PDA

View Full Version : Prehistoric migrations shaped Corsican Y-chromosome



Sile
02-08-18, 09:36
Prehistoric migrations through the Mediterranean basin shaped Corsican Y-chromosome diversity
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0200641
The rarity of human remains makes it difficult to apprehend the first settlements in Corsica. It is admitted that initial colonization could have occurred during the Mesolithic period when glaciations would have shortened the open water travel distance from the continent. Mesolithic sites in Corsica show relatively short and irregular occupation, and suggest discontinuous settling of very mobile groups probably traveling by boat. Previous genetic studies on Corsican populations showed internal differentiation and a relatively poor genetic relationship with continental populations, despite intense historical contacts, however local Mesolithic-based genetic inheritance has never been properly estimated. The aim of this study was to explore the Corsican genetic profile of Y-chromosomes in order to trace the genetic signatures back to the first migrations to Corsica. This study included 321 samples from men throughout Corsica; samples from Provence and Tuscany were added to the cohort. All samples were typed for 92 Y-SNPs, and Y-STRs were also analyzed. Results revealed highly differentiated haplogroup patterns among Corsican populations. Haplogroup G had the highest frequency in Corsica, mostly displaying a unique Y-STR profile. When compared with Provence and Tuscany, Corsican populations displayed limited genetic proximity. Corsican populations present a remarkable Y-chromosome genetic mixture. Although the Corsican Y-chromosome profile shows similarities with both Provence and to a lesser extent Tuscany, it mainly displays its own specificity.
.
.
.
.
for my haplogroup
12 samples from this study of Haplogroup T1a-M70, was observed in Corsica with an estimated TMRCA of 8854 +/- 1668 years.

kingjohn
02-08-18, 10:51
they found 3 e1b1a cases in corsicasurprising :)
in some of the same areas they found e-v13
as expected e-v13 is the main e1b version in corsica could be brought by ancient greeks
or by cardial neolithic
maybe the e1b1a cases is Carthaginian

Sile
02-08-18, 20:15
In fig 1
it states that T1a-M70 is the oldest TMRCA in Corsica of all the haplogroups
.
interesting is that G2a-L497 in corsica is know to have originated in Tyrol Austria ..........as per a 2013 genetic paper

Pax Augusta
02-08-18, 21:15
Interesting study but it has some methodological problems already shown in similar papers made above all by Italian geneticists.

Only the Corsicans have been sampled by this study. French, Tuscans and other Italian samples are from previous papers. Comparing the old studies from which the samples were taken with this study, here and there in this study there are minor errors.

Anyway, French (Provence) are from King et al. 2011. Italians are mostly from Boattini 2013. Sardinians are also from Francalacci 2012? The Tuscans labelled as Tuscani Siena are 86 and are from Boattini 2013, where they were labelled as Grosseto/Siena. Also the Murlo sample used in many studies of the past is composed precisely of 86 individuals. It can not be a coincidence. One can really think at this point that even the one used in this study and by Boattini 2013 is actually the sample from Murlo. Similar situation for the sample labelled as Tuscani Pisa that is composed of 113 individuals, a number that corresponds exactly with the sample analysed by Grugni in 2017 labeled as Volterra (Volterra is in the province of Pisa) and extremely similar to that labeled in the past as Volterra and composed of 114 individuals. At this point Tuscani Arezzo is most likely a subset of the sample from Casentino. So the Tuscans in this study are most likely the old samples from Murlo, Volterra and Casentino.

The problem is clear. If you always use the same samples, it is very likely that essentially the same results would be obtained.

kingjohn
02-08-18, 21:21
there was m123 cases in the arezzo sample
not in corsica and provence though....
so you say they are actually from casentino good to know :)

Pax Augusta
02-08-18, 21:51
there was m123 cases in the arezzo sample
not in corsica and provence though....
so you say they are actually from casentino good to know :)


The Y-chromosome tree of this study is full of errors. It's enough to see that 50 out of 113 in the Pisa sample (or better say Volterra) are all R1b1a1a2a. C'mon, that's very unlikely. Of course they are all R1b but they are more diversified than that. As showed in Grugni 2018 where this sample was already analysed.

Anyway M123 at low frequencies is anywhere in Italy, even in Sardinia. As Boattini showed. M123 very likely exists also among Corsicans, at low frequencies.

kingjohn
02-08-18, 23:48
thanks
what do you think is the source of e1b1a-v38 cases in Corsica?
Could it be carthegenian ?

Angela
03-08-18, 04:37
Interesting study but it has some methodological problems already shown in similar papers made above all by Italian geneticists.

Only the Corsicans have been sampled by this study. French, Tuscans and other Italian samples are from previous papers. Comparing the old studies from which the samples were taken with this study, here and there in this study there are minor errors.

Anyway, French (Provence) are from King et al. 2011. Italians are mostly from Boattini 2013. Sardinians are also from Francalacci 2012? The Tuscans labelled as Tuscani Siena are 86 and are from Boattini 2013, where they were labelled as Grosseto/Siena. Also the Murlo sample used in many studies of the past is composed precisely of 86 individuals. It can not be a coincidence. One can really think at this point that even the one used in this study and by Boattini 2013 is actually the sample from Murlo. Similar situation for the sample labelled as Tuscani Pisa that is composed of 113 individuals, a number that corresponds exactly with the sample analysed by Grugni in 2017 labeled as Volterra (Volterra is in the province of Pisa) and extremely similar to that labeled in the past as Volterra and composed of 114 individuals. At this point Tuscani Arezzo is most likely a subset of the sample from Casentino. So the Tuscans in this study are most likely the old samples from Murlo, Volterra and Casentino.

The problem is clear. If you always use the same samples, it is very likely that essentially the same results would be obtained.

Maybe it's lack of money? However, how expensive can it be just to draw spit from other places in Toscana? The costs of the analysis are the same whether it's an old or a new sample. These samples are all from areas that were important as Etruscan sites because that's whom they were chasing. It's time to spread out a little in terms of samples.

