PDA

View Full Version : Tuscany had a middle age admixture event?



Arame
22-07-15, 16:06
Most of genetics use Tuscany population as proxy for Etruscan and consistently find some Near Eastern links.
But how we can be sure that Toscanians represent the ancient population?
The Hellenthal et al. map (http://admixturemap.paintmychromosomes.com/) shows a quite significant admixture in Middle Ages 942CE (522CE - 1222CE) for Tuscany. Some 40%. That is quite high compared to other populations.
And it comes from Near East (Armenia, Syria, Jordan) for the most part.
So what historic event can be associated to this influx. For the Near Easterns I can understand it is the Christians fleeing the rise of Khalifate and maybe Turkish invasions.
But do Italian historians attest such a influx? If such a influx is attested it basically means that all studies on Etruscans using Tuscans are useless.

PS. I know that this study was heavily criticized but neverthless it is consistent with historic events for Turks, Greek, Syrian and some others.

7379

joeyc
22-07-15, 16:44
Hellenthal et al is a joke. They have actually tested ancient Etruscans from 500 BC and they are close to modern Tuscans in autosomal dna.

LeBrok
22-07-15, 17:16
How did they manage to conclude that it happened in Middle Ages?

joeyc
22-07-15, 17:31
How did they manage to conclude that it happened in Middle Ages?

Black magic.

Hauteville
22-07-15, 18:27
Hellenthal study is ridicolous lol

Angela
22-07-15, 18:33
It's been a while since I've read it, but didn't they use Roll-Off?

Everything I know about this program indicates to me that it always makes the admixture(s) look too recent, because it may be picking up the "last" signal of perhaps many older, similar ones. The same thing happens with North Africans with regard to SSA admixture.

Anyway, I don't know why anyone would necessarily see that as a sudden 40% admixture of "Near Eastern" dna into Tuscans in the period following the Germanic invasions. That's nonsensical, as there is no possible historical migration to which it could be tied. No such thing happened.

Perhaps it's picking up admixture from the other direction. There were migrations in that era, of course, but they came from the north and the west. The dates are still off, but presumably it's possible that, as it is wont to do, Roll Off is picking up the last such admixture from that direction.

I don't doubt that there was some gene flow into Toscana from that direction during and after the fall of Rome, but it began much earlier, starting with the Indo-Europeans, then later with Celts etc. A sixty percent infusion is way too much, but Hellenthal is rightly criticized for many things, not least of which is their choice of "source" populations, all of which are "modern", and many of which are themselves "mixed".

I really don't give that study much head room, especially not for Italy, but if you're going to use it for any hints at all, it's just as likely that the admixture came from the north into an essentially heavily EEF population, as we know from much more sophisticated and respected analyses.

Drac II
22-07-15, 19:45
Most of genetics use Tuscany population as proxy for Etruscan and consistently find some Near Eastern links.
But how we can be sure that Toscanians represent the ancient population?
The Hellenthal et al. map (http://admixturemap.paintmychromosomes.com/) shows a quite significant admixture in Middle Ages 942CE (522CE - 1222CE) for Tuscany. Some 40%. That is quite high compared to other populations.
And it comes from Near East (Armenia, Syria, Jordan) for the most part.
So what historic event can be associated to this influx. For the Near Easterns I can understand it is the Christians fleeing the rise of Khalifate and maybe Turkish invasions.
But do Italian historians attest such a influx? If such a influx is attested it basically means that all studies on Etruscans using Tuscans are useless.

942CE is an averaged date between 522CE and 1222CE, the two extremes (oldest & most recent) of the estimated admixture time frame (all their estimates are presented like that: two dates and a third date that falls in between.) It would be rather absurd to try to attribute all admixture in any population to just a single year, and to be so precise as to pinpoint such a year (you might as well try to pinpoint the exact day and hour when the admixture took place!) So considering the wide admixture time frame of roughly 700 years, it could be from late Roman times as well.



PS. I know that this study was heavily criticized but neverthless it is consistent with historic events for Turks, Greek, Syrian and some others.

7379

The only type of criticism for their methods that I am aware of is about their limitations:

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/3457/20140214/dna-used-to-create-genetic-atlas-of-human-history.htm

joeyc
22-07-15, 20:39
The only mixing from roman times was with Germanic and Celtic tribes at best.

Genetics triumph over pretty much anything. And ancient DNA triumph over estimations of admixture.

Ancient Etruscans from 500 BC plotted close to modern Southern Europeans.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-1rfyRUeQKSE/VUp1FtC48DI/AAAAAAAAKE0/aprJv89-94k/s1600/etruscans.jpg

joeyc
22-07-15, 20:43
Moreover Hellenthal et al seems to contradicts Ralph et Coop et al which used a much larger number of samples.

Italians are actually mostly from the South (See Moorjani et al 2011) and they share less IBD segments with Turks and Cypriots than most other Europeans, including Sweden and Poles.

http://i.imgur.com/38S22ri.jpg

Imagine if the authors had only used samples from the Alps...

Angela
22-07-15, 21:21
The earliest date for this admixture, according to Hellenthal, is 522 AD. This is a timeline of the history of the peninsula for that time and the immediately prior period, for anyone who skipped Roman history class.

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

joeyc
22-07-15, 21:38
Christians fleeing the rise of the Islamic Caliphate? I laughed so hard.

Italy was pretty much a huge battlefield for Germanic and Slavo-Germanic tribes from 300 AD to 1000 AD. It would be like fleeing Iraq to go in Somalia...

Arame
23-07-15, 07:09
Thank everybody. It seems that Rollof method don't work well when there is a complex admixture stories. That 40% ( or 60% from other side ) is not real.
It gives good results when the event is simple like in the case of Turks.

Nevertheless I found some historic events that could bring some Near Eastern admixtures in the Middle Ages.
* It's the invasions of Saracens and their activities. But assessing it's real impact is difficult.
* The appearance of Cathars (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catharism) in North Italy and South France.


The origins of the Cathars' beliefs are unclear but most theories agree they came from the Byzantine Empire (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Empire) mostly by the trade routes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_route) and spread from the First Bulgarian Empire (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Bulgarian_Empire) to the Netherlands. The name of Bulgarians (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgarians) (Bougres) was also applied to the Albigenses, and they maintained an association with the similar Christian movement of the Bogomils (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogomilism) ("Friends of God") of Thrace (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrace). "That there was a substantial transmission of ritual and ideas from Bogomilism to Catharism is beyond reasonable doubt."

Catharism had its roots in the Paulician (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paulicianism) movement in Armenia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenia) and eastern Byzantine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine) Anatolia and the Bogomils (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogomilism) of the First Bulgarian Empire (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Bulgarian_Empire),[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catharism#cite_note-5) who were influenced by the Paulicians resettled in Thrace (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrace) (Philipopolis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plovdiv)) by the Byzantines.

Of course religions and ideas can move without mass movement, but from historic sources we know that Paulicians and related Manichean sects were wiped out by the Byzantine emperors from Anatolia and Armenia. They were mostly relocated to Bulgary. Did they move from there to Italy is unknown.

Arame
23-07-15, 07:15
This story is also interesting.
I don't know how common is this that the donor appears from 2000 km without any recent common ancestry.


ARMENIAN STUDENT DONATES BONE MARROW TRANSPLANT TO ITALIAN CHILD

YEREVAN, JULY 15, ARMENPRESS: A five-year Italian child with
leukemia was saved after her genetic make up matched with that of a 22
year old Armenian student, Vahe Vardanian, who donated a bone marrow
transplant to the child.The operation was performed on July 6 in
Italy, but the experts say the result will be evident only in a year.
Vahe joined the Armenian Bone Marrow Donor Registry last year Its
mission is to save precious Armenian lives by creating a bone marrow
donor registry which, with the volunteer recruitment of Armenian
donors worldwide, will increase the pool of existing international
donors and thus give a chance of survival to patients with leukemia or
other blood related diseases. Although Armenians are considered
Caucasian, their unique genetic make up makes it very hard for them to
find matches for transplantation.
Vahe was selected after the Italian bone marrow registry asked
their Armenian counterparts to find a suitable match. The registry has
now 8,000 members.


