Moots: Ancient Rome Paper

[Salento]

R850....T1a1-L208.........mtdna T2c1f

R1543...T1a1-Z709.........H1e

R120....T1a2-L446.....I1c

@Torzio Do you know the Time Periods and Locations?

 

[Angela]

Interesting, so the samples that were South of Southern Italians, which disappeared after the fall of the Roman Empire, only came from one grave site.

I don't know how they can use that to make the claim that the entire Italian genome was changed by this kind of ethnicity. Especially when their own data shows that it disappears after Late Antiquity.



Thanks for sharing, it kind of illustrates how naive the inferences in this study are.

NOTHING from Bronze age Italy???

No wonder there is a massive jump in Iran-like ancestry. It must have come from the South, via Greeks and previous Bronze Age populations there.

I can't be sure all the samples south of modern Southern Italians came only from Isola Sacra, because I haven't checked all the samples from the other sites within the city of Rome. It's important to know that. The fact that they didn't check that themselves is a serious flaw in their methodology. I'm going to try to figure it out today, if I have a chance, or maybe someone is doing it already. The Supplement gives sample numbers for each burial site. I'm particularly interested, as I said, in the ones from the Catacombs as well.

Then, did anyone find the isotope data for each sample? I don't see it anywhere. It would be important to see which samples grew up locally. Were they youngsters or older people? Also, would the isotope data for some of these samples match the isotopes in, say, southern Italy or Sicily, or Greece.

God, I wish Patrick Geary had worked on this, although given we don't have grave goods or signs of different burial rites or even inscriptions, there's not much to go on. That comment in the paper itself about inscriptions in Hebrew and Aramaic seems to be a general one taken from a paper. None of the samples in the paper seems to have any inscriptions or names whatsoever.

 

[Aspurg]

1. Given that this L283 sample is a downstream branch of the older Croatian clade, this is not a good candidate for being a local Etruscan clade, but rather having it's origins in the Illyrian coast.


2. Unlikely scenario with no precedence to propose some shared ancestor for both Illyrian and "Etruscan" J2b2-l283. There is not tradition, mention, or archaeological presence of Etruscans on the Illyrian coast. Whereas the post Trojan war Illyrian presence in Italy is attested in myth, presence of Illyric languages, etc.


3. The Illyrian coast, today among Albanians, is also where we find the highest diversity and frequency of L283 clades.

He belongs to J-CTS6190, so he is related to J-Y15058 I4331. Yet looking at the spread and diversity of CTS6190, and as Etruscan clusters with the American it is obvious, considering Portuguese, Italian samples at YFull, that the entire CTS6190 has Etruscan affiliation.
Regarding it's origins:

A) It arrived from the East as you and all Albanians suggest because you have to defend your "J-L283 came out of Steppe".

B) It did not arrive from the East. CTS6190 separated from the PH1602 3800 ybp. So it has had a small bottleneck, and its distance to other clades dates to MBA. There is one Sardinian sample too at YFull but he has no readings for anything under.. The culture where Dalmatian J-L283 was found is abundant in Italian connections. Autosomally I4331 clusters with North Italians, Iberians, not with Albanians.. That is an indication of it having arrived from Italy as archaeological evidence suggests! And even LBA sample from the region is very similar autosomally! That does not favor the Out of Steppe! Why? 1200 BC it had same makeup as 1600 BC, this indicates continuity and that means likely expansion from the east rather than 1900 BC this sample being autosomally 100 % Yamnaya or something like that!! It's more likely that 1900 BC it had a similar makeup!

As I suggested in my first post on eupedia, J-L283 mingled with Bell Beakers and arrived from NE Italy to Dalmatia. And now to claim this is not true you have to argue that somehow the only Etruscan Y-DNA find represents a small minority of Out of Steppe Illyrians. Not only that, you have several J-L283 Nuragic Sardinian finds, Trojet suggesting they arrived there from the Balkans based on J-L283 not being found earlier than that on a large sample of few people, yeah right.. So you claim this Etruscan represents 1-2 % of Etruscans? Mathematical probabilities are not good for that. When you start probing a population, usually more common haplogroups pop out first..

