Haplogroup J2, Romans, Christianity and Viticulture

[Sile]

Ask any historian on the subject. It is well-known that the Arabs were the leaders of early Islam and they always established themselves at the top of the political ladder wherever they conquered, as is naturally done by all conquerors.



You should be asking those questions to the person who first brought it up as some sort of "counterargument" for a claim about a supposedly "Roman" genetic marker, and then ask the same question to yourself for trying to bring an agenda-driven Italian haplogroup study trying to make it look as if the genetic markers that they were using are really good indicators of medieval ancestry, which they aren't since they are thousands of years older.




Once again, you are looking at an agenda-driven paper which not only tried to ignore the fact that the haplogroup markers they were using are thousands of years older than Islam itself, but also mysteriously "forgot" the fact that Italy already had Near Eastern and North African populations during Roman times, long before Islam even existed.



Now you are quoting from Wikipedia junk, not even a real study or a specialized site, which is heavily manipulated by all sorts of t-r-o-l-l-s with different interests and agendas. And the 22% says was found in "Iberia", not Spain. Iberia is Spain + Portugal. And it was found actually in a small town in Portugal (Alcacer do Sal.)

You are a road block in finding the truth of ancient Iberia, .....advise me who the Carthaginians annexed in Spain and what was the haplotype. Clearly there where people already in iberia before the Carthaginians arrived, agree?

 

[Drac II]

You are a road block in finding the truth of ancient Iberia, .....advise me who the Carthaginians annexed in Spain and what was the haplotype. Clearly there where people already in iberia before the Carthaginians arrived, agree?

Yes, there were Iberians and Celts in Iberia before that. Haven't we been over this before? I think so. The Carthaginian armies in Europe (which ended up invading Italy through the Alps, BTW) were made up mostly of Iberian and Celtic mercenaries, not Carthaginians. They were a mercenary army. Carthaginians were not as nationalistic as their Roman foes at the time, when their armies were almost exlusively made up of Romans, not foreign conscripts.

 

[Nobody1]

Nope. This is not a haplogroup study, it's already "averaged".

What?

So? There is genetic differences among Spaniards too, specially in this regard, but they did not extend the same "courtesy" to them. You are comparing isolated regional results to country-wide results

And?
Do those "isolated regions" not stand for themselves;
Yes they do (Genetically);

Oh, wow, there go again those silly maps you like to plaster all over the place since they seem to agree with your agenda. Those are IBDs, by the way. I am sure you already know how they can be viewed with suspicion since they do not indicate the direction of gene flow:

http://livingbiology.com/ibd-sharing-between-iberians-and-north-africans-botigue-et-al-2013/


Funny how you don't like to plaster that one all over the place, isn't it, even though it comes from the exact same paper.

Concerning the Sub-Saharan admixture; just take a look at p.8 & p.9

Botigue et al 2013 - p.8 / p.9
http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2013/05/30/1306223110.DCSupplemental/sapp.pdf

ITA is lower than SPA
ITA is the same as GAL (Galicia)
ITA is much lower than AND (Andalusia)
TSI (Tuscans) is far lower than anything in Iberia
SWZ_IT is far lower than anything in Iberia

POR (Portugal) tops the charts again - by far;

The map [post#61] from this study [Botigue et al 2013] of course represents these values exactly;

Oh, and take a look at one of the graphics from actual admixture analysis from the same study, showing no sub-Saharan in Spain (except only Basques) at k=6 level, while Italy still shows it.

Are you joking?
And have you noticed K=3/k=4/k=5

And can you also provide the full study to that chart; and not just the bits and pieces;

 

[Drac II]

What?

You know "what". This is not the "divide by x" case as with haplogroup frequency studies. Autosomal results are already averaged.

And?
Do those "isolated regions" not stand for themselves;
Yes they do (Genetically);

Not in the study they don't. They lumped all of Spain as one. So it is not possible to know what the results would have been for northern or western Spain, as opposed to southern or eastern Spain, had they decided to do something along the lines they did for Italy. Perhaps the majority of their autosomal "African" results was found more concentrated in the south or NW of Spain.