I agree with Angela. It seems that genetic history of Italy is complex. Only many ancient DNAs will help to better understand it.

joeyc
23-07-15, 09:28
Saracens were not Western Asians. They were muslim Berbers, and from the Xth century onward, Iberian muslims.

The only recorded movement from the East was the one from Greece after the slavic-avar invasion. The whole population of Patras in Greece was relocated to Reggio Calabria to escape from the Avar-Slavs.

Angela
23-07-15, 14:19
Thank everybody. It seems that Rollof method don't work well when there is a complex admixture stories. That 40% ( or 60% from other side ) is not real.
It gives good results when the event is simple like in the case of Turks.

Nevertheless I found some historic events that could bring some Near Eastern admixtures in the Middle Ages.
* It's the invasions of Saracens and their activities. But assessing it's real impact is difficult.
* The appearance of Cathars (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catharism) in North Italy and South France.

Of course religions and ideas can move without mass movement, but from historic sources we know that Paulicians and related Manichean sects were wiped out by the Byzantine emperors from Anatolia and Armenia. They were mostly relocated to Bulgary. Did they move from there to Italy is unknown.

Before one speculates about the genetic impact of the Saracens or any other ethnic group, it might make sense to know who they were ethnically and what areas they actually impacted. As has been pointed out by another poster, Saracen is just a name for the predominantly Berber populations of North Africa after their conversion to Islam, and later it was also applied to their compatriots in Al Andalus. Another name sometimes applied to them is "Moor". Their only contact with Toscana was through some coastal raiding, the kind of coastal raiding that took place along all the southern European Mediterranean coastlines.

The genetic impact of this coastal raiding was not on Toscana or any of the coastal areas, it was on North Africa, through the thousands of slaves that were kidnapped and sold in the slave markets of North Africa. The only place where there was actual settlement of North African Berbers was Sicily and a few places in southern Italy, and, of course Iberia. At any rate, if you take a look at Hellenthal, the signal they're talking about is "Cypriot like" (which is virtually the same as EEF like), not Berber or North African like, which is a separate component even in Hellenthal.

As for the Cathars, there is absolutely no indication in the historical record that the Cathar movement had anything to do with any actual migration from the Near East, other than the initial settlement of some heretics in Bulgaria.

"The Cathars were largely a homegrown, Western European/Latin Christian phenomenon, springing up in the Rhineland cities (particularly Cologne) in the mid-12th century, northern France around the same time, and particularly southern France — the Languedoc (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languedoc) — and the northern Italian cities in the mid-late 12th century. In the Languedoc and northern Italy, the Cathars attained their greatest popularity, surviving in the Languedoc, in much reduced form, up to around 1325 and in the Italian cities until the Inquisitions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Inquisition) of the 1260s–1300s finally rooted them out."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catharism

If all devotees of religious cults with roots in the East were held to have ancestry from there, then Hellenthal should show an admixture event for Swedes with Palestine around the time that they adopted Christianity.

Also, unfortunately, as was pointed out in the above article, most Cathar groups were in
northern Italy, not Toscana, yet the same kind of "admixture" event is not posited for northern Italy.

http://catharslideshow.blogspot.com/2010/11/italy-and-beyond.html

Plus, I don't quite see how the Cathars could have had a genetic impact on anyone since a primary tenet of their religion involved forswearing intercourse.

(http://catharslideshow.blogspot.com/2010/11/italy-and-beyond.html)The kind of situation you raise where people from different ethnic groups can provide organs for one another is not at all uncommon. It's a coincidence of immunity profiles. Plus, even if you had to share broad ethnic ancestry for such matches to be possible, Armenians and southern Europeans share ancestry since the Neolithic and this was reinforced by shared ancestry from Yamnaya incursions. Why would the admixture event show up only in Toscana, and only at this time?

joeyc
23-07-15, 14:29
The genetic impact of this coastal raiding was not on Toscana or any of the coastal areas, it was on North Africa, through the thousands of slaves that were kidnapped and sold in the slave markets of North Africa. The only place where there was actual settlement of North African Berbers was Sicily and a few places in southern Italy, and, of course Iberia.

How can Tuscany have less "moorish" admixture than parts of mainland Southern Italy?

http://cdn.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup-E-M81.gif

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

http://cdn.eupedia.com/images/content/mtDNA-U6-map.png

http://cache.eupedia.com/images/content/mtDNA-L-map.png

Regarding Boatigue et al.

"The most recent study regarding African admixture in Iberian populations was conducted in April 2013 using genome-wide SNP data for over 2000 individuals, concluding that Spain and Portugal hold significantly higher levels of North African than the rest of the European continent. Estimates of shared ancestry averaged between 4 and 20% whereas these did not exceed 2% in other western or southern European populations."

Hauteville
23-07-15, 14:45
Though the muslims in Sicily and in some parts of Apulia had a mass expulsion and their genetic input is really negligible.



http://italianthro.blogspot.it/2011/10/moors-expelled-from-sicily-and-south.html?m=1

Angela
23-07-15, 15:31
How can Tuscany have less "moorish" admixture than parts of mainland Southern Italy?

http://cdn.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup-E-M81.gif

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

http://cdn.eupedia.com/images/content/mtDNA-U6-map.png

http://cache.eupedia.com/images/content/mtDNA-L-map.png

Regarding Boatigue et al.

"The most recent study regarding African admixture in Iberian populations was conducted in April 2013 using genome-wide SNP data for over 2000 individuals, concluding that Spain and Portugal hold significantly higher levels of North African than the rest of the European continent. Estimates of shared ancestry averaged between 4 and 20% whereas these did not exceed 2% in other western or southern European populations."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As to North African autosomal signatures, I have yet to see any significant percentages in Tuscans in admixture analyses. At 23andme I've never seen a single one score it at all. As I'm sure you're aware, that is not the case for Sicilians and some southern Italians. It's in very minor percentages, of course. (Tuscans and northern Italians, .7 versus 4.1 for Sicilians.)
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1GWhNZcfTQ2hMSK9Ni1IqG7aXHB00SRE5L6ED2osPs9M/edit?hl=en_US&pli=1#gid=0

joeyc
23-07-15, 15:32
The kind of situation you raise where people from different ethnic groups can provide organs for one another is not at all uncommon. It's a coincidence of immunity profiles. Plus, even if you had to share broad ethnic ancestry for such matches to be possible, Armenians and southern Europeans share ancestry since the Neolithic and this was reinforced by shared ancestry from Yamnaya incursions. Why would the admixture event show up only in Toscana, and only at this time?

I don't get the point of this thread. Modern Armenians are recent post Iron Age immigrants from Iraq into Anatolia, as showed by the recent Allentoft et al paper. That's also true for Kurds and Turks who came from Afghanistan, Tukmenistan and Iran.

On the other hand Italians show a genetic continuity since the Iron Age at least, with minimal external influences from the North and the Balkans.

So how can recent immigrants from the Iraq and the like claim to be somewhat related to us?

Drac II
23-07-15, 15:41
Christians fleeing the rise of the Islamic Caliphate? I laughed so hard.

Italy was pretty much a huge battlefield for Germanic and Slavo-Germanic tribes from 300 AD to 1000 AD. It would be like fleeing Iraq to go in Somalia...

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

joeyc
23-07-15, 15:48
You mysteriously forget that in this "battlefield" were also the Arabs and the Byzantines (who employed Near Eastern peoples in their armies as well.) In any event, all of these military intruders, including the Germanics, were nothing but small minorities.

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

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

Hauteville
23-07-15, 15:53
E-M81 if it was also founded in north Italy, even in small percentages (but it's true also for Sicily) which means that most of that it was introduced in the early eras more than to Saracen raids or conquest.

Angela
23-07-15, 15:54
You mysteriously forget that in this "battlefield" were also the Arabs and the Byzantines (who employed Near Eastern peoples in their armies as well.) In any event, all of these military intruders, including the Germanics, were nothing but small minorities.

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

Drac II
23-07-15, 15:56
The earliest date for this admixture, according to Hellenthal, is 522 AD. This is a timeline of the history of the peninsula for that time and the immediately prior period, for anyone who skipped Roman history class.