So Nuragic Sardinians and Etruscans seem to have had a substantial Steppe influence, who could have expected that.. Amazing.. We see such a diversity of typical Steppe lineages such as R-Z2103, R-P311 in Nuragic Sardinia, Etruscans don't we.. The Steppe R-V88.. and ofc older subclades J-L283>YP29, J-L283>YP157, J-L283>YP113 are abundant in the Steppe..

I told you Bell Beaker expansion for L283 is more likely..

In any case it seems that J-CTS6190 itself is Etruscan..

Etruscan and Illyrian are two different langauges, this is not a claim that Etruscan is Illyrian. This is evidence that points to the post Trojan war entry of Illyrian speakers into Italy, where they mingled with the Italics and Etruscans, that were already there.

You keep mentioning those Trojan Dardanians in the context of Illyrians. If there were Dardanians in the time of Trojans, by clear archaeological evidence they most definitely were not Illyrian but Moesian.
Illyrians expanded westwards into Dardania later, according to historical and archaeological evidence and formed a ruling class over pre-Illyrian original Dardanians (likely mostly E-V13). I don't have a problem with mentioning their possible migrations in those days but I do have a problem when someone says Dardanians they were Illyrian at that time.

 

[real expert]

" African Introgression
One particular usage of the f-statistics in our study is to test for African introgression for each of the Italian samples with f3(Test sample; CEU, Yoruba) and f4(Test sample, CEU; Yoruba, Onge). The f3 statistic tests whether across the genome, the allele frequency of the test sample is intermediate between those of Finnish and Yoruba, which is unexpected if the test sample, presumably of primarily European ancestry, forms a clade with Finnish with regard to Yoruba in the phylogenetic tree at all genomic loci. Therefore, a significantly negative f3 statistic provides evidence for African ancestry in the test sample. (In this particular application, we used the imputed diploid genotype data without the “inbreed: YES” option, because qp3Pop cannot calculate f3 when (1) the target is a single individual and (2) the “inbreed: YES” option.) For the f4 statistic described above, under the assumption that chimpanzee is an outgroup, a significant positive score suggests more allele sharing between the ancient Italian individual (test sample)and Yoruba than between CEU and Yoruba, thus pointing to African introgression in the Italian individual. This test alone does not exclude the possibility of gene flow in the reverse direction, i.e., from the Italian sample to Yoruba, but this alternative scenario is unlikely given current knowledge about the demographic history of Yoruba and does not produce a significant f3 statistic as formulated above.Taken together, significant signals in both tests provide strong evidence for African introgression, which is observed for 8 of the 127 Italian samples, including R475 from Iron Age, R80 and R132 from Imperial period (Fig. S23). We obtained qualitatively similar results by substituting Yoruba by Mota (an ancient African found in Ethiopia dated to ~2500 BCE) or Morocco_Iberomaurusian (hunter-gatherers from Morocco dated to 13,000-10,000 BCE) for the African population, and Onge by Papuan for the outgroup. We note that using Yoruba, Mota or Morocco hunter-gatherers as the representative African population is conservative for detecting more recent North African ancestry. We are using conservative estimates, since
data is not available from relevant, contemporaneous (e.g. Iron Age and Imperial) populations, such as Carthagians. For instance, qpAdm analysis using Late Neolithic individuals from Morocco models R475 as approximately 53% Late Neolithic Moroccan, 30% Italian Copper Age and 16% Steppe Eneolithic, whereas the estimates below show Morocco Iberomaurusian and Yoruban to be around 8 - 10% ancestry proportion for this individual. The African introgression signal we observe in the time series may reflect increased seafaring in the Mediterranean prior to Iron Age.Phoenician seafaring prowess had resulted in a network of colonies 20 across North Africa, engaged in trans-Mediterranean trade. Carthage, which began as a Phoenician trade colony in 1234 BCE, became the dominant naval state in the Mediterranean, with territory spanning

