), which appears as overly similar to the name of the Hittite thunder god, Tarhun. So in my opinion, how do you explain cultural contact between Etruscans and speakers of Anatolian languages, if not, at one point, they actually were somewhere in Anatolia, probably western Anatolia (e.g. in or near Lydia, as Herodotus claimed).

Sennevini
29-04-15, 20:04
There's also the Troy theory; Etruscans as Trojans, leaving Troy to settle in Italy (from which Aeneas' story). Controversial, though interesting at least to think about.

Alan
29-04-15, 20:18
The main case for the Etruscan origin in the eastern Mediterranean, to me, is the attestation of the Lemnian language (written in an archaic variant of the Greek alphabet), from the island of Lemnos in the Aegean. Another issue is the Etruscan mythological figure of Tarc(h)un (whence the name "Tarquinia", both the city and the later Roman noble family), which appears as overly similar to the name of the Hittite thunder god, Tarhun. So in my opinion, how do you explain cultural contact between Etruscans and speakers of Anatolian languages, if not, at one point, they actually were somewhere in Anatolia, probably western Anatolia (e.g. in or near Lydia, as Herodotus claimed).

And this contact must have been in Asia Minor, because Hittite Tarhun is derived from Hurrian Teshub (Thunder and Sky God). Teshub itself is equivalent to Greek Zeus nd maybe even Nordic Odin.

Pax Augusta
29-04-15, 20:22
The main case for the Etruscan origin in the eastern Mediterranean, to me, is the attestation of the Lemnian language (written in an archaic variant of the Greek alphabet), from the island of Lemnos in the Aegean. Another issue is the Etruscan mythological figure of Tarc(h)un (whence the name "Tarquinia", both the city and the later Roman noble family), which appears as overly similar to the name of the Hittite thunder god, Tarhun. So in my opinion, how do you explain cultural contact between Etruscans and speakers of Anatolian languages, if not, at one point, they actually were somewhere in Anatolia, probably western Anatolia (e.g. in or near Lydia, as Herodotus claimed).

The Hittite thunder god, Tarhun, is the same of the Hurrian Teshub, the Hattian Taru, the Celtic Taranis, the Old Norse Thor, and they all belong to the Indo-European pantheon. How can be an Indo-European god very common among many different Indo-European populations the smoking gun that proves that Etruscans come from Anatolia?

Alan
29-04-15, 20:27
The Hittite thunder god, Tarhun, is the same of the Hurrian Teshub, the Hattian Taru, the Celtic Taranis, the Old Norse Thor, and they all belong to the Indo-European pantheon. How can be an Indo-European god very common among many different Indo-European populations the smoking gun that proves that Etruscans come from Anatolia?

I already mentioned it.

But the issue here is that Hittite Tarhun and Hattian Taru are all derived from Hurrian Teshub. There are archeological evidences that Hattians/Hittites adopted the Hurrian Sky God. Also Hurrians were the first of these groups. Yet why Teshub is equivalent to Odin and Zeus thats the mystery.

Also another reason why Etruscan Tarchun has to be from Asian Minor, beside it's attributes, is the name. If we would assume that it is from the common "Indo European" origin. Why on earth Tarchun like the Hittite Tarhun and Hurrian Teshub instead of something similar to Zeus or Thor? This in combination to Heredotus records, linguistic and archeological affinities. There are too many evidences that it can be explained simply by "coincidence".

And now the most "stunning" part. Hurrians "are not Indo Europeans". One of the many reasons why I am sceptical of an "Steppic" origin of Proto Indo Europeans and instead tend to the area between the Zagros/Albruz and Taurus mountains.

Angela
29-04-15, 20:28
The main case for the Etruscan origin in the eastern Mediterranean, to me, is the attestation of the Lemnian language (written in an archaic variant of the Greek alphabet), from the island of Lemnos in the Aegean. Another issue is the Etruscan mythological figure of Tarc(h)un (whence the name "Tarquinia", both the city and the later Roman noble family), which appears as overly similar to the name of the Hittite thunder god, Tarhun. So in my opinion, how do you explain cultural contact between Etruscans and speakers of Anatolian languages, if not, at one point, they actually were somewhere in Anatolia, probably western Anatolia (e.g. in or near Lydia, as Herodotus claimed).

You don't find J.P. Mallory persuasive on this topic? Or perhaps he's changed his mind since he wrote "Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture"?
https://books.google.com/books?id=tzU3RIV2BWIC&pg=PA316&lpg=PA316&dq=J.P.+Mallory+on+the+Etruscans&source=bl&ots=wWmY_159eE&sig=Oa7AgJVNlhGwiIXjJ4-Wo8FLeJc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=f_pAVZqmMu_jsATtzIHIDw&ved=0CEAQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=J.P. Mallory on the Etruscans&f=false

7208

7209

Given all the attested Etruscan trade in the east, including the Aegean, how can we be so sure that the inscription in the Lemnian language isn't by Etruscans moving east or having trading outposts in the east rather than Anatolians or northern Aegean people moving west?

There's also The Great Sea, where David Abulafia mentions the intense rivalry in eastern and northeastern Greece and the general Aegean between the Etruscans and the Euboeans. Interestingly, he says that Lemnian, related to Etruscan, was spoken not only on Lemnos, but also on Imbros and in Chalcis (Euboea) as well. Does anyone know anything specifically about that? If it's true I suppose it could either mean an origin near there, or Etruscans, perhaps traders, settled there.
https://books.google.com/books?id=9Cvrq-Vs-2wC&pg=PA102&dq=Etruscan+trade+and+cultural+links+with+Greece+a nd+Anatolia&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ZBFBVfPCLdC1sAT3o4HoCw&ved=0CCIQ6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q=Etruscan trade and cultural links with Greece and Anatolia&f=false

Also, why would the fact that it is written in an archaic variant of the Greek alphabet be dispositive of anything when we already know of the extensive Greek influence on the culture of the Etruscans? If we want to extend it into the genetic sphere, that might point to a movement from Greece, but how would it point to a movement from Lydia necessarily?
https://books.google.com/books?id=8pXhAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA275&dq=Etruscan+trade+and+cultural+links+with+Greece+a nd+Anatolia&hl=en&sa=X&ei=pAxBVZO2BqHLsATjyIGADw&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Etruscan trade and cultural links with Greece and Anatolia&f=false

That leaves the mythological figure of Tarhun and his supposed similarity to a Hittite thunder god. Does anyone have a source that goes into some detail about this?

Angela
29-04-15, 20:52
I already mentioned it.

But the issue here is that Hittite Tarhun and Hattian Taru are all derived from Hurrian Teshub. There are archeological evidences that Hattians/Hittites adopted the Hurrian Sky God. Also Hurrians were the first of these groups. Yet why is Teshub equivalent to Odin and Zeus thats the mystery.

Also another reason why Etruscan Tarchun has to be from Asian Minor, beside it's attributes, is the name. If we would assume that it is a common "Indo European" goddes. Why on earth Tarchun like the Hittite Tarhun and Hurrian Teshub instead of something similar to Zeus or Thor? This in combination to Heredotus records, linguistic and archeological affinities. There are too many evidences that it can be explained simply by "coincidence".

And now the most "stunning" part. Hurrians "are not Indo Europeans". One of the many reasons why I am sceptical of an "Steppic" origin of Proto Indo Europeans and instead tend to the area between the Zagros/Albruz and Taurus mountains.

I don't think I'm following your reasoning here.

Did the Celts come from Anatolia in the first millennium as well?

Or the Celts got it from the steppe (whether or not it originally came from eastern Anatolia/the Caucasus), but based on the tale by Herodotus and the fact that a similar word for a similar god is attested in Anatolia seals the deal?

I just don't see where all this certainty comes from, although it's certainly possible.

Taranis
29-04-15, 20:59
The Hittite thunder god, Tarhun, is the same of the Hurrian Teshub, the Hattian Taru, the Celtic Taranis, the Old Norse Thor, and they all belong to the Indo-European pantheon. How can be an Indo-European god very common among many different Indo-European populations the smoking gun that proves that Etruscans come from Anatolia?

I'm actually not ruling out that the name "Tarhun" is etymologically related with the Celtic Taranis and the Germanic Thor/Donar (the idea that this is a native Hittite name for originally Hurrian deity isn't a contradiction of that observation, either). But if we assume an Indo-European origin, then its clear that this is a native Anatolian rendering (as in, the Indo-European Anatolian language family): the Anatolian languages, famously, largely preserve the old Indo-European larngyeals (in particular *h2) while they vanish the other Indo-European branches. Therefore, outside of an Anatolian mediation, I don't see how the Etruscan "Tarc(h)un" could have ended up with that velar. It certainly wasn't from a Celtic or Germanic source. I might add that the name "Tarhun" is also found later on in Lycian (speakers of yet another Luwic language, but dating from the Hellenistic period) as "Traqqas" or "Traqqiz" (I'm quoting M. Hutter, 2003, "Aspects of Luwian religion" in Melchert, "The Luwians", in the issue).

One issue about the Lydians I might want to you to consider is that, although no doubt speakers of a Luwic language (same with the Lycians), were a people of the post-Bronze Age collapse period. If I may make an analogy here, for example the Burgundians didn't originate in Burgundy, either.

Sile
29-04-15, 20:59
The main case for the Etruscan origin in the eastern Mediterranean, to me, is the attestation of the Lemnian language (written in an archaic variant of the Greek alphabet), from the island of Lemnos in the Aegean. Another issue is the Etruscan mythological figure of Tarc(h)un (whence the name "Tarquinia", both the city and the later Roman noble family), which appears as overly similar to the name of the Hittite thunder god, Tarhun. So in my opinion, how do you explain cultural contact between Etruscans and speakers of Anatolian languages, if not, at one point, they actually were somewhere in Anatolia, probably western Anatolia (e.g. in or near Lydia, as Herodotus claimed).

I thought someone stated etrucan alphabet was from the euboen island area with many finds and the lemnos island ( other side of the aegean ) was only one discovering

maybe they where lydians who fought for the trojans but not actually trojans
The Homeric (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homer) name for the Lydians was "Meiones", cited among the allies of the Trojans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troy) during the Trojan War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trojan_War), and from this name "Maeonia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maeonia)" and "Maeonians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maeonians)" derive and while these Bronze Age (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze_Age) terms have sometimes been used as alternatives for Lydia and the Lydians, nuances have also been brought between them.



Herodotus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herodotus) states that the Lydians "were the first men whom we know who coined and used gold and silver currency".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atys_%28King_of_the_Maeonians%29

Angela
29-04-15, 21:12
I think one of the main reasons that I'm not totally persuaded by this supposed "Lydian"/Anatolian origin of the majority of the Etruscans has to do with studies like Lazardis et al which did not by the way use the Admixture program to get its "admixture" percentages to the best of my recollection. Here is the K=20.
http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Admixtures-Lazaridis.png
Just click to enlarge.

Does anyone see any significant difference between Greeks from Thessaly, Albanians and Tuscans in terms of the "Caucaso/Persian" component? Was there an attested first millennium BC massive migration from Anatolia to Greece and Albania as well?

Sile
29-04-15, 21:17
By the way according to Herodotus Etruscans are related to Raetians but the Raetians themselves are also descend of Lydians. The Etruscans fled from the invading Gauls towards Italy.

where did you read this?

with the recent finds in Val Venosta indicating that the raetians have been in the Alps from 3000BC, would indicate that they where in Anatolia at a time when the etruscans where not there.
The raetian and etruscan similarity linguistically can only be associated in Italy and only due to trade. The trading centre discovered was near Verona, the place was called Cologna Veneta... an area where also the venetics engaged in this trade triangulation

Alan
29-04-15, 21:48
I don't think I'm following your reasoning here.

Did the Celts come from Anatolia in the first millennium as well?

Or the Celts got it from the steppe (whether or not it originally came from eastern Anatolia/the Caucasus), but based on the tale by Herodotus and the fact that a similar word for a similar god is attested in Anatolia seals the deal?

I just don't see where all this certainty comes from, although it's certainly possible.

My reasoning is, Etruscans most likely non Indo Europeans. Celts= Indo Europeans. Etruscan Tarchun is much more likely to be connected to Hittite Tarhun or Hattian Taru which are derived from Hurrian Teshub, than Indo European Taranis, Thor or Zeus. Since even the name shows less affinities compared to Anatolian version of Tarhun.

So we have to decide what we want to believe. Are Etruscans Indo Europeans or not? If not isn't it much more likely that Tarchun derives from Anatolian Tarhun/Taru/Teshub?

But since "non Indo Europeans" from Western Asia such as Hurrian, who came before any of the above listed groups in history, who had no known contact to the Steppes (at least not early contact we know of who could have brought the figure of Teshub there. Teshub was a pre Mitanni Hurrian deity just for the account, also I have hard time to believe that Mitanni were foreign to the region), had goddess which were equivalent to Indo European deities such as Thor, Zeus and Taranis. I have hard time to believe that the origin of All Indo Europeans (and PIE for that matter) can be explained with a Steppic origin.

How on earth could three so different Indo European groups (Greeks, Germanics and Celts) end up with deities who are equivalent to Hurrian Sky God Teshub, if they didn't originated near by or at least crossed the region at some point of history.

The only way I can see two groups of different linguistic background can end up with the same deities is if they influenced each other and therefore originated not too far from each.

Angela
29-04-15, 21:50
There's also the Troy theory; Etruscans as Trojans, leaving Troy to settle in Italy (from which Aeneas' story). Controversial, though interesting at least to think about.

Isn't the latest thinking that the Trojans of the period of the "Trojan War" were also Indo-European speakers?
http://www.news.leiden.edu/news-2012/what-language-did-the-trojans-speak.html

https://books.google.com/books?id=bSxHgej4tKMC&pg=PA186&lpg=PA186&dq=The+Trojans+spoke+an+Indo-European+language&source=bl&ots=v9Px2jzf_L&sig=87wm3dedrKVpJttDmDznDdQtemo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=6CVBVcDtF6vLsATQioCIBg&ved=0CEAQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=The Trojans spoke an Indo-European language&f=false

So, a people similar to the Hittites. The question still remains, if one hypothesizes that the "Etruscans" came from either Lydia or Troy why didn't they speak a recognizably Indo-European language? Shouldn't they have been speaking Lydian or Luwian or Hittite?

This doesn't hang together.

Alan
29-04-15, 21:59
I think one of the main reasons that I'm not totally persuaded by this supposed "Lydian"/Anatolian origin of the majority of the Etruscans has to do with studies like Lazardis et al which did not by the way use the Admixture program to get its "admixture" percentages to the best of my recollection. Here is the K=20.
http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Admixtures-Lazaridis.png
Just click to enlarge.

Does anyone see any significant difference between Greeks from Thessaly, Albanians and Tuscans in terms of the "Caucaso/Persian" component? Was there an attested first millennium BC massive migration from Anatolia to Greece and Albania as well?

I had this question answered once. The thing here is we shouldn't expect modern Tuscans to be 100% descend of Etruscans. Maybe only 40% of modern Tuscans are. And we shouldn't take modern Anatolians as representative for ancients for that matter.