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hauteville
23-07-15, 15:57
You mysteriously forget that in this "battlefield" were also the Arabs and the Byzantines (who employed Near Eastern peoples in their armies as well.) In any event, all of these military intruders, including the Germanics, were nothing but small minorities.
Dude you are an hypocrite.
You deny every North African contribute in Iberian gene-pool in the Moorish and Carthaginian conquest (even if the latter were Phoenicians, so Eastern Mediterranean people transplanted in North Africa) but in the meantime you want to links Italy to MENA world?:innocent:

Drac II
23-07-15, 15:58
It depends on the particular group under discussion. It should be clear to anyone who has done any study in this area that the Ostrogoths and Vandals, and the Byzantines, were either small elite groups or armies composed, in the case of the Byzantines, of many different ethnic groups. The Lombards are a case apart in Italy. That was an attested folk migration.

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

Angela
23-07-15, 15:58
As to the impact of these armies, it depends on the particular group under discussion. It should be clear to anyone who has done any research into this period that the Ostrogoths and Vandals, and the Byzantines, were either small elite groups or armies composed, in the case of the Byzantines in particular, of many different ethnic groups. They may have made a difference in terms of a few yDna lines, but they wouldn't have had a significant impact on autosomal composition.The Lombards are a case apart in Italy. That was an attested folk migration.

Arame
23-07-15, 16:00
Thanks Angela
I will keep with Your theory that this admixture if anything is real in it should be viewed the other way around, from North to Tuscany if there is no valid explanation for near eastern influence. Of course much lower than 60% for North.
BTW when saying Saracens I didn't mean they came all from Near East.


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

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

joeyc
23-07-15, 16:02
Dude you are an hypocrite.
You deny every North African contribute in Iberian gene-pool in the Moorish and Carthaginian conquest (even if the latter were Phoenicians, so Eastern Mediterranean people transplanted in North Africa) but in the meantime you want to links Italy to MENA world?:innocent:

Have you read him?

Well attested by historical evidence. :laughing:

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As to North African autosomal signatures, I have yet to see any significant percentages in Tuscans in admixture analyses. At 23andme I've never seen a single one score it at all. As I'm sure you're aware, that is not the case for Sicilians and some southern Italians. It's in very minor percentages, of course. (Tuscans and northern Italians, .7 versus 4.1 for Sicilians.)
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1GWhNZcfTQ2hMSK9Ni1IqG7aXHB00SRE5L6ED2osPs9M/edit?hl=en_US&pli=1#gid=0

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

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

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

Drac II
23-07-15, 16:06
Dude you are an hypocrite.
You deny every North African contribute in Iberian gene-pool in the Moorish and Carthaginian conquest (even if the latter were Phoenicians, so Eastern Mediterranean people transplanted in North Africa) but in the meantime you want to links Italy to MENA world?:innocent:

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

Hauteville
23-07-15, 16:23
The hypocrites are some of your friends, who wish that the Germanic invaders somehow made a huge contribution to Italy
You don't for Spain?according to you, Spain is a country full of Visigoths and Celts and without Mediterranean contribution.


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

Angela
23-07-15, 16:23
This timeline does not take into account the presence of slaves and free foreigners in Roman Italy, which, as discussed in other threads, is well attested by historical evidence. These people did not just vanish into thin air, presumably. What Hellenthal et al. picked up might be partly the result of the gradual assimilation of these foreign populations, which must have taken centuries to develop. It should also be remembered that this possible admixture in Tuscany from late Roman times is not only of the Near Easterners in question but also includes Europeans (the "French-like side"), so slaves, free citizens and military invaders coming from north of the Alps would also be taken into account.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hauteville
23-07-15, 16:30
Your agenda is always clear. My tolerance for ******** is limited, so be advised.

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

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

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

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

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

Oh wait, they're always suspended where Italy is concerned, and particularly when the Pan-Iberian front educated in the Stormfront analysis of European history and genetics appears.
Slaves in Roman Empire were really all from Near East?I really doubt of that.
Afaik many came from Gauls and Germanic soldiers enslaved.

Drac II
23-07-15, 16:35
Have you read him?

Well attested by historical evidence. :laughing:

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

Drac II
23-07-15, 16:38
You don't for Spain?according to you, Spain is a country full of Visigoths and Celts and without Mediterranean contribution.


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

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

joeyc
23-07-15, 16:39
The fact that they had Hellenized names does not prove that they came from the Levant and the like. Last time I checked slave holders could change the names of their slaves so that de facto proves my point.

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

joeyc
23-07-15, 16:49
Anyway this myh of MENA slaves has been debunked by Ralph and Coop et al which found that Italians (mostly southerners) don't share more ancestry with Cypriots and Turks ( a good proxy for MENAs) in the last 2500 years than most Northern and Central Europeans. Genetics is a real science, unslike ass-umptions by historians.

Drac II
23-07-15, 16:52
Your agenda is always clear. My tolerance for ******** is limited, so be advised.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Drac II
23-07-15, 16:59
The fact that they had Hellenized names does not prove that they came from the Levant and the like. Last time I checked slave holders could change the names of their slaves so that de facto proves my point.

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


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

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

joeyc
23-07-15, 17:01
Hellenthal has been criticized by many genetists because it used a new tecnique which gave many non sensical results.

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

Angela
23-07-15, 17:20
Slaves in Roman Empire were really all from Near East?I really doubt of that.
Afaik many came from Gauls and Germanic soldiers enslaved.

Anyone with any pretensions to an education would of course know that. I've posted the citations numerous times before, which have been ignored, so I'm not going to waste my time posting them again. How many hundreds of thousands of Gauls went on the slave market after the Gallic Wars? Caesar's whole fortune came from the sale of them. How many Germani? The whole praetorian guard was composed of them, as just one specific example. Maybe we should talks about the many, many thousands of Dacians. Has no one ever heard of Trajan's arch? Spaniards, too, and Britons, and people from Pannonia. There were many from Greece as well, and from Syria and other places in the Near East, and some from North Africa. The Romans were equal opportunity en-slavers.

These slaves were also bought all over the empire, even if there might have been more of them in Italy. As just one tiny example, how else did an African woman appear in Yorkshire in the Roman era in a Roman context?

It's another issue how many of them were allowed to reproduce. If Ralph and Coop are correct, not many of them from anywhere, which perhaps shouldn't be surprising, given how many were sent to quarries or mines or the galleys. The women might have fared a little better if they weren't sent to brothels, where the life expectancy was undoubtedly rather short, and where the infants were either aborted or killed at birth.

What always amazes me in this context is that people either never learned or forget all of this.

How, also, do people who make this argument manage to explain the cline in Italy autosomally? Where is the evidence that all the slaves were carefully distributed so that the north to south Italian cline easily explained by reference to Neolithic and Indo-European and Greek distributions up to the Iron Age was not disturbed?

The answer is ignorance of history, Italian history in particular, and the noxious agendas which have strangely even taken root in some Italians.

Drac II
23-07-15, 17:22
Arabs? Only in Sicily and few raids on the coasts. Overall Arab presence in Southern France and parts of Swizterland was longer than on Italian mainland.

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

Not quite, we already discussed the Muslim intrusions into continental Italy in another thread. It took nearly a century of combined Byzantine and Papal efforts to weaken their presence, and centuries later Islamic armies were still occasionally making incursions into the mainland (but this time from more nearby Sicily, not from North Africa.)

Byzantium included most of the Near East prior to the Islamic conquest of the area. Conscripts and mercenaries would have come from all over its territories. It was after the Muslim annexation of these areas that the Byzantines had to rely more on their own people for their soldiery.

Drac II
23-07-15, 17:30
Hellenthal has been criticized by many genetists because it used a new tecnique which gave many non sensical results.

The criticism is about the limitations of their methods, but not any inherently wrong methodology that must be discarded right away.


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

But why would they change them to names common among people from the eastern parts of the empire? This argument would actually make sense if they were changing their names to the names the Romans were more familiar with: their own Roman names. But that is not the case.

Arame
23-07-15, 17:44
The reason that Tuscan's data behaves in such way is perhaps this peculiarity.

