Ancient Lombard DNA

why only them? they are just a few marginals
we have the climate lobby
we have political correctness

there is fake news and self-declared experts everywhere, also in accepted mainstream and also in traditional media

Why only them? I wasn't saying they're the only equivalents. It was just a joke post not to be taken seriously and I wanted to choose a group relevant to anthro forums.
 
They seem to represent Roman Empire average. The question is were there also any indigenous Panonians or Dalmatians among them.

If yes, which of the circles could belong to them or be the closest match?

https://www.eupedia.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=9459

I don't think there was any "Roman average". We have "gladiator" or "soldier" samples from the Roman era in Britain, and they're pretty similar to modern day Brits and Dutch, Belgian, and northern French people. The one "outlier" is clearly from either the Levant or Arabia.

In some areas you do have Roman colonies of veterans, so you would get some admixture, but after a hundred years the signature would start to wash out because of intermarriage with the much larger surrounding population. Anyway, there don't seem to be very many in Pannonia, at least not in the second century, so that part of my speculation upthread is probably wrong.

Romancoloniae.jpg



I think it's far more likely that these "Italian" plotting people are the "native" people of the area. This was densely populated EEF territory. There wasn't the large effect from the Indo-European migrations that we see further north in Europe. Remember the results in Mathiesen et al, where even in the Iron Age the "steppe" component in most of the samples was about 10%, and some of the samples also looked quite "Tuscan" like. Let's not forget that the GAC had many of the hall marks of an Indo-European culture, but they were just MN European farmers genetically. Language change apparently took more, but 10-20% seems to have been enough.

The closest ancient population to modern Italians is often the Hungarian Bronze Age, which also isn't very "steppe". Actually, a lot of this is starting to fall into place for me.

As for the "CEU" type samples, I'm not sure why the authors are surprised. The area had experienced its own "Celtic" migrations, similar to what had happened in Northern Italy and all the way down to Rome. I would think there might be "Celtic" settlements, as there was a "Lombard" one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pannonia
 
I don't think there was any "Roman average". We have "gladiator" or "soldier" samples from the Roman era in Britain, and they're pretty similar to modern day Brits and Dutch, Belgian, and northern French people. The one "outlier" is clearly from either the Levant or Arabia.
In some areas you do have Roman colonies of veterans, so you would get some admixture, but after a hundred years the signature would start to wash out because of intermarriage with the much larger surrounding population. Anyway, there don't seem to be very many in Pannonia, at least not in the second century, so that part of my speculation upthread is probably wrong.
Romancoloniae.jpg

I think it's far more likely that these "Italian" plotting people are the "native" people of the area. This was densely populated EEF territory. There wasn't the large effect from the Indo-European migrations that we see further north in Europe. Remember the results in Mathiesen et al, where even in the Iron Age the "steppe" component in most of the samples was about 10%, and some of the samples also looked quite "Tuscan" like. Let's not forget that the GAC had many of the hall marks of an Indo-European culture, but they were just MN European farmers genetically. Language change apparently took more, but 10-20% seems to have been enough.
The closest ancient population to modern Italians is often the Hungarian Bronze Age, which also isn't very "steppe". Actually, a lot of this is starting to fall into place for me.
As for the "CEU" type samples, I'm not sure why the authors are surprised. The area had experienced its own "Celtic" migrations, similar to what had happened in Northern Italy and all the way down to Rome. I would think there might be "Celtic" settlements, as there was a "Lombard" one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pannonia
you shouldn't overestimate these colonies

e.g. the Roman impact in Belgium was limited to the fertile loess plateaus, just south of the road between Cologne and Calais
and yes, probably populated mainly by veterans, the Romans themselves didn't like so much coming to these areas

I see many blanc spaces on the map
 
Inoffensive newbie question: before the Romanization of Pannonia, do we really know the ethnic composition of those lands? Were they overwhelmingly Celtic, or perhaps Balto-Slavic tribes were already present on the margins? Did Illyrians settle as north as present-day Hungary or did they basically "stop" at the highlands of Croatia and Slovenia?
 
