The Italian Genome-Fiorito et al 2015

IBD states, Fiorito 2015

The IBD variation in Italy seems too simple. Almost everything follows a geographic pattern, and it's most North-South.

The highlights for IBD Italy-West Eurasia are.....

.High IBD between NW Africa and South Italy.
.High IBD between North Europe and North Italy.
.High IBD between NE Europe and Basilicata
.Low IBD between West Asia and Italy.

The Highlights for IBD Italy-Italy are....

.NE Italy and Central Italy share a lot of IBD. Variation within the two regions also follow geography, they share the most with their nearest neighbors.
.Some of NE Italy shares a lot of IBD with South Italy.
.South Italy for the most part shares most IBD with each other.

 
The Italy-only ADMIXTURE at K=2 has a Sardinian and mainland Italy component. At K=3 it has South Italy, North Italy, and Sardinia components. I don't understand why Central Italians score mostly a mixture of North+South Italy, but in IBD don't show a relation to South Italy. Maybe it's because they don't have recent common ancestry with South Italy, but share more distant ancestry.

In West Eurasia ADMIXTURE.
At K=3, there's a NW African component(yellow), ENF component(red), and North European component(green). South Italians and Sardinians score a little NW African. Sardinians score the most in ENF, then next South Italians, next Central Italians, then last North Italians. Most of the rest is in North European component.

At K=4, there's a NW African component(yellow), West Asian component(red), Sardinian component(dark green), and North European component(green). The same pattern as in K=3 exists. However most North European-green and ENF red of K=3 in Italy becomes Sardinian-dark green. The West Asian component follows the same pattern the ENF component did earlier.

Conclusion: ADMIXTURE, IBD, and PCA are giving the same message. Even when the ADMIXTURE/PCA are Italy-only.

The message is....
Most variation in Italy is North vs South.
Italy is mostly EEF. But also has recent North European and West Asian ancestry. And there's NW African ancestry in South Italy+Sardinia.

But I'm confused why in ADMIXTURE Italy scores more of West Asian-centered components than any other Europeans, but in IBD no signs of recent West Asian admixture pop up. I'm trying to fit Italy-genetic into the box of EEF-WHG-Steppe, it might not be that simple.
 
Fire Haired14 said:
IBD states, Fiorito 2015

The IBD variation in Italy seems too simple. Almost everything follows a geographic pattern, and it's most North-South.

The highlights for IBD Italy-West Eurasia are.....

.High IBD between NW Africa and South Italy.
.High IBD between North Europe and North Italy.
.High IBD between NE Europe and Basilicata
.Low IBD between West Asia and Italy.

The Highlights for IBD Italy-Italy are....

.NE Italy and Central Italy share a lot of IBD. Variation within the two regions also follow geography, they share the most with their nearest neighbors.
.Some of NE Italy shares a lot of IBD with South Italy.
.South Italy for the most part shares most IBD with each other.

Click to expand...

Fire-Haired, we can't get careless here. You keep on talking about North East Italians. There are no north East Italians in this study. There's just Northern Italian samples and Central Italian samples and some Southern Italian samples. If anything, the samples skew North/Northwest Italian and North Central Italian. It might be a good idea to correct your post so that other people don't get confused. They're going to think we're talking about Friulani or those far Northeastern isolates that they tested.

As to "high IBD sharing", high is a relative term. The "sharing" between North Africans and the southern Italians analyzed in this study results in an average admixture of 5.42% in south Italy, and 4.66% in Sardinia. I don't know why that's a surprise. If you look at the non E-V13 "E" in Sicily, for example, you could estimate that you'd get this kind of result.

This is how the authors put it in the Supplement: "Shared IBD haplotypes across Europe and the Mediterranean basin: the total length W and the average length L of the shared IBD segments between each of the eleven Italian regions and the other populations considered in the study are shown in Table S4. Two inverse gradients were observed, taking into account the IBD segments shared between Italians and the other populations. Specifically, a south to north trend was observed for the IBD segments shared between the North Africans and Italians, whereas the opposite direction was detected for the IBD segments shared between Italians and the other European populations.(Table S4A)."