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-dIAiuvDRSMs/VOmimlVjEVI/AAAAAAAACCE/h2aiCQmTRqE/w350-h365-no/Haak_et_al_Fig_3_small.png

Tuscans lack any distinct WHG. They are basicaly ENF + Steppe.
Some event is detected in Middle Ages ( perhaps a Nordic invasion maybe also some southern )
The calculator search a population that can simulate the ENF and picks the Near Eastern populations. It favours the Armenians because they have also Caucasic, which is part of Steppe component.

So the real admixture event is much much smaller. Perhaps smaller than 10% or even 5%. The rest is just a desperate search to simulate the unique Tuscan population.

This method's main limitation is that they have no aDNA. If the existing aDNA data is added to this type of calculations we could get very good results consistent with historic events.

joeyc
23-07-15, 17:51
The HGDP database has only 8 Tuscan samples which is skewing the results. Anyway it's clear from Allentoft et al that Iron Age and Modern Armenians are completely different and the latter are of clear semitic Mesopotamian origin. If Tuscans or any other European group have Bronze or Iron age Anatolian admixture, it surely didn't come from modern Armenians.

joeyc
23-07-15, 18:12
The criticism is about the limitations of their methods, but not any inherently wrong methodology that must be discarded right away.



But why would they change them to names common among people from the eastern parts of the empire? This argument would actually make sense if they were changing their names to the names the Romans were more familiar with: their own Roman names. But that is not the case.

Only a small number of slaves from Rome were studied so far and from a single historycal period. We know nothing about the slaves from other ages in the rest of Italy.

Drac II
23-07-15, 19:00
Only a small number of slaves from Rome were studied so far and from a single historycal period. We know nothing about the slaves from other ages in the rest of Italy.

According to some of the historians I have read, the eastern names among slaves and free foreigners are more common in the later times of the empire. Some proposed partial explanation for this increase in easterners are Caracalla's edict granting Roman citizenship to most free peoples of the empire, and the gradual expansion of Christianity, a religion that in its early stages spread via immigrants from the eastern parts of the empire:

https://books.google.com/books?id=6UTfmw_zStsC&pg=PA310&dq=peregrini+Roman+Orient+Christianity&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAGoVChMI1rvY7tvxxgIVgYsNCh178wyg#v=on epage&q=peregrini%20Roman%20Orient%20Christianity&f=false

Page 310.

Angela
23-07-15, 19:06
It is not "********", it is stated by a great number of historians specializing in Rome that there was a significant amount of both slaves and free citizens that came from other areas of the empire. The funerary inscriptions of the majority of these people strongly suggest an Eastern origin.

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

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

You might want to research how slavery worked in the Roman empire. It wasn't like the slavery of the new world. It wasn't a life sentence based on race or ethnicity. You could escape it, even in your own lifetime, if you didn't die before your time on a galley or mine or on some latifundia where you were worked to death. So, for the lucky few who proved their worth to their masters because they had more intellect than the average, or some specialized skill, or were just plain lucky, you could escape it and perhaps intermarry with locals.

That would have been a steady drip of genes, coming from all parts of the empire, not just the Near East. Unless you'd like to go on record that northern and eastern slaves were more stupid and therefore less likely to be manumitted and to have a chance of surviving? Also, the slaves remaining in the last days of the empire actually contained a very high percentage of "locals", as worsening economic and climatic conditions drove more and more of the free peasantry into such poverty that for survival they sold themselves and their families into slavery. Then, when the end came, I assure you they would have been the least equipped for survival. Before pontificating on these matters, some actual unbiased research into the matter would be welcome. I assure you I don't misrepresent research, but I'm tired of doing all the work here. Look it up yourself.

Most importantly, I am tired of pointing out to you the logical fallacies in your argument.

Ralph and Coop's IBD analysis indicates no substantial gene sharing after the Iron Age between Italy and any other country, with the exception of some parts of the Balkans. That is probably the Albanians moving into southern Italy. Until someone proves that is incorrect, your endless posts about slavery in Italy suddenly resulting in a 40% new "Cypriot like" gene flow into Tuscans in the early Middle Ages are irrelevant. In addition, once again, even if there was an impact from slavery, those slaves would just as likely have been northern and eastern and western Europeans as Near Easterners.

Oh, and spare us the arguments over how many "Greek" names were assigned to slaves and what that might mean. Is that a serious basis for an analysis of Hellenthal et al? Have you ever heard of "fashion", for goodness sakes? Germanic and Gaulish and such names probably sounded too barbaric. You also obviously have no familiarity with naming conventions in the American south. We find Caesars, Scipios, Homers, a Paris, a Venus, Philbes and Polidores among the slave ship registers, among others. Were they the descendents of Roman and Greek slaves? The naming was the product of the classical education of their masters. How about the Jeremiah's and Abrahams? Did they enslave some Jews on the way from West Africa?
http://www.archives.gov/atlanta/finding-aids/slave-manifests/charleston/names.html

It also strains the bounds of credulity that slaves would have been deliberately distributed on a north to south cline which matches ancient migrations. What, was it like a resettlement station in Nazi Germany? All Germans and Gauls, you'll be resettled to northern Italy. All Greeks and Syrians, please turn right for transport to Campania and Sicily! Really? I also fail to see how it escapes you that if the new gene flow was from a Cypriot like population, then the prior population of Italy was totally "French" and "British Isles" and "Germanic" like. Is that really where you want to go with this?

As to your comments about Hellenthal et al, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and suggest that you read Hellenthal again, and carefully. We have had a problem with you in the past where you misrepresent the findings of academic papers. There were consequences. Don't do it again.

So, as to the paper, there is no mention in the analysis of northern Italy of any mass admixture event involving a "Cypriot" like population in, not the late empire, but at the EARLIEST in 522 AD, and with an average date of 900 AD.

Instead, the admixture date for northern Italy of a "Welsh" like population, although it includes other northern European groups (about 66%) with a "Cypriot like" population (about 33%) is estimated to have taken place in about 668 BC, (766 BC-550AD) That's actually a reasonably good fit for the invasions by the Celts and the Germanic tribes. Do I really need to point out that the new gene flow would have been from north to south? I do think the date may be too late, because the flow would have been going on since the time of the first Indo-European incursions, and the proportions seem very high for the "invader" component. Perhaps this is all complicated by the fact that none of these are the actual "ancient" groups, i.e. the "Welsh", and the "French" and the "Germans" also carried EEF admixture. Of course, maybe I'm partly affected by the fact that I don't want to think I am so heavily descended from the "invaders" who tried to or did bring down our civilization. That's possible. Unlike others, i do sometimes second guess myself by considering whether my "nativism" is affecting my intellectual judgements. I try very diligently not to let that happen.

In conclusion, none of your arguments are new, and none of them provide any support for a sudden infusion of NEW "Cypriot like", or in other words EEF like genes into Tuscans in the period from the mid-500s to the 900's AD. There may indeed have been some new "Celtic" and a little "Germanic" like ancestry that perhaps made its way into Tuscany later than was the case for northern Italy, but I still maintain that the numbers are too high.


Drac II:According to some of the historians I have read, the eastern names among slaves and free foreigners are more common in the later times of the empire. Some proposed partial explanation for this increase in easterners are Caracalla's edict granting Roman citizenship to most free peoples of the empire, and the gradual expansion of Christianity, a religion that in its early stages spread via immigrants from the eastern parts of the empire:

https://books.google.com/books?id=6U...ianity&f=false (https://books.google.com/books?id=6UTfmw_zStsC&pg=PA310&dq=peregrini+Roman+Orient+Christianity&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAGoVChMI1rvY7tvxxgIVgYsNCh178wyg#v=on epage&q=peregrini%20Roman%20Orient%20Christianity&f=false)

Page 310.

That excerpt has absolutely nothing to do with your argument that Greek names in slaves indicate that most of them came from the Near East. I told you what would happen if you misrepresented academic papers. DO IT ONE MORE TIME and I'll give you an infraction. I am really lax in handing them out, but that can be remedied. Am I sufficiently clear?