North African, Sardinia, Sicily, and Iberia (26). Egypt had been involved in trans-Mediterranean and trans-Saharan trade networks for over a millennium by the start of the Iron Age. And trans-Saharan trade routes, made easier by a greener, less arid Sahara than today, connected the states and communities of North Africa and the Mediterranean with their Saharan and Sub-Saharan counterparts (86). "


I‘m not sure whether I properly understood what this data says. Does this study suggest that Etruscans, Italics had North African or even SSA admixture or does it refer to Cartheganian/ North African migrants in Rome? I read many afrocentric websites that claim that Etruscans and original Romans were black. Please, can someone translate it in more layman- language. There are people who also claim that Etruscans originally came from Carthage via Anatolia, Troy due to the Etruscan female with 53% Morrocan mix.

 

[kingdavid]

by the way none of the ancient remains were from here
the greatest jewish catacombs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vigna_Randanini

so i don't lose hope on e-m123

i think those e-v12 that were found were syrians or even ancient phonicians not jews for sure

https://i.imgur.com/y9TLFwP.png

 

[Angela]

This is fast and dirty, folks, because I just don't have the time this morning. I hope someone checks the data.

These are the samples which seem to be south and southeast of modern Southern Italians, i.e. Anatolian/Syrian like, and their burial sites.

70
68
132 Marcellino and Pietro Catacombs
41 Isola Sacra
42 Isola Sacra
75 Viale Rossini
80 Viale Rossini
76 Viale Rossini
1550 Monte Rotondo
1547 Monte Rotondo
126 Casale del Dolce

We know about Isola Sacra

Viale Rossini Necropolis: again, on a road leading from a port

Casale del Dolce: one of the samples was an outlier
Low meat consumption, which might mean an indication of poverty.


None come from the Via Pasiello Necropolis in Northern Rome, or near the Mausoleo di Augusto near the Center of Rome or from the suburban Centocelli Necropolis, the latter of which is associated with a Roman Villa.

It does look indeed like a modern large city, with enclaves of people from certain areas living and being buried together.

I have to find 68 and 70.

 

[Angela]

" African Introgression
One particular usage of the f-statistics in our study is to test for African introgression for each of the Italian samples with f3(Test sample; CEU, Yoruba) and f4(Test sample, CEU; Yoruba, Onge). The f3 statistic tests whether across the genome, the allele frequency of the test sample is intermediate between those of Finnish and Yoruba, which is unexpected if the test sample, presumably of primarily European ancestry, forms a clade with Finnish with regard to Yoruba in the phylogenetic tree at all genomic loci. Therefore, a significantly negative f3 statistic provides evidence for African ancestry in the test sample. (In this particular application, we used the imputed diploid genotype data without the “inbreed: YES” option, because qp3Pop cannot calculate f3 when (1) the target is a single individual and (2) the “inbreed: YES” option.) For the f4 statistic described above, under the assumption that chimpanzee is an outgroup, a significant positive score suggests more allele sharing between the ancient Italian individual (test sample)and Yoruba than between CEU and Yoruba, thus pointing to African introgression in the Italian individual. This test alone does not exclude the possibility of gene flow in the reverse direction, i.e., from the Italian sample to Yoruba, but this alternative scenario is unlikely given current knowledge about the demographic history of Yoruba and does not produce a significant f3 statistic as formulated above.Taken together, significant signals in both tests provide strong evidence for African introgression, which is observed for 8 of the 127 Italian samples, including R475 from Iron Age, R80 and R132 from Imperial period (Fig. S23). We obtained qualitatively similar results by substituting Yoruba by Mota (an ancient African found in Ethiopia dated to ~2500 BCE) or Morocco_Iberomaurusian (hunter-gatherers from Morocco dated to 13,000-10,000 BCE) for the African population, and Onge by Papuan for the outgroup. We note that using Yoruba, Mota or Morocco hunter-gatherers as the representative African population is conservative for detecting more recent North African ancestry. We are using conservative estimates, since
data is not available from relevant, contemporaneous (e.g. Iron Age and Imperial) populations, such as Carthagians. For instance, qpAdm analysis using Late Neolithic individuals from Morocco models R475 as approximately 53% Late Neolithic Moroccan, 30% Italian Copper Age and 16% Steppe Eneolithic, whereas the estimates below show Morocco Iberomaurusian and Yoruban to be around 8 - 10% ancestry proportion for this individual. The African introgression signal we observe in the time series may reflect increased seafaring in the Mediterranean prior to Iron Age.Phoenician seafaring prowess had resulted in a network of colonies 20 across North Africa, engaged in trans-Mediterranean trade. Carthage, which began as a Phoenician trade colony in 1234 BCE, became the dominant naval state in the Mediterranean, with territory spanning