I said it less elegantly in some posts above. I don't know what's so surprising about it. It's exactly the same thing that Ralph and Coop found two years ago using a different method. It's also in complete accord with everything we know about Italian pre-history and history.

What did you expect that this should seem so unusual and too simple? With whom did you expect us to have IBD sharing?

As to the time of admixture, they have this to say: "The IBD segments shared between the Italians and the other European populations are longer than the IBD segments shared between Italians and Turkish/Middle Eastern individuals, indicating that the admixture events between Italians and other Europeans are the most recent."

How could it be clearer? The IBD segments between Italians and Turkish/Middle Eastern individuals are very old, perhaps mostly Neolithic, some perhaps Bronze Age. The IBD segments shared with other European populations stem from the Indo-European migrations, the Celtic migrations, and perhaps to a minor degree, in some areas, in my opinion, to the Germanic invasions. The North African element was the last one, minor, and entered mostly southern Italy.*

Fire-Haired: Italy is mostly EEF. But also has recent North European and West Asian ancestry. And there's NW African ancestry in South Italy+Sardinia.
Click to expand...

Generally correct, in my opinion, except as to recent Turkish/Middle Eastern ancestry, if that's what you mean by West Asian admixture. That doesn't seem to be the case according to this IBD analysis and likewise the one done by Ralph and Coop.

A proportionally less WHG Indo-European group with a good amount of "Teal" might be a different story.

Ed.*While the last migration was from the "Saracens", that doesn't mean that all the North African is from them. I think some of it arrived earlier.
 
Last edited:
@Angela,

I don't know exactly how IBD works. I'm pretty sure overall closeness can make IBD scores high. So, that can help explain longer-IBD segments with Europeans than any West Asians. IBD doesn't support West Asian ancestry but ADMIXTURE and PCA does. A way to test if there is Balkan ancestry is get IBD stats from Balkans, this study only had Romanians. I think I might ask for some people online to do IBD stats this study didn't do.
 
Angela said:
Fire-Haired, we can't get careless here. You keep on talking about North East Italians. There are no north East Italians in this study. There's just Northern Italian samples and Central Italian samples and some Southern Italian samples. If anything, the samples skew North/Northwest Italian and North Central Italian. It might be a good idea to correct your post so that other people don't get confused. They're going to think we're talking about Friulani or those far Northeastern isolates that they tested.

As to "high IBD sharing", high is a relative term. The "sharing" between North Africans and the southern Italians analyzed in this study results in an average admixture of 5.42% in south Italy, and 4.66% in Sardinia. I don't know why that's a surprise. If you look at the non E-V13 "E" in Sicily, for example, you could estimate that you'd get this kind of result.

This is how the authors put it in the Supplement: "Shared IBD haplotypes across Europe and the Mediterranean basin: the total length W and the average length L of the shared IBD segments between each of the eleven Italian regions and the other populations considered in the study are shown in Table S4. Two inverse gradients were observed, taking into account the IBD segments shared between Italians and the other populations. Specifically, a south to north trend was observed for the IBD segments shared between the North Africans and Italians, whereas the opposite direction was detected for the IBD segments shared between Italians and the other European populations.(Table S4A)."

I said it less elegantly in some posts above. I don't know what's so surprising about it. It's exactly the same thing that Ralph and Coop found two years ago using a different method. It's also in complete accord with everything we know about Italian pre-history and history.

What did you expect that this should seem so unusual and too simple? With whom did you expect us to have IBD sharing?

As to the time of admixture, they have this to say: "The IBD segments shared between the Italians and the other European populations are longer than the IBD segments shared between Italians and Turkish/Middle Eastern individuals, indicating that the admixture events between Italians and other Europeans are the most recent."

How could it be clearer? The IBD segments between Italians and Turkish/Middle Eastern individuals are very old, perhaps mostly Neolithic, some perhaps Bronze Age. The IBD segments shared with other European populations stem from the Indo-European migrations, the Celtic migrations, and perhaps to a minor degree, in some areas, in my opinion, to the Germanic invasions. The North African element was the last one, minor, and entered mostly southern Italy.



Generally correct, in my opinion, except as to recent Turkish/Middle Eastern ancestry, if that's what you mean by West Asian admixture. That doesn't seem to be the case according to this IBD analysis and likewise the one done by Ralph and Coop.

