Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 186

Thread: How did the ancient Romans turn into Italians ?

  1. #51
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered5000 Experience Points
    Nobody1's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-03-13
    Posts
    1,040
    Points
    5,756
    Level
    22
    Points: 5,756, Level: 22
    Level completed: 42%, Points required for next Level: 294
    Overall activity: 34.0%


    Country: Germany - Baden-Wurttemberg





    Quote Originally Posted by Templar View Post
    Germanic people (and especially the Normans)were far more over-represented in the Crusades than Italians lol.

    First Crusade leadership:

    Godfrey of Bouillon(Frankish knight born in the very edge of North-Eastern France)

    Raymond IV of Toulouse(Frankish knight)

    Baldwin of Boulogne(Frankish knight born in modern-day Belgium)

    Bohemond I (Norman Knight from Sicily)

    Robert Curthose (Norman knight from Normandy)

    Third Crusade:

    Philip II of France (Frankish King born in North-Eastern France)

    Richard I of England (Norman King)

    Frederick I Barbarossa (Holy Roman Emperor)

    I won't mention the leadership of all the other crusades because they weren't as important or successful as the first and third ones.
    And who do you think was in the armies of Bohemund and Tancred (First Crusade) -

    Fulcher of Chartres - Historia Hierosolymitana
    [First Crusade]
    Franci, Flandri, Frisi, Galli, Allobroges, Lotharingi, Alemanni, Baioarii, Normanni, Angli, Scoti, Aquitani, Itali, Daci, Apuli, Iberi, Britones, Graeci, Armeni?

    Lombards and Apulians were heavily recruited by the Normans in the South;
    at every expedition against the Byzantines [Dyrrachium 1091/Thessalonica 1085]; Crusades; Islamic Sicily etc.

    Ioannes Skylitzes -
    (Normannic conquest of South Italy vs. Byzantines)
    Michael was defeated and lost the better part of his army, he shamefully taking refuge in Cannae. Crippled like this he was none the wiser for his wound.....took back into battle his defeated forces together with the Pisidians and Lycaonians who make up the unit of the foederati and fell on the enemy at a place called Horai. Again he was severely defeated by the Franks (Normans) who had now allied with themselves a considerable host of Italians living around the river Po and in the foothills of the Alps.

    Thats just the Normannic campaigns look up
    Guelph and Ghibellines
    for the Lombards on their own;

  2. #52
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassThree FriendsVeteran5000 Experience Points
    Templar's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-10-11
    Posts
    622
    Points
    7,898
    Level
    26
    Points: 7,898, Level: 26
    Level completed: 58%, Points required for next Level: 252
    Overall activity: 1.0%


    Ethnic group
    Paleolithic European
    Country: Bosnia & Herzegovina



    Quote Originally Posted by Nobody1 View Post
    And who do you think was in the armies of Bohemund and Tancred (First Crusade) -
    I am well aware that many Italians participated in the Crusades, but what I was responding to was the claim that they were LEAD by Italians, which is false. Even the Pope who started the Crusades, Pope Urban II​, was born in North-Eastern France.

  3. #53
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered5000 Experience Points
    Nobody1's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-03-13
    Posts
    1,040
    Points
    5,756
    Level
    22
    Points: 5,756, Level: 22
    Level completed: 42%, Points required for next Level: 294
    Overall activity: 34.0%


    Country: Germany - Baden-Wurttemberg



    Quote Originally Posted by Templar View Post
    I am well aware that many Italians participated in the Crusades, but what I was responding to was the claim that they were LEAD by Italians, which is false. Even the Pope who started the Crusades, Pope Urban II​, was born in North-Eastern France.
    Thats true;
    none of the leaders were Italians (Lombard/Apulian);
    i think there was one Bishop from Lombardy with a peasant army
    - but killed in Anatolia against Seljuq Turks;

  4. #54
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassThree FriendsVeteran5000 Experience Points
    Templar's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-10-11
    Posts
    622
    Points
    7,898
    Level
    26
    Points: 7,898, Level: 26
    Level completed: 58%, Points required for next Level: 252
    Overall activity: 1.0%


    Ethnic group
    Paleolithic European
    Country: Bosnia & Herzegovina



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nobody1 View Post
    Thats true;
    none of the leaders were Italians (Lombard/Apulian);
    i think there was one Bishop from Lombardy with a peasant army
    - but killed in Anatolia against Seljuq Turks;
    I am glad that we are finally getting along pretty well lol.


  5. #55
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    26-01-09
    Posts
    624
    Points
    10,378
    Level
    30
    Points: 10,378, Level: 30
    Level completed: 72%, Points required for next Level: 172
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: UK - Scotland



    Quote Originally Posted by Nobody1 View Post
    Thats true;
    none of the leaders were Italians (Lombard/Apulian);
    i think there was one Bishop from Lombardy with a peasant army
    - but killed in Anatolia against Seljuq Turks;
    The only important Italian Crusading leaders were the Montferrat (Monferrato) dynasty from Piedmont who may have mixed with the French.

  6. #56
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered5000 Experience Points
    Nobody1's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-03-13
    Posts
    1,040
    Points
    5,756
    Level
    22
    Points: 5,756, Level: 22
    Level completed: 42%, Points required for next Level: 294
    Overall activity: 34.0%


    Country: Germany - Baden-Wurttemberg



    Quote Originally Posted by Templar View Post
    I am glad that we are finally getting along pretty well lol.


  7. #57
    Noman
    Guest


    First off the great works were done by Greek slaves who were much smarter than most of their masters. Second, the upper class was all etruscan and nothing to do with the rest, where all the genius of leadership came from. Thirdly they were forced to rise up to the occasion several times, which is what led to their discipline and cohesiveness for a long time. That combined with a few brilliant leaders of the caesar line is what propelled them to the top.

    Then they had the problem of too much success, a huge proletariat on the dole, an ever decaying and more dissolute and outof touch upper class.

    And of course it's been almost completely depopulated and replaced in the north. Then once again. Then a couple times in the south and struggles with the guelfs and ghibbolines that tore apart any last shred of cohesiveness. Then the venetians and genoans running everything in such a way as to turn everyone against each other and undermine christianity to boot, and taking on so many mercenaries again they practically speaking changed the character of the country again.