But thatn the fact that Tuscans are almost equal to Greeks and Albanians who are closer to Anatolia and therefore should naturally have more affinities to it, is also dubious. Why should Tuscans be like Albanians if they are further away from Anatolia?

Angela
29-04-15, 22:00
You don't find J.P. Mallory persuasive on this topic? Or perhaps he's changed his mind since he wrote "Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture"?
https://books.google.com/books?id=tzU3RIV2BWIC&pg=PA316&lpg=PA316&dq=J.P.+Mallory+on+the+Etruscans&source=bl&ots=wWmY_159eE&sig=Oa7AgJVNlhGwiIXjJ4-Wo8FLeJc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=f_pAVZqmMu_jsATtzIHIDw&ved=0CEAQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=J.P. Mallory on the Etruscans&f=false

7208

7209

Given all the attested Etruscan trade in the east, including the Aegean, how can we be so sure that the inscription in the Lemnian language isn't by Etruscans moving east or having trading outposts in the east rather than Anatolians or northern Aegean people moving west?

There's also The Great Sea, where David Abulafia mentions the intense rivalry in eastern and northeastern Greece and the general Aegean between the Etruscans and the Euboeans. Interestingly, he says that Lemnian, related to Etruscan, was spoken not only on Lemnos, but also on Imbros and in Chalcis (Euboea) as well. Does anyone know anything specifically about that? If it's true I suppose it could either mean an origin near there, or Etruscans, perhaps traders, settled there.
https://books.google.com/books?id=9Cvrq-Vs-2wC&pg=PA102&dq=Etruscan+trade+and+cultural+links+with+Greece+a nd+Anatolia&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ZBFBVfPCLdC1sAT3o4HoCw&ved=0CCIQ6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q=Etruscan trade and cultural links with Greece and Anatolia&f=false

Also, why would the fact that it is written in an archaic variant of the Greek alphabet be dispositive of anything when we already know of the extensive Greek influence on the culture of the Etruscans? If we want to extend it into the genetic sphere, that might point to a movement from Greece, but how would it point to a movement from Lydia necessarily?
https://books.google.com/books?id=8pXhAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA275&dq=Etruscan+trade+and+cultural+links+with+Greece+a nd+Anatolia&hl=en&sa=X&ei=pAxBVZO2BqHLsATjyIGADw&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Etruscan trade and cultural links with Greece and Anatolia&f=false

That leaves the mythological figure of Tarhun and his supposed similarity to a Hittite thunder god. Does anyone have a source that goes into some detail about this?

There was an error in my above post. The Lemnian language was spoken in Lemnos, Imbros and the Chalcidice peninsula, not Chalcis in Euboea. The Chalcidice peninsula is off Macedonia and not too far from Thrace.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek_dialects#/media/File:AncientGreekDialects_%28Woodard%29_en.svg

Alan
29-04-15, 22:03
where did you read this?

with the recent finds in Val Venosta indicating that the raetians have been in the Alps from 3000BC, would indicate that they where in Anatolia at a time when the etruscans where not there.
The raetian and etruscan similarity linguistically can only be associated in Italy and only due to trade. The trading centre discovered was near Verona, the place was called Cologna Veneta... an area where also the venetics engaged in this trade triangulation

Sorry it wasn't Heredotus, Livy wrote that the Raetians are Etruscans who fled into the Alps from the Invading Celts.

GeoFan
30-04-15, 01:15
As the 100th post, let me say thanks for the lively and interesting discussions here!

Angela
30-04-15, 04:19
Alan: How on earth could three so different Indo European groups (Greeks, Germanics and Celts) end up with deities who are equivalent to Hurrian Sky God Teshub, if they didn't originated near by or at least crossed the region at some point of history.

The only way I can see two groups of different linguistic background can end up with the same deities is if they influenced each other and therefore originated not too far from each.

So now, in addition to the Etruscans, the Greeks, Germanics and Celts also moved through Anatolia in the first millennium BC in order to reach Europe? That's what we're discussing, after all, not long standing ties between Anatolia and Europe. I don't want to derail this thread, but I thought it was pretty well settled that Celtic was present in Europe much earlier than that. I totally agree that if you have widely separated cultures which have a similar word for a similar type of "god", the ancestors of these people must have been in some sort of contact with one another at some point. However, that contact could have been trade, couldn't it, not necessarily that their ancestors were all living in adjoining valleys? Plus, the other really operative question is when were they in contact? I take Taranis' point that the specific word used by the Etruscans is close to the Luwian word. However, if they were close enough in space and time to adopt a Luwian word for this god, why didn't they speak Luwian? How do we know that they didn't adopt it just because of cultural or trade contacts? It just seems like a pretty minor bit of evidence...I can't see how it "seals the deal".


I had this question answered once. The thing here is we shouldn't expect modern Tuscans to be 100% descend of Etruscans. Maybe only 40% of modern Tuscans are. And we shouldn't take modern Anatolians as representative for ancients for that matter.

But thatn the fact that Tuscans are almost equal to Greeks and Albanians who are closer to Anatolia and therefore should naturally have more affinities to it, is also dubious. Why should Tuscans be like Albanians if they are further away from Anatolia?

Albania is right across the Adriatic from central Italy. At the times in question, prior to the Slavic migrations into the areas just north of Anatolia, "Albanian like" and "Greek like" people probably extended quite a bit further up the coast. At certain spots you can drive animals across the Adriatic. There has been gene flow across the Adriatic since time immemorial continuing into the present day. In fact, based on IBD segments, Ralph and Coop concluded that the Albanians are the only foreign group which had any type of significant impact on the Italian gene pool since about 400 BC. It surprised me too, but I haven't seen any paper refute those findings.
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=ralph+and+coop+et+al+the+geography+o f+recent+ancestry+across+europe

Plus, the Dutch and the eastern English are very similar too and they have the storm tossed and very dangerous British Channel between them and one population is actually south of the other. In addition, modern Tuscan samples are taken from people whose grandparents all come from the area. That's under 100 years. Look at the levels in southern Italy. It could have been diffusing up from the south for 2800 years.

Or look at PCA's. Tuscans are basically eastern shifted Sardinians, or said another way, Indo-European admixed Sardinians. Goodness, a Copper Age sample from Iberia was already pretty similar to modern day Tuscans.

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/29796-4000BP-Iberian-farmer-clusters-with-Tuscans-not-Basque-or-Early-European-farmers

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-xPGV13M4lSM/VEaknJoP-jI/AAAAAAAAJ0I/XmX-S48tr2A/s1600/ncomms6257-f2.jpg


http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-xPGV13M4lSM/VEaknJoP-jI/AAAAAAAAJ0I/XmX-S48tr2A/s1600/ncomms6257-f2.jpg

You can also take a look at the Globe 13 spreadsheet from Dodecad. The Greeks from the northern mainland (Thessaly) are 23% "West Asian", while Tuscans are about 18% "West Asian". This is what causes some of the members of the Greek sample from Thessaly on PCAs to overlap the most "southern" Tuscans, and with the rest plotting to the south and east of them. Now, you're assuming that the two groups plot like that because the Tuscans got additional gene flow from Anatolia. Perhaps another question that should be asked is what happened to the genomes in northern Greece that might have lowered their "West Asian" percentages? Isn't the obvious answer that the Slavic migrations affected the genetic signature? To cite Ralph and Coop again, they show that impact on at least the mainland parts of Greece very clearly.

This is the link to Globe 13.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ArAJcY18g2GadF9CLUJnTUdSbkVJaDR2UkRtUE9ka UE#gid=2

I'm not saying that there might not have been some elite migration from somewhere to the east, although I'd be more inclined to see it as coming from the northern Aegean rather than the middle of Anatolia. In that case at least there's a possibility that the people were speaking a pre-Greek language. In Anatolia, including Troy, everything I've seen would lead me to think those areas were Indo-European speaking. Even if it turns out that some sample in an elite grave comes out as identical to some "Lydian" sample of that periods, 40% replacement? I don't think there's any support for that in genetics or history. Where is the archaeological trail on the ground? For the Indo-Europeans we at least have all the kurgans going up the Danube and burned towns and fields in southeastern Europe. Plus, many of those areas were not very populated. There's none of that in central Italy, and it was also densely populated. Plus, as I pointed out, we have a Copper Age sample from Iberia that was already very "Tuscan" like.

Sorry, we're going to have to agree to disagree. None of you has persuaded me; I'm still an agnostic on this one. :)

Ed. To correct citation.

Pax Augusta
30-04-15, 05:22
Herodotus could be right in the end, at least in terms of some elite migration from Lydia, but I've never understood why the other ancient authors who opined on the subject are never given as much credence.

Agree, an elite migration, more likely a priestly elite; my guess not from the Lydians but from a more ancient civilization. Etruscans clearly had many contacts with ancient Anatolia and Aegean islands and what was originally "Etruscan", or better "Rasna" or "Rasenna", could be mixed with what was simply the result of these contacts.



Thucydides groups them together with the Pelasgians and associates them with Lemnian pirates and with the pre-Greek population of Attica, and as for the Greek Historian Dionysius of Halicarnassus:

"For this reason, therefore, I am persuaded that the Pelasgians are a different people from the Tyrrhenians. And I do not believe, either, that the Tyrrhenians were a colony of the Lydians; for they do not use the same language as the latter, nor can it be alleged that, though they no longer speak a similar tongue, they still retain some other indications of their mother country. For they neither worship the same gods as the Lydians nor make use of similar laws or institutions, but in these very respects they differ more from the Lydians than from the Pelasgians."

This comment goes to some of the points you raised about the language of the Etruscans and what it can tell us about their origin. There doesn't seem to be any evidence that a language even remotely similar to that of the Etruscans was spoken in the area of Lydia or any area in Anatolia at the time they are supposed to be living there. The Lydians spoke a decidedly Indo-European language, which most linguists seem to feel is decidedly not the case for Etruscan. There's also the fact that we have evidence of Etruscan trading in the Aegean, so I don't know why the stele would necessarily mean the Etruscans came from the east.

Is it possible Pallottino was on the right track and they were one of the Sea Peoples who brought down the Bronze Age Civiliations? That doesn't illuminate matters very much, however, because the "Sea Peoples" were probably a group of not necessarily related peoples. They could have been Italics, Cretans, other Greeks, people from the northern Aegean...Who knows? Maybe they were some late arriving steppe or Caucasus group. Aren't there some linguists who see a link to Indo-European languages? Then there's that reference to similarities to Uralic languages.

If the linguists could agree on some of these things we might actually get somewhere.

We must never forget that all historical sources on the Etruscans are Greek or Roman. It did not survive a single Etruscan text. The Tuscae historiae written in Etruscan disappeared, all the Etruscan literature and poetry disappeared, as disapperead the monumental Tyrrenika written by emperor Claudius.

Livy was Roman, Herodotus was Greek, Theopompus was Greek, Dionysius of Halicarnassus was Greek... the Syracusans (Greeks) were bitter enemies of the Etruscans, they considered them pirates and they contributed to the bad reputation of the Etruscans. All we know about the Etruscans comes from their enemies, not exactly unbiased sources.

For example, Tyrrhenians was an exonym used by Greeks to refer to the Etruscans, but probably not only to them (see the case of exonym Pelasgians). To show the link with the Lydians is said that Tyrrhenian derived from the Lydian word Tyrant or from a Lydian town, called Tyrrha. Great. It could be. But the Etruscans called themselves Rasna or Rasenna and not Tyrrhenians! Also Etruscans is more likey an exonym, probably of Italic origin. How could be the Rasenna related to the word Teresh of the Sea People? Teresh is more probably related to the Tyrrhenians. But the Rasna and Tyrrhenians are exactly the same people? Can we say that with mathematical certainty? Too many questions are still unanswered.



You know, I quite liked the idea that the Etruscans were fugitive Trojans. I've always sort of been on their side...never much of a fan of the cuckolded, vengeful Menelaus, or Agamemnon, murdering his own daughter, or even of Achilles, although I always liked the wily and clever Ulysses. To be honest though, ever since it started to seem that they might have been Indo-Europeans too I haven't felt quite the same way about ancient Troy. We all have our prejudices, although I try very hard not to let them interfere with intellectual analysis. :)


Me too. The Trojan War was extremely symbolic.

Aeneas: An Etruscan Foundation Legend by Peter Mountford (University of Melbourne)

http://www.ascs.org.au/news/ascs32/Mountford.pdf



Anyway, figuring out the linguistics is above my pay grade, and we've gotten sort of off topic from J1 in northern Italy and Tuscany. :)

We are all off-topic, I think it's better to move in more appropriate threads.



I already mentioned it.

But the issue here is that Hittite Tarhun and Hattian Taru are all derived from Hurrian Teshub. There are archeological evidences that Hattians/Hittites adopted the Hurrian Sky God. Also Hurrians were the first of these groups. Yet why is Teshub equivalent to Odin and Zeus thats the mystery.

Also another reason why Etruscan Tarchun has to be from Asian Minor, beside it's attributes, is the name. If we would assume that it is a common "Indo European" goddes. Why on earth Tarchun like the Hittite Tarhun and Hurrian Teshub instead of something similar to Zeus or Thor? This in combination to Heredotus records, linguistic and archeological affinities. There are too many evidences that it can be explained simply by "coincidence".

And now the most "stunning" part. Hurrians "are not Indo Europeans". One of the many reasons why I am sceptical of an "Steppic" origin of Proto Indo Europeans and instead tend to the area between the Zagros/Albruz and Taurus mountains.


Your conclusions are too hasty. Hurrians are said to be non-Indo European but they are said to be ruled by the Mitanni an Indo-Aryan ruling class. There is no evidence that Hittite Tarhun and Hattian Taru are all derived from Hurrian Teshub.



I had this question answered once. The thing here is we shouldn't expect modern Tuscans to be 100% descend of Etruscans. Maybe only 40% of modern Tuscans are. And we shouldn't take modern Anatolians as representative for ancients for that matter.

I agree that we shouldn't take modern Anatolians as representative for ancient people but 40% is extremely exaggerated. More likely not even more than 5%. According to one of the last paper, a post-Neolithic gene flow from the Near East to Tuscany can be estimated at about 8% (and not proved that is entirely related to the Etruscans). The same authors in a previous paper wrote that "When all the genetic evidence obtained so far are taken together, it seems clear that the Etruscans cannot be regarded as ancestral of all modern-day Tuscans". The previous guess about a post-Neolithic gene flow were ∼5% of mtDNA haplotypes, while many other studies show genetic discontinuities between Etruscans and modern Tuscans. Most of the modern Tuscans do really descend from the Proto-Villanovan people.



But thatn the fact that Tuscans are almost equal to Greeks and Albanians who are closer to Anatolia and therefore should naturally have more affinities to it, is also dubious. Why should Tuscans be like Albanians if they are further away from Anatolia?

Tuscans are grossly considered almost equal to Greeks from Thessaly and Albanians due to similar ratios and proportions of ENF, ANE, WHG as showed in the last K something. But Tuscans have very different Y-DNA haplogroups from Greeks and Albanians, they are more western shifted and Tuscans are exactly placed where they should be found and perfectly fitting in the Italian genetic cline (intermediate between North Italians and Central Italians, closer to the former). Majority of Tuscan males are R1b: 53%. You can not say the same of Greek and Albanian males: Greeks 15.5 %, Albanians 16%. By the way, how would this prove the link with Anatolia? I don't understand. Also the Greeks and the Albanians come from a post-Neolitich migration from Anatolia?



