The genetic origin of Daunians

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jovialis

Indeed, it seems that people don't know the difference between east and south. The shift is East towards the Caucasus region. Not the levant or north Africa. As far as I know the Romans didn't import millions of slaves using a time machine from the Paleolithic Caucasus right to Puglia. Thus I believe the CHG was already present from a pre-Italic, pre-roman era, from the Neolithic to the Bronze Age, brought by later farmers.

---

Attachment 12834

A caucasus shift would be still a rightward shift to an extent, and though an Anatolian_IA-like gene flow could work well for central and south Italians (at least judging visually by the PCA: I know it is a very, VERY rough way but admixture models of Italians with Anatolia_IA do not work badly either), but it can't explain how north Italians got from their ancient average to today's average, so overall it seems that the shift was just an upward translation without a point of convergence.
The lack of a convergence point seems to me to suggest that the various gene flows came from pops that were just "east shifted" versions of the Italian peoples they migrated into, which seems to suggest that these gene flows came vaguely from around the Balkans.
This doesn't exclude some genetic inputs from other regions, and I know that my scenario is really vague, but I do not think one can draw more precise conclusions for now, but overall it debunks the usual line of reasoning that "Italians were west-med, now they are east-med, so you need a massive near eastern gene flow (Anatolian and the Levant) due to slaves and migration".
Whether it was mixing with the pre-IE inhabitants of Italy, rich in caucasus-related ancestry (honestly I do not think it is a plausible scenario), or successive gene flows that shaped Italians, what is relatively sure is that admixture models from official studies have Italians as a mixture of EEF, steppe, WHG and caucasus-related ancestry(ies), and all these components were present at least since the iron age in Italy, thus the often repeated mantra by hobbyists that all Italians were first north Italian-like, then there was a Near eastern and Greek massive gene flow and lastly a significant Germanic gene flow seems groundless.
I know it isn't good to talk about what others think about the paper instead of the paper instead but this one has given principally raw data and few explanations for them, as it is inevitable since it is the first archeogenetic paper with samples from south Italy.

They are different from Bronze Age Sicilians too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jovialis

I think it is important to note, there were people living in Puglia before Italics, Greeks, and Iapygians. Where is their representation in all of this? Maybe that's why the Daunians are south of IA_Latins/Etruscans and west of Central and South Italians. Because they mixed with the people who lived there before them. Perhaps they were C6, and overtime mixed further with C6 people as Rome united the regions.

---

As I said, they have no concept of the timeline of the arrival of various groups in the south. "Italics" were late; in some areas later than the Greeks. To understand Southern Italian genetics we need samples of the people who were NOT relatively recent migrants.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leopoldo Leone

To be honest the bulk of the iron age samples from Latium are "west shifted" compared to north Italians, in a place in between north Italian, south French and Iberians, and today's north Italians, judging from the 22 samples from north east Italy, seem too "east shifted", as north Apulians (though they are also a bit "south shifted") are compared to the bulk of the Daunians.
I believe that by "Imperial samples" they meant those few that, at least on a PCA, cluster with modern south Italians and middle age Romans.


To be precise they used "amhara_NAF" as a proxy for "sea people", though it makes no sense to me, and it just vaguely indicates a Greece_N like signal as far as I can tell.

---

Thanks, but I read the Antonio et al paper numerous times, and discussed it at length in the dedicated threads. I have no idea whether you're aware of that because you used a different name then or you're indeed a new member.

I've also read this paper, even if people commenting on other sites have not, and I know perfectly well that they use Amhara NAF as a proxy for sea people, one of the most bizarre conclusions I've ever seen in an ancient dna paper.