Concerning the Sub-Saharan admixture; just take a look at p.8 & p.9

Botigue et al 2013 - p.8 / p.9
http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2013/05/30/1306223110.DCSupplemental/sapp.pdf

ITA is lower than SPA
ITA is the same as GAL (Galicia)
ITA is much lower than AND (Andalusia)
TSI (Tuscans) is far lower than anything in Iberia
SWZ_IT is far lower than anything in Iberia

POR (Portugal) tops the charts again - by far;

The map [post#61] from this study [Botigue et al 2013] of course represents these values exactly;

The map is for IBDs. Their admixture results are another thing (the graphic I posted is a tabulation of these results.) Which takes us back to this:

Are you joking?
And have you noticed K=3/k=4/k=5

And can you also provide the full study to that chart; and not just the bits and pieces;

Those results were tabulated from the exact same study (page 11)

And are you the one joking? K=6 is a better resolution than the lower Ks. At that higher level all the "sub-Saharan" in the non-Basque Spanish samples disappears, while in the non-Tuscan Italian samples there is still some visible.

 

[Angela]

Actually it's the other way around: it is tiresome to engage in discussions with some Italian posters for precisely this reason. What is there to be concerned about? Well you tell me. All those things you try to argue against some Spanish posters actually apply to such Italian posters, ironically. You want to accept any claim said in dubious/junky/agenda-driven genetic papers about Spain, but not those about Italy.

The study was written by Italian geneticists themselves, and 52 Aims autosomal is still a better and more informative genetic quantifier than any haplogroup, which is only a small part of the DNA, yet you want to give preference to the latter simply because it seems to support your wishes that Spain should be more "African" than Italy.

Moorjani et al. 2011 did not "realize" anything, as far as I know. They still stick to their results and their claims, even though some of them are indeed faulty (their autosomal results are not entirely in agreement with haplogroup results of previous studies, as they wished to pretend they were.)

You mean like that recent pigmentation study that showed Portuguese as lighter than Italians and that your pal Nobody1 has been trying to "spin" since day 1, as he usually does with anything that goes "against" Italy in these topics?

Please don't lay all the blame on the Italian academics for that junk paper...there were Spaniards involved too

Also, I would totally agree that there are Italian posters on "anthrofora" who also don't know what they're talking about. There's a reason I don't frequent those sites. Furthermore, I don't speak for anyone but myself.

Did I ever say that y dna or mt dna is very informative about total genetic similarity? I think I'm on record all over this site saying the opposite.

Junk is junk no matter who does it...52 AIMS is ridiculous and totally outdated in terms of autosomal analysis. You are aware that autosomal studies today from internationally recognized universities use at least 500,000 autosomal snps, yes?

As for Patterson et al, and Lipson et al, it's the SAME exact people...the same group from Harvard and M.I.T. that produced Moorjani et al 2011. Honestly, I don't know how to make this any clearer...look at the authors of the Patterson et al paper (2012)...Moorjani is one of the authors of that and the subsequent Lipson et al.(2013) Moorjani et al 2011 was off because they didn't take into account the North Eurasian admixture which is higher in northern Europeans.

Moorjani et al 2011 was first. Dienekes explained why the methodology was wrong here...they used a two population model when they should have used a three population model (i.e. they didn't take into account the north east Asian shift in northern Europeans.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/04/sub-saharan-admixture-in-west-eurasian.html

Then, lo and behold, Patterson et al comes out, and then Lipson et al, which do use a three population model.
Patterson et al http://www.genetics.org/content/early/2012/09/06/genetics.112.145037.full.pdf
Lipson et al: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1212.2555v2.pdf
Lipson et al is discussed here:http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/12/efficient-moment-based-inference-of.html

It's very clear.

I don't see what the huge issue is...Look at Globe 13 dodecad analysis...
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ArAJcY18g2GadF9CLUJnTUdSbkVJaDR2UkRtUE9kaUE#gid=2
All the Spanish populations are analyzed, as are the Italian populations.

The highest number for combined West African, Paleo African and East African for any Spanish population is 2.3, I think, in Galicians. Catalans seem to have about .3 West African. What's so terrible about that? As someone mentioned, for these alleles to be retained, perhaps they confer some sort of selective advantage in these environments.