Drac II
23-07-15, 20:18
You might want to research how slavery worked in the Roman empire. It wasn't like the slavery of the new world. It wasn't a life sentence based on race or ethnicity. You could escape it, even in your own lifetime, if you didn't die before your time on a galley or mine or on some latifundia where you were worked to death. So, for the lucky few who proved their worth to their masters because they had more intellect than the average, or some specialized skill, or were just plain lucky, you could escape it and perhaps intermarry with locals. That would have been a steady drip of genes, coming from all parts of the empire, not just the Near East. Unless you'd like to go on record that northern and eastern slaves were more stupid and therefore less likely to be manumitted and to have a chance of surviving? Also, the slaves remaining in the last days of the empire actually contained a very high percentage of "locals", as worsening economic and climatic conditions drove more and more of the free peasantry into such poverty that for survival they sold themselves and their families into slavery. Then, when the end came, I assure you they would have been the least equipped for survival. Before pontificating on these matters, some actual unbiased research into the matter would be welcome.

Manumision was for all slaves, obviously, not just the eastern ones, but since the eastern ones seem to have been more common, at least in the later days of the empire, then it is hardly outlandish to expect to perhaps see more contribution from them. Also, you keep forgetting that there was also a large presence of free citizens, usually called "peregrini" by the Romans. As in the case of the slaves and freedmen, these free citizens also seem to have more commonly come from the eastern parts of the empire, once again at least since the early Christian centuries. Christianity itself spread to Rome from these immigrants.


Most importantly, I am tired of pointing out to you the logical fallacies in your argument.

Ralph and Coop's IBD analysis indicates no substantial gene sharing after the Iron Age between Italy and any other country with the exception of some parts of the Balkans. That is probably the Albanians moving into southern Italy. Until someone proves that is incorrect, your endless posts about slavery in Italy suddenly resulting in a 40% new "Cypriot like" gene flow into Tuscans in the early Middle Ages are irrelevant. In addition, once again, even if there was an impact from slavery, those slaves would just as likely have been northern and eastern and western Europeans as Near Easterners.

That study used IBDs, as you yourself said. As interesting as they may be, the conclusions derived from IBDs are not infrequently at odds with other forms of DNA analysis. We are witnessing one right here in the subject of this thread. Apparently Hellenthal et al. were not totally convinced by previous IBD analysis and stuck to their guns that the admixture in question seems to be from historical times.


Oh, and spare us the arguments over how many "Greek" names were assigned to slaves and what that might mean. Is that a basis for an analysis of Hellenthal et al? Have you ever heard of "fashion", for goodness sakes? Germanic and Gaulish and such names probably sounded too barbaric. You also obviously have no familiarity with naming conventions in the American south. We find Caesars, Scipios, Homers, Paris, Philbes and Polidores among the slave ship registers, among others. Were they the descendents of Roman and Greek slaves? The naming was the product of the classical education of their masters. How about the Jeremiah's and Abrahams? Did they enslave some Jews on the way from West Africa?

But by the same token names of eastern origin would have also been foreign to the Romans. So why this common usage of eastern names for slaves? Surely, this was not the result of some strange "fashion" of the day. I don't see many Romans adopting such names. You would think that if this was merely a product of some vogue historians would have pointed it out already, but the majority of them take these names as very suggestive regarding the provenance of these slaves. Obviously these names were not common among the Romans and serve as a distinguishing factor.


It is furthermore incomprehensible that slaves would have been deliberately distributed on a north to south cline which matches ancient migrations. What, was it like the train station at Auschwitz? All Germans and Gauls, you'll be resettled to northern Italy. All Greeks and Syrians, please turn right for transport to Campania and Sicily! Really? I also fail to see how it escapes you that if the new gene flow was from a Cypriot like population, then the prior population of Italy was totally "French" and "British Isles" and "Germanic" like. Is that really where you want to go with this?

As to your comments about Hellenthal et al, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and suggest that you read Hellenthal again, and carefully. We have had a problem with you in the past where you misrepresent the findings of academic papers. There were consequences. Don't do it again.

So, as to the paper, there is no mention in the analysis of northern Italy of any mass admixture event involving a "Cypriot" like population in, not the late empire, but at the EARLIEST in 522 AD, and with an average date of 900 AD.

Instead, the admixture date for northern Italy of a "Welsh" like population, although it includes other northern European groups (about 66%) with a "Cypriot like" population (about 33%) is estimated to have taken place in about 668 BC, (766 BC-550AD) That's actually a reasonably good fit for the invasions by the Celts and the Germanic tribes. Do I really need to point out that the new gene flow would have been from north to south? I do think the date may be too late, because the flow would have been going on since the time of the first Indo-European incursions, and the proportions seem very high for the "invader" component. Perhaps this is all complicated by the fact that none of these are the actual "ancient" groups, i.e. the "Welsh", and the "French" and the "Germans" also carried EEF admixture. Of course, maybe I'm partly affected by the fact that I don't want to think I am so heavily descended from the "invaders" who tried to or did bring down our civilization. That's possible. Unlike others, i do sometimes second guess myself by considering whether my "nativism" is affecting my intellectual judgements. I try very diligently not to let that happen.


In conclusion, none of your argumetns are new.

The dates you are citing from the same paper (522 AD at earliest for Tuscany and 550 AD at latest for northern Italy) easily fit into Roman times as well, so I fail to see what your objections are. There is nothing in such earliest to latest estimates that excludes the Roman period. The only place in Italy where they seem to have excluded the Roman period in their estimated admixture time frames is Western Sicily. Here the admixture is claimed to be exclusively medieval (914CE - 1362CE)

Vallicanus
23-07-15, 20:44
Anyway you should see De Gaetano et al or Brisighelli et al which found more North African admixture in North and Central Italy than in the South.


No, 23andMe data suggests there is more MENA in South Italy.

Angela
23-07-15, 20:48
The reason that Tuscan's data behaves in such way is perhaps this peculiarity.

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-dIAiuvDRSMs/VOmimlVjEVI/AAAAAAAACCE/h2aiCQmTRqE/w350-h365-no/Haak_et_al_Fig_3_small.png

Tuscans lack any distinct WHG. They are basicaly ENF + Steppe.
Some event is detected in Middle Ages ( perhaps a Nordic invasion maybe also some southern )
The calculator search a population that can simulate the ENF and picks the Near Eastern populations. It favours the Armenians because they have also Caucasic, which is part of Steppe component.

So the real admixture event is much much smaller. Perhaps smaller than 10% or even 5%. The rest is just a desperate search to simulate the unique Tuscan population.

This method's main limitation is that they have no aDNA. If the existing aDNA data is added to this type of calculations we could get very good results consistent with historic events.

As I mentioned before, what we need is some MN from further south in Italy than Remedello. Was it even more "farmer" like than Remedello? It might at least have been "different". We have J2 and E-V13 in Lengyel and Sopot in the mid/late Neolithic. How different were the people of this "second wave" of the Neolithic? When did they make their way to central and southern Italy? When did the "Indo-Europeans" actually make their way into Italy? What was their autosomal make-up when they arrived? Did some of them, at least, come from across the Adriatic? Were those Indo-Europeans different from those who came by way of central Europe? What actually happened in Tuscany during the "Etruscan" era? Some people are determined to see a large migration from Anatolia or at least the northern Aegean around 1000 BC. However, preliminary reports are that the Etruscans, at least the elite ones, who would be presumed to have more of that ancestry, were just "southern European". (In this case perhaps the actual paper will be more illuminating.) We know that there are attested Celtic migrations throughout all of northern Italy that went all the way down to northern Tuscany, and even occasionally to Rome. We know the date for those migrations and for those from the Greek colonizations, whose genetic signature would be stronger in the south but could diffuse northward.

At the end of all that, what would have been the autosomal signature in various parts of Italy during the Republican era, let's say? How much would it have been changed by slavery from all the areas from which slaves were drawn and who were allowed to reproduce? How much change was there in Lombard areas after those folk migrations? There was a substantial Lombard settlement in Tuscany.

It is beyond me how, without ancient dna from these periods, anyone can presume to make blanket statements about the ethnogenesis of the various Italian "peoples". Hellenthal et al is a fail when it comes to the ethnogenesis of the Tuscans.