A proportionally less WHG Indo-European group with a good amount of "Teal" might be a different story.
Click to expand...

I qualified my comment about the impact of the Germanic invasions because I'm a bit skeptical of their claim that this is the source of the IBD sharing between North and Central Italians and other Europeans. They place way too much faith in the ability of Alder to date admixture events, in my opinion, and perhaps they've been influenced by Hellenthal and Busby et al. They shouldn't be; there are a lot of flaws in those papers.

Plus, most telling in my opinion is that if there was a lot of admixture from this event we'd see a lot more I1, U106, R1a or even N. It's not there to a large degree although there's indeed some, and particularly toward the Veneto, which is generally how they entered Italy.

I'm also not totally convinced by their "West Asian Etruscans" argument. I have no problem with an elite migration coming from northwest Anatolia and/or the north Aegean. If it had been large, however, we wouldn't have generic Southern European or Balkan looking samples from elite Etruscan burials. You would also expect to see some IBD sharing between Tuscans and Turkey/other Middle Easterners, and it doesn't seem to be there.
 
Angela said:
I qualified my comment about the impact of the Germanic invasions because I'm a bit skeptical of their claim that this is the source of the IBD sharing between North and Central Italians and other Europeans. They place way too much faith in the ability of Alder to date admixture events, in my opinion, and perhaps they've been influenced by Hellenthal and Busby et al. They shouldn't be; there are a lot of flaws in those papers.

Plus, most telling in my opinion is that if there was a lot of admixture from this event we'd see a lot more I1, U106, R1a or even N. It's not there to a large degree although there's indeed some, and particularly toward the Veneto, which is generally how they entered Italy..
Click to expand...

I agree. I recall an aDNA study a few years back from NE Italy...Unfortunately I didn't track the citation, but I believe the authors believed it was a Germanic settlement during Roman times. There was a Roman "pin" on one of the skeletons. I recall the YDNA being R1b, I1, and E1b...and some others, but the remains were predicted on haplotype rather than SNP. Hopefully another research team gets the funding and can pick this one up again. I'd love to see the results using SNPs.
 
Fire Haired14;470172you'd expect high IBD with Turkey. But maybe IBD can't detect admixture from so long ago.[/QUOTE said:
Or just maybe West Anatolia had a strong population replacement from Etruscan to modern times. Such as let's say the Turkish expansion.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I don't think most people remember the "West Asian" scores for Europeans produced by Admixture programs. All of these come from Dodecad.

Central and Eastern Europeans get about 11 to 14.5% for West Asian:
Germans 11.2
Dutch 12
Poles 12.3
Russians 13.2
Mixed Slavs 13.6
Hungarians 14.5

Northern Italians fit right in there, coming in with 14.1, a little bit less than the Hungarians.

Then you have:
TSI Tuscans 18.1
Romanians 21
Central Italians 22.4
Bulgarians 22.4

So the Central Italians and Bulgarians get the same score. I'm sure Serbs and Albanians, Kosovars etc. come in somewhere around there.

Then you have the Greeks from Thessaly and the southern Italians/Sicilians with the highest percentages. Cypriots have more yet.

Greeks 24.8
S.Italian/Sicilians 25.4

Another factor to be considered is that while Italy was spared the Slavic migrations, the Balkans were not, so the original scores must have been even higher.

My point is that "high" West Asian scores are not a particularly "Italian" phenomena, and in fact "West Asian" isn't very high at all in North Italians and Tuscans in comparison to Central Europeans. Any explanation has to take these facts into consideration.

As to any "replacement" of northwest Anatolians, I'm not aware of any such thing. I think the average "Turkic" admixture is under 10% in Turkey, which is hardly replacement anywhere, and the areas with the highest admixtures are actually not in Aegean Turkey if my memory serves. If someone has figures from different areas of Turkey I'd be very interested to see them.
 
Angela said:
My point is that "high" West Asian scores are not a particularly "Italian" phenomena, and in fact "West Asian" isn't very high at all in North Italians and Tuscans in comparison to Central Europeans. Any explanation has to take these facts into consideration.