By the way, the Sicilians have 1.7, the southern Italians have 1.2. In this particular analysis the Tuscans don't show any, but I've seen analyses, older ones, that show .5 or something. I'm sort of half Tuscan... should I get bent out of shape over this?

I truly regret bringing up the pigmentation study as it's so completely off topic...but no, I don't mean any comparison of people's skin tones...I mean actual snps for pigmentation.

The table I was thinking of is actually in the Lucotte et al 2011 study here:
http://www.academicjournals.org/JEBR/PDF/pdf2011/March/Lucotte and Yuasa pdf.pdf

The most recent study is Norton et al: http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/24/3/710.long

This is the pigmentation table from that study, which examines all five snps involved, but it's only of the HapMap populations.
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/suppl/2006/12/21/msl203.DC1/mbe-06-0529-File010_msl203.pdf

This is a graphic for all the populations:
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/24/3/710/F3.expansion.html
You can click on each map to see a larger version.

Of course, the only scientific purpose for this kind of study is to show that this trait is subject to selection based on the solar radiation of the location. There's no absolute value attached to having less pigmentation. You really shouldn't assume that everyone thinks there is...I, for one, quite prefer Mediterranean phenotypes.

(And, by the way, you're not understanding the importance of the lower "K" levels.)

And now, I'm out of this discussion. For one thing, all of this has been off-topic, and I apologize for my share in it. For another, there's no point in discussion if it's not going to be rational.

 

[Noman]

Pigmentation is highly selected for so don't base ancestry on that. Meaning, yes, you don't have as much darnkness as you might because lightness is slected for by most mates. But that doesn't change the real ancestry of the person.

So we come back to what I said about looking at autosomal DNA for populations and how ridiculous it is. There's absolutely no such thing as a "neutral" marker that is homogenous in a population. They have to be selected on somehow for that to happen, and that completely invalidates ALL these nonsense studies.

I can't see how you can talk about rationality when you consistently say the y-dna and mtDNA in populations aren't indicative of anything but that skin color genes are.

 

[Drac II]

Please don't lay all the blame on the Italian academics for that junk paper...there were Spaniards involved too

In cooperation with and approval of their Italian colleagues

Did I ever say that y dna or mt dna is very informative about total genetic similarity? I think I'm on record all over this site saying the opposite.

Junk is junk no matter who does it...52 AIMS is ridiculous and totally outdated in terms of autosomal analysis. You are aware that autosomal studies today from internationally recognized universities use at least 500,000 autosomal snps, yes?

52 AIMS might not be the best, but it still doesn't change the basic results. All populations were analyzed using the same autosomal method, yet the Italians came up with a higher proportion of what the authors concluded was "sub-Saharan African" than any of the other Europeans sampled. You can argue that the 9.2% figure might be inflated and the actual value is lower, but then again so would it be for the other populations. Whatever the actual percentages are, the proportions remain.

As for Patterson et al, and Lipson et al, it's the SAME exact people...the same group from Harvard and M.I.T. that produced Moorjani et al 2011. Honestly, I don't know how to make this any clearer...look at the authors of the Patterson et al paper (2012)...Moorjani is one of the authors of that and the subsequent Lipson et al.(2013) Moorjani et al 2011 was off because they didn't take into account the North Eurasian admixture which is higher in northern Europeans.

Moorjani et al 2011 was first. Dienekes explained why the methodology was wrong here...they used a two population model when they should have used a three population model (i.e. they didn't take into account the north east Asian shift in northern Europeans.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/04/sub-saharan-admixture-in-west-eurasian.html

Then, lo and behold, Patterson et al comes out, and then Lipson et al, which do use a three population model.
Patterson et al http://www.genetics.org/content/early/2012/09/06/genetics.112.145037.full.pdf
Lipson et al: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1212.2555v2.pdf
Lipson et al is discussed here:http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/12/efficient-moment-based-inference-of.html

It's very clear.