Also, what a lame y dna analysis. In this day and age they can't narrow them down more than this? Of course, the usual players get all excited by some non-E-V13 "E". I don't know when people are going to figure out that on small islands "exotic" uniparental markers can drift to prominence. Hvar, one of the Croatian islands, is like 14% "Q". Central Asians and/or Siberians didn't invade that island. The marker was probably in the interior of the Balkans and just rose to prominence randomly. There's strange mtDna too. People should read the Iceland paper as well, to see what drift can do, but I guess they're too busy obsessing about Jews and Sicilians/Southern Italians. :)

Oh, I think I remember E-M123 is about 1% in Croatia. I guess the Carthaginians with their exotic North African ancestry or Levantines got up there too! :)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_studies_on_Croats

Plus, there's a limit to what yDna is going to tell you anyway. What would be interesting would be an autosomal analysis.

I also have no idea why they only compared to Toscana. There's loads of documented migration to Corsica from Liguria, including, for instance, in the case of Napoleon according to some sources.

https://books.google.com/books?id=UlBBAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq=Ligurian+ancestry+of+Napoleon&source=bl&ots=FnbjLhs0Lk&sig=74Sxs2HLaeTkpOcsLpAVO-bZZwU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiqwK6X6c_cAhVHON8KHQliCHEQ6AEwDXoECAQQA Q#v=onepage&q=Ligurian%20ancestry%20of%20Napoleon&f=false

kingjohn
03-08-18, 08:58
Maybe it's lack of money? However, how expensive can it be just to draw spit from other places in Toscana? The costs of the analysis are the same whether it's an old or a new sample. These samples are all from areas that were important as Etruscan sites because that's whom they were chasing. It's time to spread out a little in terms of samples.

Also, what a lame y dna analysis. In this day and age they can't narrow them down more than this? Of course, the usual players get all excited by some non-E-V13 "E". I don't know when people are going to figure out that on small islands "exotic" uniparental markers can drift to prominence. Hvar, one of the Croatian islands, is like 14% "Q". Central Asians and/or Siberians didn't invade that island. The marker was probably in the interior of the Balkans and just rose to prominence randomly. There's strange mtDna too. People should read the Iceland paper as well, to see what drift can do, but I guess they're too busy obsessing about Jews and Sicilians/Southern Italians. :)

Oh, I think I remember E-M123 is about 1% in Croatia. I guess the Carthaginians with their exotic North African ancestry or Levantines got up there too! :)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_studies_on_Croats

Plus, there's a limit to what yDna is going to tell you anyway. What would be interesting would be an autosomal analysis.

I also have no idea why they only compared to Toscana. There's loads of documented migration to Corsica from Liguria, including, for instance, in the case of Napoleon according to some sources.

https://books.google.com/books?id=UlBBAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq=Ligurian+ancestry+of+Napoleon&source=bl&ots=FnbjLhs0Lk&sig=74Sxs2HLaeTkpOcsLpAVO-bZZwU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiqwK6X6c_cAhVHON8KHQliCHEQ6AEwDXoECAQQA Q#v=onepage&q=Ligurian%20ancestry%20of%20Napoleon&f=false

you are confused honey
i am not sikeliot ......
e-m123 wasn't found in this research in corsica and provence but was found in arezzo 6%

dont know what your problem
e1b1a-v38 is damn rare in europe
so to found it on this island was surprising .......

Cato
03-08-18, 11:41
So Corsicans are descendants of old Corsicans, mostly....they have continental italian surnames (contrary to sardinians), probably they just adopted them with no gene flow

Utilizzando Tapatalk

Pax Augusta
03-08-18, 13:07
So Corsicans are descendants of old Corsicans, mostly....they have continental italian surnames (contrary to sardinians), probably they just adopted them with no gene flow

Utilizzando Tapatalk

Surnames were clearly adopted due to the Italian cultural influence, but no gene flow from mainland Italy is not possible, autosomally Corsicans are too close to Italy, and are different from Sardinians. But at this point perhaps this proximity is due to a mixture of things, not only to the migrations from Italy, Corsicans have always been close, floating between Sardinia and mainland Italy due to prehistoric migrations as well.

Generally speaking it's not a surprise that many Corsicans are descendants of the previous inhabitants of Corsica, Corsica was not uninhabited before the Italian medieval influence began. But I fear that this study pushes this conclusion a lot, for many reasons that have nothing to do with genetics.

Cato
03-08-18, 13:32
Well "no gene flow" is clearly impossible, there were italian colonies there in the Middle age....however it would seem that a Corsican guy named for example Cavalli is not necessarily a descendant of an italian colonist



Utilizzando Tapatalk

Pax Augusta
03-08-18, 13:39
Well "no gene flow" is clearly impossible, there were italian colonies there in the Middle age....however it would seem that a Corsican guy named for example Cavalli is not necessarily a descendant of an italian colonist

Agreed, this is obviously true.

Pax Augusta
03-08-18, 15:19
thanks
what do you think is the source of e1b1a-v38 cases in Corsica?
Could it be carthegenian ?

Perhaps, but it is really difficult to understand in this way its origin in Corsica. I have many doubts about this methodology adopted in this study, as in other previous Italian and French studies. Making assumptions about the origin of a haplogroup, especially if it's a minor lineage, based on its modern distribution.

Then again, one wonders if the Y-chromosome tree of this study is really accurate. According to this study 90% of the French of Provence (259 individuals) belong to the Haplogroup R, of which the vast majority are R1b. The sample from French Provence comes from a previous study of 2011, and there were analyzed two Provencal samples, one of 51 individuals and the other one of 368 individuals. In the 2011 study they say that R1b of Provence is 58.8% (based on the 51 people sample), much more similar to a French average based on many more studies. R1 is instead a bit higher as expected. Unfortunately I can not find detailed information in the 2011 study on the other sample of 368 individuals from Provence.


The dominant haplogroup of Provence is R1b-M269 at 58.8% (Figure 2 (https://bmcevolbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2148-11-69#Fig2)). Also found in Provence is haplogroup E-V13 (3.9%) and J2a-DYS445 = 6 (7.8%). All the V13 derived samples are from western Provence along the Rhone, while all the J2a-DYS445 = 6 are from Var in eastern Provence.