As to any "replacement" of northwest Anatolians, I'm not aware of any such thing. I think the average "Turkic" admixture is under 10% in Turkey, which is hardly replacement anywhere, and the areas with the highest admixtures are actually not in Aegean Turkey if my memory serves. If someone has figures from different areas of Turkey I'd be very interested to see them.
Click to expand...

To cap it all there aren't either archaeological and linguistic evidence that prove a link between ancient Etruscans and Turkey.
 
This paper is partly rubbish if it meant to cover all the Italian populace.

All Adriatic sea regions are not represented except Ferrara...............IMO , the paper is aimed at establishing an IDEA of early iron age in Italy, with Ferrara representing the most northern Etruscan area.
 
Fire Haired14 said:
@Angela,

I don't know exactly how IBD works. I'm pretty sure overall closeness can make IBD scores high. So, that can help explain longer-IBD segments with Europeans than any West Asians. IBD doesn't support West Asian ancestry but ADMIXTURE and PCA does. A way to test if there is Balkan ancestry is get IBD stats from Balkans, this study only had Romanians. I think I might ask for some people online to do IBD stats this study didn't do.
Click to expand...

IBDs are notoriously imprecise. They can't even assert for sure the direction of the gene-flow. So by looking at IBDs alone you can reach conclusions as dubious as North African admixture in Italy and France being possibly around 200 years old and in Iberia about 300 years old (this is what some of the authors of Botigue et al. concluded by placing their faith in IBDs.) Conclusions based on IBDs are often in contradiction to more standard autosomal genetic analysis like ADMIXTURE, as you yourself have noticed above.
 
Angela said:
Let's try to focus shall we? THERE ARE NO SAMPLES IN THE STUDY FROM CAMPANIA OR APULIA OR INDEED FROM ANY PART OF CALABRIA OTHER THAN REGGIO.


It doesn't analyze those areas, so no real conclusions can be drawn based on this study as to how much North African they would show.

What we can do is look at other studies of southern Italians, studies both academic and private. Those studies SUGGEST that these other southern Italian areas would have some amount of North African, but perhaps on a south/north decreasing cline.

As to your prior post, why wouldn't someone from the Abruzzi place next to southern Italians? They are southern Italians, from everything I've ever seen of their genetic make-up.

I agree that in a place as diverse genetically as Italy they should have had more samples.
Click to expand...

BUT HAVE YOU READ THIS QUOTE FROM THE SUPPLEMENTARY TABLE? In Basilicata there is no especially high North African admixture whatever, it's actually on par with the rest of Italy. Only Sardinia, Sicily and Calabria (Reggio only) have above noise level of North African admixture.

"The North-African component is detectable in the Italian sample, especially in Sicily, Calabria, and Sardinia and it is distinguishable from random noise: 5.42% (2.99% - 7.85%) in South Italy and 4.66% (2.22% - 7.11%) in Sardinia. "

Now feel free to post those academic studies which found out these supposed North African admixture in Apulia and Campania.


 
Tomenable said:
Sorry but if even Iberians are closer genetically to Romanians, than Northern Italians are to Southern Italians, then we can't say it is "just geography". It correlates with geography only as far as different ancestral ethnic groups settled different geographical areas...Geographical distance from Iberia to Romania is many times greater, than from Southern Italy to Northern Italy...And you also wrote, that there is (or was until ca. 1950) almost no IBD sharing between Southern and Northern Italy - why?
Click to expand...
The authors have oversampled extreme Southerners like those from Reggio Calabria who only make 0.5% of S.Italian population. They also didn't get any samples from intermediate regions like Campania, Umbria, Abruzzo, etc... who actually fill the "void" between the North and the South like shown in the De Gaetano et al 2012. In Nelis et al 2009, Southern Italians from Apulia were genetically as close to N.Italians from Piedmont, as Northern Germans (from Schleswig-Holstein) were to Southern Germans (from Bavaria). Germany has also East-West differences (not present in Italy) that seem to be even more prominent like shown in Heath et al. (2008).
 
Angela said:

This is Fire-Haired's comment from a duplicate thread he started.


