I am just going by the PCA of the paper, where does Croatian IA plot? I don't see it in the PCA.Quote:
Originally Posted by torzio
Printable View
I am just going by the PCA of the paper, where does Croatian IA plot? I don't see it in the PCA.Quote:
Originally Posted by torzio
I think E-V13 has nothing to do with Illyrians after this.
It's likely Thracian and possibly Greek marker. I think it should match well the spread of cremation burials in Balkans during Late Bronze Age to Iron Age.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawk
you have some E-V13 in these croatian ( liburnian -dalmatian areas )
R1a-M17 ... 31%
I2a-Y3120 ... 25%
R1b ... 16%
J2 ... 12%
G2a-P15 ... 7%
E1b-V13 ... 4%
and other 4% is T, L, N and I1
@Torzio,
Could you cite the part of the paper that says they have an affinity to Croatian IA as well? I have only had a chance to skim through it. Don't mean to be lazy, but I have a lot of personal tasks to do at the moment. I mean to read the paper in full later tonight.
On the PCA they appear to be south of Iberians, and west of Central and Southern Italy.
https://i.imgur.com/3Rp8SKk.png
see post #18Quote:
Originally Posted by Jovialis
How it can be Greek if expanded in Iron Age from Danubian Basin.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawk
Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum
Thanks for that, looks like they are genetically "south" of Italy_IA_Republic (highlighted inside the purple square). Indeed, they have an affinity to them, as well as Croatia_IA, but they are still to the direct "west: of Central and Southern Italy. In fact, together, both Italy_IA_Republic, and IA Apulia span the Italian peninsula, genetically form North to South, however, they are to the "West" of the modern population.Quote:
Originally Posted by torzio
R1 is the one I circled to the east of Italy_IA_Republic, it is considered a so-called outlier here.
In fact, some of the more southern IA apulian samples would fit right in with the so-call Latin outlier, R437.
https://i.imgur.com/CDyp1pS.png
Checking the citation here 22 and 24, it is clear that Levant (Sea People) was reference to the Philistine ASH068, who clusters with Mycenaeans, as well as some of the more southernly IA_Apulians.Quote:
257 The new genomic sequences Daunian samples reveal that Iron Age (pre-Imperial)
258 Southern Italy (Apulia) can be placed within a Pan-Mediterranean genetic continuum that stretches
from Crete (Minoans25) and the Levant (Sea People22,24 259 ) to the Republican Rome and the Iberian
Peninsula6
260 , mainly composed by AN and IN/CHG genetic features with the addition of WHG and
261 Steppe-related influences in Continental Italy. P
This is basically what I am saying above. The Apulian_IA is between the IA_Latins & Etruscans, Minoans, Philistines, etc. Which is genetically "west" of modern Italy from North to South. This is what is meant by "Pan-Mediterranean genetic continuum"
thanksQuote:
Originally Posted by Jovialis
The paper does say
we know that they were
mainly farmers, animal breeders, horsemen and maritime traders with an established trade network
extending across the sea with Illyrian tribes8–10. A fascinating aspect of this population, as opposed
to their neighbours in Apulia, was their tenacious resistance to external influences. For instance,
they did not acquire either social or cultural Hellenic elements and no Greek alphabet inscriptions
We extracted DNA from 34 human skeletal remains
sequencing runs were merged resulting in 16 individuals for genome-wide analysis:
Out of those 16 individuals,we selected 10 individuals based on their proximity within the
principal component analysis (PCA) space (Figure1C) for radiocarbon dating and estimated their
age between 1157 and 275 calBCE with a median date of 521 calBCE
.............................
Here I circled the location of R437 and R850, the two Latin "outliers".
R437 plots right next to the IA Apulian ORDO01
https://i.imgur.com/bgGHqFW.png
as of 2 years ago Israeli archeologists state Philistines originate from Eastern Crete ................they are not from the LevantQuote:
Originally Posted by Jovialis
this paper says
A fascinating aspect of this population, as opposed
to their neighbours in Apulia, was their tenacious resistance to external influences. For instance,
they did not acquire either social or cultural Hellenic elements and no Greek alphabet inscriptions
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jovialis
is VK538 .....from Foggia ...L1a13ba Ydna close to any of these?
https://i.imgur.com/LjOgNZQ.png
Here are the Imperial samples used in the PCA. The clear overlap of modern Apulia with C6, is evident. Considering, R437 another Iron Age sample, clusters closely with ORD001, reasserts the notion that this kind of ancestry existed in Italy prior to the arrival of Imperial era immigrants.
Indeed, ASH068 was the only true Philistine (Sea People), who clustered with Myceneans. The others were hybrids, or subjugated Levantines.Quote:
Originally Posted by torzio
https://i.imgur.com/4nL6aDE.pngQuote:
Originally Posted by Jovialis
Considering that they resisted outside influences also makes me wonder if the Imperial era C6 cohort was more representative of the neighboring people. Once the Romans came in, these Daunians were probably mixed out of existence by other native people and Greek colonists, who were representative of C6.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jovialis
As i said before they absorbed the local Italic populace and kept the Greeks at bay until they began to make their own pots in 440BC instead of importing them from the islands of Vis and Hvar
.....................................
from 2018
Maria Cecilia D’Ercole’s contribution in mapping the pathways and movement of goods in the southern Adriatic during Archaic times has significantly helped fleshout the situation.