Sorry it wasn't Heredotus, Livy wrote that the Raetians are Etruscans who fled into the Alps from the Invading Celts.

According to an interpretation of this Livy's text Etruscans come from North and not from Anatolia, so to speak.

giuseppe rossi
30-04-15, 11:52
Albanians had a genetic impact only on Southern Italians, and since Ralph and Coop used the Italian samples from the POPRES database, who are mostly from the South (120 samples out of 210 according to Moorjani et al 2011), the results are skewed.

Indeed Southerns are about 20% of the total population of Italy, and many Northerners share IBD segments with NW Europeans in the same study by Ralph and Coop.

BTW Southerners share IBD segments also with South Slavs, Romanians and to a lesser extent with Germans and Poles in the 555-1500 AD period.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-hgafS-FsTqY/UTENbBXK65I/AAAAAAAAAB8/rkvvWjkd7A4/s640/IBD+(RalphCoop-2012).png

On the other hand Spaniards are generally from Barcellona and to a lesser extent from Madrid AFAIK.

Alan
30-04-15, 16:19
@Angela

Taranis already gave the reasoning. The loudshift of Tarchun is typical for the late Anatolian variant of Hittite Tarhun. That all the versions of Teshub ultimately came from Western Asia doesn't automatically mean that all of them came during the same time period.

The variant Tarchun is typical for a loudshift which occured after the PIE split in Anatolia.

Thats what we mean :)

@Pax Augusta

I think you missed the part where I wrote obviously it can not be the Mitanni influence because Teshub exists pre Mitanni. The only Deities Mitanni additionally brought were Mithra, Varna and Indra, typically Indo_Iranian.

Mitanni dates back to 1500 BC, while Hurrians are recorded as far back as 3000 BC. Teshub was not a Mitanni deity.

Teshub according to Hurrian mythology is descend of ANU the Sumerian God. But in reality Teshub is also equivalent to Anu (Sky God) Therefore the figure of the Sky and Thunder God dates much further back than Mitanni.

And this is why it is a mystery why Indo European Zeus, Taranis, Thor are obviously equivalent to Teshub. The only explanation is common mythological root.

Even the legend of Teshub being born after Kumarbi bites of Anu's genital and swallows it, is the same as the Greek story of Uranus, Cronus and Zeus.

Angela
30-04-15, 17:21
Albanians had a genetic impact only on Southern Italians, and since Ralph and Coop used the Italian samples from the POPRES database, who are mostly from the South (120 samples out of 210 according to Moorjani et al 2011), the results are skewed.

Indeed Southerns are about 20% of the total population of Italy, and many Northerners share IBD segments with NW Europeans in the same study by Ralph and Coop.

BTW Southerners share IBD segments also with South Slavs, Romanians and to a lesser extent with Germans and Poles in the 555-1500 AD period.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-hgafS-FsTqY/UTENbBXK65I/AAAAAAAAAB8/rkvvWjkd7A4/s640/IBD+%28RalphCoop-2012%29.png

On the other hand Spaniards are generally from Barcellona and to a lesser extent from Madrid AFAIK.

This thread has nothing to do with admixture in Spain. It is irrelevant and your comment is completely off topic.

In terms of the period 555 to 1500 ya, the question is not whether there was any IBD sharing, the question is whether there was any significant amount of IBD sharing during that period. There was no significant gene flow from anywhere during that period. There was some small amount of IBD sharing with the Balkans. Yes, most of it was probably from Albanians, although not all, and therefore most of it would have gone into the genomes of southern Italians. So? That would and does show up in the clinal nature of the results.

This graphic might be more helpful.
7210


In terms of the graphic you posted, it's unfortunate that you chose to post the version which doesn't include Poland because that would have shown readers what really significant IBD sharing looks like...obviously, it stems from the period of the Slavic migrations
http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/3492/ralphcoop2.png

As I've explained before, for yDna and mtDna testing you need a lot of samples to get a reliable average for an area because there is so much variation, particularly in a country like Italy, and there are so many clades and subclades. For autosomal testing as few as 5 will do. You can see this from the Dodecad runs. The five members from Northern Italy are very similar to one another and not significantly different from the academic sample from Bergamo.

Even with lots more samples from northern Italy the cline would be the same, and the general parameters of the IBD sharing would be the same.

giuseppe rossi
30-04-15, 17:46
So what? You are actually not contradicting what I've said before.

Anyway I just meant to correct your post and point out that the results from Ralph and Coop are skewed because of poor sampling in Italy.

Sile
01-05-15, 02:07
Albanians had a genetic impact only on Southern Italians, and since Ralph and Coop used the Italian samples from the POPRES database, who are mostly from the South (120 samples out of 210 according to Moorjani et al 2011), the results are skewed.

Indeed Southerns are about 20% of the total population of Italy, and many Northerners share IBD segments with NW Europeans in the same study by Ralph and Coop.

BTW Southerners share IBD segments also with South Slavs, Romanians and to a lesser extent with Germans and Poles in the 555-1500 AD period.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-hgafS-FsTqY/UTENbBXK65I/AAAAAAAAAB8/rkvvWjkd7A4/s640/IBD+(RalphCoop-2012).png

On the other hand Spaniards are generally from Barcellona and to a lesser extent from Madrid AFAIK.

IIRC, didn't ralph and coop state Albanians have only been around for 1500 years in the balkans?

Semitic Duwa
01-05-15, 04:22
All this talk about J1 coming to Europe with Neolithic farmers from the Near East... All I can say is this: If that's true then J1 is pretty damn good at hiding from most researchers, it deserves the "stealthiest neolithic haplogroup" label hands down (J2 is a strong contender as well).

As far as the Eupedia article on J1 is of concern, it's seriously outdated and relies on obnoxious clichés such as J1 being "Arabian". Finally, I sense some are quite uneasy with the prospect of J1 having mainly expanded with Semitic speakers (and, in turn, Afroasiatic speakers).

Edit: If you're looking for a more or less up-to-date assessment of J1's phylogeography, I suggest you take the time to read this thread (http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php/43665-J1-p58-updates-thread).

Angela
01-05-15, 05:42
Thank you, but we can access ISOGG without going to a forum run by an "Assyrian Nordicist", of all bizarre things. It's hardly the kind of place where I would expect to find unbiased scientific analysis.

I'm sure that you're aware that not all J1 is P-58? So, why is it not possible or even probable that different branches might have taken different paths at different times into Europe? How do you know that other, earlier branches of J1 could not have been a minor part of the Neolithic migrations? How do you know that there were not clades of J1 from around the Caucasus that could have been swept up in the Bronze Age migrations? Those branches are not Semitic speaking by the way.

You might also notice that many of the comments on this thread have been heavy with qualifiers like "might have" or "could have". Most of us don't claim your kind of certainty because we know how very little any of us know at this stage.

Everything is not always about your own particular branch of J1, or that of Elias Alucard for that matter. Also, for your information, there's been no anti-Jewish rhetoric here, nor will there be. It's unacceptable. I would suggest that's the sort of thing you're infinitely more likely to find at ForumBioviversity and The Apricity. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I was under the impression you're a moderator at the latter forum, are you not? If you are, perhaps your time would be better spent moderating those kinds of comments there than taking us to task for something that was never done.

As for J2 I have been saying for years that it probably didn't come to Europe until the Bronze Age. I specifically remember that I took that position in the threads about Boattini et al. in 2013. You might want to look them up. Of course, both of us are speculating at this point.

I would just finish by saying it isn't helpful to make such broad brush accusations without all the necessary information.

As for our members here, I would advise against seeing this as some kind of provocation and responding inappropriately. Keep it civil or there will be consequences.

giuseppe rossi
01-05-15, 10:29
Both J1 and J2 arrived into Europe with late neolitich Goat herders from Southern Caucasus.

Farmers and herders lived in different gated villages and very rarey mixed with each other.

Pretty much like Beduins and farmers in Iraq/Levant or Mongols/Chinese in East Asia.

Angela
01-05-15, 16:05
Both J1 and J2 arrived into Europe with late neolitich Goat herders from Southern Caucasus.

Farmers and herders lived in different gated villages and very rarey mixed with each other.

Pretty much like Beduins and farmers in Iraq/Levant or Mongols/Chinese in East Asia.

Very interesting...do you have any evidence whatsoever to proffer as support for that opinion?

Semitic Duwa
02-05-15, 00:04
Thank you, but we can access ISOGG without going to a forum run by an "Assyrian Nordicist", of all bizarre things. It's hardly the kind of place where I would expect to find unbiased scientific analysis.

I'm sure that you're aware that not all J1 is P-58? So, why is it not possible or even probable that different branches might have taken different paths at different times into Europe? How do you know that other, earlier branches of J1 could not have been a minor part of the Neolithic migrations? How do you know that there were not clades of J1 from around the Caucasus that could have been swept up in the Bronze Age migrations? Those branches are not Semitic speaking by the way.

You might also notice that many of the comments on this thread have been heavy with qualifiers like "might have" or "could have". Most of us don't claim your kind of certainty because we know how very little any of us know at this stage.

Everything is not always about your own particular branch of J1, or that of Elias Alucard for that matter. Also, for your information, there's been no anti-Jewish rhetoric here, nor will there be. It's unacceptable. I would suggest that's the sort of thing you're infinitely more likely to find at ForumBioviversity and The Apricity. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I was under the impression you're a moderator at the latter forum, are you not? If you are, perhaps your time would be better spent moderating those kinds of comments there than taking us to task for something that was never done.

As for J2 I have been saying for years that it probably didn't come to Europe until the Bronze Age. I specifically remember that I took that position in the threads about Boattini et al. in 2013. You might want to look them up. Of course, both of us are speculating at this point.

I would just finish by saying it isn't helpful to make such broad brush accusations without all the necessary information.

As for our members here, I would advise against seeing this as some kind of provocation and responding inappropriately. Keep it civil or there will be consequences.

ISOGG is even more unreliable than Eupedia as far as J1 goes, it still refers to L147.1 as a major SNP for instance (while we know it's unstable). As I said, if you want a more or less up-to-date assessment of J1's phylogeography you should read this thread (which, I can assure you, is quite unbiased).

How do I know that earlier J1 branches didn't take part in the Neolithic revolution? Truth be told, I know that absence of evidence doesn't stand for evidence of absence but arguing that J1 (or indeed, J as a whole) was some sort of major Neolithic marker is sheer madness at this point given the fact that we've managed to uncover haplogroups such as I1 (from Hungary; Szécsényi-Nagy et al. 2014), R1b (from the cave site of Els Trocs; Haak et al. 2015), E-V13 (from the Avellaner cave; Lacan et al. 2011), C1a2 (from Hungary; Gamba et al. 2014) and T-M70 (from Germany; Haak et al. 2015) in a Neolithic context.
Contrast this with the deafening absence of J1 in all Neolithic remains to date and it becomes pretty clear that invoking the Neolithic revolution in order to explain J1's presence in Europe is nothing short of a self-defeating endeavour.

Of course, finding a few singleton J1 samples in a Neolithic context remains a possibility, nevertheless I think it's pretty clear that the spread of Neolithic farmers from the Near East wasn't J1-driven phenomenon. In fact, a Mesolithic entry for some of J1's earliest branches (such as Z2223) sounds far more likely than a Neolithic one right now. The "J1 came with Neolithic farmers from the Near East" chestnut is dying a slow and painful death right now, and I'm expecting archeogenetic data from the Near East (especially from the Levantine PPNB sites) to deal the final blow.

So to answer your question: Is it possible that some earlier J1 branches were minor Neolithic lineages? Yes. Is it likely? No, and either way odds are such branches simply didn't thrive enough to make it past the Neolithic.

And I am well aware that not all of J1's branches are P58+, if you'd taken the time to read the thread I linked you to you would've noticed that only a single J1 branch fits the bill for the spread of Semitic (several subclades on the same phylogenetic level, TMRCA fits with the break up of Proto-Semitic, north-to-south phylogeography and so on): J1-YSC0000234.
As you said, much of what is said in the thread is theoretical, and that's pretty normal considering the fact that J1 hasn't even showed up in archeogenetic remains yet, therefore every explanation we come up with is an educated guess based on contemporary data.
For the record, I'll reiterate what I've been saying for years now, namely that J1 is every bit as diverse as R1b (if not more in fact), so labeling all of J1 "Semitic" isn't just wrong, it's counterintuitive. I agree with you regarding J2, in fact I already favoured an arrival during the Bronze Age back when everyone was busy invoking the Neolithic in order to explain J2's distribution (much like J1, mind you).

Regarding forum drama: I have never been a mod on The Apricity (from which I've actually been banned by the past... IMHO, it is one of the most anti-intellectual forums out there and I don't want to have anything to do with it), but that's above the point since I'm not hunting jew-haters on Eupedia (nor anywhere else, for that matter).

giuseppe rossi
02-05-15, 13:54
Bro you are dreaming.

Untill a years ago everyone was thinking that R1b arrived into Europe from the Levant.

Untill 3 years ago everyone was thinking that R1b was a native Paleolitich haplogroup from Iberia.

Now we know that R1b haplogroup arrived into Europe from the Siberian steppe.

Nothing is certain untill we get Neotlich samples from Italy and the Balkans.

Alan
02-05-15, 14:36
Bro you are dreaming.

Untill a years ago everyone was thinking that R1b arrived into Europe from the Levant.

Untill 3 years ago everyone was thinking that R1b was a native Paleolitich haplogroup from Iberia.

Now we know that R1b haplogroup arrived into Europe from the Siberian steppe.

Nothing is certain untill we get Neotlich samples from Italy and the Balkans.

When was anyone believing R1b arrived from the Levant?
When was R1b found in Siberian Steppes?

Semitic Duwa
02-05-15, 18:24
Bro you are dreaming.

Untill a years ago everyone was thinking that R1b arrived into Europe from the Levant.

Untill 3 years ago everyone was thinking that R1b was a native Paleolitich haplogroup from Iberia.

Now we know that R1b haplogroup arrived into Europe from the Siberian steppe.

Nothing is certain untill we get Neotlich samples from Italy and the Balkans.

^^ My point exactly, in fact this is so obvious that J1 hasn't even showed up in archeogenetic remains to date. So yeah, J1 being a major Neolithic marker is wishful thinking... At best.

Semitic Duwa
02-05-15, 18:31
When was anyone believing R1b arrived from the Levant?
When was R1b found in Siberian Steppes?

What he meant is that a few months ago, it was common knowledge that R1b arose in the Zagros/Taurus/Transcaucasus (which, ironically, also happens to be the area where most would place J1's emergence)... Until the Haak et al. 2015 results showed pretty conclusively that R1b is native to the Pontic-Caspian steppe (since it was found on a ~7500 kya old hunter-gatherer from the Samara oblast).

I've been saying the above for some time now so as to advise caution against relying on contemporary data in the absence of ancient data.

Angela
02-05-15, 19:15
Hardly just the last few months.