Click to expand...

very interesting;
the differences correlate with geography, yes, but they are genetically far more strong than geographically distances! (what I had from BritainDNA said the same). I think someone in the abstract I've seen remarked this: more "distance" between North and South Italy than between North Italy and Spain or even France, than between France and G-B and so on... for Sicily I think the differences between N-W and S or NE confirm History (pre-Roman first imput from North (akin to Ligurians?) and Norman period, even if other events I ignore could also explain that;
I need to go deeper but I rely upon other forumers, I have not the full paper; thanks all the way.
the Toscana/Lazzio proximity seems, as said here, an "etruscan" imput: not by force a specially exotic DNA, but the mean mix the Etruscan dynasties can have spred with them in their extension in Central Italy.
 
Pax Augusta said:
We already discussed about it many times. We can't completely rule out that there was a small migration of a supposedly religious elite from Anatolia related to the Etruscans without a substantial genetic impact, but it is now extremely clear that the vast majority of the Tuscans are not descended from this but from Villanovians who were part of the Etruscan ethnos.
Click to expand...

I'm more and more pushed to think like you about this. Something "exotic" occurred there, but was of little genetic imput, spite a cultural one of importance
 
Angela said:
As to any "replacement" of northwest Anatolians, I'm not aware of any such thing. I think the average "Turkic" admixture is under 10% in Turkey, which is hardly replacement anywhere, and the areas with the highest admixtures are actually not in Aegean Turkey if my memory serves. If someone has figures from different areas of Turkey I'd be very interested to see them.
Click to expand...

Note "Turkic" admixture =/= Turkish expansion. The Turkish expansion brought most likely more of the Teal element with them than East Eurasian admixture. The modern Turks probably have around 20% of real "Turkic" as from Central Asia-Siberia ancestry, but a whole lot of more Iranic one rising up to as much as 50%. It is most likely that the Seldjuks who reached Anatolia from Iran were yet already pred. West Eurasian and akine to modern Turkmens from Turkmenistan.
 
it concerns a trread in Y-haplos too:
the "second mesolithic" (specific trapezes tools) of Thomas PERRIN could be a clue concerning first apparition of Y-E-V13 ancestors into Europe. Spite some remote shapes links with Ukraina, it seems the source of this technical wave, fleeing the advance in Neoltihic after its first arrrival in Southern Europe, could be linked to Capsian and come from the North-East-Algerian-North-West-Tunisian region, before pass at first step into Sicily, Southern Italy and Adriatic merging lands of Montenegro/Dalmatia around 7000 BC or a before.
this technic expanded after (6200 BC) into Cantabrica, Valencia, Asturias, Eastern Lombardia, Venetia, french Provence, Southern Brittany, Portugal,before reaching North: Îe-de-France, Picardy, Belgium, the Netherlands and Denmark after 5300 BC, at the same time it disppearred progressively from Mediterranea. a first demic introduction could very well be possible, even if in it extensions, some local profiles could be the result of acculturation more than colonization. It seems too the climatic deterioration around the 6000BC has seen a change in the settlement localizations (Mediterranea dryer and colder, but population climbing in mountains (!?!) when on the Atlantic the populations got rather down near the coasts.
my hypothesis is fragile but could explain some auDNA results concernins Italy and even Yougoslavia (NorthAfrican traces mixed with more Near-Eastern ones?) + Y-E1b more variated in Western Yugoslavia than in East Balkans + apparition of E-V13 in Iberia in very Early Neolithic for West and so on... the track N-Africa to Italy through Sicily is sensible I think. surely the first groups have more immediate upstreams Y-E1b than typical E-V13: it deserves a deeper analysis of subclades I cannot do here; all that doesn't explain, maybe, the all Y-EV13 found in Italy or elsewhere in Europe because EV13 can have espanded in some cases after having been incorporated among Neolithic people, or more later during metals ages, after some demographic boom. But my if hypothesi was true, it could confirm the anteriority (and its "mesolithic" charactere) of Y-EV13 and upstreams in Southern Europe compared to Neolithic advance. Let's wait for proofs!
 