So, how can R1 reach 90% in Provence? Moreover, in a much larger sample. It is very unlikely that southern France is 90% R1. See for yourself the averages on Eupedia for France. So either there's a big problem with this study, or there's a big problem with the French sample they used. Or likely both.



e-m123 wasn't found in this research in corsica and provence but was found in arezzo 6%

Most of it is E-M34, but one E-M34 was also found in Provence in the 2011 paper but it disappeared from this study. :laughing:



The 51 samples from areas near Neolithic sites in Provence had derived alleles for the following markers: V13, M34, Page94, M253, M438, M497, M530, M67, M198 and M269.

In Provence E-M34 was found in the sample of 51 individuals (Neolithic means that was collected near a Neolithic site, but it's a sample of modern-day people).

I would be curious to find the Y-DNA of the other 368 individuals of Provence. This 2018 study analyzes a smaller number (259) than the one examined in 2011 (51 + 368 = 419). Why? Have fewer samples been selected for some particular reason? Missing samples are women or is there another explanation?

Another interesting thing reading the 2011 paper is that it turns out that the Corsicans had already been sampled for that study. But even in this case the number of individuals used in this study is lower than the number of Corsicans analysed in 2011.



https://i.imgur.com/UZw22AR.png

Jovialis
03-08-18, 15:35
dont know what your problem


You're so defensive "Kingjohn"...

Also, your IP isn't matching up with your flag. Fix that.

Angela
03-08-18, 15:43
you are confused honey
i am not sikeliot ......
e-m123 wasn't found in this research in corsica and provence but was found in arezzo 6%

dont know what your problem
e1b1a-v38 is damn rare in europe
so to found it on this island was surprising .......

I never said you were, necessarily. You're certainly the scout, or emissary, or whatever. :) Do you think you fool anyone as to your preoccupations and motivations?

Yes, e1b1a-v38 is rare in Europe. An E1b1a was found in Yorkshire, however. So what? Men moved around.

Stop obsessing on Italian genetics, why don't you. Surely you must have at least a few other interests?

Oh, and don't call me honey. It's sexist. Next time you pull something like that you'll get an infraction.

Angela
03-08-18, 16:45
When are people going to stop placing so much emphasis on modern distributions of yDna to elucidate ancient migrations and to determine overall similarity between peoples? Doing that led people to believe for years that downstream R1b originated in western Europe, and that the first farmers to reach Europe were J2a.

Just wait for the ancient dna to determine ancient migrations, and for overall similarity do a sophisticated autosomal analysis.

Some other things to consider about Provence in relationship to all of this is the fact that both Corsica and Sardinia may have been settled initially from that area. The other is that Provence was heavily settled by the Romans, hence the name "Provence" or "Our Province". What I'd really like to see is an autosomal comparison of Provencals and the people of western Liguria right over the border. That's one of the reasons, apart from the Ligurian migrations to Corsica, that I don't understand why Ligurians weren't included in the analysis.

Pax Augusta
03-08-18, 18:28
Maybe it's lack of money? However, how expensive can it be just to draw spit from other places in Toscana? The costs of the analysis are the same whether it's an old or a new sample. These samples are all from areas that were important as Etruscan sites because that's whom they were chasing. It's time to spread out a little in terms of samples.

Lack of money and other reasons, I suppose. Indeed, these samples are all from areas that were important as Etruscan sites, and were collected for their isolation. It's not a coincidence that in this paper among the authors are also mentioned Di Gaetano and Piazza. Piazza is a very influential geneticist, and, concedimi di essere tranchant, not for the academic authoritativeness but because he has been for a long time the chairman of most powerful Italian private foundation focused on genomic research and established by one of the main Italian banks. Almost all the latest researches on the genome of Italians (Di Gaetano, Fiorito, Sazzini ....) are funded by this foundation. And Piazza as geneticist is one of the proponents of the theory of eastern origin of the Etruscans based on the distribution of mtDNA in modern samples, along with Torroni, Semino and others. This theory based on findings on modern samples for many other scholars does not prove anything. Moreover, Piazza's theory has been several times debunked by the researches of the other group of Italian geneticists led by Barbujani, who, unlike Piazza and his collaborators, really analyzed ancient Etruscan samples. Piazza has all the interest, as long as he is influential, to keep the narrative that their findings are still valid. So I suppose these three samples from Volterra, Murlo and Casentino, will still be long used to represent all the Tuscans. At this point I believe that at least a part of these samples is also used in the researches of Di Gaetano, Fiorito and perhaps even partly in the study of Sazzini. If you read the researches, for example, of Fiorito, or the last of Viola Grugni, one understands perfectly the state of subjection in which young Italian geneticists are forced to work.

It is time to overcome this old and obsolete approach of examining distribution of Y-DNA and mtDNA, as you say, to elucidate ancient migrations. And it's time to focus in the analysis of ancient samples. Only a very large number of Etruscan samples - and this applies to any pre-Roman civilization - will help us to understand who they were and where they came from and what prehistorical layers they were made of.

Just to be more explicit about which types of huge mistakes the observation of Y-DNA and mtDNA in the modern population may provoke. 11 years ago Piazza basically stated that G2*- P15, J2a1b*-M67, E3b1-M78, and K2-M70 (renamed T1a-M70) were signal of recent Middle Eastern ancestry and therefore typical Etruscan haplogroups. Today we know that those haplogroups exist everywhere in Italy and in southern Europe (and also in the rest of Europe), and that they can certainly not be considered as exclusively Etruscan haplogroups, and in most cases arrived with the Neolithic revolution and Chalcolithic migrations.

Angela
03-08-18, 19:04
Lack of money and other reasons, I suppose. Indeed, these samples are all from areas that were important as Etruscan sites, and were collected for their isolation. It's not a coincidence that in this paper among the authors are also mentioned Di Gaetano and Piazza. Piazza is a very influential geneticist, and, concedimi di essere tranchant, not for the academic authoritativeness but because he has been for a long time the chairman of most powerful Italian private foundation focused on genomic research and established by one of the main Italian banks. Almost all the latest researches on the genome of Italians (Di Gaetano, Fiorito, Sazzini ....) are funded by this foundation. And Piazza as geneticist is one of the proponents of the theory of eastern origin of the Etruscans based on the distribution of mtDNA in modern samples, along with Torroni, Semino and others. This theory based on findings on modern samples for many other scholars does not prove anything. Moreover, Piazza's theory has been several times debunked by the researches of the other group of Italian geneticists led by Barbujani, who, unlike Piazza and his collaborators, really analyzed ancient Etruscan samples. Piazza has all the interest, as long as he is influential, to keep the narrative that their findings are still valid. So I suppose these three samples from Volterra, Murlo and Casentino, will still be long used to represent all the Tuscans. At this point I believe that at least a part of these samples is also used in the researches of Di Gaetano, Fiorito and perhaps even partly in the study of Sazzini. If you read the researches, for example, of Fiorito, or the last of Viola Grugni, one understands perfectly the state of subjection in which young Italian geneticists are forced to work.