you shouldn't overestimate these colonies

e.g. the Roman impact in Belgium was limited to the fertile loess plateaus, just south of the road between Cologne and Calais
and yes, probably populated mainly by veterans, the Romans themselves didn't like so much coming to these areas

I see many blanc spaces on the map

That's what I said, Bicicleur. Residents of "Italia" at that time didn't migrate to those areas. It was colonies of veterans who had been granted land at the end of their long years of service. These weren't big folk migrations, and at the end of a hundred or two hundred years those people would have admixed and blended, although leaving behind perhaps some uniparental dna.
 
Inoffensive newbie question: before the Romanization of Pannonia, do we really know the ethnic composition of those lands? Were they overwhelmingly Celtic, or perhaps Balto-Slavic tribes were already present on the margins? Did Illyrians settle as north as present-day Hungary or did they basically "stop" at the highlands of Croatia and Slovenia?


The only thing we can go by are ancient samples and we need more of them.

However, we know, for example, that this was EEF central during the Neolithic.

We know what Early Neolithic Hungary looked like...they were more southeastern than the Sardinians
See:Gamba et al


ncomms6257-f2.jpg


Then it was a Linear Pottery area...

Look at the yDna...
Y_DNA_8_do_5_kya.png
"
Mesolithic sites are rare, but start to appear after systematic surveys, especially in the Jászság area (LatinJazygia) in northern Hungary (Jászberény I). Neolithic settlement begins with the Criş Körös culture, carbon-dated to around 6200 BC. The Middle Neolithic sees the Western Linear Pottery culture in Transdanubia and Satu-Mare (Szatmar) and Eastern Linear pottery (called "Alföld Linear Pottery" in Hungary) in the East, developing into Želiezovce (Slovakia) and Szakálhát and Bükk, respectively. The Late Neolithic Tisza culture is followed by the Eneolithic Tiszapolgár and Bodrogkeresztúr cultures.We can then move on to Baden, which is Chalcolithic or Copper Age. Gimbutas was sure that they were an Indo-European group, as Anthony was sure Remedello was Indo-European. However, although there was some steppe influence in Baden, they were still mostly Late Neolithic farmer, which across Europe averaged out at about 75% AN and 25% WHG.

Take a look at the Haak PCA below. Click and it will expand a lot. The modern populations on which the samples land are also labelled.

The Neolithic samples from Hungary are labeled Gamba EN. They plot with Sardinians, who are the "Mediterranean" cluster in a lot of calculators. Baden is labeled Gamba CA or Copper Age. It's still just west of modern day Sardinians. You can see the Bronze Age samples are somewhat French like. Again, these are eilte samples. Only in Gamba IA or Iron Age do we get a really "Northern" sample. I doubt that this was the autosomal signature of the majority of the locals.

HaakPCA.png


Go to this link to enlarge it even more.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-f-kkQdPqKmE/VN2QquPvw8I/AAAAAAAAC5A/6NFEE9Edboo/s1600/HaakPCA.png

I think that in the past people assumed that if a group spoke an Indo-European language then they were some sort of "pure" Indo European. We know now that's not the case.

I'd have to go back and read the paper carefully to get the date of that Iron Age sample. At any rate, in the Balkans the Iron Age sample was even less "steppe" than the Bronze Age samples. In the last few centuries of the first millennium BC, which is also Iron Age, you have the Celts moving in, as happened in Italy.

Later on in history, of course, you have the Magyars, who seem to have left little genetic trace but did change the language, and then lots of movement from Germanic peoples to the west.

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

This is from the Mycenaean paper. Look at how far "south" some of the Europe Late Neolithic/Bronze Age people plot.