    And of course the delightful rule of the duke of anjou, fallowed by the italian vespers and rule by aragon.

    So no there's cohesion of any kind, and probably zero genetic continuity, and the great works of romans weren't due to the local italian population anyway.

  8. #58
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    14,825
    Points
    249,604
    Level
    100
    Points: 249,604, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    2 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Noman View Post
    First off the great works were done by Greek slaves who were much smarter than most of their masters. Second, the upper class was all etruscan and nothing to do with the rest, where all the genius of leadership came from. Thirdly they were forced to rise up to the occasion several times, which is what led to their discipline and cohesiveness for a long time. That combined with a few brilliant leaders of the caesar line is what propelled them to the top.

    Then they had the problem of too much success, a huge proletariat on the dole, an ever decaying and more dissolute and outof touch upper class.

    And of course it's been almost completely depopulated and replaced in the north. Then once again. Then a couple times in the south and struggles with the guelfs and ghibbolines that tore apart any last shred of cohesiveness. Then the venetians and genoans running everything in such a way as to turn everyone against each other and undermine christianity to boot, and taking on so many mercenaries again they practically speaking changed the character of the country again.

    And of course the delightful rule of the duke of anjou, fallowed by the italian vespers and rule by aragon.

    So no there's cohesion of any kind, and probably zero genetic continuity, and the great works of romans weren't due to the local italian population anyway.

    The Etruscan kings once ruled Rome, but were kicked out. The Romans absorbed the Etruscans; notably, for example, we know that Claudius married an Etruscan noblewoman, but that hardly means the Romans were really just Etruscans. It's very clear that the Latin clans were still alive and well at that period, and that these peoples (the Etruscans and the Romans) spoke different languages, from totally different language families, and that the Indo-European Latin language prevailed.

    As to the precise genetic differences, what I would say is that we don't have any "Roman" dna of that period, or any period for that matter, and as I've posted before, the only Etruscan dna we have is some HVRI values which could just as well have been in place since the Neolithic. So, everything is basically conjecture. The Italici, of which the Romans were one group, may have been significantly different from the Etruscans when they first arrived in the peninsula; we just don't know. What seems obvious, however, even if both groups came from elsewhere during the Bronze Age, or early Iron Age, (for the Etruscans there is absolutely no archaeological evidence of a mass migration at this time, so it would have to have been a small group that formed an elite) is that they would have mingled with the pre-existing population, and then with each other.

    As to "replacement" in Italy, the actual science doesn't support any such hypothesis; quite the contrary. Rather, it paints a picture of continuity since about the middle of the first millennium B.C., a continuity that is rare in Europe. I don't know why so many people seem to be unaware of the latest research using IBD analysis.
    Ralph and Coop et al: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/i...l.pbio.1001555
    The discussion at Discovery: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gn...1#.Uhef6T_pxdE

    This doesn't mean, of course, as Razib takes pains to point out, that there wasn't significant population substructure dating from that time, because there was, owing perhaps the most to the Celtic migrations in the north and the Greek colonization in the south.

    It also doesn't mean that Italians don't all cluster together, however, as indeed they do, and which can be seem on any academic PCA plot. You don't have all these Italians clustering in Greece or Spain or France or Switzerland, the way that the lines are blurred between, say, the Low Countries and England, or the Scandinavian countries and England. You can go all the way back to Lao et al, and his finding that one of the major breaks in the European cline (another one being near Finland) can be located at the Alps. Within Italy itself, there is a lesser break in the cline just south of Rome, which may indeed be due to the Greek colonizations which I mentioned, but which could also be a result of some small influences from the Moorish kingdoms of Sicily and the southern part of the peninsula, and then to the fact that these provinces formed part of the general area of The Kingdom of the Two Sicilies for so long, and therefore what gene flow was experienced was largely confined to that area until perhaps fifty years ago. Despite the delusions of the followers of Lega Nord, there is no genetic evidence of any distinct population of "Padanians" who live north of the Po. Rather, except for the slight break south of Rome, Italian genetics is basically clinal except for some small genetic isolates.

    What has to be remembered is that Italy has maintained high population densities since the Neolithic. (more Cardial in some areas, and more Danubian in others, but any rate, it does not seem that it experienced the type of population crash that took place in the LBK, or even in the Balkans) The Italici then appear all over the peninsula and into Sicily, with their new Indo-European languages. On top of those layers, you have the migrations of the first millennium B.C. of the Greeks into the south, and the "Celtici" or "Galli" into the north. (Whether they were substantially different genetically from the earlier Italici or the mysterious Liguri is a whole other discussion that I don't think can be answered at this time. What should be remembered, however, is that if the historical sources are correct, many of these late "Gallic" migrations ended in slavery for the invaders, while some of them, like the Boi who settled Bologna, left for Dacia or France. I don't mean to imply that some of them did not remain, but I think their influence can be overblown.) Following this, you have a concerted policy by Rome to settle all parts of Gallia Cisalpina, which means basically Italy from the Alps to the Rubicon with colony after colony of Roman settlers. The Romans knew what they were about in terms of pacifying and unifying the peninsula.

    That is basically the ethnogenesis, so far as I currently understand it. What the Ralph and Coop study shows, if they are correct, and nobody seems to have challenged them yet, is that there were no further *major* gene flows into Italy, with the possible exception of some from the Moors in Sicily in particular, and perhaps in lesser degree in some other areas of the south. The Germanic invasions, seem to have had little influence autosomally, and the Slavic ones virtually none. (They maintain that the same is true for the Iberian peninsula) If people are looking for total population replacement, they need to look to the population history of northern Europe.

    As to cultural matters, there are numerous full length books and scholarly papers on the intertwined cultures of Rome, Etruria and Greece that would clarify matters for anyone interested in the subject.

  9. #59
    Noman
    Guest


    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    The Etruscan kings once ruled Rome, but were kicked out. The Romans absorbed the Etruscans; notably, for example, we know that Claudius married an Etruscan noblewoman, but that hardly means the Romans were really just Etruscans. It's very clear that the Latin clans were still alive and well at that period, and that these peoples (the Etruscans and the Romans) spoke different languages, from totally different language families, and that the Indo-European Latin language prevailed.
    But Julius Caesar was actually etruscan and therefore so was Octavian, and they were the ones who made rome what it was. And they weren't the only ones. They had red hair, how much like a modern roman is that?