How soon they forget. :)

Myres et al:
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v19/n1/full/ejhg2010146a.html

Semitic Duwa
02-05-15, 19:32
^^ The "R1b from West Asia" theory is still popular mind you, it's been around for a long time now. In a sense, it was a breakthrough compared to all the theories implying a "Palaeolithic" time frame in Western Europe (often coupled with ridiculous theories surrounding "Basque/Vasconic migrants", in fact Maju keeps parroting a slightly upgraded version of this narrative to this very day).

IMO the funniest circumstances surrounding the Haak et al. 2015 results is that they came out shortly after Lucotte et al. published a paper which reiterated the "Neolithic R1b" theory.

Yetos
02-05-15, 19:47
an interesting area is Kappadokia or Hatti-dava Hat-dayia,
and the minotaurs,
except the historical mentions,

so I leave genetists to more search

Angela
02-05-15, 19:56
Semitic Duwa;456212]ISOGG is even more unreliable than Eupedia as far as J1 goes, it still refers to L147.1 as a major SNP for instance (while we know it's unstable). As I said, if you want a more or less up-to-date assessment of J1's phylogeography you should read this thread (which, I can assure you, is quite unbiased).

I see. My fault. I wasn't aware that you (and Forum Biodiversity) are the world wide authority on J1 and ISOGG are pikers in comparison. You certainly have a healthy sense of self esteem, Semitic Duwa. :)


Semitic Duwa: I know that absence of evidence doesn't stand for evidence of absence but arguing that J1 (or indeed, J as a whole) was some sort of major Neolithic marker is sheer madness at this point.

Perhaps you would care to point me to the post where I stated that J1 was a major Neolithic player? Isn't that a bit of a straw man argument? (I am also quite aware of what yDna has been found in a Neolithic context in Europe. We do manage in our humble way here to keep up with the relevant papers. There are threads for all of those papers.)


Semitic Duwa: I think it's pretty clear that the spread of Neolithic farmers from the Near East wasn't J1-driven phenomenon.

There you go again. Certainly I've never thought or posted any such thing. Perhaps you could point me to a place here where it has been said that J1 was the driver of the spread of Neolithic farmers from the Near East?



Semitic Duwa:For the record, I'll reiterate what I've been saying for years now, namely that J1 is every bit as diverse as R1b (if not more in fact), so labeling all of J1 "Semitic" isn't just wrong, it's counterintuitive.

Sorry, wasn't that what I've been saying not only in this thread but in others? The whole point has been that research on J1 has lagged and that as a result we don't have subclade resolution for the J1 in Italy or anywhere else in Europe.


Semitic Duwa: only a single J1 branch fits the bill for the spread of Semitic (several subclades on the same phylogenetic level, TMRCA fits with the break up of Proto-Semitic, north-to-south phylogeography and so on): J1-YSC0000234.

Great. So precisely how does that conflict with what I've been saying? How do we know how much of that is in Italy, even if you're correct?


Semitic Duwa: I agree with you regarding J2, in fact I already favoured an arrival during the Bronze Age back when everyone was busy invoking the Neolithic in order to explain J2's distribution

Well, if you agree with it I must be right. :)

I must say that I have the strange feeling I get when someone is facing me and addressing me but is actually directing his comments to someone else over my shoulder. If you have a disagreement with the opinion of a particular poster, perhaps it would be best if you address that specific poster. Also, it's not helpful to exaggerate people's opinions to the point of absurdity...to wit, to say that some branches of J1 in Europe may be older than the Bronze Age or the Iron Age or the modern age for that matter, or that it is not all Semitic is not to say that J1 was a major Neolithic lineage, or the driver of the Neolithic or that some, perhaps a lot of the J1 might not turn out to be "Semitic".

As for the forum "drama", I apologize if I associated you incorrectly with The Apricity, although I have to be honest and say I don't find forum biodiversity much better...more lip service to the papers, but very unbalanced and biased interpretations by many of the posters, in my opinion, which could hardly be otherwise given the stated opinions of the site owner and many of the posters. I understand it's been cleaned up lately (those crashes have proved very fortuitous, have they not?), but people have sent me hair raising screen shots of comments on there, particularly in the past. Have those leopards really changed their spots? I doubt it. However, I don't have enough exposure to it to indite all the posters, and I don't actually recall your posts there so none of this is personal.

Also, I was actually going by the fact that when I raised the issue that a member of The Apricity was "trawling" for 23andme data on Sicilians and southern Italians for use in his infamous threads about these people (totally misinterpreting them, in my opinon) and how they are really Middle Easterners in disguise and not Europeans, I thought it was you who came to his defense. I assumed it was because you were from The Apricity. Again, I apologize if that wasn't the case. I can't go back and check now because 23andme apparently agreed with me, and proceeded to pull the thread. I understand he still posts hundreds of pictures of people at discotheques in southern Italy at forum biodiversity however, yes? Very scientific indeed.

Semitic Duwa
02-05-15, 21:04
I see. My fault. I wasn't aware that you (and Forum Biodiversity) are the world wide authority on J1 and ISOGG are pikers in comparison. You certainly have a healthy sense of self esteem, Semitic Duwa. :)

Indeed, compared to ISOGG, I am an expert on J1. And the worst part is that I'm not even exaggerating, all you need to do in order to realise this is to have a good look at ISOGG's J1 tree (http://www.isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpJ.html) and try to find 3 of the subclades I spoke of in the aforementioned thread... Good luck, because you're gonna need loads of it!


Perhaps you would care to point me to the post where I stated that J1 was a major Neolithic player? Isn't that a bit of a straw man argument? (I am also quite aware of what yDna has been found in a Neolithic context in Europe. We do manage in our humble way here to keep up with the relevant papers. There are threads for all of those papers.)

I think you're missing the point quite frankly, let me put it this way: I1, R1b, E-V13, C1a2 and T-M70 have far better odds of being Neolithic markers than either J1 or J2, neither of which were found in a Neolithic context.


There you go again. Certainly I've never thought or posted any such thing. Perhaps you could point me to a place here where it has been said that J1 was the driver of the spread of Neolithic farmers from the Near East?

I'm not singling you out in particular, my initial post merely highlighted the fact that many are eager to invoke Neolithic dispersals in order to explain J1's distribution in Europe.... Despite the fact that J1 hasn't even been found in ancient remains to date, let alone Neolithic remains.
Yet again, I fail to see what's so controversial about this, some J1 subclades might've been minor Neolithic markers at some point... Or not, it's better to keep an open mind in the absence of archeogenetic data.


Sorry, wasn't that what I've been saying not only in this thread but in others? The whole point has been that research on J1 has lagged and that as a result we don't have subclade resolution for the J1 in Italy or anywhere else in Europe.

Apparently not, especially considering all the talk about "Neolithic J1" in this thread. Also, if you'd taken the time to read the thread I directed you to you'd notice that we've made tremendous progress as far as research on J1 is of concern, I can confidently say that J1's phylogeny is far more complete than J2 and E-M35.1's phylogenies put together. While some regions (such as, say, East Africa and Soqotra) deserve serious scrutiny, Italy certainly isn't one of them (again, in the thread I directed you to I mention the Caprio cluster, so Italian J1 is anything but understudied).


Great. So precisely how does that conflict with what I've been saying? How do we know how much of that is in Italy, even if you're correct?

I'd say a sizeable chunk of Italian J1 is YSC234+, the Caprio cluster for instance belongs to a branch of YSC234 (FGC4745), the branch which led to my marker (ZS241) was found in a singleton sample in Italy, L829 (another YSC234>L858 subclade) is found in Italy and Malta and so on... So there's that.
That's not to say YSC234- folks don't exist in Italy, what I am saying though is that they probably came during the Bronze Age (much like J2), the Neolithic (even Late Neolithic) doesn't sound very plausible at this point.


Well, if you agree with it I must be right. :)

You'd be amazed ;)


I must say that I have the strange feeling I get when someone is facing me and addressing me but is actually directing his comments to someone else over my shoulder. If you have a disagreement with the opinion of a particular poster, perhaps it would be best if you address that specific poster. Also, it's not helpful to exaggerate people's opinions to the point of absurdity...to wit, to say that some branches of J1 in Europe may be older than the Bronze Age or the Iron Age or the modern age for that matter, or that it is not all Semitic is not to say that J1 was a major Neolithic lineage, or the driver of the Neolithic or that some, perhaps a lot of the J1 might not turn out to be "Semitic".

As I said, I'm not singling you out in particular, I'm merely pointing out that all the talk about Neolithic dispersals is kind of unwarranted as far as J1 goes, especially considering the complete absence of J1 in ancient remains to date. This tendency to bring up the Neolithic in order to explain J1's distribution in Europe is quite mind-boggling, it's as if some people have been living in a cave recently and missed all of the Neolithic results we've uncovered.
J1 is about the same age as R1b and every bit as diverse, one should be careful not to make easy shortcuts such as "Non-Semitic J1 = Neolithic".
Yet again, everything we say is an educated guess at this point.


As for the forum "drama", I apologize if I associated you incorrectly with The Apricity, although I have to be honest and say I don't find forum biodiversity much better...more lip service to the papers, but very unbalanced and biased interpretations by many of the posters, in my opinion, which could hardly be otherwise given the stated opinions of the site owner and many of the posters. I understand it's been cleaned up lately (those crashes have proved very fortuitous, have they not?), but people have sent me hair raising screen shots of comments on there, particularly in the past. Have those leopards really changed their spots? I doubt it. However, I don't have enough exposure to it to indite all the posters, and I don't actually recall your posts there so none of this is personal.

Also, I was actually going by the fact that when I raised the issue that a member of The Apricity was "trawling" for 23andme data on Sicilians and southern Italians for use in his infamous threads about these people (totally misinterpreting them, in my opinon) and how they are really Middle Easterners in disguise and not Europeans, I thought it was you who came to his defense. I assumed it was because you were from The Apricity. Again, I apologize if that wasn't the case. I can't go back and check now because 23andme apparently agreed with me, and proceeded to pull the thread. I understand he still posts hundreds of pictures of people at discotheques in southern Italy at forum biodiversity however, yes? Very scientific indeed.

I think you're referring to a user called "tauromenion", either way I'm not that familiar with him in the first place. As far as ABF goes, it's far more intellectual-leaning than The Apricity, no doubt about it... You might not like Elias, but I for one am glad to count him as one of my friends (and obviously, we don't agree on everything, and that's just fine) and I can only praise him for weeding out most of the "trawls" on ABF despite the fact that I don't post that much back there anymore.

Sile
02-05-15, 21:24
ISOGG is even more unreliable than Eupedia as far as J1 goes, it still refers to L147.1 as a major SNP for instance (while we know it's unstable). As I said, if you want a more or less up-to-date assessment of J1's phylogeography you should read this thread (which, I can assure you, is quite unbiased).

How do I know that earlier J1 branches didn't take part in the Neolithic revolution? Truth be told, I know that absence of evidence doesn't stand for evidence of absence but arguing that J1 (or indeed, J as a whole) was some sort of major Neolithic marker is sheer madness at this point given the fact that we've managed to uncover haplogroups such as I1 (from Hungary; Szécsényi-Nagy et al. 2014), R1b (from the cave site of Els Trocs; Haak et al. 2015), E-V13 (from the Avellaner cave; Lacan et al. 2011), C1a2 (from Hungary; Gamba et al. 2014) and T-M70 (from Germany; Haak et al. 2015) in a Neolithic context.
Contrast this with the deafening absence of J1 in all Neolithic remains to date and it becomes pretty clear that invoking the Neolithic revolution in order to explain J1's presence in Europe is nothing short of a self-defeating endeavour.



Agree, but all this says is that J was not found in Europe in Neolithic times , while the others you mentioned where. We can still say J was neolithic but further away from Anatolia or southern-caucasus lands and so played no part in the early European Neolithic migration

Angela
02-05-15, 21:52
Indeed, compared to ISOGG, I am an expert on J1. And the worst part is that I'm not even exaggerating, all you need to do in order to realise this is to have a good look at ISOGG's J1 tree (http://www.isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpJ.html) and try to find 3 of the subclades I spoke of in the aforementioned thread... Good luck, because you're gonna need loads of it!

I think you're missing the point quite frankly, let me put it this way: I1, R1b, E-V13, C1a2 and T-M70 have far better odds of being Neolithic markers than either J1 or J2, neither of which were found in a Neolithic context.

I'm not singling you out in particular, my initial post merely highlighted the fact that many are eager to invoke Neolithic dispersals in order to explain J1's distribution in Europe.... Despite the fact that J1 hasn't even been found in ancient remains to date, let alone Neolithic remains.
Yet again, I fail to see what's so controversial about this, some J1 subclades might've been minor Neolithic markers at some point... Or not, it's better to keep an open mind in the absence of archeogenetic data.

Apparently not, especially considering all the talk about "Neolithic J1" in this thread. Also, if you'd taken the time to read the thread I directed you to you'd notice that we've made tremendous progress as far as research on J1 is of concern, I can confidently say that J1's phylogeny is far more complete than J2 and E-M35.1's phylogenies put together. While some regions (such as, say, East Africa and Soqotra) deserve serious scrutiny, Italy certainly isn't one of them (again, in the thread I directed you to I mention the Caprio cluster, so Italian J1 is anything but understudied).

I'd say a sizeable chunk of Italian J1 is YSC234+, the Caprio cluster for instance belongs to a branch of YSC234 (FGC4745), the branch which led to my marker (ZS241) was found in a singleton sample in Italy, L829 (another YSC234>L858 subclade) is found in Italy and Malta and so on... So there's that.
That's not to say YSC234- folks don't exist in Italy, what I am saying though is that they probably came during the Bronze Age (much like J2), the Neolithic (even Late Neolithic) doesn't sound very plausible at this point.

You'd be amazed ;)

As I said, I'm not singling you out in particular, I'm merely pointing out that all the talk about Neolithic dispersals is kind of unwarranted as far as J1 goes, especially considering the complete absence of J1 in ancient remains to date. This tendency to bring up the Neolithic in order to explain J1's distribution in Europe is quite mind-boggling, it's as if some people have been living in a cave recently and missed all of the Neolithic results we've uncovered.
J1 is about the same age as R1b and every bit as diverse, one should be careful not to make easy shortcuts such as "Non-Semitic J1 = Neolithic".
Yet again, everything we say is an educated guess at this point.

I think you're referring to a user called "tauromenion", either way I'm not that familiar with him in the first place. As far as ABF goes, it's far more intellectual-leaning than The Apricity, no doubt about it... You might not like Elias, but I for one am glad to count him as one of my friends (and obviously, we don't agree on everything, and that's just fine) and I can only praise him for weeding out most of the "trawls" on ABF despite the fact that I don't post that much back there anymore.

@Semitic Duwa,

All of that verbiage, and the result is that you can't point to anyone who claimed what you said they claimed, to wit that J1 was a major Neolithic lineage or a driver of the Neolithic, and certainly not me. So, they're all straw man arguments. In fact, many of the things you do claim about J1 were said by other posters, including me, and on this very thread.

All the obfuscation in the world and all the self praise in the world doesn't change any of that a jot.