North African, Sardinia, Sicily, and Iberia (26). Egypt had been involved in trans-Mediterranean and trans-Saharan trade networks for over a millennium by the start of the Iron Age. And trans-Saharan trade routes, made easier by a greener, less arid Sahara than today, connected the states and communities of North Africa and the Mediterranean with their Saharan and Sub-Saharan counterparts (86). "


I‘m not sure whether I properly understood what this data says. Does this study suggest that Etruscans, Italics had North African or even SSA admixture or does it refer to Cartheganian/ North African migrants in Rome? I read many afrocentric websites that claim that Etruscans and original Romans were black. Please, can someone translate it in more layman- language. There are people who also claim that Etruscans originally came from Carthage via Anatolia, Troy due to the Etruscan female with 53% Morrocan mix.

Can you stop being a t-roll? Or are you people blind?

Just look at the admixture graph, and you can see the amount of African and where it is found. These were, for the Imperial Period, "ADMIXED people", i.e. perhaps some with a bit of actual African, but going by the autosomal composition, most likely people who had some North African in most cases; they were slaves or freed slaves or descendants of merchants or economic migrants. These were all poor people, with no substantial burials or grave goods, eating poor diets. They had nothing to do with the building of Roman civilization.

Stop displaying your ignorance.

Does no one read the Supplement?

As for the part African Etruscan, probably someone married an exotic wife. Hey, they traded with people from Phoenicia, probably with Carthaginians too. There was a bride exchange. It's as simple as that.

Ironic that contrary to the notion that the Romans took pretty mates from among the Northern and Central European populations, they seem to have liked North Africans at least as much.

For the challenged, that's the Republican Era and the Imperial Era. The part Iberomaurusian sample in the Republican Era is the Etruscan woman.

Any other reading I can do for you????

 

[Johane Derite]

Ah yes, J2b2, which is highest in Apulia and Po Valley. Those Messapics must be bell beakers. Messapic languages are bell beaker language?

 

[torzio]

1. Given that this L283 sample is a downstream branch of the older Croatian clade, this is not a good candidate for being a local Etruscan clade, but rather having it's origins in the Illyrian coast.

2. Unlikely scenario with no precedence to propose some shared ancestor for both Illyrian and "Etruscan" J2b2-l283. There is not tradition, mention, or archaeological presence of Etruscans on the Illyrian coast. Whereas the post Trojan war Illyrian presence in Italy is attested in myth, presence of Illyric languages, etc.

3. The Illyrian coast, today among Albanians, is also where we find the highest diversity and frequency of L283 clades.

Etruscan and Illyrian are two different langauges, this is not a claim that Etruscan is Illyrian. This is evidence that points to the post Trojan war entry of Illyrian speakers into Italy, where they mingled with the Italics and Etruscans, that were already there.

