Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
It would be interesting to know at least the autosomal make up of:
The Mesolithic "Dame de Bonifacio"
A Neolithic Corsican farmer
A Bronze age Torrean
Utilizzando Tapatalk
When are people going to stop placing so much emphasis on modern distributions of yDna to elucidate ancient migrations and to determine overall similarity between peoples? Doing that led people to believe for years that downstream R1b originated in western Europe, and that the first farmers to reach Europe were J2a.
Just wait for the ancient dna to determine ancient migrations, and for overall similarity do a sophisticated autosomal analysis.
Some other things to consider about Provence in relationship to all of this is the fact that both Corsica and Sardinia may have been settled initially from that area. The other is that Provence was heavily settled by the Romans, hence the name "Provence" or "Our Province". What I'd really like to see is an autosomal comparison of Provencals and the people of western Liguria right over the border. That's one of the reasons, apart from the Ligurian migrations to Corsica, that I don't understand why Ligurians weren't included in the analysis.
Pausanias uses that term for a population distinct than those he calls Iberians, those he calls Hellenes, those he calls Carthaginians and those he calls Trojans etc. (he says though that Carthaginians used Iberian and 'Libyan' mercenaries, that's probably the reason we shouldn't expect significant Phoenician proper admixture in Sardinia)
Well, I don't associate R1b with proto-Indo-Europeans. For example, concerning Torrean civilization I would consider a scenario where the natives (pre-BA menhir builders) were R1b-U106 and the intrusive element belonged to G-L91, for example. (The reality would have been certainly more complex, that means possibly more haplogroups involved at least)
That study says
So, they cite Haak, Lazaridis etc to support that 'R1a and R1b diversification began relatively recently' but, really, I am not sure if "TMRCA estimations are concordant with such expansion in Corsica." This is not how I see it but I can be wrong. I may have understood something wrong. I don't know.
J2 was found in LBK, but seems absent thus far in Mediterranean spread which was apparently first. J2 is one of those haplogroups that is very diverse in very small, distantly related clusters and doesn't appear to be spread in a star pattern (the major evidence against it being a PIE marker IMHO)
Excellent example, Pax. With the benefit of hindsight, those conclusions are almost laughable. It would be very ironic indeed if the Etruscans do carry G2a dna, but it's the kind that came from Central Europe or conversely the kind that's been in Europe since the Neolithic. That's why I hope that the Reich Lab take a really wide spread number of samples for their paper on Italy, both geographically and chronologically.
Given how wrong he was, you would think he would have learned his lesson, but apparently not.
Honestly, I don't even know if I'll continue reading this paper. In this day and age this ridiculously low level of resolution on the y makes any conclusions extremely suspect.
I hasten to add I have absolutely no problem with there having been a migration from Asia Minor to Central Italy in the first millennium BC. If it happened, it's basically the same ancestry as would have come in the Bronze Age, so ultimately it doesn't matter.
It's important to get our facts straight, however, and in this case that requires lots of dna from the Etruscans and early Romans in comparison to prior populations.
I'm also beyond tired of pointing out that whatever gene flow occurred hit all of southeastern Europe as well as Italy, and all the way to Spain and Portugal, even if it's possible it occurred at slightly different times.
This study included 321 samples typed for 92 Y-SNP
We need to stop thinking of an east to west only migration like in the USA and their "oregon trail" scenarios .........the paper's STR's are in Error , the SNP are accurate, the dates on Corsica are accurate. In reference to G2a-L497 .....I linked the paper which refers to a tyrolese origin.....we also have a high % of R-U106 in Austria .......Sile, beside some old Y-C and Upper Paleo and Mesolothic Y-I2(a), we have to date very few if any other Y-haplo around Atlantic before the Neolithic, this one providing a lot of Y-G2a; or I missed something?
Their conclusion is that modern Corsicans are direct descendants of ancient Corsicans, more or less..i don't know why they didn't test at least 2 or 3 ancient individuals, how much does it cost?
South Corsicans seems different to Gallurese Sardinians regarding Y DNA frequencies. No idea how much "steppe admixture" South Corsicans have, Gallurese are 9% circa steppe plus some WHG and the rest the usual EEF
Maybe this study just want to prove that Corsicans aren't related to Italians? A bit agenda-driven?
Sardinians range from 0% steppe ancestry to 9%, but the Sardinian average seems closer to 2-4% of steppe. I think Corsicans have more steppe ancestry than Sardinians.
Chiang 2016
Compare Sardinians with other Europeans and Italians.
French have 37.6% of steppe ancestry, Spanish_North has 32.6%, Tuscans have 27.2%, Bergamo has 25%, Spanish have 22.3%, Greeks have 20%, Albanians have 18.5%, Sardinians have 7.1%, Sicilians have 5.9%.
LBK_EN (Early Neolithic) has already 10/20% of WHG.
Haak 2015
LBK_EN with some WHG (blue)
This thread has been viewed 25547 times.