As to this matter of the lack of WHG in Tuscans, I can't totally explain it. It may indeed be that there were very few local foragers in that area when the neolithic peoples arrived. However, Tuscany was indeed impacted by the Celts and the Lombards. In addition, they have Yamnaya ancestry, which would presumably include some WHG. I have wondered if it's possible that the algorithm is, in this case, having difficulty distinguishing between the WHG and the EHG in Tuscans.

Also, to say that Tuscans lack WHG is, in fact, not precisely correct, as there is WHG inside EEF, whether it became part of the mix in the Near East or in Europe.

Sile
23-07-15, 21:23
It is not "********", it is stated by a great number of historians specializing in Rome that there was a significant amount of both slaves and free citizens that came from other areas of the empire. The funerary inscriptions of the majority of these people strongly suggest an Eastern origin.

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

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

Barcin in today's modern turkey was always, in ancient times, Thracian pre-trojan war time, it was the only area always known as Thracian, it sits under Bithnyia.

Find what Asia Minor meant to the ancient Greek historians and then see it it has the same meaning as near eastern

joeyc
23-07-15, 21:31
@Drac

Are you seriously suggesting that IBD analysis is not a correct methodology?
At least do you know how it works or are you just going in circles?

The Hellenthal et al paper received critics from many professional genetists because of its methodology. AFAIK none has criticized the Ralph and Coop et al or the IBD analysis, so I stand right.

Angela
23-07-15, 21:38
Manumision was for all slaves, obviously, not just the eastern ones, but since the eastern ones seem to have been more common, at least in the later days of the empire, then it is hardly outlandish to expect to perhaps see more contribution from them. Also, you keep forgetting that there was also a large presence of free citizens, usually called "peregrini" by the Romans. As in the case of the slaves and freedmen, these free citizens also seem to have more commonly come from the eastern parts of the empire, once again at least since the early Christian centuries. Christianity itself spread to Rome from these immigrants.



That study used IBDs, as you yourself said. As interesting as they may be, the conclusions derived from IBDs are not infrequently at odds with other forms of DNA analysis. We are witnessing one right here in the subject of this thread. Apparently Hellenthal et al. were not totally convinced by previous IBD analysis and stuck to their guns that the admixture in question seems to be from historical times.



But by the same token names of eastern origin would have also been foreign to the Romans. So why this common usage of eastern names for slaves? Surely, this was not the result of some strange "fashion" of the day. I don't see many Romans adopting such names. You would think that if this was merely a product of some vogue historians would have pointed it out already, but the majority of them take these names as very suggestive regarding the provenance of these slaves. Obviously these names were not common among the Romans and serve as a distinguishing factor.



The dates you are citing from the same paper (522 AD at earliest for Tuscany and 550 AD at latest for northern Italy) easily fit into Roman times as well, so I fail to see what your objections are. There is nothing in such earliest to latest estimates that excludes the Roman period. The only place in Italy where they seem to have excluded the Roman period in their estimated admixture time frames is Western Sicily. Here the admixture is claimed to be exclusively medieval (914CE - 1362CE)


This is the last time I will respond to your posts on this matter. It's a waste of time.

Nowhere do you provide any actual empirical evidence for your claims about the number, condition, or ethnic origin of the slaves in the area of Tuscany, or anywhere in Italy for that matter. The trivial matter of "slave" names has been sufficiently addressed. American slave owners didn't write down their reasons for naming slaves Homer and Venus. However, we're supposed to be intelligent enough not to draw the inference that they were necessarily Greek.

You obviously have not actually read the entire Hellenthal et al paper, , which I today read for the second time, or you would know that they didn't opine about the source of any "new" gene flow into Tuscany in the period starting in 522 AD. Given that all historical evidence indicates that the major new gene flow came from northern and western Europe in the form of actual folk migrations from Gaul, central Europe, and then northern Europe in the form of the Lombards, perhaps they didn't feel it was necessary to even address your bizarre interpretation of the event.

Any other interpretation is groundless and would have us believe that prior to that date all the "Tuscans" were 100% northern and western European.

Also, if you had read the paper, you would know that rather than deprecating IBD analysis, in their discussion of the ethnogenesis of eastern Europeans they specifically state that their work supports the findings of IBD analysis.

Of course, if you claim you did read it, am I supposed to infer you deliberately distorted the findings? I'd be happy to accept that, because then I can give you another infraction.

Angela
23-07-15, 22:19
@Drac

Are you seriously suggesting that IBD analysis is not a correct methodology?
At least do you know how it works or are you just going in circles?

The Hellenthal et al paper received critics from many professional genetists because of its methodology. AFAIK none has criticized the Ralph and Coop et al or the IBD analysis, so I stand right.

Hellenthal et al drew numerous incorrect conclusions:

Among the many such:
1.Japanese are not shown to be an admixture of Jomon and mainland people, which has recently been shown to be the case.

2.No signal of admixture between "Celts" and "Anglo-Saxons" in Britain was picked up, although better and more extensive testing of modern samples in Leslie et al, and the recent analysis of ancient samples proves it did occur.

3. Sardinians are not a mixture of the French and Egyptians and the admixture most definitely didn't take place in the Byzantine era. They are the closest we have to ancient EEF farmers.

4. The Kalash are not 23% of Scots descent.

Need we go on?

Arame
24-07-15, 07:09
Angela
Well recent Treemix calculations by Davidski show European ancestry in Kalash.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o3EYTdM8lQM0FsbldSd2RLZDg/view


2.No signal of admixture between "Celts" and "Anglo-Saxons" in Britain was picked up, although better and more extensive testing of modern samples in Leslie et al, and the recent analysis of ancient samples proves it did occur.

The interesting thing about "Celts" and "Anglo-Saxons" is the fact that modern Britons are much closer to Celts than to the 'newcomers', it seems there was a 'native' gene resurgence after the invasion so the reason why it doesn't find any admixture is perhaps this phenomena.

As I repeated many times my purpose is not to prove any massive influx from Anatolia. I believe that Etruscans are natives of Italy. I open this thread because there was other amazing things. For example 2 of 3 paternal descendants of LBA_Kapan_Armenia live in Italy (one in Sardinia and one in Sicily). Why Italy? If You look at Lazaridis et al. then Tuscans are close to Greeks, and Albanians. Their SWA being small but is higher than for Albanians.

http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Admixtures-Lazaridis.png

Arame
24-07-15, 07:20
joeyc

Armenians can't have a Mesopotamian origin, Armenians can only assimilate some 'semitic' populations.
Concerning Allentoft paper. If You a make big zoom on the PCA1 high resolution file of Allentoft, You will be surprised to see that BA Armenians are close to modern Armenians. The difference that You pinpoint is from autosomal components.
So before we see the autosomal components of ancient Tuscans compared to modern one, one can't be sure on anything. The PCA that You posted can't tell the full story.

joeyc
24-07-15, 10:04
No no. The samples from Allentoft are now public and Polako has uploaded them on his Eurogenes project. Bronze and Iron Age Armenians have a huge amount of steppe and native European ancestry, while modern Armenians are impossible to tell apart from Mesopotamiam/Semitic peoples like Assyrians, Chaldeans, Iraqi Jews, ....

Arame
24-07-15, 11:23
joeyc

I understand what You are saying. But I am speaking about PCA and not autosomal components. Of course in autosomal they had a lot off EHG and no SWA. But the PCA is different.
You can look the Allentoft's PCA here.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwiYFZ1GMcZLSUNmVFZFTU42RjA/view?usp=sharing

That's why I am saying that PCA can't tell the whole story about ancient Tuscans.

This is zoomed portion with some modern populations.

7381

Arame
24-07-15, 11:30
In Europe there is a clear correlation between IE languages and the Caucasus-Gedrosia component.
Look Basques, Sardinians have no that component. Spanish and Fins have very little.
This mean that Etruscans as non-IE people will also have a small amount of that component most probably, but the modern Tuscans have the Caucasus-Gedrosia of Lazaridis.

joeyc
24-07-15, 12:25
As to this matter of the lack of WHG in Tuscans, I can't totally explain it. It may indeed be that there were very few local foragers in that area when the neolithic peoples arrived. However, Tuscany was indeed impacted by the Celts and the Lombards. In addition, they have Yamnaya ancestry, which would presumably include some WHG. I have wondered if it's possible that the algorithm is, in this case, having difficulty distinguishing between the WHG and the EHG in Tuscans.