It is time to overcome this old and obsolete approach of examining distribution of Y-DNA and mtDNA, as you say, to elucidate ancient migrations. And it's time to focus in the analysis of ancient samples. Only a very large number of Etruscan samples - and this applies to any pre-Roman civilization - will help us to understand who they were and where they came from and what prehistorical layers they were made of.

Just to be more explicit about which types of huge mistakes the observation of Y-DNA and mtDNA in the modern population may provoke. 11 years ago Piazza basically stated that G2*- P15, J2a1b*-M67, E3b1-M78, and K2-M70 (renamed T1a-M70) were signal of recent Middle Eastern ancestry and therefore typical Etruscan haplogroups. Today we know that those haplogroups exist everywhere in Italy and in southern Europe (and also in the rest of Europe), and that they can certainly not be considered as exclusively Etruscan haplogroups, and in most cases arrived with the Neolithic revolution and Chalcolithic migrations.

Excellent example, Pax. With the benefit of hindsight, those conclusions are almost laughable. It would be very ironic indeed if the Etruscans do carry G2a dna, but it's the kind that came from Central Europe or conversely the kind that's been in Europe since the Neolithic. That's why I hope that the Reich Lab take a really wide spread number of samples for their paper on Italy, both geographically and chronologically.

Given how wrong he was, you would think he would have learned his lesson, but apparently not.

Honestly, I don't even know if I'll continue reading this paper. In this day and age this ridiculously low level of resolution on the y makes any conclusions extremely suspect.

I hasten to add I have absolutely no problem with there having been a migration from Asia Minor to Central Italy in the first millennium BC. If it happened, it's basically the same ancestry as would have come in the Bronze Age, so ultimately it doesn't matter.

It's important to get our facts straight, however, and in this case that requires lots of dna from the Etruscans and early Romans in comparison to prior populations.

I'm also beyond tired of pointing out that whatever gene flow occurred hit all of southeastern Europe as well as Italy, and all the way to Spain and Portugal, even if it's possible it occurred at slightly different times.

A. Papadimitriou
03-08-18, 19:34
Concerning Corsica, the thing that I find interesting in ancient sources is that Pausanias calls Corsicans 'Libyans'.

I have thought the possibility of a copying mistake. If, for example, where we find Λίβυες (Libues = Libyans) originally there was a Λίγυες (Ligues = Ligurians).
That would have been more consistent with modern ideas concerning the Corsi, but I don't think a mistake like that is very likely.

So, I leave open two possibilities. That the original inhabitants of Corsica were Libyans and also that the Ligurians could have been related to Libyans, too. The idea that Ligurians were 'Indo-European' is relatively popular today, but there is not much to support it.

I haven't read the study yet.

Angela
03-08-18, 19:59
Concerning Corsica, the thing that I find interesting in ancient sources is that Pausanias calls Corsicans 'Libyans'.

I have thought the possibility of a copying mistake. If, for example, where we find Λίβυες (Libues = Libyans) originally there was a Λίγυες (Ligues = Ligurians).
That would have been more consistent with modern ideas concerning the Corsi, but I don't think a mistake like that is very likely.

So, I leave open two possibilities. That the original inhabitants of Corsica were Libyans and also that the Ligurians could have been related to Libyans, too. The idea that Ligurians were 'Indo-European' is relatively popular today, but there is not much to support it.

I haven't read the study yet.

Given their yDna how could they possibly be descended from LIBYANS?

That would also ignore the fact that Corsica was settled from mainland EUROPE.

So, clearly, we're talking about ancient LIGURIANS, who were settled all over Provence, Liguria, other parts of Northern Italy, and looking in the other direction, all the way to Spain.

As for being Indo-European, you're aware, yes, that Ligurians are over 50% downstream R1b? In the mountain refuge areas it reaches 70%. Are you also aware that their culture and artifacts are similar to those of people from North of the Alps?

This is where the confusion arises.
http://www.forumancientcoins.com/ancient-maps/albums/userpics/31686/normal_ancient_tribes_in_Liguria_%28Roman_times%29 .jpg

Libici are sometimes known as Libui.

It's the same kind of confusion that has led misinformed people to confuse the Veneti and Venedi.

This is a list of the tribes of the Liguri, stretching from Italy to Spain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ancient_Ligurian_tribes


Yes, right, they moved into Liguria from Libya.

A. Papadimitriou
03-08-18, 20:02
Given their yDna how could they possibly be descended from LIBYANS?

That would also ignore the fact that Corsica was settled from mainland EUROPE.

So, clearly, we're talking about ancient LIGURIANS, who were settled all over Provence, Liguria, other parts of Northern Italy, and looking in the other direction, all the way to Spain.

As for being Indo-European, you're aware, yes, that Ligurians are over 50% downstream R1b? In the mountain refuge areas it reaches 70%. Yes, right, they moved into Liguria from Libya.

I don't understand your post. What do you know about the Y-DNA of ancient Libyans or Ligurians?

Cato
03-08-18, 20:38
Concerning Corsica, the thing that I find interesting in ancient sources is that Pausanias calls Corsicans 'Libyans'.

I have thought the possibility of a copying mistake. If, for example, where we find Λίβυες (Libues = Libyans) originally there was a Λίγυες (Ligues = Ligurians).
That would have been more consistent with modern ideas concerning the Corsi, but I don't think a mistake like that is very likely.

So, I leave open two possibilities. That the original inhabitants of Corsica were Libyans and also that the Ligurians could have been related to Libyans, too. The idea that Ligurians were 'Indo-European' is relatively popular today, but there is not much to support it.