    As to the precise genetic differences, what I would say is that we don't have any "Roman" dna of that period, or any period for that matter, and as I've posted before, the only Etruscan dna we have is some HVRI values which could just as well have been in place since the Neolithic. So, everything is basically conjecture. The Italici, of which the Romans were one group, may have been significantly different from the Etruscans when they first arrived in the peninsula; we just don't know. What seems obvious, however, even if both groups came from elsewhere during the Bronze Age, or early Iron Age, (for the Etruscans there is absolutely no archaeological evidence of a mass migration at this time, so it would have to have been a small group that formed an elite) is that they would have mingled with the pre-existing population, and then with each other.
    We pretty much know that etruscans were neolithic farmers and we pretty much know that G haplogroup was neolithic farmers, and we have a fully G tribe that claims they were etruscans who got separated from their fellows. So that's about as wrapped up as it can be given the time.

    As to "replacement" in Italy, the actual science doesn't support any such hypothesis; quite the contrary. Rather, it paints a picture of continuity since about the middle of the first millennium B.C., a continuity that is rare in Europe. I don't know why so many people seem to be unaware of the latest research using IBD analysis.
    Ralph and Coop et al: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/i...l.pbio.1001555
    The discussion at Discovery: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gn...1#.Uhef6T_pxdE
    Ah population genetics. Long story short they are basically saying that the people there today are like themselves and not like other people who are elsewhere, but if there's something which was lost it won't measure that, and that's the only thing that matters. And problem is, simply looking at haplogroups in italy says a completely different story. Or knowing enough history for that matter.

    http://italydna.blogspot.com/2007/01/r1b-in-italy.html

    Spot the normans, spot the goths, spot the jews, spot the arabs. None of those groups were part of original rome.

    This doesn't mean, of course, as Razib takes pains to point out, that there wasn't significant population substructure dating from that time, because there was, owing perhaps the most to the Celtic migrations in the north and the Greek colonization in the south.

    It also doesn't mean that Italians don't all cluster together, however, as indeed they do, and which can be seem on any academic PCA plot. You don't have all these Italians clustering in Greece or Spain or France or Switzerland, the way that the lines are blurred between, say, the Low Countries and England, or the Scandinavian countries and England. You can go all the way back to Lao et al, and his finding that one of the major breaks in the European cline (another one being near Finland) can be located at the Alps. Within Italy itself, there is a lesser break in the cline just south of Rome, which may indeed be due to the Greek colonizations which I mentioned, but which could also be a result of some small influences from the Moorish kingdoms of Sicily and the southern part of the peninsula, and then to the fact that these provinces formed part of the general area of The Kingdom of the Two Sicilies for so long, and therefore what gene flow was experienced was largely confined to that area until perhaps fifty years ago. Despite the delusions of the followers of Lega Nord, there is no genetic evidence of any distinct population of "Padanians" who live north of the Po. Rather, except for the slight break south of Rome, Italian genetics is basically clinal except for some small genetic isolates.

    What has to be remembered is that Italy has maintained high population densities since the Neolithic. (more Cardial in some areas, and more Danubian in others, but any rate, it does not seem that it experienced the type of population crash that took place in the LBK, or even in the Balkans) The Italici then appear all over the peninsula and into Sicily, with their new Indo-European languages. On top of those layers, you have the migrations of the first millennium B.C. of the Greeks into the south, and the "Celtici" or "Galli" into the north. (Whether they were substantially different genetically from the earlier Italici or the mysterious Liguri is a whole other discussion that I don't think can be answered at this time. What should be remembered, however, is that if the historical sources are correct, many of these late "Gallic" migrations ended in slavery for the invaders, while some of them, like the Boi who settled Bologna, left for Dacia or France. I don't mean to imply that some of them did not remain, but I think their influence can be overblown.) Following this, you have a concerted policy by Rome to settle all parts of Gallia Cisalpina, which means basically Italy from the Alps to the Rubicon with colony after colony of Roman settlers. The Romans knew what they were about in terms of pacifying and unifying the peninsula.

    That is basically the ethnogenesis, so far as I currently understand it. What the Ralph and Coop study shows, if they are correct, and nobody seems to have challenged them yet, is that there were no further *major* gene flows into Italy, with the possible exception of some from the Moors in Sicily in particular, and perhaps in lesser degree in some other areas of the south. The Germanic invasions, seem to have had little influence autosomally, and the Slavic ones virtually none. (They maintain that the same is true for the Iberian peninsula) If people are looking for total population replacement, they need to look to the population history of northern Europe.

    As to cultural matters, there are numerous full length books and scholarly papers on the intertwined cultures of Rome, Etruria and Greece that would clarify matters for anyone interested in the subject.
    So the invaders who had similar haplogroup to most of the invadees didn't completely change their makeup? And the invaders who'd been invaded by the invadees and vice versa for 3k years or so had similar autosomal dna? That's not a big shock.

    However like I said, and is the case in monarchies and empires we know about, it was a small minority running things and that minority has never been a big percentage of the whole.

    Furthermore the whole of mediterranean has undoubtedly crept in its sutosomal genetics. Especially towards darker hair and skin to protect from the sun.

  10. #60
    Noman
    Guest


    In short you can make a case there's similarity to what rome was when it fell, which is largely because it imprinted itself all over the mediterranean anyway. Not much of a case it's similar to when it started, though.

  11. #61
    Noman
    Guest


    Also you are basically taking distances in directions towards other sources. When you add all these outside forces up you always get basically neutrality unless the migration was unbalanced.

    So the population genetics doesn't mean anything, in general. That is you can't make any statement with it based on the data alone. You could make a statement like "this group migrated here" because of similarities but even then it's just impossible to say whether it moved there or the other guys moved without more contexted than that. you can only say there is some relation, not what it is, and even that is sketchy. It could well be a different group is inside the groups you are comparing and neither one ever had contact with each other.

    And if your "markers" for example are something to do with cold resistance then you could mistakenly find poles are 100% neanderthal as happened in some other study.