At any rate, my point was that even on their OWN PCA, ancient Romans cluster with modern North Italians. To repeat myself they talk about Italians as if we're all the same, and we're emphatically not. These authors are very careless with language, and someone should have given them a summary of ancient Southern Italian history.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by torzio

E-V13 has always appeared as more thracian than anything else ...........associated with the Ghegs of ancient dardani and the Odyssian thracians of modern Bulgaria

and not the other 3 thracian regions of Moesia, Getae and Dacia

---

But probably that's rather because the Getae and Dacians got more from the later Northern migrations, especially the Iranian side of things. On the other hand related groups marched into Pannonia and the Western Balkans, but just didn't penetrate all regions equally and in some places seem to have been just fused and incorporated into more local, as well as later people.

They also spread with the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon and Hallstatt which grew out of it, from there making it into Celts as a minority element. The point is, the Daco-Thracian ethnolinguistic group seems to be the only one dominated by E-V13, being the original and main group associated, but soon after this group emerged, branches did assimilate into other people at the LBA-EIA transition, primarily associated with iron working. E-V13 really is closest associated with the first more developed iron processing technologies from the Carpathian basin, visible in major fortresses like Teleac for example.
But unlike in Thrace, in other regions they didn't cause a linguistic shift.

The Cetina theory is, imho, more dead than alive for the origin of E-V13. And E-V13 is an important marker for Southern Italy too, because considering the earlier composition, as well as the later migrations, the options are rather limited and it clearly has to come from the Balkans-Greece for the most part, Central Europe in the migration period as a small addition. So it won't be present in Southern Italy in significant numbers if at all until the Greek colonisation started, probably even later.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hawk

I am not totally excluding it, let's see. But i put more bets on Trebeniste Culture and people belonging to it as Enchelei/Dassareti. Who knows. :good_job:

Perhaps torzio is right as well, that influence came via Dalmatian coast. Matt-Painted Pottery influences are unclear so far. Comparing potteries is not so reliable.

---

Its game over for E-V13 - Illyrian relation I'm afraid.. Albanian archeologists also support the view that Messapians came from Albania. You'll find some E-Y37092 here and there..
There is no evidence whatsoever to suggests Messapians came from Dalmatia. And there is plenty to suggest they didn't.

Btw Pshenichevo, Babadag, Basarabi didn't practice cremation largely so just a matter of time before a flood of Basarabi E-V13 comes around.

ALERT Something has just entered the Mars orbit!!! It's Johane Derite's E-V13 Messapian theories. :laughing::laughing::laughing:


Now why don't you take a look at the Albanoi of the time of Hadrian and Trajan and ask yourself why do they carry Thracian/Brygian/Paeonian/Dardanian names?? Why don't they carry Illyrian names?? Because after the Romans took over some non-Illyrians moved to Albania or maybe they were already there (Bryges).

So Albanian might be a language of some hillbillies that Illyrians and Thracians failed to assimilate and Romans occupied themselves with Illyrians and Thracians and these isolated Dardanians/Paeonians/Bryges managed somehow to survive.

Or Albanian is Messapia/Illyrian related but some Roman-era movements brought V13 there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Riverman

And in the end you will see that modern Southern Italians being somewhat shifted North again from Late Antiquity to High Medieval times, because of Northern and Balkan migrants, as few as they might have been, but still significant. The MENA shift will peak in very Late Imperial times, not any time before or afterwards.

---

Well, there's some peculiar logic for you. A very few migrants made a SIGNIFICANT change in southern Italian genetics.

It didn't happen, buddy.

Please go back to Ralph and Coop, read the whole paper, and take a look at the IBD analysis. In fact, I'll help you out to get started:
[IMG]https://i.imgur.com/dqw6x3F.png[/IMG]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aspurg

Its game over for E-V13 - Illyrian relation I'm afraid.. Albanian archeologists also support the view that Messapians came from Albania. You'll find some E-Y37092 here and there..
There is no evidence whatsoever to suggests Messapians came from Dalmatia. And there is plenty to suggest they didn't.

Btw Pshenichevo, Babadag, Basarabi didn't practice cremation largely so just a matter of time before a flood of Basarabi E-V13 comes around.