L283 is known as dalmatian or cetina culture
Besides, as per the map you supplied , from the red line northward was no sea , but land in ancient times

 

[CrazyDonkey]

In that regard, look what happens to the J1 in ancient Italy after the Imperial Era.

Razib Khan continues to get it:
https://www.gnxp.com/WordPress/2019...e-more/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

"A combination of the wars of the 6th-century, which are recorded to have depopulated much of Italy, and the overall decentering of Rome from the Mediterranean system after the ending of the Western Empire, probably resulted in the inevitable contraction of the Eternal City.Of course, Rome grew again over the centuries. But the new Romans were not the same Romans as those of the Roman Empire, who left few descendants. In addition to far off cosmopolitans, the bulk of the population was probably derived from northern Lazio and southern Tuscany. Rural people whose genetic makeup resembled the Iron Age Italians from whom they descended."

Some R1b comes in during the Neolithic - same as early influx found in Iberia? Seems to have been submerged or diluted beyond detection, since there is no sign of it in the copper age.

Major R1b influx during the iron age, including the Latins. J2 and T come in with R1b. Copper age male lines look to have been replaced or submerged.

Latins and Etruscans look to share at least the same base population. Question remains about the origin of the Etruscan language, while Latin is clearly Indo-European. A language can survive, however, even though the genetic imprint of its original carriers is diluted to nothing.

R1b shrinks during the Imperial period, likely due to dilution (disappearance of male lines during civil wars?).

R1b rebounds during late antiquity, undoubtedly due to fresh inputs (Goths, Lombards), and expands during the Medieval (progeny of the Ghibelline "dukes"?).

What is the T? It came in during the Iron Age, with R1b, but disappears after the Late Antiquity collapse.

 

[Angela]

if part of the CHG/iran neo in central italy did not come to italy during roman times, then who brought it? considering that south italy might have had more during bronze age before migrations from the north happened, how would it compare to anatolian bronze age people?

if the region of rome was completely depopulated why did the morocco HG not disappear in the region? it might have already been introduced in the bronze age too at lower levels? or maybe a large part of the population in rome survived or the ancestry diffused before rome was depopulated.

You consider this a significant amount of Morocco HG, leaving aside the fact that's a hell of a sample to use as reference? Perhaps you'd like to compare the amount of Morocco HG which remained and remains in Spain and Portugal.

Have you forgotten or didn't read the sections of the paper which show there was CHG/Iran Neo already in Italy in the NEOLITHIC? Who brought it? Migrants from Anatolia most likely, either directly or via Greece, migrants who had more CHG/Iran Neo than the ones who went to Central Europe, and of course it was mixed with Anatolian Neolithic.

JEEZ, people.

 

[Angela]

Is it true that not only one female Etruscan but all Etruscans, including the male had Iberomaurusian signals? Did Etruscans have cultural or genetical ties to Berbers, Phoenicians, Cathargians from North Africa? Besides what happened to the R1b and I1 Etruscans?

Are you blind? Go to post number 67.

People can post any opinion they choose here, but you don't get to deliberately mis-state facts which are abundantly clear from the paper.

You post one more bit of false information and you're out of here.

As for the information about Etruscans having I1 and R1b, that may be from the upcoming Reich paper. I don't know, but given how similar they are to the Latins, it wouldn't surprise me.

So, my "German" friend, you're posting from Texas? Isn't that where Drago posts from????

If you are Drago, perhaps you should busy yourself with all those North African and African admixed Spaniards from the Spanish paper.

 

[Aspurg]

Ah yes, J2b2, which is highest in Apulia and Po Valley. Those Messapics must be bell beakers. Messapic languages are bell beaker language?

Who is to say that Messapic is not descended of Bell Beaker? Bell Beaker language is unknown and some have postulated that languages such as Ligurian are its remnant, I've seen views about Venetian (that is Liburnian), most likely it was not Italo-Celtic but an older split from this group. Also metrically Albanians show similarities to Bell Beakers. The so called "Dinaric" type. That was the dominant type of many Bell Beakers, including Central European group, not the same as modern but this is where "Dinaric"/"Euro-Dinaric" features are first attested in history I believe - with Bell Beakers.