  12. #62
    Regular Member Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Sile's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-09-11
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,120
    Points
    29,699
    Level
    52
    Points: 29,699, Level: 52
    Level completed: 96%, Points required for next Level: 51
    Overall activity: 37.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2 -Z19945..Jura
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H95a1 ..Pannoni

    Ethnic group
    North Alpine Italian
    Country: Australia



    Quote Originally Posted by Noman View Post
    But Julius Caesar was actually etruscan and therefore so was Octavian, and they were the ones who made rome what it was. And they weren't the only ones. They had red hair, how much like a modern roman is that?


    We pretty much know that etruscans were neolithic farmers and we pretty much know that G haplogroup was neolithic farmers, and we have a fully G tribe that claims they were etruscans who got separated from their fellows. So that's about as wrapped up as it can be given the time.


    Ah population genetics. Long story short they are basically saying that the people there today are like themselves and not like other people who are elsewhere, but if there's something which was lost it won't measure that, and that's the only thing that matters. And problem is, simply looking at haplogroups in italy says a completely different story. Or knowing enough history for that matter.

    http://italydna.blogspot.com/2007/01/r1b-in-italy.html

    Spot the normans, spot the goths, spot the jews, spot the arabs. None of those groups were part of original rome.



    So the invaders who had similar haplogroup to most of the invadees didn't completely change their makeup? And the invaders who'd been invaded by the invadees and vice versa for 3k years or so had similar autosomal dna? That's not a big shock.

    However like I said, and is the case in monarchies and empires we know about, it was a small minority running things and that minority has never been a big percentage of the whole.

    Furthermore the whole of mediterranean has undoubtedly crept in its sutosomal genetics. Especially towards darker hair and skin to protect from the sun.
    your confusion on modern nationalistic boundaries is confusing you between the ralph and coop paper and your 2007 paper. basically IF italy never formed that data is 100% accurate.....so the basis is that the different people in Italy have always been who they are......

    makes you think if Italy ever needed to be formed.
    có che un pòpoło no 'l defende pi ła só łéngua el xe prónto par èser s'ciavo

    when a people no longer dares to defend its language it is ripe for slavery.

  13. #63
    Noman
    Guest


    If you could say it ever did form. Like european union all it seemed to do was piss people off and ruin many of the local economies which did just fine til then.

  14. #64
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    14,825
    Points
    249,604
    Level
    100
    Points: 249,604, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    Quote Originally Posted by Noman View Post
    But Julius Caesar was actually etruscan and therefore so was Octavian, and they were the ones who made rome what it was. And they weren't the only ones. They had red hair, how much like a modern roman is that?


    We pretty much know that etruscans were neolithic farmers and we pretty much know that G haplogroup was neolithic farmers, and we have a fully G tribe that claims they were etruscans who got separated from their fellows. So that's about as wrapped up as it can be given the time.


    Ah population genetics. Long story short they are basically saying that the people there today are like themselves and not like other people who are elsewhere, but if there's something which was lost it won't measure that, and that's the only thing that matters. And problem is, simply looking at haplogroups in italy says a completely different story. Or knowing enough history for that matter.

    http://italydna.blogspot.com/2007/01/r1b-in-italy.html

    Spot the normans, spot the goths, spot the jews, spot the arabs. None of those groups were part of original rome.



    So the invaders who had similar haplogroup to most of the invadees didn't completely change their makeup? And the invaders who'd been invaded by the invadees and vice versa for 3k years or so had similar autosomal dna? That's not a big shock.

    However like I said, and is the case in monarchies and empires we know about, it was a small minority running things and that minority has never been a big percentage of the whole.

    Furthermore the whole of mediterranean has undoubtedly crept in its sutosomal genetics. Especially towards darker hair and skin to protect from the sun.

    The gens Julii were not Etruscan...repeating it over and over again won't make it so. Perhaps you are confusing Caesar with Cicero, who did indeed claim some partial Etruscan ancestry. Of course, by Caesar's time, there had been a lot of mingling between Romans and Etruscans, and a strictly Etruscan culture had disappeared...only a few priests still spoke or could read Etruscan. Btw, if anything, thanks to the machinations of Livia Augusta in terms of their marriages, the ruling family were mostly of the ancient gens of the Claudii.

    As to the paper you cited, it has to do with y dna, not autosomal dna, and, in addition, it is wildly out of date. In general, in terms of y dna, I'm afraid that you vastly overestimate the importance of y dna haplotypes for "identity" purposes in a modern context. Your y dna line is only one of many lines that form part of your ancestry. Yes, certain y lines have certain distinctive distributions, but you cannot go from that to identifying someone "ethnically" by their y dna, or mt dna signature, for that matter. That's vastly too simplistic, in my opinion, in terms of modern populations, and I think it's even simplistic in terms of pre-historical populations.

    Just as an example, while a lot of British men carry y dna "R1b" signatures, you also have British men who are E-V13, or J2a, or J1 or R1a, or any number of others, including the Yorkshire man with the ancient African haplotype that made the news. That man is no less British than someone carrying U-106. The specific autosomal make-up of a small group of men moving into a region could disappear very quickly from the autosomal make-up of their male descendants, even while the y signature is passed on.

    In terms of Italian genetics, you could do a dna test on a U-152 man from Brescia, and one from Sicily, and even if the subclades are the same, their autosomal make-up will be slightly different, and each man will almost certainly better match other people from his area. Likewise, if you take an L-21 man from Bologna, and an E-M81 man from the same area, who perhaps descends from some stray North African legionnaire who retired to Bologna 2,000 years ago, they will be very similar in terms of general genetic make-up.

    That's not to say that uniparental markers don't have their uses, in cases, for example, where someone is trying to track down a birth father by using y STR's, or for help in understanding the peopling of Europe. In the latter case, however, we have a long way to go in terms of applying specific haplotypes to specific "tribes", if you will. It may be fun to speculate wildly about these things, but it shouldn't be taken too seriously, in my opinion.