I haven't read the study yet.Lybians is a synonym of Punics

Bronze Age Corsicans used Northern Italian influenced material culture (Polada) and later Central Italian (Appenninic), this could be the reason of the high R1b U152 frequency there...no idea about R1b U106, they think that it was already there in the Bronze Age too but i doubt

Utilizzando Tapatalk

Sile
03-08-18, 20:49
The Y-chromosome tree of this study is full of errors. It's enough to see that 50 out of 113 in the Pisa sample (or better say Volterra) are all R1b1a1a2a. C'mon, that's very unlikely. Of course they are all R1b but they are more diversified than that. As showed in Grugni 2018 where this sample was already analysed.

Anyway M123 at low frequencies is anywhere in Italy, even in Sardinia. As Boattini showed. M123 very likely exists also among Corsicans, at low frequencies.

the issue is the new program these studies use to determine the marker from the STR they have.......this program has been a problem since the indian paper in late 2017.
at least you know they are R1b

Sile
03-08-18, 20:53
So Corsicans are descendants of old Corsicans, mostly....they have continental italian surnames (contrary to sardinians), probably they just adopted them with no gene flow

Utilizzando Tapatalk

roman historian seneca states that the old corsicans descent from ligurians and cantabrians ( north spain ).
.
the paper also tries to deflect the theory of liguria-tuscany to isles di elba to corsica to sardinia ( before the great flood ) theory

Angela
03-08-18, 20:55
I don't understand your post. What do you know about the Y-DNA of ancient Libyans or Ligurians?

Do we have ancient dna of the Ligures yet? No, but we have ancient dna from neighboring areas, i.e. Bell Beakers of Parma, and it's R1b. We also do have ancient y dna and autosomal results for Ancient North Africans, and there is NO correlation with the people of the Mediterranean coast of southern Europe other than some shared farmer ancestry. The yDna is E-M78, but NOT E-V13. We probably got that from the Greeks. Unless the Greeks came from Libya too?

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/03/oldest-dna-africa-offers-clues-mysterious-ancient-culture
https://www.mpg.de/11978445/genomic-ancestry-of-stone-age-north-africans-from-morocco

We discussed it all extensively here:
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/35653-Scientists-discover-genomic-ancestry-of-Stone-Age-North-Africans-from-Morocco?highlight=ancient+North+African+genetics

EVERYTHING else about the Ligures, their culture, artifacts, their spread in Europe, indicates that they came from Central Europe, or, let's say, a lot of their ancestry did.

Since you're fond of relying on the ancient writers, you might want to take a look at Strabo on Geography, book 2, chapter 5, section 28. Seneca also opines on them.

The only thing you have for your idea that they are Libyans is your confusion because one Ligure tribe has a name similar to that of the Libyans. Some research on these people would have cleared up your confusion.

Sile
03-08-18, 21:07
Lack of money and other reasons, I suppose. Indeed, these samples are all from areas that were important as Etruscan sites, and were collected for their isolation. It's not a coincidence that in this paper among the authors are also mentioned Di Gaetano and Piazza. Piazza is a very influential geneticist, and, concedimi di essere tranchant, not for the academic authoritativeness but because he has been for a long time the chairman of most powerful Italian private foundation focused on genomic research and established by one of the main Italian banks. Almost all the latest researches on the genome of Italians (Di Gaetano, Fiorito, Sazzini ....) are funded by this foundation. And Piazza as geneticist is one of the proponents of the theory of eastern origin of the Etruscans based on the distribution of mtDNA in modern samples, along with Torroni, Semino and others. This theory based on findings on modern samples for many other scholars does not prove anything. Moreover, Piazza's theory has been several times debunked by the researches of the other group of Italian geneticists led by Barbujani, who, unlike Piazza and his collaborators, really analyzed ancient Etruscan samples. Piazza has all the interest, as long as he is influential, to keep the narrative that their findings are still valid. So I suppose these three samples from Volterra, Murlo and Casentino, will still be long used to represent all the Tuscans. At this point I believe that at least a part of these samples is also used in the researches of Di Gaetano, Fiorito and perhaps even partly in the study of Sazzini. If you read the researches, for example, of Fiorito, or the last of Viola Grugni, one understands perfectly the state of subjection in which young Italian geneticists are forced to work.
It is time to overcome this old and obsolete approach of examining distribution of Y-DNA and mtDNA, as you say, to elucidate ancient migrations. And it's time to focus in the analysis of ancient samples. Only a very large number of Etruscan samples - and this applies to any pre-Roman civilization - will help us to understand who they were and where they came from and what prehistorical layers they were made of.
Just to be more explicit about which types of huge mistakes the observation of Y-DNA and mtDNA in the modern population may provoke. 11 years ago Piazza basically stated that G2*- P15, J2a1b*-M67, E3b1-M78, and K2-M70 (renamed T1a-M70) were signal of recent Middle Eastern ancestry and therefore typical Etruscan haplogroups. Today we know that those haplogroups exist everywhere in Italy and in southern Europe (and also in the rest of Europe), and that they can certainly not be considered as exclusively Etruscan haplogroups, and in most cases arrived with the Neolithic revolution and Chalcolithic migrations.
G2a in ancient tuscany and now in this Corsica paper is G2a-L497 ........it is from Tyrol Austria as per this paper
http://www.blutspendezuerich.ch/Media/File/Publikationen%202013/High%20resolution%20mapping%20of%20Y%20haplogroup% 20G%282%29.pdf
with this....one can even say.....Rhaetians = Tyrolese , tyrolese have G2a-L497 , same as "ancient etruscans" in volterra ( 2017 paper )
.
There are many assumptions......equal split between true and not

Sile
03-08-18, 21:14
The bulk of the T1a-M70 are ( if the STR are correct )
ArchiveYFull Y-SNPsNews SEARCH
K-M9
LT-L298
T
T-L206
T-M70
T-L162
T-L208
T-CTS11451 * PF5520formed 8800 ybp, TMRCA 8800 ybpinfo
.
.
the other are T1a3-Y11151......no T1a2-L131 was found in this study
.
from 2015 for Tuscany the three branches are all noted
La Spezia T1a1 - CTS11451
Siena T1a2-L131
Siena T1a3 Y11151

Cato
03-08-18, 21:14
https://www.persee.fr/doc/bspf_0249-7638_2001_num_98_1_12442