The fact that some people have found faults with a given study does not mean that their authors have acknowledged any of them and recanted. Many of these geneticists can be incredibly stubborn and will not accept faults in their methodology or conclusions. For example, of all the people who participated in that infamous Adams et al. (2008) study about Iberians, only one (Calafell) sort of recanted some of their absurd claims (the one about estimates of supposed "Jewish" ancestry by using Neolithic markers like J and I, which Calafell admitted were dubious at best.) It's been 5 years, and despite all the pointed out flaws and criticism, even by some of their fellow geneticists (Stephen Oppenheimer, for example), and the rest of the authors still have not "officially" recanted. So I still have my doubts that anyone from Moorjani et al. 2011 has rejected any of their conclusions either, just like so many other claims in genetic studies of this nature. Show me if you know any paper or interview by any of its authors where any of their own claims are rejected.

I don't see what the huge issue is...Look at Globe 13 dodecad analysis...
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/04/sub-saharan-admixture-in-west-eurasian.html
All the Spanish populations are analyzed, as are the Italian populations.

The highest number for combined West African, Paleo African and East African for any Spanish population is 2.3, I think, in Galicians. Catalans seem to have about .3 West African. What's so terrible about that? As someone mentioned, for these alleles to be retained, perhaps they confer some sort of selective advantage in these environments.

By the way, the Sicilians have 1.7, the southern Italians have 1.2. In this particular analysis the Tuscans don't show any, but I've seen analyses, older ones, that show .5 or something. I'm sort of half Tuscan... should I get bent out of shape over this?

Where are these figures? The link you posted is just a commentary on the Moorjani et al. 2011 paper.

I truly regret bringing up the pigmentation study as it's so completely off topic...but no, I don't mean any comparison of people's skin tones...I mean actual snps for pigmentation.

The table I was thinking of is actually in the Lucotte et al 2011 study here:
http://www.academicjournals.org/JEBR/PDF/pdf2011/March/Lucotte and Yuasa pdf.pdf

The most recent study is Norton et al: http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/24/3/710.long

This is the pigmentation table from that study, which examines all five snps involved, but it's only of the HapMap populations.
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/suppl/2006/12/21/msl203.DC1/mbe-06-0529-File010_msl203.pdf

This is a graphic for all the populations:
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/24/3/710/F3.expansion.html
You can click on each map to see a larger version.

Of course, the only scientific purpose for this kind of study is to show that this trait is subject to selection based on the solar radiation of the location. There's no absolute value attached to having less pigmentation. You really shouldn't assume that everyone thinks there is...I, for one, quite prefer Mediterranean phenotypes.

"Mediterranean" phenotypes have nothing to do with pigmentation, and I think you already realize that such conjectures about SNPs mean little when it comes to measuring actual skin pigmentation. The already referred to study that found Portuguese samples to be lighter than Italian samples (Candille et al. 2012) also found more of these SNPs among Italians than among Portuguese, yet when the actual measurement took place (in unexposed parts of the body, to avoid effects of tanning) the Italians were found to have a higher frequency of darker skin tones. When it comes to pigmentation studies, actual physical measurements still have the final word. "The proof is in the pudding", as they say.

(And, by the way, you're not understanding the importance of the lower "K" levels.)

And now, I'm out of this discussion. For one thing, all of this has been off-topic, and I apologize for my share in it. For another, there's no point in discussion if it's not going to be rational.

If you have been around genetic discussion forums, you will see that more reliance is placed on the higher K levels than on the lower.

 

[Sile]

Yes, there were Iberians and Celts in Iberia before that. Haven't we been over this before? I think so. The Carthaginian armies in Europe (which ended up invading Italy through the Alps, BTW) were made up mostly of Iberian and Celtic mercenaries, not Carthaginians. They were a mercenary army. Carthaginians were not as nationalistic as their Roman foes at the time, when their armies were almost exlusively made up of Romans, not foreign conscripts.