ALERT Something has just entered the Mars orbit!!! It's Johane Derite's E-V13 Messapian theories. :laughing::laughing::laughing:


Now why don't you take a look at the Albanoi of the time of Hadrian and Trajan and ask yourself why do they carry Thracian/Brygian/Paeonian/Dardanian names?? Why don't they carry Illyrian names?? Because after the Romans took over some non-Illyrians moved to Albania or maybe they were already there (Bryges).

So Albanian might be a language of some hillbillies that Illyrians and Thracians failed to assimilate and Romans occupied themselves with Illyrians and Thracians and these isolated Dardanians/Paeonians/Bryges managed somehow to survive.

Or Albanian is Messapia/Illyrian related but some Roman-era movements brought V13 there.

---

Don't be a dick, everyone puts their theories, it's not that we are academics and we should be cautious of whatever we say. We make our guesses, we make errors, that's ok, we learn.

How many times did you shift yours? From Urnfield Illyrian R1b-L51/E-V13 L241 you switched to Thracian then you switched to Etruscan-Pelasgian now again to Thracian.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leopoldo Leone

Attachment 12833

I knew that the awkwardness of talking about "east shift" when one refers to an upward translation in a PCA because the samples the shifted ones are pulled towards are geographically from east Europe would confuse some that would start talking of this "east shift" as the signal of a Near Eastern gene flow, that is what you'd expect from the reasons you've brought, but that would translate into a rightward translation in the PCA, that is towards the MENA groups, but what we see is an upward translation.
The Italic peoples of Italy were more "west-med" that modern Italians, in the sense they were more downward shifted than them, but the Daunian samples are roughly as much rightshifted as today north Apulians and a few as south Italians, and a few samples from Italy have a rather upward shifted position compared to the bulk of the samples from their regions, so it cmay mean that the gene flow that upward shifted Italians had been trickling down in Italy from SE europe since ancient times, though of course only future studies will tell.
Besides that remark, the haplos and the admixture models do not really back up that scenario of significant steady genetic shifts due to migrants from around the mediterranean and from northern Europe.

---

Why the need to talk about upwards/downwards, rightwards/leftwards? It's perfectly clear where north/south and east/west are located. For those who have trouble with it, turn the PCA picture one turn to the right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hawk

Don't be a dick, everyone puts their theories, it's not that we are academics and we should be cautious of whatever we say. We make our guesses, we make errors, that's ok, we learn.

How many times did you shift yours? From Urnfield Illyrian R1b-L51/E-V13 L241 you switched to Thracian then you switched to Etruscan-Pelasgian now again to Thracian.

---

Sure, I don't like being a dick, but some of you have been towards me. Well I always stayed on the Thracian side because of aDNA finds. Urnfield is something started by Riverman primarily. There may be some Urnfield overlap of E-V13 clades, or they are just a neighboring archeological complex..

Assuming Thracian group started spreading quite late in LBA, then who knows what E-V13 might have been in EBA. For Etruscan connection it is hard to argue, there doesn't seem to exist hardly any coherent V13 group in Italy with some BA/IA TRMCA. They are just scattered and also aDNA doesn't speak in favor that.

And also it seems Bulgaria was dominated in BA by non E-V13 so that speaks in favor of those people not being Thracians at all. When we look today at R-Z2103 in Thrace their TMRCA is not lower than 4500 years, or its very low. So it looks like their % was reduced by LBA/IA movements.

[QUOTE=Riverman;628106]Some food for thought:


QUOTE]

Please point out the relevance of the second link to what you are claiming. As for the first link, you post a paper from 2001, before the ancient dna revolution? Really?

Even then, there were other views, and of course you chose the one which fits your own often apparent bias.

If you can afford it, I would suggest you subscribe to Razib Khan and read the paper on Italian genetics. Or just go back and read our commentary on the Antonio et al paper. Both will explain to you what happened to those far southern "Imperial" Romans.