If you think that something that Rossi, for example, or Maciamo, for that matter, has stated, is incorrect, then address them and their opinions, and do not attribute those opinions to all the posters on this thread. Even in that case, don't misrepresent those opinions or exaggerate them to a level of absurdity. It's not an honest debate tactic.

The poster of that pulled thread on 23andme goes by many names. He has even posted here in the past. I was speaking about the member who came to his defense, as you very well know, and to the best of my recollection it was you. Apologies if it wasn't the case.

As for the owner of forum biodiversity I don't know him from a hole in the wall, nor do I care to...it's the statements and attitudes that were displayed on there at least in the past and the slanted interpretations of data to which I object. I find it highly disingenuous that now everyone wants to pretend it didn't go on. Thank God for screen savers.

Regardless, enough gossip. In this field as well as in all others, people need to consider the source.

As for this Board, in the future please do not present straw man arguments, or misrepresent people's opinions.

Semitic Duwa
02-05-15, 22:15
Agree, but all this says is that J was not found in Europe in Neolithic times , while the others you mentioned where. We can still say J was neolithic but further away from Anatolia or southern-caucasus lands and so played no part in the early European Neolithic migration

^^ Now that sounds far more reasonable, no doubt about this. That's a possibility we must seriously entertain, in fact J1 could possibly be involved in the Neolithisation of Central Asia (I wouldn't be surprised if we were to find J1 in BMAC for instance).

Sile
02-05-15, 22:25
^^ Now that sounds far more reasonable, no doubt about this. That's a possibility we must seriously entertain, in fact J1 could possibly be involved in the Neolithisation of Central Asia (I wouldn't be surprised if we were to find J1 in BMAC for instance).

I doubt it has anything to do with early BMAC areas......i leave that to the R1, T, L, G etc ............while I associate J1 with a "persian gulf area" . The persian gulf before it became a salt water sea area was mainly fresh water marshy river lands ideal for people to live by ..............some scholars claim it to be the "original garden of eden " where 4 rivers met ( modern basra ) before flowing south into the Indian ocean

Semitic Duwa
02-05-15, 22:42
All the obfuscation in the world and all the self praise in the world doesn't change any of that a jot.

This has more to do with sheer objectivity and factual accuracy rather than "self praise"... But since it seems you need a couple of pictures to understand what I'm saying, I'm going to do just that...

ISOGG:

http://pichoster.net/images/2015/05/02/ISOGG%20J1%20tree.jpg

& Eupedia:

http://cache.eupedia.com/images/content/J1-tree.gif

VS Semitic Duwa (based on FTDNA's haplotree):

http://pichoster.net/images/2015/03/27/J1%20Haplotree%20phylogeny%20subclade%20highlight% 20FGC3723.png


^^ Do you notice the discrepancy? Or are you just going to claim this is irrelevant because I posted this on ABF or because I allegedly have a "healthy sense of self-esteem"? Let's drop the ad hominems and stick to facts, that's all I can say.


If you think that something that Rossi, for example, or Maciamo, for that matter, has stated, is incorrect, then address them and their opinions, and do not attribute those opinions to all the posters on this thread. Even in that case, don't misrepresent those opinions or exaggerate them to a level of absurdity. It's not an honest debate tactic.

Fine then, you ask for it you get it: Maciamo states (in his J1 page) that J1-L136 "migrated south from eastern Anatolia" and that "all surviving J1 lineages share the same origin as goat and sheep herders from the Taurus and Zagros mountains". This is a broad assumption which is based almost entirely on contemporary data (and by now everyone ought to know how reliable contemporary data is), it fails to take J1's diversity into account and reduces it to a lineage which spread mostly during the Neolithic.
For instance, Maciamo states that "hotspots of J1 in northern Spain [...] appears to be lineages essentially descended from these Southwest Asian Neolithic Herders", needless to say that's a very tabloid-like statement.


As for this Board, in the future please do not present straw man arguments, or misrepresent people's opinions.

I'm here to talk about J1, not debate tactics. Again, I have nothing against you or anyone here in particular, I just find it mind-boggling that the Neolithic gets so much credit when J1 hasn't even been found in Neolithic remains to date.

giuseppe rossi
03-05-15, 13:10
All this talking about Bronze Age invasions is funny.

I only know that Bronze Age samples from Kyjatice, Slovakia, turned out to be J2a1, in Gamba et al. And that's not so far from the Baltic sea.

Surely J2 in Southern Europe must have been much much older than that.

Semitic Duwa
04-05-15, 04:13
All this talking about Bronze Age invasions is funny.

I only know that Bronze Age samples from Kyjatice, Slovakia, turned out to be J2a1, in Gamba et al. And that's not so far from the Baltic sea.

Surely J2 in Southern Europe must have been much much older than that.

Too early to tell, nevertheless judging from all the Neolithic remains to date J2 being older than the Bronze Age in Europe doesn't sound all that likely anymore.

giuseppe rossi
04-05-15, 07:46
J2 was already present near the Baltic Sea in the Bronze Age, which means that J2 arrived in Italy or Greece at least 2000 years before that, so in the Copper Age/Late Neolitich.

I don't care how much you try to spin it, that's that.

Angela
04-05-15, 14:08
J2 was already present near the Baltic Sea in the Bronze Age, which means that J2 arrived in Italy or Greece at least 2000 years before that, so in the Copper Age/Late Neolitich.

I don't care how much you try to spin it, that's that.

The Baltic Sea? Is that supposed to be funny? Even were that true, your conclusion wouldn't necessarily follow logically from that.

We don't know when J2 arrived in Italy or Greece. The dating in Boattini et al says Bronze Age. Even if you're not a fan of the dating methods, and I have some skepticism as well, just in terms of relative date of arrival, it came after R1b, so certainly not early or even middle Neolithic.

The earliest J2 we've found was in a Bronze Age "Indo-European" context.

Speaking of context, for those who don't know (and I wish I were still of your number), many of these arguments are about nordicists of various, often bizarre origins for the adoption of such a credo using the presence of J2 (and the E clades as well) to brand us as less European than themselves, joined by Middle Easterners who are bound and determined to claim us all for themselves, and Italians of the anthrofora world therefore determined to prove that J2 was already safely in Italy by the Neolithic. Sort of like the type of Spaniards who will grudgingly accept that they have yDna E and J (and North African), so long as it was all there by the Neolithic and had nothing to do with the dastardly Moors.

Of course, R1b/R1a is Central Asian, and N is Siberian, while I is probably Gravettian from West Asia. So where are we?

Wait, there's push back there too. From the usual suspects R1a, at least, is "East European" and if we have to admit it didn't drop out of the sky into Eastern Europe, it's absolutely clear that it's been completely north of the Near East for 30,000 some years, and N isn't Siberian. Can't have any connections with the Near East or Asia, and God forbid anyone mentions the word SSA.

Welcome to the wonderful world of amateur population genetics.

Edit 2: Apparently, now a paper claims N is "Chinese" in origin. :)

Ed. This is the link to the thread where Boattini et al is discussed, including the J2 lineages. It is difficult to find through the search engine because the thread title doesn't mention J2a or Boattini:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/29842-southern-Italian-paper-2014?highlight=Boattini


(http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/29842-southern-Italian-paper-2014?highlight=Boattini)

giuseppe rossi
04-05-15, 15:27
Well this is according to Boattini et al. 2013

"The use of STR variation for dating Y-chromosome lineages or population splits, is a controversial issue, due to the effect that both mutation rates and STR choice has on the temporal scale of age estimates. Following the most recent studies our estimates are based on those STRs that show the highest duration of linearity [49] (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0065441#pone.0065441-Busby1) and by using locus-specific mutation rates (Ballantyne et al. 2010). This is one of the reasons that led us to exclude ‘evolutionary’ mutation rates (see Methods (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0065441#s2) for details). In addition, we removed ‘outlier’ haplotypes (seeMethods S1 (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0065441#pone.0065441.s021)), since their presence could inflate significantly the ages of haplogroups and DAPC clusters. However, these results have to be taken with great caution, keeping in mind that ‘evolutionary’ rates (applied to the same data) would yield time estimates around three times greater. Nonetheless, we observe that two independent methods applied to our data – BATWING and SD-based estimates – yield consistent results. In fact, in contrast to mtDNA age estimates, almost all Y-chromosome estimates fall between late Neolithic and the Bronze Age. "

Some datings of Y-dna lineages from the same paper:

R-312: 7564 years before present.

I-M26: 5153

G-P15: 15020

E-V13: 3662

So R1b 312 is a Mesolitich haplogroup, while G2a is almost 2 times older.

I dunno how you can take this astrology seriously. I simply can't.

Angela
04-05-15, 15:54
Well this is according to Boattini et al. 2013

"The use of STR variation for dating Y-chromosome lineages or population splits, is a controversial issue, due to the effect that both mutation rates and STR choice has on the temporal scale of age estimates. Following the most recent studies our estimates are based on those STRs that show the highest duration of linearity [49] (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0065441#pone.0065441-Busby1) and by using locus-specific mutation rates (Ballantyne et al. 2010). This is one of the reasons that led us to exclude ‘evolutionary’ mutation rates (see Methods (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0065441#s2) for details). In addition, we removed ‘outlier’ haplotypes (seeMethods S1 (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0065441#pone.0065441.s021)), since their presence could inflate significantly the ages of haplogroups and DAPC clusters. However, these results have to be taken with great caution, keeping in mind that ‘evolutionary’ rates (applied to the same data) would yield time estimates around three times greater. Nonetheless, we observe that two independent methods applied to our data – BATWING and SD-based estimates – yield consistent results. In fact, in contrast to mtDNA age estimates, almost all Y-chromosome estimates fall between late Neolithic and the Bronze Age. "

Some datings of Y-dna lineages from the same paper:

R-312: 7564 years before present.

I-M26: 5153

G-P15: 15020

E-V13: 3662

So R1b 312 is a Mesolitich haplogroup, while G2a is almost 2 times older.

I dunno how you can take this astrology seriously. I simply can't.




Giuseppe, didn't I say that I was somewhat skeptical of their dating? My point was mainly based, as I said, on the relative "order" for the appearance of these lineages in Italy, and the fact that we haven't yet found J2 anywhere any earlier than the Bronze Age.

Would I be shocked if some late Neolithic J2 shows up in the Balkan samples they are currently testing? Maybe in Cucuteni? Absolutely not.
Who knows what we'll see if they ever get around to finding y Dna or autosomal dna in the Balkans or Italian mesolithic or even Neolithic.
Many of these researchers are mainly interested in northern or central Europe, although to be fair the samples are better preserved in colder climates, so it may be that further advancements in technique are necessary to extract adna from samples further south.

We don't know. We don't even know what we don't know.

Semitic Duwa
04-05-15, 20:55
J2 was already present near the Baltic Sea in the Bronze Age, which means that J2 arrived in Italy or Greece at least 2000 years before that, so in the Copper Age/Late Neolitich.

I don't care how much you try to spin it, that's that.

Once more, I seriously doubt J2 made its entry on the continent during the early Chalcolithic/LN era, nothing enables us to make such a wild guess at this point.

Alan
05-05-15, 02:02
What he meant is that a few months ago, it was common knowledge that R1b arose in the Zagros/Taurus/Transcaucasus (which, ironically, also happens to be the area where most would place J1's emergence)... Until the Haak et al. 2015 results showed pretty conclusively that R1b is native to the Pontic-Caspian steppe (since it was found on a ~7500 kya old hunter-gatherer from the Samara oblast).

I've been saying the above for some time now so as to advise caution against relying on contemporary data in the absence of ancient data.


The age of the Hunter and Gatherer who had Haplogroup R1b is irrelevant. For the million times, relevant is only the clade of R1b this H&G belonged to.

As far as I remember the H&G was downstream to R1b m269(most likely r1b z2103).


No m269
No m343
No P25
No P297

Even the Neolithic R1b in Spain was of an older clade. Haplogroup R1b alone has an estimated age of 22000 years. How on earth is R1b in some 7500 year old Samara burial, which is upstream to many R1b found in the Zagros/Taurus mountains, a prove that R1b originated there?

I have tried to explain why this reasoning for an R1b "origin in the Steppes" is absurd. And I am honestly tired of doing it over and over again.

By all respect but what you were saying for long time now is wrong. And Haak et al. hasn't proved the opposite, Haak didn't even come to the conclusion that R1b originated there, since as I said this would be absurd conclusion considering the age of R1b in general, and the subclade this Samara individual belonged.


So no I haven't seen any scientist coming to the idea that Haplogroup R1b originated in the Steppes, beside some hobby anthropologists on various bords who have not much idea about the timeline and tree of Haplogroup R1b.

Semitic Duwa
05-05-15, 02:29
^^ The only absurd reasoning I can see here is your counterintuitive approach, you're arguing against the evidence at this point. Here's something you don't really seem to understand: Ancient DNA trumps contemporary data (and that includes all age estimates based on the latter).

Furthermore, the Samara HG was ancestral for both M478 and M269, so by no stretch of mind can you possibly argue that he was Z2103, let alone "downstream to R1b m269". This just goes on to prove you don't know what you're talking about.

Finally, how likely is it that R1b didn't originate in the Pontic-Caspian steppe considering the fact we struggled to find R1b in Western Europe prior to the Chalcolithic/Late Neolithic while we immediately found not one but eight R1b individuals in a single region of the Pontic-Caspian steppe with a time-span covering the Mesolithic and Chalcolithic record? Again, what are the odds in this case? And let's not address the Karelian hunter-gatherer and MA1, that would just make things harder for the idiosyncratic approach you're proposing.

Once more, I suggest you take the time read the Haak et al. paper again, since it's pretty clear to me you have no idea what you're talking about.

Alan
05-05-15, 02:56
Ok I am starting to get bored by this endless discussions of various Haplogroups, because most of the time obivious evidences are deliberately ignored.
As Angela said, J2 has so far only appeared in Europe in context with Indo Europeans in Bronze Age.

Now let's get deeper into this. We have a Bronze Age J2a individual from Hungary who shows the first signs of "eastern" ANE type admixture. No J* in Neolithic and Mesolithic samples. Clear hint of an Indo European origin.

Let's simply assume that Yamna origin of all Indo Europeans is right.We have the recent Haak paper which compares Yama with modern populations. We see that genetically(fst distance) the closest populations are Uralic Speakers such as Mordvins, Caucasic speakers such as Lezgians, Turkic speaking (pred. of Iranic origin with East Eurasian admixture) Chuvash and Slavic speaking Russians/Ukrainians.

Now let us take a look at the J2 Haplogroup map.
http://cdn.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup-J2.jpg


See that "peak" in Russia around the Urals? Coincidence? I don't think so.

Now let's take a look at the frequency of the most prominent Haplogroups among these populations above.

Mordvins R1a* 36%, J2* 14%, R1b* 11%, N* 15%
Chuvash R1a* 30%, J2* 13%, N* 28%
Lezgians J1* 43.5%, R1b* 21.5%, G2a* 17.5%, T 6%
Ukrainians R1a/ 45%, R1b* 7.5%, J2* 7%, N* 7.5%
unfortunately no data of ethnic Russians, only Russia as a country including the dozen of ethnic groups.