Les influences italiques dans la céramique de l'Age du Bronze de la Corse. F.Lorenzi

Utilizzando Tapatalk

Sile
03-08-18, 21:23
https://www.persee.fr/doc/bspf_0249-7638_2001_num_98_1_12442

Les influences italiques dans la céramique de l'Age du Bronze de la Corse. F.Lorenzi

Utilizzando Tapatalk

thanks
.
anything of the Vanaceni or Venacini in italian.
.
The most northerly promontory is occupied by the Vanaceni; next to whom come the Cilebensii, then the Licnini, Macrini, Opini, Simbri, and Comaceni, and furthest to the S. the Subasani”

A. Papadimitriou
03-08-18, 21:27
Lybians is a synonym of Punics

Bronze Age Corsicans used Northern Italian influenced material culture (Polada) and later Central Italian (Appenninic), this could be the reason of the high R1b U152 frequency there...no idea about R1b U106, they think that it was already there in the Bronze Age too but i doubt

Utilizzando Tapatalk

Pausanias uses that term for a population distinct than those he calls Iberians, those he calls Hellenes, those he calls Carthaginians and those he calls Trojans etc. (he says though that Carthaginians used Iberian and 'Libyan' mercenaries, that's probably the reason we shouldn't expect significant Phoenician proper admixture in Sardinia)

Well, I don't associate R1b with proto-Indo-Europeans. For example, concerning Torrean civilization I would consider a scenario where the natives (pre-BA menhir builders) were R1b-U106 and the intrusive element belonged to G-L91, for example. (The reality would have been certainly more complex, that means possibly more haplogroups involved at least)


That study says

Sub-clade R1b1a1a2a1a2b-U152 predominated in North Corsica whereas R1b1a1a2a1a1-U106 was present in South Corsica. Both SNPs display clinal distributions of frequency variation in Europe, the U152 branch being most frequent in Switzerland, Italy, France and Western Poland. Calibrated branch lengths from whole Y chromosome sequencing [44,45] and ancient DNA studies [46] both indicated that R1a and R1b diversification began relatively recently, about 5 Kya, consistent with Bronze Age and Copper Age demographic expansion. TMRCA estimations are concordant with such expansion in Corsica.

So, they cite Haak, Lazaridis etc to support that 'R1a and R1b diversification began relatively recently' but, really, I am not sure if "TMRCA estimations are concordant with such expansion in Corsica." This is not how I see it but I can be wrong. I may have understood something wrong. I don't know.


http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure/image?size=medium&id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0200641.g001

Sile
03-08-18, 21:36
Pausanias uses that term for a population distinct than those he calls Iberians, those he calls Hellenes, those he calls Carthaginians and those he calls Trojans etc. (he says though that Carthaginians used Iberian and 'Libyan' mercenaries, that's probably the reason we shouldn't expect significant Phoenician proper admixture in Sardinia)

Well, I don't associate R1b with proto-Indo-Europeans. For example, concerning Torrean civilization I would consider a scenario where the natives (pre-BA menhir builders) were R1b-U106 and the intrusive element belonged to G-L91, for example. (The reality would have been certainly more complex, that means possibly more haplogroups involved at least)


That study says


So, they cite Haak, Lazaridis etc to support that 'R1a and R1b diversification began relatively recently' but, really, I am not sure if "TMRCA estimations are concordant with such expansion in Corsica." This is not how I see it but I can be wrong. I may have understood something wrong. I don't know.


http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure/image?size=medium&id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0200641.g001

the TMRCA of each Haplogroup mapped is not an indication of when it arrived in Corsica, but when that marker formed ...most likely elsewhere

Cato
03-08-18, 22:26
Corsica had not Beakers (except a fragment in the South) so the R1b intrusion must be a Bronze Age thing

Utilizzando Tapatalk

Sile
03-08-18, 23:44
the TMRCA of each Haplogroup mapped is not an indication of when it arrived in Corsica, but when that marker formed ...most likely elsewhere
edit
or maybe it is when they arrived
the T are
CTS11451 and as per the new ( now ) Yfull v 6.04
T-CTS11451 * PF5520formed 8800 ybp, TMRCA 8800 ybp
.
which fits close enough to TMRCA of the T-M70 noted on the map.......................if this system is correct , then haplo T is the oldest on the island as per this paper

Pygmalion
04-08-18, 17:12
I wonder if bronze age Corsicans were closer to Sardinians than modern Corsicans are. The Corsi were a tribe who lived in Southern Corsica and North Eastern Sardinia during roman times, and the Romans had to deal with their frequent rebellions. During the Middle bronze age some constructions similar to the more rudimentary forms of nuraghi (like those in the upper row) were developed in Southern Corsica, however they never evolved into the evolved type of nuraghi (tholos nuraghi and complex tholos nuraghi) which were built in Sardinia during the recent bronze age, and neither did the bronze age Corsicans build other structures similar to those of the nuragics like the holy well and spring temples (recent and final bronze age), megaron temples (recent and final bronze age), antis temples (recent and final bronze age) or the ritual fountains and pools (recent/final bronze age), their burials however were similar to some of those used in North-Eastern Sardinia (tafoni), but they lacked the monumental giants' tombs that were present all over Sardinia since the early/middle bronze and throughout the recent bronze age. When talking about the Corsi ancient authors would say they were related to the Ligurians, an interesting account also reports that it was the Corsi who founded Populonia. Some other differences I can think of: while in Sardinia thousands of nuragic bronze sculptures were found (final bronze age/early iron age) I don't recall any being found in Corsica, but I have to say that some nuragic votive bronzes were found there however, like the typical bronze quivers as well as some more practical bronze objects like the nuragic double axes. Another difference is the construction of large sanctuaries in late bronze age Sardinia which are absent in Corsica.
https://scontent-mxp1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/37812551_1931876700185598_7127883340249563136_n.jp g?_nc_cat=0&oh=4e650b28ae530a6c09cdef249854d822&oe=5C0BE168

Cato
04-08-18, 19:17
I don't think that coastal Sardinians are much different from Corsicans..someone should make a PCA with Corsicans and the Sardinian samples from Chiang...