    @Sile,
    I'm afraid that might be overstating it a bit. They're not saying that the people from the various regions of Italy have all been in place since time immemorial. For one thing, the current state of the science means they can't go back reliably much further than the Bronze Age. For another, it's clear from their graphics that they found evidence of gene flow into Italy in the period 2300 to about 1500 B.C. It's just that there wasn't as much into certain parts of Europe as others. If you go to Figure 5 in the main body of the study, you'll see what I mean. They also aren't saying that there hasn't been gene flow between neighboring regions in Italy. It just hasn't been enough to change the pattern that was already in place by around 300 or so B.C. before the actual period of the Empire. This is in stark contrast to what happened in central and northern Europe, where there was a lot of migration and gene flow because of the Germanic and later the Slavic migrations. Even the Balkans haven't maintianed their specific genetic character the way that Italy has done.

    Also, nothing in their study contradicts the fact that the break in the cline at the Alps exists...someone from Brescia or Verona is going to cluster with Italians autosomally, not with the Swiss or Slovenes. You can even see that the people of the Ticino plot in Italy. The results on a dodecad analysis like K=12b of a person from Friuli are recognizably Italian; it's just that it is also clear that the person isn't a Tuscan or a Calabrian/Sicilian. One of the main points of the paper from an Italian genetics point of view is that there is more sub-structure in Italy than in other European countries, and that there is a definite north/south, or perhaps northwest/southeast cline. Not, of course, that substructure doesn't exist in other countries. For example, Ralph and Coop specifically state that they found noteworthy substructure in France. They didn't see the same level of substructure in Spain. It's all a question of degree.

  15. #65
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered5000 Experience Points
    Nobody1's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-03-13
    Posts
    1,040
    Points
    5,756
    Level
    22
    Points: 5,756, Level: 22
    Level completed: 42%, Points required for next Level: 294
    Overall activity: 34.0%


    Country: Germany - Baden-Wurttemberg



    Charles Loring Brace - The Races of the Old World (1863)
    The common Roman type, still seen among the peasantry, according to Dr. Wiseman, is a large, flat head, a low wide forehead, a face broad and square, short thick neck, and a short broad figure, such as is found in many of the antique representations of the Roman soldier.


    person of Latium (Central Italy) - Alpinoid - [Rassengeschichte der Menschheit]


    person of Marche (Central Italy) - Dinaric - [Rassengeschichte der Menschheit]



    Augustus and Julius Caesar -typical Brachycephalic Alpinoid/Dinarid (Medit. element) of the Italic Romans



    Til this day -
    Modern day Italians are Anthropologically of the Caucasoid sub-races - Mediterranid / Alpinoid / Dianrid

    J. Deniker - Ibero-Insular = Mediterranean race / sub-Adriatic = Dinaric (+Noric type) / Cevenole = Alpine race



    North Italians are more Brachycephalic [Alpinoid/Dinarid]
    South Italians are more Dolichocephalic [Mediterranid]

  16. #66
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered5000 Experience Points
    Nobody1's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-03-13
    Posts
    1,040
    Points
    5,756
    Level
    22
    Points: 5,756, Level: 22
    Level completed: 42%, Points required for next Level: 294
    Overall activity: 34.0%


    Country: Germany - Baden-Wurttemberg



    Modern day Italians are genetically (haplogroups and admixture) diverse from each other;
    Not surprising since Italy only exists since 1861
    + Historically based Diverse pre-Roman Italy / Diverse Roman Italy / Diverse post-Roman Italy


    DiGaetano et al 2012
    http://www.plosone.org/article/info:...l.pone.0043759

    Figure 2. SNP-Based PC of 1,014 individuals from the Italian dataset.
    A. A Scatter Plot of the Italian population of the first two principal components obtained via R software (prcomp).
    Individuals included belong to:
    Northern Italy
    : black dots / Central Italy: red dots / Southern Italy: green dots / Sardinian: blue dots.
    B. Italian population without the Sardinian-projected scatter plot of the first two principal components obtained via the R software (prcomp)



    Nelis et al 2009
    http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0005472



    Italians didnt greatly inter-mix with each other
    - over the last 1,500 years (since end of Roman Empire)
    manifesting the clear diversity

    Coop & Ralph et al 2013
    http://www.plosbiology.org/article/i...l.pbio.1001555
    Spain and Portugal showing very few common ancestors with other populations over the last 2,500 years. However, the rate of IBD sharing within the peninsula is much higher than within Italy—during the last 1,500 years the Iberian peninsula shares fewer than two genetic common ancestors with other populations, compared to roughly 30 per pair within the peninsula; Italians share on average only about eight with each other during this period.

  17. #67
    Regular Member Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Sile's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-09-11
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,120
    Points
    29,699
    Level
    52
    Points: 29,699, Level: 52
    Level completed: 96%, Points required for next Level: 51
    Overall activity: 37.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2 -Z19945..Jura
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H95a1 ..Pannoni

    Ethnic group
    North Alpine Italian
    Country: Australia



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    .

    @Sile,
    I'm afraid that might be overstating it a bit. They're not saying that the people from the various regions of Italy have all been in place since time immemorial. For one thing, the current state of the science means they can't go back reliably much further than the Bronze Age. For another, it's clear from their graphics that they found evidence of gene flow into Italy in the period 2300 to about 1500 B.C. It's just that there wasn't as much into certain parts of Europe as others. If you go to Figure 5 in the main body of the study, you'll see what I mean. They also aren't saying that there hasn't been gene flow between neighboring regions in Italy. It just hasn't been enough to change the pattern that was already in place by around 300 or so B.C. before the actual period of the Empire. This is in stark contrast to what happened in central and northern Europe, where there was a lot of migration and gene flow because of the Germanic and later the Slavic migrations. Even the Balkans haven't maintianed their specific genetic character the way that Italy has done.