Now let's pick out the Haplogroups which appear in most of the above listed populations.
It's R1b, R1a, J*(more often J2) and N*

Again J2 is very prominent, coincidence? Haplogroup J2 is prominent in 2/3 of all Indo Europeans. Indo_Iranian, Armenian, Greek, Italic, Albanian, South Slavs, former Thracian, Dacian and Illyrian territory. Ironically all those listed groups are closer to the supposed Indo European homeland, be it the Steppes or be it the West Asian or South_Central Asian highlands. Only exception Slavs for who we have strong evidences that they spred more recently in former Iranic and Balkanic Indo European territory.

Another exception are Germanic and Celtic speakers, which is imo deluded due to Bottle Neck.

We can't be for 100% sure, but the evidences point strongly for an Indo European expansion firstly and a expansion via Minoans, Phoenician and Proto Caucasic speakers in Anatolia and the Caucasus, later.

Alan
05-05-15, 03:22
^^ The only absurd reasoning I can see here is your counterintuitive approach, you're arguing against the evidence at this point. Here's something you don't really seem to understand: Ancient DNA trumps contemporary data (and that includes all age estimates based on the latter).



Is that your rule or have you read this reasoning in any per reviewed study my dear "scientist". I have never in my life seen such an absurd reasoning. Hey you kno what, the "oldest " up to date example of Haplogroup G2a* was found in Europe. Therefore we should come to the conclusion that this Haplogroup originated there. Since as you said it doesn't matter that all upstream clades of G2* are found in Western Asia. As you said more important is where the oldest sample with the same Haplogroup was found. Thats the logic of someone who has no freakn idea what he is talking about.

The only one who doesnt seem to get into his head, that a 7500 year old Samara individual is not a prove for the origin of an 22000 year old Haplogroup, which on itself has more upstream clades as that found there, is you.

What on the words that an ancient sample which is downstream to R1b m343, found in one place of the world, is not the prove that this Haplogroup originated there?


Furthermore, the Samara HG was ancestral for both M478 and M269, so by no stretch of mind can you possibly argue that he was Z2103, let alone "downstream to R1b m269". This just goes on to prove you don't know what you're talking about.


If that is the case could you be so kind and show us the source for that? And even IF it was upstream to m478 and m269 this would place it somewhere around p297, which is still slightly younger than Anatolian m335 and Levantine/African V88. Which by the way is still younger than the Iberian Neolithic R1b (Either P25 or V88). And I am not even talking about P25 let alone m343 here. The matter of fact is, m343 has been only found in West and South_Central Asia so far. And West_SouthCentral Asia is the place with the highest diversity of this Haplogroup. Virtually 70% of it's clades are found there.

So explain me Einstein how does this prove an Steppic origin of R1b, if there is no m343 or even p25 and please show me one reliable Scientist who comes to the same conclusion.

And also try to explain me how an older or roughly as old R1b subclade turns up in a neolithic sample from Iberia with typical EEF aDNA, if this Haplogroup really "originated" in the Steppes?

I personally have an explanation how two subclades of roughly similar age could end up in two "very" different populations. One moving from West Asian together with farmers in Western direction, another moving with herders through South_Central Asia or the Caucasus towards the Steppes.


Finally, how likely is it that R1b didn't originate in the Pontic-Caspian steppe considering the fact we struggled to find R1b in Western Europe prior to the Chalcolithic/Late Neolithic while we immediately found not one but eight R1b individuals in a single region of the Pontic-Caspian steppe with a time-span covering the Mesolithic and Chalcolithic record? Again, what are the odds in this case? And let's not address the Karelian hunter-gatherer and MA1, that would just make things harder for the idiosyncratic approach you're proposing.



Look don't start an argument you can't win, We aren't here on ABF where your buddy Elias can save your face by giving a QFQ ban.

So because we haven't found any R1b in Western Europe(Who actually argued about a Western European origin of R1b?), and because we have ancient samples from the Pontic Steppes that is your "ultimate prove" that the Haplogroup has evolved there.

So you have ancient samples from South_Central and Western Asia to speak of an Pontic origin of R1b in such a convinced way? My God that argument is so stupid I don't even know where to start.

You probably have missed the part where scientists propose a Southeast/South Asian(around North India) origin of R* because the most basal clades of R* have been found in Southeast Asia. That's the same reason why your argument is invalid and completely absurd. Ancient DNA does not "trump" contemporary data IF the ancient DNA does not bring out a more basal and upstream clade.

But these scientist must be stupid, because according to your logic, the place of origin for a Haplogroup is there, where the oldest ancient Sample has been tested with. Not really where the highest diversity and basal clades of the Haplogoup has been found. Therefore Sibiria is the place of origin for Haplogroup R* and Europe for G2a*, Right?

My advice stop wasting my time with nonsensical arguments.

Semitic Duwa
05-05-15, 04:18
^^ You do realise you're basically proving my point over and over again, don't you? If you didn't exist I'd simply have to invent you, just to show how disconnected from facts and reality your contention really is. There's no way around this, let me reiterate: Ancient DNA trumps contemporary data.

Ironically-enough, you unconsciously acknowledge that simple fact by referring to the Bronze Age J2a sample from Hungary in order to turn J2 into a diagnostic PIE marker... In the same way, I could use this idiosyncratic approach of yours and start playing with TMRCA estimates.

But that's above the point really, you simply don't know what you're talking about and your post just convinces me further that you're arguing against the evidence (mostly by invoking contemporary data and making broad assumptions). I already told you you ought to read the Haak et al. study again, because that's where you're gonna discover that the Samaran HG was M478- and M269- for instance... By all means, do not believe anything I say and go see for yourself.

So far, you've managed to argue not only against archeogenetic data but linguistic data as well (by casting doubt on the Pontic-Caspian steppe's validity as the PIE urheimat). So yeah... Nonsensical arguments? Look who's talking.

Alan
05-05-15, 06:34
^^ You do realise you're basically proving my point over and over again, don't you? If you didn't exist I'd simply have to invent you, just to show how disconnected from facts and reality your contention really is. There's no way around this, let me reiterate: Ancient DNA trumps contemporary data.

how can an individual repeat the same nonsense over again by totally ignoring 99% of the arguments the opposite side brought up.

Since it seems you didn't understand me properly here I will repeat myself for you. Show me one scientists who came to the conclusion R1b originated in the Steppes or R* originated in Siberia based on this ancient Samples found there.

You lack the basic understanding, it might be the long standing contact to ABF type of people. Your Ad Hominum there is unforgotten


Ironically-enough, you unconsciously acknowledge that simple fact by referring to the Bronze Age J2a sample from Hungary in order to turn J2 into a diagnostic PIE marker... In the same way, I could use this idiosyncratic approach of yours and start playing with TMRCA estimates.

Holy cow you are comparing apples with oranges. Heck as always you are interpreting arguments into my post which I never stated.

Search out the sentence where I claimed J2 is all an Indo European marker. And stop throwing a few "intellectual" words you have catched up somewhere, into the room to act like you actually know what you are saying

Wait better I will quote myself.


We can't be for 100% sure, but the evidences point strongly for an Indo European expansion firstly and a expansion via Minoans and Proto Caucasic speakers in Anatolia and the Caucasus later.

What I said here is J2 was spred into Europe with Indo Europeans at first place. Or How does a "genius" like you assume J2 ended up in regions as far as the Altais and Central Asia? What do you think is the reason that J2 uniformly exists among all Indo_Iranians in significant percentage? Than I said another major wave came via Minoans and Proto Caucasic speakers . Which should make anyone with basic knowledge understand, "Aha so he is saying J2 was spred by various waves just that he thinks the first major wave into Europe came via the Indo Europeans".

This alone destroys your accusation so badly that you should be sitting ashamed in a corner.

Second how on freakn earth, does a statement of how a Haplogroup was spred say anything about the ultimate place of origin. So how is that a good comparison with what you claim?

E1b1b was spred into Europe by Neolithic farmers. Yet very likely originates in Northeast Africa. But according to your logic, since the majority of E1b1b was spred by Neolithic farmers, it's place of origin is also the place where the neolithic farmers started?




But that's above the point really, you simply don't know what you're talking about and your post just convinces me further that you're arguing against the evidence (mostly by invoking contemporary data and making broad assumptions). I already told you you ought to read the Haak et al. study again, because that's where you're gonna discover that the Samaran HG was M478- and M269- for instance... By all means, do not believe anything I say and go see for yourself.

The fact that in this post you concentrate more on attacking me personally instead of just trying to disprove my arguments above, simply means you just don't want to admit you made a joke out of yourself and do not have any answer for it.

Since you seem to haven't even read my post in your rage. Here I will quote it for you.


If that is the case could you be so kind and show us the source for that? And even IF it was upstream to m478 and m269 this would place it somewhere around p297, which is still slightly younger than Anatolian m335 and Levantine/African V88. Which by the way is still younger than the Iberian Neolithic R1b (Either P25 or V88). And I am not even talking about P25 let alone m343 here. The matter of fact is, m343 has been only found in West and South_Central Asia so far. And West_SouthCentral Asia is the place with the highest diversity of this Haplogroup. Virtually 70% of it's clades are found there.

So explain me Einstein how does this prove an Steppic origin of R1b, if there is no m343 or even p25 and please show me one reliable Scientist who comes to the same conclusion.

So again even if this Samara individual was -m269 and -m478 it is still younger than the Iberian neolithic R1b and downstream to m343 and p25.



So far, you've managed to argue not only against archeogenetic data but linguistic data as well (by casting doubt on the Pontic-Caspian steppe's validity as the PIE urheimat). So yeah... Nonsensical arguments? Look who's talking.

Yep since I am the only one who has his doubts on the PC Steppe theory. And not a single scientist has come to any other idea. Doubting something doesn't mean you refute it. Again you are simply not smart enough to understand the difference. All I said is there is the possibility that PC Steppes is not the Homeland of all Indo Europeans and PIE per se. But how does this mean I am not accepting this model? I am simply taking other models into account too.
By the way where are your scientists who place R1b origin on the Steppes. I must have missed them. And don't even try to distract. The Urheimat wasn't even our topic.


just let it go and stop wasting my time. The moment you ignored my statements and started to concentrated more on my personality was the moment you lost this debate.

Angela
05-05-15, 07:24
Gentlemen, enough with the accusations that the other doesn't know what he's talking about, and this is stupid and that's nonsense. Keep it civil please. It always becomes apparent who, in a particular argument, is armed with logic and who isn't. No need to name call. Not saying we haven't all strayed over the line on occasion, but let's watch it.

That said...


Alan: Haplogroup R1b alone has an estimated age of 22000 years. How on earth is R1b in some 7500 year old Samara burial...a proof that R1b originated there?

It obviously isn't, whether people want to argue about the date for R1b by a few thousand years or not, and whatever the specific clade of R1b the hunter gatherer possessed. It was M269 negative, however, to the best of my recollection. The point is that it's not a very basal or upstream clade of R1b.

I should add that I don't know where it originated and neither does anyone else. It could also have been Siberia, or Central Asia, or West Asia or somewhere in between. A lot of factors have to be considered, including the trajectory of V88, the Neolithic R1b in Iberia, and how M343 fits into all of this. That inclines me against a Siberian origin, but as for the rest of the possibilities, I'm an agnostic for the present. These are all just educated guesses. I'm content to wait for more data.


Semitic Duwa: Ancient DNA trumps contemporary data.
That's not in any way dispositive. As has been pointed out to you repeatedly the R1b hunter gatherer only proves that R1b was on the steppe 7,000 years ago. It doesn't prove it "originated" there, even if you think that "Mal'ta" proves that "R" originated in Siberia. It depends on the direction of gene flow after Mal'ta. Your conclusions are based on a lot of assumptions.

It's beyond me why some hobbyists are so emphatic in insisting on certain positions when we just don't have enough data yet. Well, forget that. I do know what is behind some of it, at least.


Semitic Duwa: Once more, I suggest you take the time read the Haak et al. paper again.
Could you please direct us as to specifically where in Haak et al 2015 the researchers opined on where R1b originated? The relevant page reference would be helpful.

Oh, could you also cite any academic papers which have reached that conclusion as of this date, i.e. that R1b is "native" to or originated on the steppe? "Spread from" is not the same as the "origination" point. You seem to use some terms in a very "loose" fashion. Thanks.

Ed. I see some of my points have already been made.

Semitic Duwa
05-05-15, 19:32
how can an individual repeat the same nonsense over again by totally ignoring 99% of the arguments the opposite side brought up.

Since it seems you didn't understand me properly here I will repeat myself for you. Show me one scientists who came to the conclusion R1b originated in the Steppes or R* originated in Siberia based on this ancient Samples found there.

You lack the basic understanding, it might be the long standing contact to ABF type of people. Your Ad Hominum there is unforgotten

You're just appealing to authority in order to avoid addressing simple facts, which is why I am going to reiterate once more: Ancient DNA trumps contemporary evidence.
Let that thought sink in for a while.



Heck as always you are interpreting arguments [...] which I never stated

[...]

What I said here is J2 was spred into Europe with Indo Europeans at first place.

Yeah, in other words: You're still busy proving my point over & over again. Glad we could clear this one up.



The fact that in this post you concentrate more on attacking me personally instead of just trying to disprove my arguments above, simply means you just don't want to admit you made a joke out of yourself and do not have any answer for it.

^^ Pot calling the kettle black, if you'd taken the time to actually read what I wrote you'd have noticed that your "arguments' self-destruct since you're arguing against the evidence.



So again even if this Samara individual was -m269 and -m478 it is still younger than the Iberian neolithic R1b and downstream to m343 and p25.

First of all, it's not "even if", the Samaran HG was M478- and M269-, once more I strongly suggest you take the time to read the Haak et al. study. Finally, the R1b sample from El Trocs is ~7000 kya old while the Samaran HG is ~7500 kya old (which makes it the oldest R1b sample in the archeogenetic record). Technically-speaking, you're way off the hook since you're using contemporary phylogeny to discard archeogenetic evidence, that in itself speaks volumes about your approach. So no, the Epicardial sample isn't older than the Samaran HG, it's actually younger.


Yep since I am the only one who has his doubts on the PC Steppe theory. And not a single scientist has come to any other idea. Doubting something doesn't mean you refute it. Again you are simply not smart enough to understand the difference. All I said is there is the possibility that PC Steppes is not the Homeland of all Indo Europeans and PIE per se. But how does this mean I am not accepting this model? I am simply taking other models into account too.
By the way where are your scientists who place R1b origin on the Steppes. I must have missed them. And don't even try to distract. The Urheimat wasn't even our topic.

Once more, a classic case of projection from your part: There is no room for doubt as far as the Pontic-Caspian steppe urheimat is of concern, one would need to discard several centuries (not decades, centuries) of linguistic evidence in order to cast doubt on the Pontic-Caspian steppe urheimat. But that's not exactly surprising, coming from someone who implies that R1b came from West Asia and is equally inclined to promote a West Asian urheimat for PIE.

But let's suppose you're right for the time being... If R1b really came from West Asia then how do you explain the fact that the Samaran HG had no Near Eastern ancestry (and closely ressembled the Karelian HG, who was R1a)? Good luck, because you're gonna need loads of it.