Utilizzando Tapatalk

Angela
04-08-18, 20:04
Well, there is a difference, but not a "huge" difference between the inhabitants of places near Ogliastra and the people of Cagliari on the coast, for example.

"As an alternative visualization of pan-Mediterranean population structure, an analysisusing the ADMIXTURE software inferred four ancestral components, with one componentassociated primarily with Sardinians and Southern Europeans (“red”), and remainingcomponents corresponding to North African (“blue”), Middle East and Caucasus (“purple”), andNorthern Europeans (“green”) (Figure 4C; see Figure S3 for results at other values of K). TheArzana individuals contained 100% of this red component and Sardinians from Cagliaricontained 93% of this red component."
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2016/12/07/092148.full.pdf

I'd be surprised if the northern part of Corsica was 93% of the "red" component (the Cagliari percentage), especially given their yDna profile. It's always been my impression that the settlement of these two islands was "predominantly" (not solely) from north to south if we're talking about large "folk" migrations.

Now, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the southern tip of Corsica is more like the northern tip of Sardinia, but given that the language spoken in the northern tip of Sardinia is a Corsican dialect it would seem the influence went mainly from Corsica to Sardinia.

Of course, to really answer these questions we need autosomal dna, which for some inexplicable reason they didn't do. You'd also have to include the Ligurians.

It would be particularly interesting to get autosomal data on Corsicans from the most isolated mountain refuges, as was done for Sardinians and see the differences there, both between the refuge populations of Corsica and Sardinia, and the regional differences within Corsica itself.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1f/Sardinia_Language_Map.png

Pygmalion
04-08-18, 20:14
The thing is, Corsica never really had a big population, so later migrations probably changed the DNA of its inhabitants a lot. While most people think of Sardinia as a scarcely populated island, during the bronze age it was actually densely populated if you put it into context, especially compared to most of Europe, by looking at the density of monuments and settlements built in the spawn of a few centuries you can get an idea, so the later migrations didn't affect the locals' DNA as much, one of the reason why it became scarcely populated later on might be malaria which became endemic by the punic era, and the most fertile places in Sardinia also happened to be filled with lagoons and swamps. This explains things a lot better than the "isolation" theory because throughout prehistory and ancient history Sardinia yields many more traces of exchange and interaction with foreigner cultures than Corsica does.

Cato
04-08-18, 20:18
Their conclusion is that modern Corsicans are direct descendants of ancient Corsicans, more or less..i don't know why they didn't test at least 2 or 3 ancient individuals, how much does it cost?

IMO the Bronze age R1b immigrants had a bigger impact in Corsica because it was smaller and less populated compared to Sardinia.

South Corsicans seems different to Gallurese Sardinians regarding Y DNA frequencies. No idea how much "steppe admixture" South Corsicans have, Gallurese are 9% circa steppe plus some WHG and the rest the usual EEF

Utilizzando Tapatalk

Angela
04-08-18, 21:48
Their conclusions are worth nothing, since they seem to be based only on yDna. Even if they did an autosomal analysis they'd need an ancient Corsican genome to draw that conclusion.

Sorry to say it about a paper that includes Roy King and Underhill, but it seems like work by shoemakers.

Cato
04-08-18, 22:17
It would be interesting to know at least the autosomal make up of:

The Mesolithic "Dame de Bonifacio"
A Neolithic Corsican farmer
A Bronze age Torrean

Utilizzando Tapatalk

Angela
04-08-18, 22:26
It would be interesting to know at least the autosomal make up of:

The Mesolithic "Dame de Bonifacio"
A Neolithic Corsican farmer
A Bronze age Torrean

Utilizzando Tapatalk

Indeed. Ancient samples are available. If that's beyond their capabilities (although you would think that Underhill and King could get access to a good ancient dna lab), then at least do a modern autosomal analysis and comparison. It's actually shameful that they would turn out a paper like this.

At least, if you're going to do only a yDna analysis, resolve the damn samples as much as possible.

I really don't like to attribute base motives to scholars, but papers like this make you wonder.

Aaron1981
15-08-18, 17:16
When are people going to stop placing so much emphasis on modern distributions of yDna to elucidate ancient migrations and to determine overall similarity between peoples? Doing that led people to believe for years that downstream R1b originated in western Europe, and that the first farmers to reach Europe were J2a.

Just wait for the ancient dna to determine ancient migrations, and for overall similarity do a sophisticated autosomal analysis.

Some other things to consider about Provence in relationship to all of this is the fact that both Corsica and Sardinia may have been settled initially from that area. The other is that Provence was heavily settled by the Romans, hence the name "Provence" or "Our Province". What I'd really like to see is an autosomal comparison of Provencals and the people of western Liguria right over the border. That's one of the reasons, apart from the Ligurian migrations to Corsica, that I don't understand why Ligurians weren't included in the analysis.

J2 was found in LBK, but seems absent thus far in Mediterranean spread which was apparently first. J2 is one of those haplogroups that is very diverse in very small, distantly related clusters and doesn't appear to be spread in a star pattern (the major evidence against it being a PIE marker IMHO)

Aaron1981
15-08-18, 17:24
Pausanias uses that term for a population distinct than those he calls Iberians, those he calls Hellenes, those he calls Carthaginians and those he calls Trojans etc. (he says though that Carthaginians used Iberian and 'Libyan' mercenaries, that's probably the reason we shouldn't expect significant Phoenician proper admixture in Sardinia)

Well, I don't associate R1b with proto-Indo-Europeans. For example, concerning Torrean civilization I would consider a scenario where the natives (pre-BA menhir builders) were R1b-U106 and the intrusive element belonged to G-L91, for example. (The reality would have been certainly more complex, that means possibly more haplogroups involved at least)


That study says


So, they cite Haak, Lazaridis etc to support that 'R1a and R1b diversification began relatively recently' but, really, I am not sure if "TMRCA estimations are concordant with such expansion in Corsica." This is not how I see it but I can be wrong. I may have understood something wrong. I don't know.


http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure/image?size=medium&id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0200641.g001

Well of course R1b were the Indo-European speakers, but the R1a ones are likely the ones to actually spread to India.
The dates in the study refer to the age of the branch, not the age in Corsica. A very subtle but large difference. The Corsica data appears to mostly be downstream of L51+, including a very large chunk of P312*(many are DF27 north-south haplotype) that is not even mentioned as important for some reason. U152 is the lion in the room as can be expected.