Recent work by Croatian archaeologists who have documented sanctuaries on the‘island bridge’ spanning from the Dalmatian coast to the Gargano peninsula in Daunia, in use from at least the Neolithic period, also adds considerable weight to the argument.The traffic was, however, no doubt two-way. The prevailing winds in the upper Adriatic and a clock-wise current, in concert with the ‘island bridge’, gave rise to strong maritime trade route that took in the Daunians (further signposted by sea-faring craft incised on their stelae
and Picinians on the west coast, and the Japodians, Histrians, Liburnians and Dalmatians (all ‘Illyrian tribes’) on the north and east.
It was likely mediated by the Liburnians, whose thalassocracy it is alleged by Appian was propped up by piracy (App. Ill . 1.3). Was the cultural affinity between Daunia and Illyria that appears to exist in the Iron Age, nicely illustrated by the spread of Daunian matt-painted pottery into the Balkans and of amber out, truly dueto a shared ancestry or simply the result of continued trading relations and contact? The Daunian stelae suggest the former: that the ethnogenesis of the northern-most Iapygians really did include DNA from the indigenous populations of the north eastern shores of the Adriatic
Late Bronze Age Greece was affected by Danube migrations heavily. Who were they, we don't know but i guess they carried E-V13. Classical Greeks could have carried in Southern Italy then.Quote:
Originally Posted by blevins13
I am a little confused at this paper, it claims this is a look into a pre-Imperial era Southern Italy. But the Daunians were not the only people who lived there, so I don't know how they could draw the conclusions they made for the making of modern Apulians. As I said up thread, R437 plots close to some of the Daunian samples (ORD01, ORD014, SGR003), which are close with the C6 samples form the Imperial era.
https://i.imgur.com/zud7Wl1.pngQuote:
Originally Posted by Jovialis
It seems some people think that because the Daunians weren't eastern-shifted, it discards the idea that CHG didn't have a big presence before the imperial era. Perhaps they should recall that there are in fact relatively high levels of it among some of the samples in the IA.
Sorry, correction: the earliest Messapic inscriptions date from the mid-6th century BC,Quote:
Originally Posted by Johane Derite
So ~550 BC.
Linguist Leonard Palmer attributed the Messapic language (which he called plainly Illyrian) to a third migration wave into Italy of people who brought horse-riding as opposed to horse-driving, and were horse breeders.
The first wave he says were Italic cremators who came into italy by land via the north, the second wave he calls osco-umbrian inhumers who also crossed the adriatic.
This third "easternizing" wave he attributes messapic to he says culminated around ~750 BC.
https://i.imgur.com/rHs7lYR_d.webp?m...idelity=medium
Since the dna was taken from north
Apulia and from daunian
Personally i cant rule out the option that if the samples would be from south apulia in messapi area e-v13 would appear..:thinking:
I meant to say Kalabria. I have had a tiring week. It is interesting to note that as we move up north Apulia, not only do inscriptions become more sparse, but also are of later dates.Quote:
Originally Posted by kingjohn
https://dinosaursandbarbarians.files...apygia-map.jpg
https://classics.uc.edu/apulia/full/3wf025.png
Something else I find odd is that they didn't compare samples from medieval Foggia from the Viking paper. Which look different from the medieval Apulia samples they have here.
I have read it yesterday and waited for a few comments before chipping in, here what my thoughts are:
First I feel two caveats are important to make: I've noticed a bit of terminological embarassment because "west" or "east" can be ambigous here, so I add that:
1) As for the PCA, if we place the origin of a cartesian graph in the left down corner we can call an encrease in the Y axis "MENA shift" as it goes towards the MENA groups, and if we want to distinguish a north-east shift from a south-east shift we can distinguish between a "Caucasus-shift" and a "Levant-shift", on the other hand we can talk of a "Europe shift" for a decrease of the Y axis, and about a "Iberian shift" for a south-west shift and about a "baltic shift" for a north east shift. As for variation on th X axis, the ancient eastern Europeans (henceforth AEE) are shifted towards higher planes in the PCA (since they are between halfway modern eastern europeans and caucasian and iranian peoples I believe they are Scythians and other Iranic samples), while ancient west Europeans (AWE henceforth), more similar to today's, are shifted towards lower planes, so we can speak of a "AEE shift" and a "AWE shift".
2) This is an importat aspect to consider, before trying to draw conclusions about modern Apulians: these ancient samples are all from northern Apulia, which is quite a long streatched region, and these northern Apulians were already MENA shifted compared to Latins and the other northern Italian samples from the Bronze/Iron age, and they are under centra Italians and south-north Apulians (given the Italian cline it is safe to conclude that the most north Italian shifted Apulians are from the northern borders), that is they are AWE shifted compared to the modern ones, and the modern ones are AEE shifted compared to them, and there were also those three "outliers" that are both AEE shifted compared to the average Daunian (yet still AWE shifted compared to modern Italians) and MENA shifted.