 

[valentinavalley2]

Who is to say that Messapic is not descended of Bell Beaker? Bell Beaker language is unknown and some have postulated that languages such as Ligurian are its remnant, I've seen views about Venetian (that is Liburnian), most likely it was not Italo-Celtic but an older split from this group. Also metrically Albanians show similarities to Bell Beakers. The so called "Dinaric" type. That was the dominant type of many Bell Beakers, including Central European group, not the same as modern but this is where "Dinaric"/"Euro-Dinaric" features are first attested in history I believe - with Bell Beakers.

Liburnians were originally Illyrian.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Maciamo]

Great! I am glad this paper is finally out.

In summary, what we can see at first sight is:

Mesolithic : typical HG autosomal DNA / Y-haplogroups I2a2-M436, I2a2a-M223

Neolithic : typical Anatolian farmer autosomal DNA / Y-haplogroups G2a-L91, but also R1b and J2a1-L26 (first Neolithic J2a1 in Europe, I believe).

Iron Age : Italic and Etruscan have very similar autosomal DNA, close to modern NW Italians but also French and Spaniards. Roman/Italic Y-DNA is all R1b-M269 or the Proto-Italo-Celtic R1b-P312 (most probably U152, IMHO). A single T1a1 is an autosomal outlier (unlikely to be of Italic origin). The only Etruscan Y-DNA is J2b1-L283 (big news, as the origins of this haplogroup remained relatively mysterious).

Interestingly no E1b1b before the Imperial Age, not even the pan-European E-V13.

 

[Angela]

The map for 300-700 AD shows immigration from the direction of Gallia and Britannia, not Central Europe:

See the blue arrow, which shows North-Western (rather than just northern) source of the bulk of this shift:

Looks like after the loss of Eastern provinces, people from Western provinces started migrating to Rome.

We are talking mostly about immigrants who were citizens of the Roman Empire, rather than barbarians.

Perhaps it included Roman citizens evacuated from Britain to Italy: https://www.jstor.org/stable/297204

Yes, well I'm not sure I buy their explanation, and nor does Razib Khan.

Rome was Ground Zero for looting, destruction etc. This was when Rome was sacked and plundered. People scattered. The capital of what was left of "Rome" in Italy was moved to Ravenna. Why the hell would people head toward it at that point in time?

People can't just speculate wildly while knowing nothing of what was going on historically.

The Gothic War raged in Italy between 376-382. Before people start with the Goths again, there weren't very many of them, there didn't need to be, what with the plague also raging.

[TABLE="class: wikitable, width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD]382[/TD]
[TD]3 October[/TD]
[TD]Gothic War (376–382): The Goths were made foederati of Rome and granted land and autonomy in Thrace, ending the war.[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

[TABLE="class: wikitable, width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD]402[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]The capital of the Western Roman Empire was moved to Ravenna.[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

[TABLE="class: wikitable, width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD]410[/TD]
[TD]24 August[/TD]
[TD]Sack of Rome (410): Rome was sacked by the Visigoths under their king Alaric I.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

[TABLE="class: wikitable, width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD]455[/TD]
[TD]16 March[/TD]
[TD]Valentinian III was assassinated on orders of the senator Petronius Maximus.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]17 March[/TD]
[TD]The Senate acclaimed Maximus augustus of the Western Roman Empire.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]31 May[/TD]
[TD]Maximus was killed by a mob as he attempted to flee Rome in the face of a Vandal advance.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2 June[/TD]
[TD]Sack of Rome (455): The Vandals entered and began to sack Rome.[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

In succeeding periods Byzantium caused the shots, and the Lombards and Byzantines battled all over Italy.