Also, go take a look at page ten of the Mathiesen paper. The "ethnic" breakdown of the samples can be found there. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2017/05/09/135616.full.pdf
H0lwXeD.png
 
^^Thanks Jovialis, I appreciate it.

When the paper is published I may find out this is all wrong, but it looks to me based on the admixture analysis in that poster that the Lombards brought a lot of Northwestern and Tuscan looking people (in terms of genotype) with them to Italy.

I have no idea why they would have used only 1000 genomes for comparisons. For goodness' sakes, why didn't they compare to ancient samples?
 
^^Thanks Jovialis, I appreciate it.

When the paper is published I may find out this is all wrong, but it looks to me based on the admixture analysis in that poster that the Lombards brought a lot of Northwestern and Tuscan looking people (in terms of genotype) with them to Italy.

I have no idea why they would have used only 1000 genomes for comparisons. For goodness' sakes, why didn't they compare to ancient samples?

They use only 1000 genomes for comparisons because it's cheap and has no cost. But 1000 genomes also have a limited number of populations.

Unfortunately most of the studies are very low budget.
 
the nomadic tribes of the migration-era all have their own structure and dynamic with the longobards being unique in possessing a certain class with arms-bearing[warrior] and land-owning rights with the 'arimanni' as truly reflected in the tombs of szolad/collegno yet an important feature of szolad/collegno is also that both NEA/SEA (germanic-lombards/roman-provincials) did intermix with each other as by family-f[collegno] and family-c[szolad] and other burials; paulus diaconus mentioned noricans and pannonians as part of the trek and indeed amorim et al per sr-isotope determines all of the same trek 'migrate together' and in an upcoming/published paper on the alamanni burial of niederstotzingen a further feature is revealed in that roman-provincials (PCA akin to amorim et al pannonians/noricans and modern south-europeans) in alamanni society even possessed the right to bear arms as revealed by 'reihengrab' grave-3 [2/3 SEA 1/3 NEA one a native[raetian] and the other a non native per sr-isotope];
 
They use only 1000 genomes for comparisons because it's cheap and has no cost. But 1000 genomes also have a limited number of populations.

Unfortunately most of the studies are very low budget.
I have on my disk many free public datasets with ancients. It's not the explanation. They have some agenda rather, why they use only 1000 genomes data.
 
I have no idea, really, since all I know is what's on the poster to which I linked, and I can't even make out some of the graphs. I doubt there were any Tuscans in Pannonia, though, so I have a feeling perhaps it's that people pretty similar to modern Tuscans were still living in Pannonia all the way into the post Roman era? Perhaps it's like the fact that Globular Amphora people were pretty close to modern Tuscans, or Spain Chalcolithic? This may be a problem having to do with only using 1000 genomes populations. That's how they wound up with CEU people in Italy too.
Sorry for bringing this up only now, but I don't think it's strange the fact that Pannonians were similar to Tuscans since they were mostly Illyrians after all.

Having said that, aren't Albanians similar to Tuscans?

I know some will be rightfully suspicious/cautious of such a connection due to the distance between Albania and Pannonia, but to anticipate that I'd like to add that the Northernmost Albanian settlements (modern Serbia) aren't that far from Pannonia, in addition to the fact that they were continuously pushed further South during the centuries.

I don't think it's that far-fetched as an explanation.
 
Sorry for bringing this up only now, but I don't think it's strange the fact that Pannonians were similar to Tuscans since they were mostly Illyrians after all.

Having said that, aren't Albanians similar to Tuscans?

I know some will be rightfully suspicious/cautious of such a connection due to the distance between Albania and Pannonia, but to anticipate that I'd like to add that the Northernmost Albanian settlements (modern Serbia) aren't that far from Pannonia, in addition to the fact that they were continuously pushed further South during the centuries.

I don't think it's that far-fetched as an explanation.

On PCAs, Albanians plot like "eastern shifted" Tuscans. Perhaps we have two very EEF like populations, but one was a bit impacted by northeastern populations at later periods, and one more by northwestern populations. Of course, that's a very big simplification.