After these two caveats, I think there are a few certainties we can draw from the study:
1) The "odd components" of the socalled "latin outliers" were already present in the gene pool of Italy, and the Rome paper also had R437 (a guy from a mainland town, so it would be odd that he could have had recent "Phoenician" ancestry as Davidsky suggested) modelled in the one-way run with IA Croatia and it formed a clade with it, and even for R850 that was modelled as a two way of copper age farmer and Anatolian_IA it is clear that Anatolia_IA proxies steppe and caucasian-related (Iran_N or CHG or both, since it isn't clear what were the percentages) ancestries to add to the copper age Latium farmers to get R850, and both components were already present in Italy.
2) the classical three way admixture of caucasian-related ancestry, steppe and EEF to model south Italians is once again confirmed and there is strong support that it worked for ancient south Italians as well, though they need higher WHG to work; the main take away is that one needn't new components to the ones already present since the Iron age (maybe since the bronze age if we take into account the EBA Sicily samples?).
3) there was heterogeneity in Italian peoples BEFORE the imperial age.
4) the Amhara_NAF works as a proxy for Greece_N given what the paper said about it and its position on the PCA (a north anatolian neolithic-like component with higher CHG than EEF but quite lower than successive Minoans and Aegeans)
5) The gene pool of modern Italians seem to form around the imperial age/antiquity.
Now to some tentative suggestions I have:
1) From the bulk of ancient north and central IA Italian samples to the bulk of Daunians one can draw a straight line, which suggests to me that there was already an Italian cline due to a EEF substrate that ranged from more Greece_N to Sardinian-like, though maybe a more "western" type of EEF ancestry was brought later with the Steppe component.
2) I agree with the study that the more MENA shifted and especially AEE shifted samples are the best representative for "ethnically" Daunians from the shores of the Balkans while the more AWE and European shifted are representative of local Italics integrated into the Daunian society, though since the samples were taken from just north Apulia it may well be that southern Daunians were more similar to those three "outliers" or just more MENA shifted Italics, following the line between ancient north Italy samples and the Amhara_NAF.
3) Since there are also two north east Italian "outliers" that are quite AEE shifted compared to the rest of the samples maybe this AEE-shifted lineage in Italy has little to do with a massive migration from the Balkans after the italic one and it can be that the Italic ethnogenesis incorporated an already present one to an extent, but I acknowledge it is pure speculation
4)It seems that the modern Italans' gene pool formed during the imperial period, but instead of implausible and frankly ridicolous scenarios in which all the Levant poured into Italy and/or all the slaves of oriental origins ended up in south Italy where all European ones in north Italy I hold that a homogenization of what was already present in Italy (and both the previous archeogenetics models of Italians and the ones in this paper back it up) was what got the Italians' gene pool into its present shape overall. Also, the biggest shift compared to the iron age sampes is a AEE shift that also interests north Italians, and to a lesser extent a MENA one that is more precisely "caucasus-shift", not a "Levant-shift", which is in line with the admixture models (relatively high Iran_N/CHG for European standards).
Since I've already read some astoundingly dumb comments from the usual sites about the paper, especially that "it confirms that Italy was Italic-like before Greek settlers almost completely replaced the locals in south Italy" (since they either wilfully or by sheer negligence forget to tell apart a AEE shift from a MENA shift and so when they claim that "Italians were west-med" they imply they were more Europe shifted while the bulk of those north Apulians were already as MENA shifted as modern central and north-south Italians, and three samples as MENA shifted as modern south Italians, and the AEE shift can't evidently be explained by their theory of a massive Greek colonization in all Italy given that north Italians too appear AEE shifted), despite the fact that it shows that a region that was never touched by Greeks and BEFORE the Greek colonization (the oldest sample is from around the end of the 2th millenium) had those very same Greek-like components that they hold "only a complete replacement of locals by Greek colonists" can explain.
Also, as for what they imply for what happened next ( they themselves aren't clear about it: either they say that the Levantine ancestry was brought by hellenistic Greeks or by Imperial Romans or both), they forget to mention that the last paragraph of the "the making of modern Italians" section says:
I do not forget to mention that they used Lebanon_hellenistic with good results but given the overall results of the paper it is due to the Iran_N that is also present in Levantines, since the test that adressed the signal unambigously linked to the Levant and/or norh Africa was negative for the vast majority of the samples,included the medieval ones, or it gave weak results.Quote:
We also investigated whether the PCA scattering was due to varying African or Levantine
contributions with f4(Rome Republican, IAA, Levant_N/YRI, Mbuti) and tried the same on
Medieval ancient Apulians (ORD010 and SGR001). However, none of the tested ancient Apulians
shows a significant excess of YRI ancestry when compared to the contemporary Roman
Republicans, even though ORD014, SAL007 and SAL011 show negative f4 values with a Z-score
between 2 and 3