I took your advice and used K12b Dodecad and found what I wanted...thanks

Portuguese_D	Dodecad
Sephardic_Jews	Behar
Castilla_Y_Leon_1KG	1000Genomes
Extremadura_1KG	1000Genomes
Murcia_1KG	1000Genomes
Andalucia_1KG	1000Genomes
Spanish_D	Dodecad
Galicia_1KG	1000Genomes
Ashkenazy_Jews	Behar
Sicilian_D	Dodecad
Baleares_1KG	1000Genomes
Castilla_La_Mancha_1KG	1000Genomes
Aragon_1KG	1000Genomes
Cantabria_1KG	1000Genomes
Spaniards	Behar
Valencia_1KG	1000Genomes
Sardinian	HGDP
S_Italian_Sicilian_D	Dodecad
Cataluna_1KG	1000Genomes
C_Italian_D	Dodecad
O_Italian_D	Dodecad
N_Italian_D	Dodecad
TSI30	Metspalu
North_Italian	HGDP
French_Basque	HGDP

[TD="width: 116"]Population[/TD]
[TD="width: 114"]Source[/TD]
[TD="width: 64"]N[/TD]
[TD="width: 114"]Northwest_African[/TD]

[TD="align: right"]9[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]7.7[/TD]

[TD="align: right"]19[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]6.2[/TD]

[TD="align: right"]12[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]6.1[/TD]

[TD="align: right"]8[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]6[/TD]

[TD="align: right"]8[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]6[/TD]

[TD="align: right"]4[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]5.1[/TD]

[TD="align: right"]20[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]5.1[/TD]

[TD="align: right"]8[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]5[/TD]

[TD="align: right"]17[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]4.2[/TD]

[TD="align: right"]15[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]4.1[/TD]

[TD="align: right"]6[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]3.7[/TD]

[TD="align: right"]6[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]3.5[/TD]

[TD="align: right"]6[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]3.4[/TD]

[TD="align: right"]6[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]3.1[/TD]

[TD="align: right"]10[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]3[/TD]

[TD="align: right"]10[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]3[/TD]

[TD="align: right"]24[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]2.6[/TD]

[TD="align: right"]10[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]2.5[/TD]

[TD="align: right"]8[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]2.4[/TD]

[TD="align: right"]13[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]2.3[/TD]

[TD="align: right"]5[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]1.1[/TD]

[TD="align: right"]5[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.9[/TD]

[TD="align: right"]21[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.8[/TD]

[TD="align: right"]11[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.7[/TD]

[TD="align: right"]21[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0[/TD]

northwest African which is berber is on the far right

BTW, I care little for nations in Europe because I currently favour the removal of all nations in the EU so that the EU can be saved.

 

[Nobody1]

The map is for IBDs. Their admixture results are another thing (the graphic I posted is a tabulation of these results.) Which takes us back to this:

Botigue et al 2013 -
North African samples that have highest IBD sharing with Iberian populations also tend to have the lowest proportion of the European cluster in ADMIXTURE(Fig.1), e.g. Saharawi, Tunisian, Berbers and South Moroccans.
This suggests that gene flow occurred from Africa to Europe rather than the other way around.

So the map [post # 61] and the IBD sharing results from p.8/p.9 are not as insignificant as you claim them to be;
And with Portugal and Spain having the highest IBD sharing with Africa - clearly reveals the gene flow;

Botigue et al 2013 - p.8/p.9
http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2013/05/30/1306223110.DCSupplemental/sapp.pdf

52 AIMS might not be the best, but it still doesn't change the basic results. All populations were analyzed using the same autosomal method, yet the Italians came up with a higher proportion of what the authors concluded was "sub-Saharan African" than any of the other Europeans sampled. You can argue that the 9.2% figure might be inflated and the actual value is lower, but then again so would it be for the other populations. Whatever the actual percentages are, the proportions remain.

Those 52 AIMs (Brisighelli et al 2013) also revealed that North Spain and Portugal are 7.7% sub-saharan admixture;

 

[Knovas]

Actually when dealing with components such as Northwest African or East African, which are not purely African at all, the results should be taken with a lot of caution. For instance, an individual showing less than 1% East African it is unlikely to have any Sub-Saharan ancestry, since the West Eurasian shift can easily produce the aforementioned result. Even 0.5% Sub-Saharan is ridiculously low to be taken seriously (as fact). I know to some extent all Europeans carry some sort of admixture, so keep in mind I refer to something significant, relevant and easy to quantify, which I don't see it is the case in both Italy and Spain (note the one who's posting does not consider himself Spanish).