Or, why don't you take a look at the PCA in this paper, and where those far southern "Imperial" Romans land in relation to modern Apulians and other Southern Italians. And please don't bring up Northern Italians moving down to Apulia and Calabria and Basilicata etc., because except in very rare cases, it didn't happen. Once Rome fell Southern Italy and Northern Italy were separated and had completely different histories, with different rulers. Lazio was under the rule of the Pope, the South successively under foreign rulers, who were the elite and had no impact on the masses. For goodness sakes, just look at the yDna of modern Southern Italians. How much non-Eastern R1b is there, or I1. The latter appears in this paper in one sample, but look at all the ydna papers on Southern Italy for goodness sakes. As for the Balkan influence, it's there, but go back and look at Ralph and Coop.

There's absolutely no substitute when analyzing Italian dna for at least a rudimentary knowledge of ancient and modern Italian history. It's also best not to always operate under ascertainment bias. Try to read "all" the analyses, not just those which agree with you.

So two Daunian samples already without BAM files may be Z1297+!! Would support the Southern route as per most archeologists as this group is very strong in Albania.

And from Trojet: SGR002, San Giovanni Rotondo, 571 cal BCE, is R-Z2103+

So R-Z2103 confirmed in Daunians, ofc most likely also an immigrant across the sea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aspurg

Sure, I don't like being a dick, but some of you have been towards me. Well I always stayed on the Thracian side because of aDNA finds. Urnfield is something started by Riverman primarily. There may be some Urnfield overlap of E-V13 clades, or they are just a neighboring archeological complex..

Assuming Thracian group started spreading quite late in LBA, then who knows what E-V13 might have been in EBA. For Etruscan connection it is hard to argue, there doesn't seem to exist hardly any coherent V13 group in Italy with some BA/IA TRMCA. They are just scattered and also aDNA doesn't speak in favor that.

And also it seems Bulgaria was dominated in BA by non E-V13 so that speaks in favor of those people not being Thracians at all. When we look today at R-Z2103 in Thrace their TMRCA is not lower than 4500 years, or its very low. So it looks like their % was reduced by LBA/IA movements.

---

I don't know, i just saw from Principe's thread in anthrogenica that E-V13 in South Italy/Sicily is quite diverse, so i guess, if not Messapians then Classical Greeks brought it.

And what about Albanian R1b-Z2103, almost exlusively it has early medieval subclade. Was it reduced as well, and by whom?

Jovialis: I was wondering where R437 plotted relative to the new Ancient samples from Puglia and I see in post #35 you did that. So looking at that PCA, these samples seem to plot as others have noted within the boundaries of Central Italy and moving West bounded by Sardinia and up to were R437 plots which would be modern Southern Italy. It is kind of hard to see but I think that gets it. In another post, you suggested that these new samples from Puglia might be very much like the C6 Cluster from Antonio et al 2019. Just a thought, is it possible to use those C5, C6, C7, etc averages of the Antonio et al 2019 samples, which you were involved with if I remember correctly and plot them on the PCA with the new Puglia Samples along with the other populations in the PCA from your Post #35.

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hawk

I don't know, i just saw from Principe's thread in anthrogenica that E-V13 in South Italy/Sicily is quite diverse, so i guess, if not Messapians then Classical Greeks brought it.

And what about Albanian R1b-Z2103, almost exlusively it has early medieval subclade. Was it reduced as well, and by whom?

---

An interesting group are the Triballi, with their proto-culture falling exactly into the LBA-EIA transition. The Morava valley was a major pathway and important hub for the Channelled Ware groups. As for E-V13 in Albania, these people might be one of the potential sources?

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Angela

Thanks, but I read the Antonio et al paper numerous times, and discussed it at length in the dedicated threads. I have no idea whether you're aware of that because you used a different name then or you're indeed a new member.

I've also read this paper, even if people commenting on other sites have not, and I know perfectly well that they use Amhara NAF as a proxy for sea people, one of the most bizarre conclusions I've ever seen in an ancient dna paper.