There is no lack of WHG in Tuscans. The Yamna component is over 50% WHG and EEF is 30-40% WHG as well.

Indeed Tuscans fall in the North-South Euro cline in this plot from Lazaridis et al.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-qiQvo25njPo/U52urqcl0iI/AAAAAAAAAl4/4y9ZyKZsD1M/w350-h353-no/Ancient_human_genomes_suggest_three_ancestral_popu lations_Fig2b_small.png

Hauteville
24-07-15, 13:31
Joseph it's funny to read how many bullshits american historians write about our history especially for Roman Italy and Medieval Sicily.
According to them Roman Italy was at least 50-60% of middle eastern slaves who replaced ethnic italians and the short and insignificant muslim period of Sicily who according to them imported 300.000 arabs from Gulf lol
Of course they didn't write that Normans, Latins and Swabians expelled them and the few remained were often used in the Latin pogroms and Frederick II deported the last remnants. Lol

Luckily there are Y-Cromosome studies and IBD sharings that of course make them funny and ludicrous. Lol

joeyc
24-07-15, 13:39
Even funnier are those Indo European Iraqis with an OWD who try to connect themselves with Europeans.

Hauteville
24-07-15, 13:42
Because of american historian bullshits about Italy.

joeyc
24-07-15, 14:49
LOL Americans think that ancient Italy was some kind of modern Sweden where every Arab could get a house, a job and everything else free from the local taxpayers. Hahahahaha

In my town Jews and Saracens where expelled and hunted down multiple times in the last 1000 years or so. Even the few thousands of Marranos (Iberians converted to Islam) we got in 1610, were quickly deported to Turkey and North Africa from the local Spanish and papal authorities. Middle Eastern Slaves would have had a similar fate.

Arame
24-07-15, 15:05
joeyc
Of course Tuscans have WHG. Either within ENF or Yamna. You can see that in Lazaridis et al K=20. I posted that Haak graph not to prove that Tuscans don't have WHG but that they have another sort of difference.. Maybe due to Caucasus Gedrosia of Lazaridis.

Arame
24-07-15, 15:13
Concerning Iraq. Iraq is the Babylon (on the basis of Sumerian civilization ). Perhaps You don't know that the first legendary Haykazuni dinasty of Armenia is from Babylon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hayk). Babylon for Armenians is like Troy for Romans. So Your sentence with some disguised negative connotation is quite funny for an educated Armenian. :)

I expected from a person who has the great legacy of Roman civilization to be more confident and open minded, but it seems I was wrong.
I think further discussion is meaningless. We just need to wait the autosomal components of pre-Roman Tuscany to find who was right who was wrong.

Drac II
24-07-15, 17:02
@Drac

Are you seriously suggesting that IBD analysis is not a correct methodology?
At least do you know how it works or are you just going in circles?

The Hellenthal et al paper received critics from many professional genetists because of its methodology. AFAIK none has criticized the Ralph and Coop et al or the IBD analysis, so I stand right.

Even if the methodology is not inherently incorrect, it also has limitations, and the fact still remains that the claimed results for at least some IBD papers has been contradicted by papers using other methods.

Hauteville
24-07-15, 17:07
LOL Americans think that ancient Italy was some kind of modern Sweden where every Arab could get a house, a job and everything else free from the local taxpayers. Hahahahaha

In my town Jews and Saracens where expelled and hunted down multiple times in the last 1000 years or so. Even the few thousands of Marranos (Iberians converted to Islam) we got in 1610, were quickly deported to Turkey and North Africa from the local Spanish and papal authorities. Middle Eastern Slaves would have had a similar fate.
Eheh i have recent read a book of an american who said that in Roman Italy there were a lot of black africans. What? lol
Totally invention of history

Drac II
24-07-15, 18:12
This is the last time I will respond to your posts on this matter. It's a waste of time.

Nowhere do you provide any actual empirical evidence for your claims about the number, condition, or ethnic origin of the slaves in the area of Tuscany, or anywhere in Italy for that matter. The trivial matter of "slave" names has been sufficiently addressed. American slave owners didn't write down their reasons for naming slaves Homer and Venus. However, we're supposed to be intelligent enough not to draw the inference that they were necessarily Greek.

You obviously have not actually read the entire Hellenthal et al paper, , which I today read for the second time, or you would know that they didn't opine about the source of any "new" gene flow into Tuscany in the period starting in 522 AD. Given that all historical evidence indicates that the major new gene flow came from northern and western Europe in the form of actual folk migrations from Gaul, central Europe, and then northern Europe in the form of the Lombards, perhaps they didn't feel it was necessary to even address your bizarre interpretation of the event.

Any other interpretation is groundless and would have us believe that prior to that date all the "Tuscans" were 100% northern and western European.

Also, if you had read the paper, you would know that rather than deprecating IBD analysis, in their discussion of the ethnogenesis of eastern Europeans they specifically state that their work supports the findings of IBD analysis.

Of course, if you claim you did read it, am I supposed to infer you deliberately distorted the findings? I'd be happy to accept that, because then I can give you another infraction.

I hope you do realize how futile would be to compare the naming practices of 18th-19th century European and American slave traders and holders with those of Roman times. In any event, such an anachronistic comparison is even more in favor of what I am pointing out: American and English slave traders and holders gave their slaves predominantly English names, just like the Spanish, Portuguese and French ones did with their respective languages. Now I ask again: then why don't we see more Roman-era slaves with Roman names and instead the majority have the names more typical among the Hellenized peoples of the eastern parts of the empire? There are several reasons why so many historians have become convinced that this area was the most important supplier of slaves for the Romans, at least for a certain period of time (usually said to be the early Christian era.) One of them is this issue with the names. Such evidence can't be so casually dismissed. The name "Syrus" (Syrian), for example, was a generic slave name in Roman comedies.

The Hellenthal et al. paper does not seem to give any explanations regarding Tuscany in particular:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4209567/

And yes, the authors are well aware of the Ralph & Coop paper and refer to it, but this is in fact more incriminating when it comes to certain regions other than Eastern Europe. Judging by the fact that in their "Genetic Atlas" companion web site they list all parts of Italy as having had admixture from more recent times than 2500 years ago, it does not seem that at least in some cases they were convinced by the IBD-based results of Ralph & Coop's paper.

Drac II
24-07-15, 18:59
That excerpt has absolutely nothing to do with your argument that Greek names in slaves indicate that most of them came from the Near East. I told you what would happen if you misrepresented academic papers. DO IT ONE MORE TIME and I'll give you an infraction. I am really lax in handing them out, but that can be remedied. Am I sufficiently clear?

Read carefully before making accusations and threats. I did not restrict my comments to slaves (you are the one who keeps doing that.) The passage is about Caracalla's edict granting citizenship to most free people in the empire, including the Christians, and the provenance of these early Christians in Rome, which the source clearly says came from the eastern parts of the empire and North Africa. That's what I said historians conclude regarding this subject, so no one is "misrepresenting" anything. It wasn't meant as a specific example of how common the Hellenized names were among these free peoples or the slaves. It goes without saying that most of these people would have had the names typical of their areas of provenance, which in the case of the easterners would have been Hellenized names. Just some logic and common sense thrown in. Or do you really expect these foreigners to have had the Latin names common among the Romans?

Hauteville
24-07-15, 21:56
Luckily we have IBD sharing and Y-Chromosome studies and all of them said that the only West Asian input in the whole Italy including the south and the islands came from Neolithic times to Bronze age collapse and not from historical times.
The fact that you have slaves with Greek names or muslims and jew means nothing, they can easily be a local people converted.
You must look at the ethnic cleansing of the muslim remnants in Sicily by Frederick II to begin with and again I don't believe in no one modern american pseudo-historian sources about Roman empire.

joeyc
24-07-15, 22:03
The Italian ethnogenesis can simply explained by this model:

50% Barcin farmer + 25% German Bell Beaker + 25% Yamnaya.