Please tell me how the authors could imagine that civilians from northwestern Europe were heading toward Rome to settle?

I'm honestly trying to keep an open mind about this, but it makes no sense.

If they're talking about soldiers of Germanic ancestry, i.e. Goths, Vandals, and Lombards, you'd need a lot of their yDna to affect such big changes, and it's just not there, other than in a few pockets easily accounted for by drift in some individual locations. THat's why the R1b in my area of Italy is over 70%, by the way, although the autosomal analysis tells a different tale.

I'll go back to Ralph and Coop. Based on IBD analysis, they found no signficiant "foreign" input into modern Italians after about 500 BC, which, I'll remind everyone is the Iron Age, hence Khan's hypothesis of how the area was re-settled.

If anything, this is a movement of people from more northern and northwestern parts of Italy toward the center and south.

Find a better theory based on knowledge of Roman history and I'll be glad to entertain it.

 

[valentinavalley2]

He belongs to J-CTS6190, so he is related to J-Y15058 I4331. Yet looking at the spread and diversity of CTS6190, and as Etruscan clusters with the American it is obvious, considering Portuguese, Italian samples at YFull, that the entire CTS6190 has Etruscan affiliation.
Regarding it's origins:

A) It arrived from the East as you and all Albanians suggest because you have to defend your "J-L283 came out of Steppe".

B) It did not arrive from the East. CTS6190 separated from the PH1602 3800 ybp. So it has had a small bottleneck, and its distance to other clades dates to MBA. There is one Sardinian sample too at YFull but he has no readings for anything under.. The culture where Dalmatian J-L283 was found is abundant in Italian connections. Autosomally I4331 clusters with North Italians, Iberians, not with Albanians.. That is an indication of it having arrived from Italy as archaeological evidence suggests! And even LBA sample from the region is very similar autosomally! That does not favor the Out of Steppe! Why? 1200 BC it had same makeup as 1600 BC, this indicates continuity and that means likely expansion from the east rather than 1900 BC this sample being autosomally 100 % Yamnaya or something like that!! It's more likely that 1900 BC it had a similar makeup!

As I suggested in my first post on eupedia, J-L283 mingled with Bell Beakers and arrived from NE Italy to Dalmatia. And now to claim this is not true you have to argue that somehow the only Etruscan Y-DNA find represents a small minority of Out of Steppe Illyrians. Not only that, you have several J-L283 Nuragic Sardinian finds, Trojet suggesting they arrived there from the Balkans based on J-L283 not being found earlier than that on a large sample of few people, yeah right.. So you claim this Etruscan represents 1-2 % of Etruscans? Mathematical probabilities are not good for that. When you start probing a population, usually more common haplogroups pop out first..

So Nuragic Sardinians and Etruscans seem to have had a substantial Steppe influence, who could have expected that.. Amazing.. We see such a diversity of typical Steppe lineages such as R-Z2103, R-P311 in Nuragic Sardinia, Etruscans don't we.. The Steppe R-V88.. and ofc older subclades J-L283>YP29, J-L283>YP157, J-L283>YP113 are abundant in the Steppe..

I told you Bell Beaker expansion for L283 is more likely..

In any case it seems that J-CTS6190 itself is Etruscan..




You keep mentioning those Trojan Dardanians in the context of Illyrians. If there were Dardanians in the time of Trojans, by clear archaeological evidence they most definitely were not Illyrian but Moesian.
Illyrians expanded westwards into Dardania later, according to historical and archaeological evidence and formed a ruling class over pre-Illyrian original Dardanians (likely mostly E-V13). I don't have a problem with mentioning their possible migrations in those days but I do have a problem when someone says Dardanians they were Illyrian at that time.

Trojans and Illyrians may actually have been related... I wouldn’t be surprised if they were...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Angela]

This is fast and dirty, folks, because I just don't have the time this morning. I hope someone checks the data.