At any rate, my point was that even on their OWN PCA, ancient Romans cluster with modern North Italians. To repeat myself they talk about Italians as if we're all the same, and we're emphatically not. These authors are very careless with language, and someone should have given them a summary of ancient Southern Italian history.

---

Attachment 12835

Attachment 12836

Both in this paper's PCA and the one from the Antonio et al paper ancient Romans, though cluster closest to north Italians, are west of them (also R437 is a bit west of modern central/south Italians), in a very similar way to how ancient Daunians are to modern day central south Italians; also the samples from north east Italy from this paper, https://www.cell.com/current-biology...822(21)00535-2, are a bit west compared to mofrtn north Italians, and as Jovialis noticed even Mycenans seem a bit west of Italians and Greeks.

Attachment 12837

If one adopts this paper's PCA arrangement, the trend has been an upward shift, if one adopts the Antonio et al's PCA arrangement the trend has been an eastward shift.
By the admixture analysis this shift corresponds to lower levels of WHG and higher ones of either steppe or CHG/Iran_N.

Those not found Haplogroups aren’t there..bottom line.

You can push and pull and stretch as much as you want..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Riverman

But probably that's rather because the Getae and Dacians got more from the later Northern migrations, especially the Iranian side of things. On the other hand related groups marched into Pannonia and the Western Balkans, but just didn't penetrate all regions equally and in some places seem to have been just fused and incorporated into more local, as well as later people.

They also spread with the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon and Hallstatt which grew out of it, from there making it into Celts as a minority element. The point is, the Daco-Thracian ethnolinguistic group seems to be the only one dominated by E-V13, being the original and main group associated, but soon after this group emerged, branches did assimilate into other people at the LBA-EIA transition, primarily associated with iron working. E-V13 really is closest associated with the first more developed iron processing technologies from the Carpathian basin, visible in major fortresses like Teleac for example.
But unlike in Thrace, in other regions they didn't cause a linguistic shift.

The Cetina theory is, imho, more dead than alive for the origin of E-V13. And E-V13 is an important marker for Southern Italy too, because considering the earlier composition, as well as the later migrations, the options are rather limited and it clearly has to come from the Balkans-Greece for the most part, Central Europe in the migration period as a small addition. So it won't be present in Southern Italy in significant numbers if at all until the Greek colonisation started, probably even later.

---

you do realise that cimmerian is from Sochi Russia area and south of them was the origin of the bulgars ( before they went to Bulgaria )

Do you think they are part of Cetina culture , but does not include E-V13 ................I tend to agree

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hawk

I don't know, i just saw from Principe's thread in anthrogenica that E-V13 in South Italy/Sicily is quite diverse, so i guess, if not Messapians then Classical Greeks brought it.

And what about Albanian R1b-Z2103, almost exlusively it has early medieval subclade. Was it reduced as well, and by whom?

---

the greeks where in calabria and sicily ...........not sure when they went to Calabria, but settled in sicily in 420BC

https://i.postimg.cc/bJwzJYN7/SE-italy.png

Closest greek city to the daunians and associates is modern taranto

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Riverman

An interesting group are the Triballi, with their proto-culture falling exactly into the LBA-EIA transition. The Morava valley was a major pathway and important hub for the Channelled Ware groups. As for E-V13 in Albania, these people might be one of the potential sources?

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

---

Urnfield burials are more likely than not E-V13 burials, so Illyrian tribes of Albanian
Illyrii proprii/proprie dicti, remain a very good candidate for E-V13.



Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by torzio

you do realise that cimmerian is from Sochi Russia area and south of them was the origin of the bulgars ( before they went to Bulgaria )

Do you think they are part of Cetina culture , but does not include E-V13 ................I tend to agree

---

The Thracians were pushed by the Scythians out of their home in the Western steppe with two major branches taking different paths. One going into the Near East, being chased by a Scythian hunting party which wanted to annihilate them, the second moved West, and crushed right into the territories occupied by Daco-Thracians, the former zone of Channelled Ware. Out of this came the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon, which spread steppe elements with advanced iron metallurgy in Europe, which was an influential contribution to the formation of Hallstatt, which Eastern portion was Thracian and Illyrian dominated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thraco-Cimmerian

The Eastern part of the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon won't have a lot of E-V13, though it might have entered the steppe the first at this time. But the Western portion should have spilled it over, even more so under Hallstatt. This had nothing to do with the Bulgarians, which were much later and a completely different people. Interestingly, the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon reached Northern Italy, but not the South.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by torzio

the greeks where in calabria and sicily ...........not sure when they went to Calabria, but settled in sicily in 420BC

https://i.postimg.cc/bJwzJYN7/SE-italy.png
Closest greek city to the daunians and associates is modern taranto

---

Greeks were only in Sicily and Calabria?, What about Campania, Basilicata and Puglia as well?

I just read todays worth of posts in this thread after a long day in the sun.

Maybe the sun got to me, or maybe there is a lot of "???" going on here. So many people with so many different opinions, all over passionate about it.

I am just going to chip in into the Croatia -> or Albania-> debate.

1. Ancient samples found in all 3 locations.
2. Chronology so far: Croatia - > Albania -> Puglia.
3. Why even bother, once the BAM files are out, the DNA will speak for itself as it always does.

My guess, since I want to be bothered, is probably Albania. Unless, Z2103 and L283 were also found in Croatia together. From what I recall they were found in Mokrin or was in Hungary together, Z2103 and L283.

And also, Taranto to Vlore is like 60 km, Occam's razor dictates its easier to swim from South Albania to the Heel, than to drift down from Dalmatia to the Heel.

Now, if Angela could help me with a very brief, couple of words reply, what is the chronology(asking since you brought the chronology up once or twice)?. Does the sample 530BC (per Trojet) C12 radiocarbon dated, predate Greek colonists? Cause from what I gather from Torzios last reply it seems it does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Archetype0ne

I just read todays worth of posts in this thread after a long day in the sun.

Maybe the sun got to me, or maybe there is a lot of "???" going on here. So many people with so many different opinions, all over passionate about it.

I am just going to chip in into the Croatia -> or Albania-> debate.

1. Ancient samples found in all 3 locations.
2. Chronology so far: Croatia - > Albania -> Puglia.
3. Why even bother, once the BAM files are out, the DNA will speak for itself as it always does.

My guess, since I want to be bothered, is probably Albania. Unless, Z2103 and L283 were also found in Croatia together. From what I recall they were found in Mokrin or was in Hungary together, Z2103 and L283.

And also, Taranto to Vlore is like 60 km, Occam's razor dictates its easier to swim from South Albania to the Heel, than to drift down from Dalmatia to the Heel.

Now, if Angela could help me with a very brief, couple of words reply, what is the chronology(asking since you brought the chronology up once or twice)?. Does the sample 530BC (per Trojet) C12 radiocarbon dated, predate Greek colonists? Cause from what I gather from Torzios last reply it seems it does.

---

which sample is the one for 530BC ?

it is late for any daunian trade to greece and albania which began around circa 400Bc .......more than 500 years had already passed in the Daunian and associate settlement in Apulia ...............they trade only with Liburnia

they even trade for

Chert is another main product that played an important trade role since the Neolithic.
It has already been mentioned that the Gargano was an important center for chert. Palagruža also
had a local chert quarry nearby. It’s been noted that chert of Palagruža were found in Dalmatia
(Vis and Hvar) and Gargano chert was found on Palagruža itself. Concluding that these island
chains were used in both directions across the Adriatic. In support of this theory is the fact that
these island chains were visible by eye from Gargano, Apulia and from vis, Dalmatia.


Chert has economic importance today as a source of silica. However, in the past, chert deposits may be associated with valuable deposits of iron in the iron-age.