MOESAN said:
it concerns a trread in Y-haplos too:
the "second mesolithic" (specific trapezes tools) of Thomas PERRIN could be a clue concerning first apparition of Y-E-V13 ancestors into Europe. Spite some remote shapes links with Ukraina, it seems the source of this technical wave, fleeing the advance in Neoltihic after its first arrrival in Southern Europe, could be linked to Capsian and come from the North-East-Algerian-North-West-Tunisian region, before pass at first step into Sicily, Southern Italy and Adriatic merging lands of Montenegro/Dalmatia around 7000 BC or a before.
this technic expanded after (6200 BC) into Cantabrica, Valencia, Asturias, Eastern Lombardia, Venetia, french Provence, Southern Brittany, Portugal,before reaching North: Îe-de-France, Picardy, Belgium, the Netherlands and Denmark after 5300 BC, at the same time it disppearred progressively from Mediterranea. a first demic introduction could very well be possible, even if in it extensions, some local profiles could be the result of acculturation more than colonization. It seems too the climatic deterioration around the 6000BC has seen a change in the settlement localizations (Mediterranea dryer and colder, but population climbing in mountains (!?!) when on the Atlantic the populations got rather down near the coasts.
my hypothesis is fragile but could explain some auDNA results concernins Italy and even Yougoslavia (NorthAfrican traces mixed with more Near-Eastern ones?) + Y-E1b more variated in Western Yugoslavia than in East Balkans + apparition of E-V13 in Iberia in very Early Neolithic for West and so on... the track N-Africa to Italy through Sicily is sensible I think. surely the first groups have more immediate upstreams Y-E1b than typical E-V13: it deserves a deeper analysis of subclades I cannot do here; all that doesn't explain, maybe, the all Y-EV13 found in Italy or elsewhere in Europe because EV13 can have espanded in some cases after having been incorporated among Neolithic people, or more later during metals ages, after some demographic boom. But my if hypothesi was true, it could confirm the anteriority (and its "mesolithic" charactere) of Y-EV13 and upstreams in Southern Europe compared to Neolithic advance. Let's wait for proofs!
Click to expand...

As you say, we really need ancient dna for proof but I think you have some interesting insights here.

Everything can't be explained by very recent migrations. The flows are layered, but Alder can't distinguish them; it's just picking up the most recent admixture time. I really wish someone would do a sophisticated study of E-V13 in Greece, the Balkans, and Italy with a lot of subclade resolution, similar to what was done for Spain and Portugal in the Candela Hernandez et al paper. I think it would be a valuable adjunct even after we get ancient dna. They should do J2 as well.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0139784

I also don't think that anyone can figure out Italian genetics without including comparisons to all of Greece and numerous Balkan countries. That's one of the problems with this study. The high "West Asian" in the Balkans, Greece, southern Italy and parts of central Italy has to be part of the same process. (See post # ) Or did the Etruscans settle the former Yugoslavia too, and Bulgaria and Romania? Perhaps there was a massive re-settlement of "Parthian" slaves there as well as in Italy in the late Empire period? :) The same goes for the North African that shows up in the Balkans and Greece and into Central Europe.
View attachment 7504

Some of that didn't come with the Moorish invasions of the early Medieval period. It may be that some of it is very old indeed. It's clear that all the early Neolithic peoples who entered Europe cluster together and are very related to each other and to Anatolian Neolithic farmers. However, there were subsequent Neolithic flows. I have speculated before that E-V13 and J2 were part of a later Neolithic flow. (Well, I did after E-V13 and J2 were found in a period best described as the transition period from the Early to Mid-Neolithic. Before that, I leaned toward believing that J2, at least, was Bronze Age and later in Europe. So, yes, I was wrong and Maciamo and LeBrok were right, as LeBrok was delighted to point out. :)) Now, we may find that E-V13 was already there in the late Mesolithic, or arrived further south in the Early Neolithic but only moved north later, but it's also possible that it was part of a later, slightly more North African Neolithic flow.

After all, Oetzi already had some North African:

View attachment 7505

We may get some clarity on this when the new Lazaridis paper is published, and if we ever get an analysis of some ancient E-V13 samples in Europe. It will be interesting to see if there is a slight North African shift in some of the samples.