    Also, nothing in their study contradicts the fact that the break in the cline at the Alps exists...someone from Brescia or Verona is going to cluster with Italians autosomally, not with the Swiss or Slovenes. You can even see that the people of the Ticino plot in Italy. The results on a dodecad analysis like K=12b of a person from Friuli are recognizably Italian; it's just that it is also clear that the person isn't a Tuscan or a Calabrian/Sicilian. One of the main points of the paper from an Italian genetics point of view is that there is more sub-structure in Italy than in other European countries, and that there is a definite north/south, or perhaps northwest/southeast cline. Not, of course, that substructure doesn't exist in other countries. For example, Ralph and Coop specifically state that they found noteworthy substructure in France. They didn't see the same level of substructure in Spain. It's all a question of degree.
    Below is my dodecad K=12b, they change every 6 months .............it means little at this point in time. maybe after another 50000 additions , it might mean something
    Admix Results (sorted):

    # Population Percent
    1 Atlantic_Med 35.87
    2 North_European 28.04
    3 Caucasus 20.98
    4 Gedrosia 7.02
    5 Southwest_Asian 6.23
    6 Northwest_African 1.42
    7 South_Asian 0.33
    8 Sub_Saharan 0.1

    Single Population Sharing:

    # Population (source) Distance
    1 N_Italian (Dodecad) 6.71
    2 O_Italian (Dodecad) 9.26
    3 North_Italian (HGDP) 9.88
    4 TSI30 (Metspalu) 11.05
    5 Tuscan (HGDP) 12.44
    6 C_Italian (Dodecad) 14.46
    7 Romanians (Behar) 14.96
    8 Baleares (1000Genomes) 15.18
    9 Galicia (1000Genomes) 15.63
    10 Bulgarians (Yunusbayev) 15.66
    11 Bulgarian (Dodecad) 15.66
    12 French (HGDP) 16.22
    13 French (Dodecad) 16.35

    NOTE: O_Italian means ( info from dodecad), swiss, tyrol, slovenian, croatian, istrian and austrian Italians.

    The BGA test via Doug is different in the sense it means more and he stated since I was 100% european and he went back 2200 years ( his max)that my line was already in the alps. In that case, was I from Italic lines, ......the greeks did not even name Italy by then. The issue of nationalizing these terms makes far greater issue than what is justified ( ie trouble)

    Note: Even Ftdna -FF and 23andme has me at 100% european

    The substructure in Italy clearly indicates the difference........imagine a scenario in Europe where no nations existed. Would that change your perspective of the areas of Europe?

  18. #68
    Regular Member Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Sile's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-09-11
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,120
    Points
    29,699
    Level
    52
    Points: 29,699, Level: 52
    Level completed: 96%, Points required for next Level: 51
    Overall activity: 37.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2 -Z19945..Jura
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H95a1 ..Pannoni

    Ethnic group
    North Alpine Italian
    Country: Australia



    Quote Originally Posted by Nobody1 View Post
    Charles Loring Brace - The Races of the Old World (1863)
    The common Roman type, still seen among the peasantry, according to Dr. Wiseman, is a large, flat head, a low wide forehead, a face broad and square, short thick neck, and a short broad figure, such as is found in many of the antique representations of the Roman soldier.


    person of Latium (Central Italy) - Alpinoid - [Rassengeschichte der Menschheit]


    person of Marche (Central Italy) - Dinaric - [Rassengeschichte der Menschheit]



    Augustus and Julius Caesar -typical Brachycephalic Alpinoid/Dinarid (Medit. element) of the Italic Romans



    Til this day -
    Modern day Italians are Anthropologically of the Caucasoid sub-races - Mediterranid / Alpinoid / Dianrid

    J. Deniker - Ibero-Insular = Mediterranean race / sub-Adriatic = Dinaric (+Noric type) / Cevenole = Alpine race



    North Italians are more Brachycephalic [Alpinoid/Dinarid]
    South Italians are more Dolichocephalic [Mediterranid]
    the only one I am nearly identical to is the Augustus type.

    Do these tests mean anything?
    Would a mixed marriage of Northern italian with South italian or french or spanish etc make any difference in these features?

  19. #69
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered5000 Experience Points
    Nobody1's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-03-13
    Posts
    1,040
    Points
    5,756
    Level
    22
    Points: 5,756, Level: 22
    Level completed: 42%, Points required for next Level: 294
    Overall activity: 34.0%


    Country: Germany - Baden-Wurttemberg



    Quote Originally Posted by Sile View Post
    the only one I am nearly identical to is the Augustus type.

    Do these tests mean anything?
    Would a mixed marriage of Northern italian with South italian or french or spanish etc make any difference in these features?
    All depends what Caucasoid sub-race mixes with what Caucasoid sub-race;
    Thats what matters Anthropologically;

  20. #70
    Noman
    Guest


    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    The gens Julii were not Etruscan...repeating it over and over again won't make it so. Perhaps you are confusing Caesar with Cicero, who did indeed claim some partial Etruscan ancestry. Of course, by Caesar's time, there had been a lot of mingling between Romans and Etruscans, and a strictly Etruscan culture had disappeared...only a few priests still spoke or could read Etruscan. Btw, if anything, thanks to the machinations of Livia Augusta in terms of their marriages, the ruling family were mostly of the ancient gens of the Claudii.
    Well you can say they aren't as well, but considering he said himself he was descended from aenias and that we "know" after the fall of troy that the trojans founded the etruscan kingdom. So is it myth or not? I will take it since he said it himself it's partly true, that's his paternal country if nothing else. Cicero was etruscan in more recent times.

    He's got red hair, he's got greek toe. His face shape is exact same as classic greeks. These are neanderthal traits that don't come from anywhere else. Meaning he is related to the classic greeks and trojans not to the commoners of italy. They had all those features, too, and modern etruscans have the seemingly highest level of neanderthal DNA as well.


    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    As to the paper you cited, it has to do with y dna, not autosomal dna, and, in addition, it is wildly out of date.
    That's because y-dna actually means something. Autosomal DNA can say whatever you want it to say.

    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    In general, in terms of y dna, I'm afraid that you vastly overestimate the importance of y dna haplotypes for "identity" purposes in a modern context. Your y dna line is only one of many lines that form part of your ancestry.
    And yet, that's the same logic that autosomal dna comparison has but there's a huge difference. The Y-DNA shows actual paternity. Very importantly it also shows time of origin, assortively speaking. So you can compare degrees of separation between lines, if not exact dates.

    So it is indeed a good marker whereas autosomal means absolutely nothing, and can easily be used to tell some whoppers if you like (or even if you don't). You don't know what source it comes from or when! If you don't even know where or what time it originates how can you say anything about it? It's just like looking at someone, except worse because looks contain all the information in at least some detail while autosomal dna is just picking out a few things that you feel are different in various made up races and then making comparisons. Meaningless.