Similar to the model by Haak et al.

Drac II
25-07-15, 18:56
Luckily we have IBD sharing and Y-Chromosome studies and all of them said that the only West Asian input in the whole Italy including the south and the islands came from Neolithic times to Bronze age collapse and not from historical times.
The fact that you have slaves with Greek names or muslims and jew means nothing, they can easily be a local people converted.
You must look at the ethnic cleansing of the muslim remnants in Sicily by Frederick II to begin with and again I don't believe in no one modern american pseudo-historian sources about Roman empire.

Neither one of those methods can give definitive or infallible answers. For example, haplogroups are all thousands of years old, and IBDs can't tell gene flow direction. Even Ralph & Coop themselves admit that genetics can't do without other disciplines, like archaeology or linguistics.

Also, the issue with the preponderance of Greek names among slaves in Rome is not the only evidence. The statements of Roman and Greek authors afford other evidence for the presence of large numbers of foreigners (both slaves and free people, who migrated to Italy out of their own will) in Rome and their provenance. Tacitus, Seneca, Martial, Strabo, Juvenal, Cicero, Petronius, etc. mention or talk about such subjects (some of these writers were in fact themselves foreigners living in Italy.) Combined with the epigraphical evidence it is rather unquestionable that there was a large foreign population, and very likely that the eastern parts of the empire (which includes Greece and the southern Balkans, by the way, not only the Near East and Egypt) was where the majority of them came from.

The American sources are not by "pseudo-historians" but normal historians, plus Italian historians have also talked about this subject (this whole business of large numbers of foreigners in Rome was a sort of "nightmare" scenario for fascist Italian thinkers and some of them spoke about their "corrupting" influence on ancient Rome), so it is not any "American" invention. In fact, many historians who have talked about this subject are German, French and English.

Salmon
29-09-15, 21:14
LOL Americans think that ancient Italy was some kind of modern Sweden where every Arab could get a house, a job and everything else free from the local taxpayers. Hahahahaha

In my town Jews and Saracens where expelled and hunted down multiple times in the last 1000 years or so. Even the few thousands of Marranos (Iberians converted to Islam) we got in 1610, were quickly deported to Turkey and North Africa from the local Spanish and papal authorities. Middle Eastern Slaves would have had a similar fate.

They wouldn't have necessarily been kicked out if they converted to Christianity or were Christian.

Not all Levantines were Muslim.
Not all Jews stayed Jews, many converted.

Not all Levantines arrived in the Middle Ages, some were probably there since the Roman Empire though Carthage, Syria, North Africa.





Joseph it's funny to read how many bullshits american historians write about our history especially for Roman Italy and Medieval Sicily.
According to them Roman Italy was at least 50-60% of middle eastern slaves who replaced ethnic italians and the short and insignificant muslim period of Sicily who according to them imported 300.000 arabs from Gulf lol
Of course they didn't write that Normans, Latins and Swabians expelled them and the few remained were often used in the Latin pogroms and Frederick II deported the last remnants. Lol

Luckily there are Y-Cromosome studies and IBD sharings that of course make them funny and ludicrous. Lol

Rome occupied the provinces of Syria, Egypt, and Africa. They absorbed Carthaginians, Arabs, etc.

There was a Roman Emperor named Phillip the Arab. He was born in Syria.

A provincial from Syria, North Africa, and Egypt could work his way up the ranks of the Roman Army and gain Roman citizenship, earn himself a ticket to Italy.

Italy was a magnet for pronvincials, particularly those of non-Roman descent. It was a center of wealth and trade for a long time.

The first Christians were Levantines. Constantine imported the Levantine religion known as Christianity to Italy and made Italy the center of Christianity. Levantine Christians may have rolled in.

Sigfrido
30-09-15, 08:49
Italy was too much densely populated back then for any migration of few thousands of Levantines to change much of its population. Also if Italy was such a magnet for migrants, then why the Neolitch components are distribuited so well along a North-South axis and not concentrated in the big cities like Rome?

LeBrok
30-09-15, 16:26
Italy was too much densely populated back then for any migration of few thousands of Levantines to change much of its population. Also if Italy was such a magnet for migrants, then why the Neolitch components are distribuited so well along a North-South axis and not concentrated in the big cities like Rome?
There were times in Middle Ages that Rome almost ceased to exist. From one million citizen during Roman Empire to almost nothing in middle ages. For that reason modern population of Rome is different than Roman population of Rome.

Sigfrido
06-10-15, 22:52
There were times in Middle Ages that Rome almost ceased to exist. From one million citizen during Roman Empire to almost nothing in middle ages. For that reason modern population of Rome is different than Roman population of Rome.

And for some magic reason they dispersed into Italy forming a perfect north-south genetic cline with the peaks of "West Asian" haplotypes in the Appennines?

LeBrok
07-10-15, 02:28
And for some magic reason the dispersed into Italy forming a perfect north-south genetix cline with the peaks of "West Asian" haplotypes in the Appennines?What this has to do with depopulation of Rome, or lack of strong West Asian signature in Rome?!

Sigfrido
07-10-15, 06:44
Why don't you respond my question first? Lack of arguments?

moore2moore
14-12-15, 00:41
Generally speaking, the world is fascinated by finding exotic admixture in Italians. And Italy is "doomed" by having 2500+ years of written history. Same with the Jews. Every invading king who so much took a bathroom break in the lands with extensive written history is documented. So people now can obsess about it, LOL.

Italians are a diverse people, but their history and one-off matches with other populations is no different from Germany, Poland, or France. Many people passed through many parts of Europe many times. The only lands where this is perhaps less true is: Sardinia, Lappland (extreme N. Finland) and Ireland.

If you want to read a history lecturer's musings on Etruscan theories, FWIW, I suggest:

http://snplogic.blogspot.com/2015/10/toward-new-understanding-of-etruscan.html

http://snplogic.blogspot.com/2014/02/scholars-finally-apply-some-logic-not.html

and if you want to read a critique of some of the often unwitting assumptions built into these discussions, read:

http://snplogic.blogspot.com/2015/10/berkeleys-center-for-study-of-ancient.html

moore2moore
14-12-15, 00:56
Anyone's theory on an exotic origin of the Etruscans evaporates when you visit Tuscany.

The old Etruscan cities were the highest points in the land, on impossible to penetrate hills, overlooking incredible plains, the most fertile and beautiful in Italy.

The notion from Herodotus:

-that a weak and starving people from central Anatolia could pass through hostile neighboring territory
-then build the thousands of ships necessary to transport hundreds of thousands of people
-then sail NOT to close-by lands like Greece or Albania, but to faraway Italy,
-passing through Scylla and Charibdis, all these ships
-to land on the opposite end of Italy, and significantly north
-then storm by force the well-established, native Villanovan settlements
-on these incredible hillsides where military science says would take an invading force outnumbering the locals by 8 to 1
-and leave no trace of fire, destruction, etc.

is so fantastical, that I just can't believe anyone holds it anymore.

I don't like questioning people's motives, but I have found that people who might have been exposed to too much Jersey Shore find it hard to believe, subconsciously, that the Italian people could have created as much as the Tuscans have (banking, politics, art, science). Perhaps these unconscious prejudices cause people to look for exotic influences in areas where Italians have been notable.

Any one-off odd haplogroups in Tuscany can likely be explained by the fact that it is a region that is extensively tested, close to a city, Rome, where you had an occasional outlier.

The Foundation Myths of Roman-era Italians uniformly look east: the "upstarts" (Etruscans, Romans, Samnites) had to try to convince the more-established Greeks that they, too, had ties to old civilizations in the East. That's why Julius Caesar and Augustus paid poets to make up the ties with Troy. That's why some told tales trying to link Romans to Greeks, and Etruscans to other civilizations.

I've also wondered if the Etruscans, as a literate society that started in about 1000 B.C., simply bore some memory of the pre-ethnic, pre-historic migrations of Early European Farmers to Europe. In other words, as one of the oldest literate societies, might they have simply preserved better the notion of "we all came from the east at some point?" and this was repeated by the one source, Herodotus (who incidentally conflicts with the other sources)?