These are the samples which seem to be south and southeast of modern Southern Italians, i.e. Anatolian/Syrian like, and their burial sites.

70
68
132 Marcellino and Pietro Catacombs
41 Isola Sacra
42 Isola Sacra
75 Viale Rossini
80 Viale Rossini
76 Viale Rossini
1550 Monte Rotondo
1547 Monte Rotondo
126 Casale del Dolce

We know about Isola Sacra

Viale Rossini Necropolis: again, on a road leading from a port

Casale del Dolce: one of the samples was an outlier
Low meat consumption, which might mean an indication of poverty.


None come from the Via Pasiello Necropolis in Northern Rome, or near the Mausoleo di Augusto near the Center of Rome or from the suburban Centocelli Necropolis, the latter of which is associated with a Roman Villa.

It does look indeed like a modern large city, with enclaves of people from certain areas living and being buried together.

I have to find 68 and 70.

I find 68 and 70 on the list of ancient samples as being from Imperial Rome, but in the archaeology section they're not assigned to any particular necropolis. That's a definite error.

It would be nice if they could spell, too.

This is why people should publish pre-prints. They then have a chance to clean up their papers before publication.

As per their graphic of the samples from Isola Sacra, a lot more of those very "Southern" samples come from there than I have on my list.

 

[Angela]

Some R1b comes in during the Neolithic - same as early influx found in Iberia? Seems to have been submerged or diluted beyond detection, since there is no sign of it in the copper age.

Major R1b influx during the iron age, including the Latins. J2 and T come in with R1b. Copper age male lines look to have been replaced or submerged.

Latins and Etruscans look to share at least the same base population. Question remains about the origin of the Etruscan language, while Latin is clearly Indo-European. A language can survive, however, even though the genetic imprint of its original carriers is diluted to nothing.

R1b shrinks during the Imperial period, likely due to dilution (disappearance of male lines during civil wars?).

R1b rebounds during late antiquity, undoubtedly due to fresh inputs (Goths, Lombards), and expands during the Medieval (progeny of the Ghibelline "dukes"?).

What is the T? It came in during the Iron Age, with R1b, but disappears after the Late Antiquity collapse.

I think that R1b in the Mesolithic may turn out to be V88. The authors point out that the sample which carried it had unusually high percentages of WHG.

The only J I see in the Republican/Iron Age is J-M12. Isn't that the J2b found in the Etruscan male? That could be local Neolithic, or diffused Neolithic picked up by steppe people all over the Balkans and Italy.

I think Etruscan may turn out to be like Basque, i.e. a local language adopted by some of the newcomers.

If the people studying the R1b lines are correct, most of that Latin R1b may be U-152 and subclades. Like I said, if there is an afterlife, my father is delirious with joy; he was more a fan of the Romans than I am, and he carried U-152, and he was northwestern Italian. If with more Etruscan samples they're also U-152, well, words fail me as to his probable reaction. I have the hunch, however, they may carry slightly different sub-clades of R1b.

Goths and Lombards are highly unlikely to have carried R1b U-152 as major lineages. All the Lombards we have to date are, for example, U-106. There is extremely little of that or I1 in Lazio today. There are five I's in all those Late Antiquity/Early Medieval samples. Can someone categorize them? Also, has anyone figured out if there's any U-106?

If the authors were going to collect yDna, you might think they'd consider it in their analyses.

 

[torzio]

Who is to say that Messapic is not descended of Bell Beaker? Bell Beaker language is unknown and some have postulated that languages such as Ligurian are its remnant, I've seen views about Venetian (that is Liburnian), most likely it was not Italo-Celtic but an older split from this group. Also metrically Albanians show similarities to Bell Beakers. The so called "Dinaric" type. That was the dominant type of many Bell Beakers, including Central European group, not the same as modern but this is where "Dinaric"/"Euro-Dinaric" features are first attested in history I believe - with Bell Beakers.

Messapics are the smallest of the tribes
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messapians