If I were you, I'd drop this self-defeating attitude immediately, since there's no other IE model worthy of consideration at this point... And unfortunately for you, appealing to authority ("gimme scientist! muh scientist") is just going to make things worse in this case.

Semitic Duwa
05-05-15, 19:45
That's not in any way dispositive. As has been pointed out to you repeatedly the R1b hunter gatherer only proves that R1b was on the steppe 7,000 years ago. It doesn't prove it "originated" there, even if you think that "Mal'ta" proves that "R" originated in Siberia. It depends on the direction of gene flow after Mal'ta. Your conclusions are based on a lot of assumptions.

It's beyond me why some hobbyists are so emphatic in insisting on certain positions when we just don't have enough data yet. Well, forget that. I do know what is behind some of it, at least.

Fascinating, but there's a question which still troubles me you see... Let's pretend you're spot on and that finding a ~7500 kya old R1b sample on the Pontic-Caspian steppe tells us nothing about its origins (let alone R1b's origins), how do you explain the fact that the Samaran HG had no Near Eastern ancestry and formed an "EHG" cluster with the Karelian HG already? I keep forgetting.



Could you please direct us as to specifically where in Haak et al 2015 the researchers opined on where R1b originated? The relevant page reference would be helpful.

Oh, could you also cite any academic papers which have reached that conclusion as of this date, i.e. that R1b is "native" to or originated on the steppe? "Spread from" is not the same as the "origination" point. You seem to use some terms in a very "loose" fashion. Thanks.

Ed. I see some of my points have already been made.

I'm responsible for what I say, not for what you understand: I said that the Haak et al. paper showed that R1b was native to the Pontic-Caspian steppe, not that the authors explicitely said so.
If you have an issue with that simple fact, I suggest you read the Haak et al. study again and focus on the parts dealing with the R1b samples and EHG... Better still, try answering the question I just asked you.

Sile
05-05-15, 21:30
First of all, it's not "even if", the Samaran HG was M478- and M269-, once more I strongly suggest you take the time to read the Haak et al. study. Finally, the R1b sample from El Trocs is ~7000 kya old while the Samaran HG is ~7500 kya old (which makes it the oldest R1b sample in the archeogenetic record). Technically-speaking, you're way off the hook since you're using contemporary phylogeny to discard archeogenetic evidence, that in itself speaks volumes about your approach. So no, the Epicardial sample isn't older than the Samaran HG, it's actually younger.



Once more, a classic case of projection from your part: There is no room for doubt as far as the Pontic-Caspian steppe urheimat is of concern, one would need to discard several centuries (not decades, centuries) of linguistic evidence in order to cast doubt on the Pontic-Caspian steppe urheimat. But that's not exactly surprising, coming from someone who implies that R1b came from West Asia and is equally inclined to promote a West Asian urheimat for PIE.

But let's suppose you're right for the time being... If R1b really came from West Asia then how do you explain the fact that the Samaran HG had no Near Eastern ancestry (and closely ressembled the Karelian HG, who was R1a)? Good luck, because you're gonna need loads of it.

If I were you, I'd drop this self-defeating attitude immediately, since there's no other IE model worthy of consideration at this point... And unfortunately for you, appealing to authority ("gimme scientist! muh scientist") is just going to make things worse in this case.

Clearly your comments should be used against the Karafet 2014 paper where it states the origins of R is in south-east asia and not use Haak paper to claim where the origins of R began.

IMO
R as per karafet began life in South-east asia ( yfull agrees with this ).
R1 and R2 formed in north-india/himalyas area.
R1a and R1b formed in BMAC/east caspian area .
and R1b went west before R1a did .................how else do you explain the R1b western dominance of Europe and R1a the eastern dominance of Europe.

This is a simple summary

Semitic Duwa
05-05-15, 21:57
Clearly your comments should be used against the Karafet 2014 paper where it states the origins of R is in south-east asia and not use Haak paper to claim where the origins of R began.

IMO
R as per karafet began life in South-east asia ( yfull agrees with this ).
R1 and R2 formed in north-india/himalyas area.
R1a and R1b formed in BMAC/east caspian area .
and R1b went west before R1a did .................how else do you explain the R1b western dominance of Europe and R1a the eastern dominance of Europe.

This is a simple summary


Again, how many times do I have to repeat this? Ancient DNA trumps contemporary data. <<<- Unless you take that fact into account you're arguing against the data.

Sile
05-05-15, 22:02
Again, how many times do I have to repeat this? Ancient DNA trumps contemporary data. <<<- Unless you take that fact into account you're arguing against the data.

Ok, as you say

then T1a-PF5604 ( ydna ) with a mtdna of H1bz .........as you state this ydna T formed in Germany as per haak paper. and T is Central European

We will leave it at that

Alan
05-05-15, 22:10
Again cheap attacks without actual evidences. Again more than 75% of all the questions/arguments of the opposite side ignored simply because not being capable to answer them. Angela brought some points he totally ignored, My arguments totally ignored. Not capable of understanding the basic logic behind the words it doesn't matter from which timeframe the sample stems because it is downstream and not basal.

Duwa logic explained just in a few sentences.

Since Haplogroup G2a2 was found in ancient samples across neolithic Europe and we know "Ancient DNA trumps contemporary data "our conclusion should be that G2a as a whole originated in Europe...

Now replace G2a2 with R1b1a, Europe with the Pontic Steppes and G2a with R1b.

There you have a perfect description of the Duwa logic.

As I said I am not going to waste more energy on someone who doesn't deserve it.




Ok, as you say

then T1a-PF5604 ( ydna ) with a mtdna of H1bz .........as you state this ydna T formed in Germany as per haak paper. and T is Central European

We will leave it at that



:grin: and J2 has it's origin in Hungary.

Semitic Duwa
05-05-15, 22:39
Ok, as you say

then T1a-PF5604 ( ydna ) with a mtdna of H1bz .........as you state this ydna T formed in Germany as per haak paper. and T is Central European

We will leave it at that

Because we all know that the LBK horizon had nothing to do with the arrival of Neolithic farmers from the Near East, don't we all? Seriously, keep it real.

Angela
05-05-15, 22:50
Fascinating, but there's a question which still troubles me you see... Let's pretend you're spot on and that finding a ~7500 kya old R1b sample on the Pontic-Caspian steppe tells us nothing about its origins (let alone R1b's origins), how do you explain the fact that the Samaran HG had no Near Eastern ancestry and formed an "EHG" cluster with the Karelian HG already? I keep forgetting.

I'm responsible for what I say, not for what you understand: I said that the Haak et al. paper showed that R1b was native to the Pontic-Caspian steppe, not that the authors explicitely said so.
If you have an issue with that simple fact, I suggest you read the Haak et al. study again and focus on the parts dealing with the R1b samples and EHG... Better still, try answering the question I just asked you.

We deal in genetics and archaeology here, and try to determine what conclusions can be logically drawn from that evidence. Nobody has a crystal ball, however. Even the experts can differ, much less informed but hobbyist level posters. Have a little respect for other people's points of view, especially when the discussion is about issues where the scientific community has not yet reached a consensus, or there are going to be consequences. I'd also point out that what usually happens here is that people don't engage with polemicists.

Also, I've warned you before about setting up straw man arguments and misrepresenting what people say. It would be nice if you spent one tenth of the time reading and thinking about the words I post as I spend choosing them. Where precisely did I say that this R1b hunter's presence on the steppe tells us nothing about R1b's origins? Do you usually get away with this kind of debate tactic? It's just that it doesn't tell us everything about its origins. Can you follow the logic of that? Terms matter, definitions matter, logic matters...that's how we get clarity and judge other people's arguments. I'm not interested in somebody, anybody, trying to force data into a certain pre-determined theory.

As for the only nugget of new data in your post which advances the argument even an iota, why does this Hunter-Gatherer's lack of "Near Easternness" mean R1b itself couldn't have originated in Siberia? Even if you find that unconvincing (and I have my doubts as well), if R1b arrived in the steppe from, say, some nexus area in Central/Asia the upper Near East even five hundred years before the date of this specific R1b sample, any autosomal "Near Eastern" component could have been long gone. You are aware that an autosomal component can be washed out in a couple of hundred years if there is no new admixture, aren't you? As with the Ashkenazim? Can you trace such ancestry in a European if there was only a small admixture event in 1200 AD?

Besides, do you have a reasonable date for when the "Near Eastern" component would have been present in those areas? How does that correlate with TMRCA's of various branches of R1b?

As I said, I'm still an agnostic as to the precise area of "origin" of R1b, and so was ready to be persuaded, but I'm not getting any scientifcally or logically sound arguments from you for the fact that it's a slam dunk that basal R1b itself originated on the steppe. What I'm getting is incivility, straw man arguments, repetition, and the parroting that the finding of this particular R1b lineage on the steppe is proof positive that basal R1b arose on the steppe. Nor have you proposed an argument for how the trajectory of the older V88 lineage fits into such an origin, or how the Iberian Neolithic R1b would have gotten from the steppe to Iberia.

Semitic Duwa
05-05-15, 22:57
Again cheap attacks without actual evidences. Again more than 75% of all the questions/arguments of the opposite side ignored simply because not being capable to answer them. Angela brought some points he totally ignored, My arguments totally ignored. Not capable of understanding the basic logic behind the words it doesn't matter from which timeframe the sample stems because it is downstream and not basal.

Duwa logic explained just in a few sentences.

Since Haplogroup G2a2 was found in ancient samples across neolithic Europe and we know "Ancient DNA trumps contemporary data "our conclusion should be that G2a as a whole originated in Europe...

Now replace G2a2 with R1b1a, Europe with the Pontic Steppes and G2a with R1b.

There you have a perfect description of the Duwa logic.

Again, a brilliant case of projective identification from your part. You're just highlighting my initial point quite frankly, namely that you have no idea what you're talking about. You fail to take the simplest facts into account while managing to produce self-defeating claims.

But that's not what troubles me the most... Oh no, what really worries me is that you don't even understand what I'm saying. This is quite obvious judging from what you think is "Duwa logic". Indeed, you'd have a point if G2a showed up in a Mesolithic context, but unfortunately for you that's not the case. G2a makes its first appearance in a purely Neolithic context. The rest is common sense, which is something you abundantly lack.

Using your idiosyncratic approach (putting your misinterpretation of what I am saying aside) I could easily conclude that I2 isn't native to Europe... I mean, who cares whether I2 is found in a time-span covering the Mesolithic and Neolithic record in Europe? That's how self-defeating your contention is.

Needless to say, you will be disappointed when we get more archeogenetic data. Wouldn't like to be in your shoes right now, that's for sure.



As I said I am not going to waste more energy on someone who doesn't deserve it.


Must I conclude I "deserve it"? I mean, you're still wasting your "energy" on me, so I must obviously be special to you.


:grin: and J2 has it's origin in Hungary.

And R1b has its origin in West Asia, and migrated to the Pontic-Caspian Steppe through the Caucasus... Just like PIE! Let's all forget about the archeogenetic evidence and rely solely on contemporary data, who cares about ancient DNA anyway?

^^See? I can do it as well.

Semitic Duwa
05-05-15, 23:05
We deal in genetics and archaeology here, and try to determine what conclusions can be logically drawn from that evidence. Nobody has a crystal ball, however. Even the experts can differ, much less informed but hobbyist level posters. Have a little respect for other people's points of view, especially when the discussion is about issues where the scientific community has not yet reached a consensus, or there are going to be consequences. I'd also point out that what usually happens here is that people don't engage with polemicists.

Also, I've warned you before about setting up straw man arguments and misrepresenting what people say. It would be nice if you spent one tenth of the time reading and thinking about the words I post as I spend choosing them. Where precisely did I say that this R1b hunter's presence on the steppe tells us nothing about R1b's origins? Do you usually get away with this kind of debate tactic? It's just that it doesn't tell us everything about its origins. Can you follow the logic of that? Terms matter, definitions matter, logic matters...that's how we get clarity and judge other people's arguments. I'm not interested in somebody, anybody, trying to force data into a certain pre-determined theory.

As for the only nugget of new data in your post which advances the argument even an iota, why does this Hunter-Gatherer's lack of "Near Easternness" mean R1b itself couldn't have originated in Siberia? Even if you find that unconvincing (and I have my doubts as well), if R1b arrived in the steppe from, say, some nexus area in Central/Asia the upper Near East even five hundred years before the date of this specific R1b sample, any autosomal "Near Eastern" component could have been long gone. You are aware that an autosomal component can be washed out in a couple of hundred years if there is no new admixture, aren't you? As with the Ashkenazim? Can you trace such ancestry in a European if there was only a small admixture event in 1200 AD?

Besides, do you have a reasonable date for when the "Near Eastern" component would have been present in those areas? How does that correlate with TMRCA's of various branches of R1b?

As I said, I'm still an agnostic as to the precise area of "origin" of R1b, and so was ready to be persuaded, but I'm not getting any scientifcally or logically sound arguments from you for the fact that it's a slam dunk that basal R1b itself originated on the steppe. What I'm getting is incivility, straw man arguments, repetition, and the parroting that the finding of this particular R1b lineage on the steppe is proof positive that basal R1b arose on the steppe. Nor have you proposed an argument for how the trajectory of the older V88 lineage fits into such an origin, or how the Iberian Neolithic R1b would have gotten from the steppe to Iberia.


That's an interesting way of avoiding the question I asked you. Unless you're ready to answer it without coming up with irrelevant processes, or even downright incorrect assumptions, I'll just conclude you haven't read the Haak et al. study (especially the parts addressing the EHG cluster and how it relates to ANE).

Oh, and if you're looking for straw man arguments and misrepresentation, I suggest you have a good look at what Alan and Sile just wrote (does "Duwa logic" ring a bell?).

Alan
05-05-15, 23:17
As for the only nugget of new data in your post which advances the argument even an iota, why does this Hunter-Gatherer's lack of "Near Easternness" mean R1b itself couldn't have originated in Siberia? Even if you find that unconvincing (and I have my doubts as well), if R1b arrived in the steppe from, say, some nexus area in Central/Asia the upper Near East even five hundred years before the date of this specific R1b sample, any autosomal "Near Eastern" component could have been long gone. You are aware that an autosomal component can be washed out in a couple of hundred years if there is no new admixture, aren't you? As with the Ashkenazim? Can you trace such ancestry in a European if there was only a small admixture event in 1200 AD?

Besides, do you have a reasonable date for when the "Near Eastern" component would have been present in those areas? How does that correlate with TMRCA's of various branches of R1b?


Exactly, just within ten generations a component can be washed out to as low as 0.05% if there is no up following admixture. If we take ~25 years per generation thats roughly 250 years. Exctly with the same reasoning we could argue that "because Assyrians lack North European ancestry despite high frequency of R1b, it couldn't be that this Haplogroup originated outside of the Near East". Thats the conclusion if we use the same logic. He also seems to not understand that "Near Eastern " should not be used in the same sentence as EHG, because these are two components of completely different timeframes. "Near Easterners" by 5000 BC most likely had already allot of ANE type ancestry themselves. Who says that ANE couldn't have originated somewhere between South_Central Asia and Iran? This region is at least closer to the supposed homeland of P*, N* and O*. Who says that WHG didn't existed in Western Asia already (since it is prominent in all Levantines, heck even Arabians)?