I think it's only by looking at both ancient and recent processes that one can understand the differences even within southern Italy. Sicilians and some Calabrians overlap in this paper, but other Calabrians are south and east of the Sicilians. I don't think that can be because of "Moorish" rule, since Calabria was ruled by them for a very short time compared to Sicily. Now, in this paper only samples from the province of Reggio Calabria were used, not Catanzaro etc., so, one could argue that these are the most "Sicilian like" Calabrians. If that's the case, how to explain that, as I said, some of the Sicilians are a little north and west of these samples from Reggio?
View attachment 7506

It's difficult to speculate because the samples aren't labeled by the city of origin, and so we don't know if there is northwest versus extreme south substructure in Sicily. It could be that with the centuries there's been a lot of admixture and it's just down to random chance. On the other hand, we could speculate that the samples from northwest Sicily are the ones that list northward toward the samples from Lazio. Norman input in northwest Sicily could pull some of those Sicilian samples north, although the effect would probably be minimal since that wasn't a folk migration. However, there were other even more ancient migrations that disproportionately affected the northwest. The yDna certainly shows spikes in I1, and U-106 in the northwest although not specifically in that one city. The following image may not be exact, because I don't know when it was last updated, and there's no legend for the percents we're talking about here,which for some of these is very minor, but at least it gives an idea of the variation. Also be aware there's no break down of J2b versus J2a, and a lot of that "E" is E-V13.
Italy-Y-DNA-maps.jpg



It's also speculation what the same analysis would show for the other Sicilian regions. I'd be very surprised, however, if there's much difference between the people of Messina and the people of Reggio Calabria. However, there would have to be some impact in certain specific towns from the deliberate policy of settling areas depopulated by expelled "Saracens" or "Moors" with settlers from Lombardia, Liguria, Toscana etc. This is the establishment of the so called "Lombard" towns. I've speculated before that a portion of the U152 on the island may be a result of this re-poplation. We'd need detailed subclade resolution to say which U-152 arrived "recently", and which is "Italic".

There was no concerted "Lombard" or northern Italian resettlement of Calabria, and the Normans had less impact there even if it was a minor factor even in Sicily. These differences may partly explain some of these results, but the ancient processes also have a part to play. When either the Oetzi or Gok 4 genome was first released I remember that there was some indication of overall similarity to or IBD flow that included not only Sardinia but also Calabria. Don't quote me, though, because I haven't found the paper yet. :)

Anyway, these are my speculations so far. When we get more ancient dna it should clarify matters.

Oh, I have no idea why some people are claiming that there was no Greek colonization of Apulia. There certainly was; in fact, there are still enclaves in the Salento where they speak Griko, a dialect of Greek, to this day.

Magna_Graecia_ancient_colonies_and_dialects-en.svg_.png
 
Angela said:
It's not a high level. You can see that from the Admixture runs. It's the fact that the segments are long that shows it was relatively recent. They're showing IBD into the first millennium BC, so it should show up, you're right. Ralph and Coop went back to approximately 2500 BC.

If the "Etruscans" did come from northwest Anatolia, they might have been a male elite. The paper that provided a PCA for ancient Etruscans showed them as generic Southern Europeans, maybe even pretty Balkan like, not West Asian as in Turkish or Anatolian or Armenian at all.

There might have been a Bronze Age migration by way of the Balkans that carried ANE and high farmer levels but very little WHG. I've been proposing for a long time that the Indo-European migrations weren't a case of one specific group that somehow exponentially increased in population and then went out and invaded and admixed with native groups, but a case of "related" populations spreading in different directions, sometimes after a certain amount of back migration. So, some of the "Indo-Europeans" that came to Italy from the east may not have been exactly the same autosomally as the Indo-Europeans who arrived from the north.

We should know soon, when we get ancient Greek and Italian genomes from the relevant periods.
Click to expand...

Can you check your term of west-asian ................It is not turkic ..............

Also Turkic only appears in modern Turkey about 1000 years ago, before this there was no Turkic there
 
Sile said:
Can you check your term of west-asian ................It is not turkic ..............

Also Turkic only appears in modern Turkey about 1000 years ago, before this there was no Turkic there
Click to expand...

Where did I ever say or imply that West Asian equals Turkic? Everybody knows that the Turks didn't arrive until the Middle Ages.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 101875 times.

Back
Top