If there are no Albanian samples in a calculator, some Albanians get Tuscans as the first population, but of course at a much longer genetic distance than Tuscans would get.

I just think it's interesting how way into the Iron Age we have a quite "Tuscan like" Thracian, and now, perhaps, some "Tuscan like" people in Pannonia. I think some people expected populations in Europe to be pretty homogeneous by the Iron Age, and certainly by the Migration Period, but it doesn't seem the case.

So a lot of commentary to the effect, for example, that Central European genetics was pretty much set by the Bronze Age would actually be incorrect.
 
In my opinion, the hypothesis that Albanians are actually descendants of an offshoot of Daco-Thracians from around present-day Serbia is quite likely (in the sense of "worhy of further research and discussion"). If Albanians are connected with Dacians, then there is also a high possibility that Albanian-like tribes existed in eastern Pannonia near the Carpathians, where Dacians existed historically and possibly also descended to the lower hillfoots.
 
On PCAs, Albanians plot like "eastern shifted" Tuscans. Perhaps we have two very EEF like populations, but one was a bit impacted by northeastern populations at later periods, and one more by northwestern populations. Of course, that's a very big simplification.

If there are no Albanian samples in a calculator, some Albanians get Tuscans as the first population, but of course at a much longer genetic distance than Tuscans would get.

I just think it's interesting how way into the Iron Age we have a quite "Tuscan like" Thracian, and now, perhaps, some "Tuscan like" people in Pannonia. I think some people expected populations in Europe to be pretty homogeneous by the Iron Age, and certainly by the Migration Period, but it doesn't seem the case.

So a lot of commentary to the effect, for example, that Central European genetics was pretty much set by the Bronze Age would actually be incorrect.
Well, it makes sense.

Could it be that the later Celtic admixture made the Pannonians more Tuscan-like than Albanians? After all, both Pannonia and Po Valley experienced the Celtic expansion/migration so we could have had the case of 2 very similar populations influenced by the same wave, producing again a similar result in the end.

But as always, waiting is the answer.

In my opinion, the hypothesis that Albanians are actually descendants of an offshoot of Daco-Thracians from around present-day Serbia is quite likely (in the sense of "worhy of further research and discussion"). If Albanians are connected with Dacians, then there is also a high possibility that Albanian-like tribes existed in eastern Pannonia near the Carpathians, where Dacians existed historically and possibly also descended to the lower hillfoots.
Don't go there bro. The wolves are waiting at the door. Then Albanians will get defensive and involved, followed by a series of infractions and a closed thread.
 
I have on my disk many free public datasets with ancients. It's not the explanation. They have some agenda rather, why they use only 1000 genomes data.

This can be true for any study though, peer-reviewed or not peer-reviewed.
 
I have on my disk many free public datasets with ancients. It's not the explanation. They have some agenda rather, why they use only 1000 genomes data.
Just because it's free to the public, doesn't mean you can use it for "commercial purposes", i.e. publishing it to an academic journal, receive compensation. You would probably have to procure the use of it first.
https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/public-domain/welcome/
The term “public domain” refers to creative materials that are not protected by intellectual property laws such as copyright, trademark, or patent laws. The public owns these works, not an individual author or artist. Anyone can use a public domain work without obtaining permission, but no one can ever own it.

An important wrinkle to understand about public domain material is that, while each work belongs to the public, collections of public domain works may be protected by copyright. If, for example, someone has collected public domain images in a book or on a website, the collection as a whole may be protectable even though individual images are not. You are free to copy and use individual images but copying and distributing the complete collection may infringe what is known as the “collective works” copyright. Collections of public domain material will be protected if the person who created it has used creativity in the choices and organization of the public domain material. This usually involves some unique selection process, for example, a poetry scholar compiling a book—The Greatest Poems of e.e. cummings.
 

This thread has been viewed 40647 times.

Back
Top