The P312*aligns with southern France, and U152 may have arrived from Italy based on distribution, but who really knows the reality, or the impact various migrations have had on the island. It seems vastly different from Sardinia.

Sile
15-08-18, 19:15
J2 was found in LBK, but seems absent thus far in Mediterranean spread which was apparently first. J2 is one of those haplogroups that is very diverse in very small, distantly related clusters and doesn't appear to be spread in a star pattern (the major evidence against it being a PIE marker IMHO)

you also have found in LBK sites are 1 x H ydna and 2 x T1a ydna and others , so it is not odd.
The most likely scenario is most ydna haplogroups reached the atlantic ocean way way before neolithic times and some returned and headed back towards the east , the only odd marker is R1a which was very scarce in western europe until the bronze age

MOESAN
16-08-18, 22:26
Sile, beside some old Y-C and Upper Paleo and Mesolothic Y-I2(a), we have to date very few if any other Y-haplo around Atlantic before the Neolithic, this one providing a lot of Y-G2a; or I missed something?

MOESAN
16-08-18, 22:37
We have NO ancient Corsicans DNA if I don't mistake. Concerning Y-R1b-S116/P312 maybe they were not all of them IE's? I doubt but who knows? But concerning Y-R1b-U106 I dont believe they came before Bronze, and I think rather they came very later in Corsica; it's true I' ve no proof, as others here. Concerning Y-R1b-U152, its presence in Corsica could be linked in my mind to Ligurians, before the Romans who surely send some of them; it deserves a subclades analysis. Concerning guessings about population density, I recall that the prominence of a male haplo is not a very good tool to measure it, as the founder effects and sexe unbalanced matings are in concurrence.

I1a3_Young
17-08-18, 14:22
Excellent example, Pax. With the benefit of hindsight, those conclusions are almost laughable. It would be very ironic indeed if the Etruscans do carry G2a dna, but it's the kind that came from Central Europe or conversely the kind that's been in Europe since the Neolithic. That's why I hope that the Reich Lab take a really wide spread number of samples for their paper on Italy, both geographically and chronologically.

Given how wrong he was, you would think he would have learned his lesson, but apparently not.

Honestly, I don't even know if I'll continue reading this paper. In this day and age this ridiculously low level of resolution on the y makes any conclusions extremely suspect.

I hasten to add I have absolutely no problem with there having been a migration from Asia Minor to Central Italy in the first millennium BC. If it happened, it's basically the same ancestry as would have come in the Bronze Age, so ultimately it doesn't matter.

It's important to get our facts straight, however, and in this case that requires lots of dna from the Etruscans and early Romans in comparison to prior populations.

I'm also beyond tired of pointing out that whatever gene flow occurred hit all of southeastern Europe as well as Italy, and all the way to Spain and Portugal, even if it's possible it occurred at slightly different times.

Very good observation. Look at this:
This study included 321 samples typed for 92 Y-SNP

How laughable. How much did they spend on this testing? A test from Ancestry.com has 1,681 Y-SNPs and would have given autosomal info. 23andMe would have been even better because of mtDNA.

Sile
17-08-18, 20:40
Sile, beside some old Y-C and Upper Paleo and Mesolothic Y-I2(a), we have to date very few if any other Y-haplo around Atlantic before the Neolithic, this one providing a lot of Y-G2a; or I missed something?
We need to stop thinking of an east to west only migration like in the USA and their "oregon trail" scenarios .........the paper's STR's are in Error , the SNP are accurate, the dates on Corsica are accurate. In reference to G2a-L497 .....I linked the paper which refers to a tyrolese origin.....we also have a high % of R-U106 in Austria .......

brick
18-08-18, 18:23
Their conclusion is that modern Corsicans are direct descendants of ancient Corsicans, more or less..i don't know why they didn't test at least 2 or 3 ancient individuals, how much does it cost?

Maybe this study just wants to prove that Corsicans aren't related to Italians? A bit agenda-driven?



South Corsicans seems different to Gallurese Sardinians regarding Y DNA frequencies. No idea how much "steppe admixture" South Corsicans have, Gallurese are 9% circa steppe plus some WHG and the rest the usual EEF


Sardinians range from 0% steppe ancestry to 9%, but the Sardinian average seems closer to 2-4% of steppe. I think Corsicans have more steppe ancestry than Sardinians.


Chiang 2016

https://i.imgur.com/AiRhklC.jpg


Compare Sardinians with other Europeans and Italians.

French have 37.6% of steppe ancestry, Spanish_North has 32.6%, Tuscans have 27.2%, Bergamo has 25%, Spanish have 22.3%, Greeks have 20%, Albanians have 18.5%, Sardinians have 7.1%, Sicilians have 5.9%.

LBK_EN (Early Neolithic) has already 10/20% of WHG.

Haak 2015

https://i.imgur.com/8febCZs.jpg



LBK_EN with some WHG (blue)


https://i.imgur.com/KNlJVjn.jpghttps://i.imgur.com/KNlJVjn.jpg

Angela
18-08-18, 19:38
Maybe this study just want to prove that Corsicans aren't related to Italians? A bit agenda-driven?





Sardinians range from 0% steppe ancestry to 9%, but the Sardinian average seems closer to 2-4% of steppe. I think Corsicans have more steppe ancestry than Sardinians.


Chiang 2016

https://i.imgur.com/AiRhklC.jpg


Compare Sardinians with other Europeans and Italians.

French have 37.6% of steppe ancestry, Spanish_North has 32.6%, Tuscans have 27.2%, Bergamo has 25%, Spanish have 22.3%, Greeks have 20%, Albanians have 18.5%, Sardinians have 7.1%, Sicilians have 5.9%.

LBK_EN (Early Neolithic) has already 10/20% of WHG.

Haak 2015

https://i.imgur.com/8febCZs.jpg



LBK_EN with some WHG (blue)


https://i.imgur.com/KNlJVjn.jpghttps://i.imgur.com/KNlJVjn.jpg

Good points. The inland areas have "total, real" WHG which is pretty high, given that LBK_EN already have 10-20% WHG, and then there's more, but steppe is extremely low. The coasts have less WHG and more steppe.