Checking idividual Globe13 results, all Europeans have 0.3%, 0.8% (and so on) of something. Time to wonder why.

Being that said, it seems to me some individuals keep going on trying to give more relevance always to the same exact things. And that's not only biased, but also incredibly boring.

PD: Nobody, your last post it is not true at all, or at least the conclusions stated in the paper. What North Africans share the most with Iberias is their Sardinian-like ancestry, labeled as Mediterranean in Dodecad experiments. So the gene flow occured mostly the other way around, I don't see the point in denying such thing when North Africans are, obviously, overwhelmingly West Eurasian regarding genetics. So that's the answer to the IBD sharing issue, I think there's no doubt about it.

 

[RHAS]

Note! : Eupedia forum rule nr. 4. STAY ON TOPIC

"Avoid posting messages that are out of context or irrelevant to a topic. While we encourage your participation, such posts will either be moved to another forum or deleted in order to ensure a thread`s consistency. If you do want to write a post that is to off topic you can always start a new thread."

Topic = Haplogroup J2, Romans, Christianity and Viticulture.

 

[RHAS]

 

[RHAS]

Aeneas and J-M92.

Just some funny myth in this J-M92 maps regard i just noticed. The red area in Anatolia is were Troy was situated. Aeneas and his family, when he fled Troy, eventually ended up in Cumae near Naples (the other red area in Italy) were he saw some priestes of Apollo. She told him his descendants would create the Roman Empire. (Romulus and Remus)

"In Greco-Roman mythology, Aeneas (/ɪˈniːəs/; Greek: Αἰνείας, Aineías, possibly derived from Greek αἰνή meaning "praise") was a Trojan hero, the son of the prince Anchises and the goddess Aphrodite. His father was the second cousin of King Priam of Troy, making Aeneas Priam's second cousin, once removed. He is a character in Greek mythology and is mentioned in Homer's Iliad, and receives full treatment in Roman mythology as the legendary founder of what would become Ancient Rome, most extensively in Virgil's Aeneid."
Aeneas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeneas

"An earlier tradition that gave Romulus a distant ancestor in the semi-divine Trojan prince Aeneas was further embellished, and Romulus was made the direct ancestor of Rome's first Imperial dynasty. Possible historical bases for the broad mythological narrative remain unclear and disputed. The image of the she-wolf suckling the divinely fathered twins became an iconic representation of the city and its founding legend, making Romulus and Remus preeminent among the feral children of ancient mythography."
Romulus and Remus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romulus_and_Remus

Haplogroup J-M92

Map Navigatio Troiani Aeneas

Map travels of Aeneas.

 

[RHAS]

 

[RHAS]

 

[RHAS]

 

[RHAS]

Romans, Christianity and viticulture.

"Now nearly extinct in the wild, grapes (vitis vinifera) grew throughout the ancient Mediterranean, the juice readily fermenting as the enzymes of wild yeasts that naturally collect on the waxy skin break down the sugar content of the grape into alcohol and carbon dioxide. In Italy, grape vines were cultivated both in the north by the Etruscans and in the south by Greek colonists. Wine growing was less important to the Romans, who, in the early years of the Republic, were fighting to expand their domination of the peninsula. By the middle of the second century BC, however, with the defeat of the Etruscans and the Samnites, Pyrrhus and the Greeks, Philip of Macedonia and the Carthaginians, Rome controlled the Mediterranean, and there were both the wealth and markets to invest in vineyards.The earliest work on wine and agriculture was written in Punic. After the destruction of Carthage in 146 BC, the Senate decreed that this treatise be translated into Latin, and it subsequently became the source for all Roman writing on viticulture. Ironically, it was Cato who had insisted on the destruction of Carthage in the Punic wars and who, about 160 BC, wrote De Agri Cultura, the first survey of Roman viticulture, which, significantly, also is the earliest surviving prose work in Latin. In it, he discusses the production of wine on large slave-based villa estates, which suggests how important vine cultivation had become in an agrarian economy that traditionally was subsistence farming."
Wine and Rome.
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/wine/wine.html