    Like I said, at best it just says there's some relationship, not what it is. That's why when you compare skulls you can get completely unrelated groups with similar skulls. Many skulls look caucasian being a blend of two y-DNA groups that have different types. So putative races have been debunked by looking at the y-dna and realizing they are just blends of of other races.

    This is the same exact thing. Y-DNA is a clearly stronger test, the only one that's very strong, really.

    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    Yes, certain y lines have certain distinctive distributions, but you cannot go from that to identifying someone "ethnically" by their y dna, or mt dna signature, for that matter. That's vastly too simplistic, in my opinion, in terms of modern populations, and I think it's even simplistic in terms of pre-historical populations.

    Just as an example, while a lot of British men carry y dna "R1b" signatures, you also have British men who are E-V13, or J2a, or J1 or R1a, or any number of others, including the Yorkshire man with the ancient African haplotype that made the news. That man is no less British than someone carrying U-106. The specific autosomal make-up of a small group of men moving into a region could disappear very quickly from the autosomal make-up of their male descendants, even while the y signature is passed on.
    And guess what? England has a past as checkered as italy, probably more so. At one point everyone just moved out of most of england and went to brittany and left it to the germans. Yep, france is more english than england, and england is have german, and ireland is about 2/3 english now. Not to mention the normans. First there were people like in the NW or ireland all through whole isles, then people like in wales came. Then the germanics came, then the normans came. And of course minor players like the vikings popped in too.

    We know that both from history and from y-DNA. So sorry you actually picked the perfect example of why this kind of thing is utter crap.

    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    In terms of Italian genetics, you could do a dna test on a U-152 man from Brescia, and one from Sicily, and even if the subclades are the same, their autosomal make-up will be slightly different, and each man will almost certainly better match other people from his area. Likewise, if you take an L-21 man from Bologna, and an E-M81 man from the same area, who perhaps descends from some stray North African legionnaire who retired to Bologna 2,000 years ago, they will be very similar in terms of general genetic make-up.
    But the average makeup is still in proprtion to the Y-dna present and for looking at populations averages are what we want

    It's probably harder to pick out a saxon in england these days (ok not really I can pick it out instantly) or a J (ok again I still can) but the idea is the proprtions of the group are going to be the same as the proportions of the y-dna and mtDNA. As an average.

    And not for CURRENT days, but for ancient days when the mix happened. Which is another advantage. We are looking at what's really there, not made up BS from reference populations that are not representative of the past.

    Whereas for autosomal if you mix in 8 groups that have black hair then you conclude they are all the same. But you left out the other 250000 individual variations on DNA for each individual. So basically you didn't prove anything, a guy with black hair and light skin could be pierce brosnan or could be yassir arafat.

    It's completely pointless to look at autosomal genes that have origins in monkey times to determine anything about modern populations, especially common traits. Only exception is looking for introgressions from ancient sources like neanderthal.

    Basically this study may as well have said "everyone from mediterranean looks kinda the same today! And people in different cities in italy look kinda different!". Well, no kidding. We can look out the window to figure that out. What we care about is what they were like back then, and how they changed. We can see from the haplomaps it changed wildly, and any updated version is going to show it changed even more wildly (and the past is what we care about, again, not the future which we can also figure out pretty easily).

    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    That's not to say that uniparental markers don't have their uses, in cases, for example, where someone is trying to track down a birth father by using y STR's, or for help in understanding the peopling of Europe. In the latter case, however, we have a long way to go in terms of applying specific haplotypes to specific "tribes", if you will. It may be fun to speculate wildly about these things, but it shouldn't be taken too seriously, in my opinion.
    Sounds like some sort of propaganda being repeated to me. Attack on natural selection is bad enough, now they are trying to make an attack on your ancestral lineage saying anything about your genetics

  21. #71
    Regular Member Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Sile's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-09-11
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,120
    Points
    29,699
    Level
    52
    Points: 29,699, Level: 52
    Level completed: 96%, Points required for next Level: 51
    Overall activity: 37.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2 -Z19945..Jura
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H95a1 ..Pannoni

    Ethnic group
    North Alpine Italian
    Country: Australia



    Quote Originally Posted by Sile View Post
    the only one I am nearly identical to is the Augustus type.

    Do these tests mean anything?
    Would a mixed marriage of Northern italian with South italian or french or spanish etc make any difference in these features?
    data from a year ago.....cannot find link, but what are these types?

    Phenotype
    Central and Eastern Veneto ( inc. Friuli )
    - Type 1 : Intermediate complexion (chestnut or blonde hair, light eyes, ...), leptomorphic, rather narrow face, long and straight high-rooted nose that can get arched, close set eyes, large jaw, pointy chin
    ~ Dinaromorphic Nordo-Mediterranean

    Western Veneto ( with Trento )
    - Type 2 : Intermediate complexion, brachymorphic, round face, little and low-rooted nose that can get snub-tipped, wide set eyes
    ~ Alpinoid

    Venetian lagoon area

    - Type 3 : Intermediate complexion (from medium dark to blonde hair, blue, green or hazel eyes ...), brachymorphic, little and narrow straight nose, square-box face, broad forehead, rather wide-set eyes
    ~ Alpinoid/Subnordid

    Venetian-Istrano
    - Type 4 : Light complexion (blonde hair, green eyes, ...), leptomorphic, arched nose, large jaw, pointy chin, close-set eyes
    ~ Nordo-Dinarid

    Women , either
    type that one could label, "Alpino-Med" which is very specific to Veneto : puffy and fleshy features
    or
    classical North Italian phenotype ( some individuals actually match neighbouring Slovenian variability), it is traditionally accompanied by a darker variant (Dinaro-Mediterranoid) which is the quintessential pan-Italian phenotype.

  22. #72
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered5000 Experience Points
    Nobody1's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-03-13
    Posts
    1,040
    Points
    5,756
    Level
    22
    Points: 5,756, Level: 22
    Level completed: 42%, Points required for next Level: 294
    Overall activity: 34.0%


    Country: Germany - Baden-Wurttemberg



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sile View Post
    data from a year ago.....cannot find link, but what are these types
    Those Types are all Caucasoid sub-races and sub-types

    the classifications of these people are already given;
    Type1 ~ Dinaromorphic Nordo-Mediterranean
    Type2 ~ Alpinoid
    Type3 ~ Alpinoid/Subnordid
    Type4 ~ Nordo-Dinarid [also called Noric]
    + Alpino-Medit. / Dinaro-Medit.