Ask him why the Neolithic Iberian sample, which at the same time belongs to a lineage closer to the root, is typically EEF. By the way the Samara H&G did have some ~7% Proto Gedrosia type ancestry.

Angela
05-05-15, 23:43
That's an interesting way of avoiding the question I asked you. Unless you're ready to answer it without coming up with irrelevant processes, or even downright incorrect assumptions, I'll just conclude you haven't read the Haak et al. study (especially the parts addressing the EHG cluster and how it relates to ANE).

Oh, and if you're looking for straw man arguments and misrepresentation, I suggest you have a good look at what Alan and Sile just wrote (does "Duwa logic" ring a bell?).

How on earth did I not answer your question?

Question:
Semitic Duwa: how do you explain the fact that the Samaran HG had no Near Eastern ancestry and formed an "EHG" cluster with the Karelian HG already? I keep forgetting.

Answer: Maybe it arose in Siberia. Or maybe it came from Central Asia, and if it contained any "Near Eastern" genetic material at that point, it might have washed out in as little as 250 years after the arrival of R1b on the steppe. That's what the following means. Are you reading other people's responses?


Angela: why does this Hunter-Gatherer's lack of "Near Easternness" mean R1b itself couldn't have originated in Siberia? Even if you find that unconvincing (and I have my doubts as well), if R1b arrived in the steppe from, say, some nexus area in Central/Asia the upper Near East even five hundred years before the date of this specific R1b sample, any autosomal "Near Eastern" component could have been long gone. You are aware that an autosomal component can be washed out in a couple of hundred years if there is no new admixture, aren't you?

You were also asked some questions. I'll repeat them, and I honestly want to know if you have an explanation, because, as I said, I don't think that the issue is at all settled. If R1b originated in the steppe around Samara, how do you explain the Neolithic R1b in Iberia, and how do you explain the trajectory of V88?

Also, is it your position that "R" arose in Siberia and moved directly to the steppe? Do you not think that it's possible that because of the LGM it moved south toward Central Asia/Iran and re-expanded from there?

Ed. Another cross post, I see. I can't keep up. :)

Semitic Duwa
06-05-15, 00:45
Answer: Maybe it arose in Siberia. Or maybe it came from Central Asia, and if it contained any "Near Eastern" genetic material at that point, it might have washed out in as little as 250 years after the arrival of R1b on the steppe. That's what the following means. Are you reading other people's responses?

The thing is, EHG inscribes itself within a continuum along with WHG and ANE, some argue it can be modeled as WHG + ANE. At this point, this strongly suggests R1b is native to the Pontic-Caspian steppe and that Eastern Europe was a bifurcation hotspot for R1. Phylogenetically, that's the only model which makes sense considering the EHG cluster.
Unless we find some sort of EHG population in the Zagros/Transcaucasus, I don't see this changing anytime soon.

Either way, we are way OT, I came here to discuss J1, not R1b so that's exactly what I'm going to do:

Recently, I've noticed that the Gulf seems to harbour quite a lot of J1 diversity. This could be due to sampling bias in the Gulf... However, if the diversity is "real" then the Gulf Oasis hypothesis could bridge some of the gaps regarding J1's origin (and J2's for that matter) since an Early Holocene expansion from a population reservoir in the now-inundated Gulf would provide a smooth model for J1's expansion.

GeoFan
06-05-15, 01:35
I am finding it interesting how much discussion has ensued from J1-and-Northern-Italy-(Tuscany) with over 150 posts now.

Semitic Duwa
06-05-15, 03:07
I am finding it interesting how much discussion has ensued from J1-and-Northern-Italy-(Tuscany) with over 150 posts now.

If I were you, I'd test with FTDNA and order the J1-M267 SNP panel once your results are in (after joining the J1 FTDNA project), that would enable you to find which subclade you belong to.

GeoFan
06-05-15, 04:24
Exactly, just within ten generations a component can be washed out to as low as 0.05% if there is no up following admixture...

IS that true of Y-DNA which is directly inherited via the paternal line?

GeoFan
06-05-15, 04:25
If I were you, I'd test with FTDNA and order the J1-M267 SNP panel once your results are in (after joining the J1 FTDNA project), that would enable you to find which subclade you belong to.

Thanks, that sounds like a good idea. I have been spending all my spare time following up with 23andMe info for a few months and I have a lot more to learn.

Regio X
06-05-15, 17:53
You have absolutely no way of knowing that given the current level of verifiable data either archaeological or genetic. We just don't know yet. Vallicanus' statement about J1 being all African and Syrian is even worse, because we know it is in fact not the case.

No one who approaches these matters objectively with any kind of scientific or historical rigor is at all persuaded by these kinds of statements.
Look this: peopleofar.com/2014/09/26/etruscan-origins-study-reveals-migration-from-armenian-highlands/

Source: journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0105920#pone-0105920-g001

GeoFan
06-05-15, 22:00
http://peopleofar.com/2014/09/26/etruscan-origins-study-reveals-migration-from-armenian-highlands/

Source: journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0105920#pone-0105920-g001

Very interesting, mtDNA study... relates to the Tuscan Y-DNA J1 (J-M267) question that began this whole thread!

Etruscan origins study reveals migration from Armenian Highlands

http://www.peopleofar.com/2014/09/26/etruscan-origins-study-reveals-migration-from-armenian-highlands/

. . .

Interesting because the slopes of the Caucasus currently shows the highest frequencies of (Y-DNA) J1 yet measured!

(Balanovsky 2011 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3355373/))


"The small isolated population of the Kubachi, in which haplogroup J1*-M267(xP58) became virtually fixed (99%, Table 2)"


The current village of Kubachi (42°06'N 47°36'E (https://www.google.com/maps/place/42%C2%B006'00.0%22N+47%C2%B036'00.0%22E/@42.123702,47.7924001,6z/)) is about 100 km Northeast of Armenia.


Maybe just my own bias, but this does seem to show another wisp of evidence for an Etruscan-Tuscan J1 (J-M267) connection?

Angela
07-05-15, 02:22
Look this: peopleofar.com/2014/09/26/etruscan-origins-study-reveals-migration-from-armenian-highlands/

Source: journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0105920#pone-0105920-g001

There is an entire thread devoted to that paper...with 94 posts. See the following:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30476-A-Genome-Wide-Study-of-Modern-Day-Tuscans-Revisiting-Herodotus-s-Theory-on-the-Origi?p=456263#post456263

It is also discussed in this thread. It might help to read it from the beginning.

I don't know what more can be said...

Angela
07-05-15, 02:28
Very interesting, mtDNA study... relates to the Tuscan Y-DNA J1 (J-M267) question that began this whole thread!

Etruscan origins study reveals migration from Armenian Highlands

http://www.peopleofar.com/2014/09/26/etruscan-origins-study-reveals-migration-from-armenian-highlands/

. . .

Interesting because the slopes of the Caucasus currently shows the highest frequencies of (Y-DNA) J1 yet measured!

(Balanovsky 2011 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3355373/))




The current village of Kubachi (42°06'N 47°36'E (https://www.google.com/maps/place/42%C2%B006'00.0%22N+47%C2%B036'00.0%22E/@42.123702,47.7924001,6z/)) is about 100 km Northeast of Armenia.


Maybe just my own bias, but this does seem to show another wisp of evidence for an Etruscan-Tuscan J1 (J-M267) connection?

Once again, the blog refers to the Pardo et al paper. The Pardo et al papers have been discussed extensively on a dedicated thread and on this one as well. See my post above and see the following thread.
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...263#post456263 (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30476-A-Genome-Wide-Study-of-Modern-Day-Tuscans-Revisiting-Herodotus-s-Theory-on-the-Origi?p=456263#post456263)

I don't know how many times one can say the same things.

Hauteville
07-05-15, 02:31
Etruscans were indigenous population of modern Tuscany.
http://www.nationalgeographic.it/popoli-culture/2013/02/07/news/gli_etruschi_sono_tra_noi-1499113/

Pax Augusta
07-05-15, 02:44
Maybe just my own bias, but this does seem to show another wisp of evidence for an Etruscan-Tuscan J1 (J-M267) connection?

We can't rule out but it's still not evidence of a connection, and J1 (J-M267) is spread also in other parts of south Europe and Italy.

I suggest to read this as well

Genetic evidence does not support an Etruscan origin in Anatolia.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23900768

https://www.academia.edu/5017471/Genetic_Evidence_Does_Not_Support_an_Etruscan_Orig in_in_Anatolia

GeoFan
07-05-15, 03:09
Once again, the blog refers to the Pardo et al paper. The Pardo et al papers have been discussed extensively on a dedicated thread and on this one as well. See my post above and see the following thread.
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...263#post456263 (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30476-A-Genome-Wide-Study-of-Modern-Day-Tuscans-Revisiting-Herodotus-s-Theory-on-the-Origi?p=456263#post456263)

I don't know how many times one can say the same things.

@ Angela: Thanks. Can you summarize? In essence, it this (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30476-A-Genome-Wide-Study-of-Modern-Day-Tuscans-Revisiting-Herodotus-s-Theory-on-the-Origi?p=439713&viewfull=1#post439713)?


. . . you can't use modern populations to analyze ancient gene flow. Nor can use use IBS segments. IMO,
you need ancient DNA, and absent that, some really sophisticated IBD analysis.

GeoFan
07-05-15, 03:13
Etruscans were indigenous population of modern Tuscany.
http://www.nationalgeographic.it/popoli-culture/2013/02/07/news/gli_etruschi_sono_tra_noi-1499113/

It's my belief that EVERYTHING comes from SOMETHING, there is no such thing as INDIGENOUS. (Sorry I don't read Italian so I could not read the whole article in that link. Google translate only gets me about 60% of it.)

If the Etruscans themselves were a "melting pot" why could there not be a component of the J1 from the Caucasus mixed in their civilization that survives until now?

I.E. SOME ETRUSCANS could be J1 originating from the Caucasus (say, 5000 years earlier) with this Y-DNA surviving until today?

Pax Augusta
07-05-15, 04:01
If the Etruscans themselves were a "melting pot" why could there not be a component of the J1 from the Caucasus mixed in their civilization that survives until now?

I.E. SOME ETRUSCANS could be J1 originating from the Caucasus (say, 5000 years earlier) with this Y-DNA surviving until today?

It could be arrived with the Tyrrhenians (if they really existed) or with the Neolithic farmers or who knows; I mean, it's very difficult to know.

In any case, if your ancestors have always lived in Tuscany in the last 3000 years, you have for sure Etruscan ancestors, whether you are J1 or R1b U-152.

Angela
07-05-15, 05:22
It's my belief that EVERYTHING comes from SOMETHING, there is no such thing as INDIGENOUS. (Sorry I don't read Italian so I could not read the whole article in that link. Google translate only gets me about 60% of it.)

If the Etruscans themselves were a "melting pot" why could there not be a component of the J1 from the Caucasus mixed in their civilization that survives until now?

I.E. SOME ETRUSCANS could be J1 originating from the Caucasus (say, 5000 years earlier) with this Y-DNA surviving until today?

Every area is a "melting pot". Every region in Europe has Near Eastern ancestry through the early Neolithic farmers who brought agriculture to Europe, or through the migrations from the Steppe, and in most cases, from both.

Obviously, the people who lived in "Etruria" in the first millennium B.C. would be a mix of at least the early Neolithic farmers (with some absorbed WHG or western hunter-gatherers) and some "Indo-European" groups of various names who came across or around the Alps and who were themselves a mixture of Near Eastern peoples, EHGs, and maybe some additional WHG. So, there would have been most probably a mixture of y lineages in Etruria, among which we would probably see some G2, maybe a few I2, maybe some E, and maybe, who knows, a few J1. Whether or not a group of more recently arrived people from the east were also part of the mix we don't yet know, and if they were we don't know whether they were anything other than a decided minority. We also don't know what yDna lineage they carried. Maybe it was J2. Maybe some J1 was mixed in, maybe it will be even more of a surprise...again, we don't know. Some J1 could also have arrived in Tuscany later through other migrations. There's been no fine scale resolution testing of the academic samples from Italy for J1 so we're in the dark here to some extent.

Over and beyond all of that, there's no way of determining at the present time when and with whom your particularline of J1 arrived in Italy and then Tuscany. Even should it be determined that there was a migration from the east in the first millennium BC to central Italy and J1 was involved, your J1 might be from a different clade which had nothing to do with it.

You may, however, have inherited some bit of ancient Etruscan autosomal dna over the centuries. Your yDna is only one of your many ancestors.

Regio X
08-05-15, 18:32
@ Angela: Thanks. Can you summarize? In essence, it this (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30476-A-Genome-Wide-Study-of-Modern-Day-Tuscans-Revisiting-Herodotus-s-Theory-on-the-Origi?p=439713&viewfull=1#post439713)?


Summarizing, I understood that the similarity between modern Armenians and Tuscans doesn't prove the conjecture of Armenia as the old Etruscans origin, and that there would be consistent supports for other hypothesis. So, the study doesn't "reveal" nothing, contrary to what the article title assumes.
But this is different from saying, of course, that it's an invalid hypothesis after all.

franci-s91
16-08-18, 02:17
Many experts deny the theory that Etruscan j1 could have, which is not realistic in my opinion, one should not fixate on the fact that J1 was worn only by Jews, Arabs, Phoenicians and other Semites
Many experts deny the theory that Etruscan j1 could have, which is not realistic in my opinion, one should not fixate on the fact that J1 was worn only by Jews, Arabs, Phoenicians and other Semites

Pax Augusta
16-08-18, 23:01
Many experts deny the theory that Etruscan j1 could have, which is not realistic in my opinion, one should not fixate on the fact that J1 was worn only by Jews, Arabs, Phoenicians and other Semites
Many experts deny the theory that Etruscan j1 could have, which is not realistic in my opinion, one should not fixate on the fact that J1 was worn only by Jews, Arabs, Phoenicians and other Semites

J1 is almost nonexistent in Tuscany, and Geofan is of Tuscan ancestry but his male ancestors were likely originally from Umbria and they subsequently moved to Tuscany. This has been demonstrated by a man from Umbria who has done a long geneaological research and has the same surname as Geofan and his own Y-DNA. In Umbria and Marche there are here and there quite a few J1.

In any case, J1 predates Jews, Arabs, Phoenicians and other Semites.

Ancient samples with J1 have been found since the Paleolithic and Mesolitich.

A sample of Karelia HG from Russia is J1.


https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?ll=49.55606105110845%2C37.84083631773183&z=4&mid=1lIgW0PYocrT-vEkg2RKodHEPTZ0

Angela
15-09-18, 18:29
I think it is impossible that J1 is Neolithic. Furthermore, even more outlandish mesolithic. At most punctual it must be Bronze Age. So perhaps minor Indo European genealogy? Generally Etruscan bodes well since Tuscany is known for it. What's more, if not that it may be a heredity of the different hired soldiers among the Roman armies (Sarmatian? Greek? Anatolian? Syrian? Caucasian?).

I guess you didn't read the prior post: J1 is almost non-existent in Tuscany. Why would J1 be Indo-European?

I think it's time to go back to the drawing board.