"Roman villas illustrate the Christianization of Europe, since the country villa served as "pieces of cities broken off" and Christianity originated as an urban religion.[39] The Galois aristocrats benefited from conversion by closer ties to Rome (and the emperor's family) after Constantine’s conversion. Roman culture was flexible, so a multicultural blend (or sympathetic intermingling) was usually the result with many villas religiously ambiguous. The local peasants (and their pagan traditions) were ignored; pre-Roman religious sites evolved into Roman cult sites and (later) Christian pilgrimage destinations. Because the church kept all records throughout the fall of Rome and the Middle Ages, historians have little information about local non-Christian beliefs."
Roman Villas in Northwestern Gaul.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_villas_in_northwestern_Gaul

 

[Sile]

Aeneas and J-M92.

Just some funny myth in this J-M92 maps regard i just noticed. The red area in Anatolia is were Troy was situated. Aeneas and his family, when he fled Troy, eventually ended up in Cumae near Naples (the other red area in Italy) were he saw some priestes of Apollo. She told him his descendants would create the Roman Empire. (Romulus and Remus)

"In Greco-Roman mythology, Aeneas (/ɪˈniːəs/; Greek: Αἰνείας, Aineías, possibly derived from Greek αἰνή meaning "praise") was a Trojan hero, the son of the prince Anchises and the goddess Aphrodite. His father was the second cousin of King Priam of Troy, making Aeneas Priam's second cousin, once removed. He is a character in Greek mythology and is mentioned in Homer's Iliad, and receives full treatment in Roman mythology as the legendary founder of what would become Ancient Rome, most extensively in Virgil's Aeneid."
Aeneas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeneas

"An earlier tradition that gave Romulus a distant ancestor in the semi-divine Trojan prince Aeneas was further embellished, and Romulus was made the direct ancestor of Rome's first Imperial dynasty. Possible historical bases for the broad mythological narrative remain unclear and disputed. The image of the she-wolf suckling the divinely fathered twins became an iconic representation of the city and its founding legend, making Romulus and Remus preeminent among the feral children of ancient mythography."
Romulus and Remus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romulus_and_Remus

Where did you find that Aeneas ( an Anatolian dardanian ) was J-M92 ?.......or even that the Trojans where J-M92.
If this is correct, then Antenor who took the other Trojans via the black sea, along the Danube to settle in the lands of the north Adriatic area must be the same marker ............would you agree

 

[adamo]

Excellent post. J-M92 which is downstream of J-M67 (M-67) first radiated out from the caucasus, it's highest frequencies are associated with Nakh people's. About 87.4% of Ingush men in Malgobek are positive for M-67. Also found in 58% of Chechens from Dagestan and 55% of Chechens in Chechnya. It's also very heavy among the CHECHENS of Malgobek (Ingushetia) 50%. On a national level, 15% of Georgians are M67. Also, 10% of Cretans and north-central Italians are M-67. It can also be found sporadically across turkey,Armenia,Azerbaijan at 5-10% frequencies. As for J-M92, it is downstream of J-M67. It reaches it's highest frequencies in western turkey and southern Italy, indicating a general movement of certain particular J2 people's from the Caucasus region towards Italy. There are other subclades of J2 although in Italy as well.

 

[MOESAN]

On Sub-saharan......this is correct. Even though the Portuguese "owned" the western and south-east African areas and bought many many slaves to Lisbon for selling purposes. The "berber" E1b1b1 marker must have been in iberia, southern france and Italy way before the iron-age as the many in swiss and tyrol areas are noted as very very old branches of it. IMO it was one of the original markers in Iberia from the bronze-age.

I would even say this "berber" Y-E1b is for me older than any metal age: it could have been carried into all these lands at early neolithical time and even at mesolithical time (mesolithic in Iberia, maybe neolithic in Switzerland/Tyrol (some skeletons in neolithical Switzerland showed phenotypes that could confirm it, showing connexions with types of ancient sardinia and others with spouth-mediterranea types (? grimaldoids'? in part)