    The common Caucasoid sub-races in North Italy:
    (acc. to Coon, Banse, Pittard, Eickstedt etc. + Deniker map post#65)
    Alpinoid / Dinarid(+Noric) / Mediterranid / minority Nordoid

    App. these People (Types) all come from North East Italy;
    Sp they perfectly fall within the Caucasoid sub-races of the region (NE Italy - Venetia/Friul)

    Venetia - Noric (Dinaric) - [R. Livi - plates]

  23. #73
    Elite member Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    25-10-11
    Location
    Brittany
    Age
    70
    Posts
    4,320
    Points
    34,830
    Level
    57
    Points: 34,830, Level: 57
    Level completed: 49%, Points required for next Level: 620
    Overall activity: 13.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b - L21/S145*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H3c

    Ethnic group
    more celtic
    Country: France



    That's because y-dna actually means something. Autosomal DNA can say whatever you want it to say.

    And yet, that's the same logic that autosomal dna comparison has but there's a huge difference. The Y-DNA shows actual paternity. Very importantly it also shows time of origin, assortively speaking. So you can compare degrees of separation between lines, if not exact dates.

    Like I said, at best it just says there's some relationship, not what it is. That's why when you compare skulls you can get completely unrelated groups with similar skulls. Many skulls look caucasian being a blend of two y-DNA groups that have different types. So putative races have been debunked by looking at the y-dna and realizing they are just blends of of other races.

    This is the same exact thing. Y-DNA is a clearly stronger test, the only one that's very strong, really.

    And guess what? England has a past as checkered as italy, probably more so. At one point everyone just moved out of most of england and went to brittany and left it to the germans. Yep, france is more english than england, and england is have german, and ireland is about 2/3 english now. Not to mention the normans. First there were people like in the NW or ireland all through whole isles, then people like in wales came. Then the germanics came, then the normans came. And of course minor players like the vikings popped in too.

    We know that both from history and from y-DNA. So sorry you actually picked the perfect example of why this kind of thing is utter crap.


    It's probably harder to pick out a saxon in england these days (ok not really I can pick it out instantly) or a J (ok again I still can) but the idea is the proprtions of the group are going to be the same as the proportions of the y-dna and mtDNA. As an average.


    Whereas for autosomal if you mix in 8 groups that have black hair then you conclude they are all the same. But you left out the other 250000 individual variations on DNA for each individual. So basically you didn't prove anything, a guy with black hair and light skin could be pierce brosnan or could be yassir arafat.

    It's completely pointless to look at autosomal genes that have origins in monkey times to determine anything about modern populations, especially common traits. Only exception is looking for introgressions from ancient sources like neanderthal.

    Basically this study may as well have said "everyone from mediterranean looks kinda the same today! And people in different cities in italy look kinda different!". Well, no kidding. We can look out the window to figure that out. What we care about is what they were like back then, and how they changed. We can see from the haplomaps it changed wildly, and any updated version is going to show it changed even more wildly (and the past is what we care about, again, not the future which we can also figure out pretty easily).

    for me you mix truth and mistake (no offense, it is only a personal thought)
    autosomals DNA is of great importance: the current problem is we are not gone deep enough into the analysis: this tool needs more precision - Y-DNA is interesting, I agree (but i'm not so sure our branchings datations are correct because our evaluations depend on more than a parameter) but surely enough can undergo a far swifter drift than the complete autosomals sketche - concerning external look, the problem was not the method but the lack of parameters taken in account: it is unsufficient but can help nevertheless, again more for distinction than for superficial assimilation
    already an analysis of HLA (even if limited) of Madrid inhabitants, Basques an Algerians from Alger agreed apparently with what History says us...

  24. #74
    Elite member Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    25-10-11
    Location
    Brittany
    Age
    70
    Posts
    4,320
    Points
    34,830
    Level
    57
    Points: 34,830, Level: 57
    Level completed: 49%, Points required for next Level: 620
    Overall activity: 13.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b - L21/S145*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H3c

    Ethnic group
    more celtic
    Country: France



    sorry: I made a mistake: I'm responsible only for the 'italic' written part of the preceding post - sorry again!

  25. #75
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    14,825
    Points
    249,604
    Level
    100
    Points: 249,604, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sile View Post
    Below is my dodecad K=12b, they change every 6 months .............it means little at this point in time. maybe after another 50000 additions , it might mean something
    Admix Results (sorted):

    # Population Percent
    1 Atlantic_Med 35.87
    2 North_European 28.04
    3 Caucasus 20.98
    4 Gedrosia 7.02
    5 Southwest_Asian 6.23
    6 Northwest_African 1.42
    7 South_Asian 0.33
    8 Sub_Saharan 0.1

    Single Population Sharing:

    # Population (source) Distance
    1 N_Italian (Dodecad) 6.71
    2 O_Italian (Dodecad) 9.26
    3 North_Italian (HGDP) 9.88
    4 TSI30 (Metspalu) 11.05
    5 Tuscan (HGDP) 12.44
    6 C_Italian (Dodecad) 14.46
    7 Romanians (Behar) 14.96
    8 Baleares (1000Genomes) 15.18
    9 Galicia (1000Genomes) 15.63
    10 Bulgarians (Yunusbayev) 15.66
    11 Bulgarian (Dodecad) 15.66
    12 French (HGDP) 16.22
    13 French (Dodecad) 16.35

    NOTE: O_Italian means ( info from dodecad), swiss, tyrol, slovenian, croatian, istrian and austrian Italians.

    The BGA test via Doug is different in the sense it means more and he stated since I was 100% european and he went back 2200 years ( his max)that my line was already in the alps. In that case, was I from Italic lines, ......the greeks did not even name Italy by then. The issue of nationalizing these terms makes far greater issue than what is justified ( ie trouble)

    Note: Even Ftdna -FF and 23andme has me at 100% european

    The substructure in Italy clearly indicates the difference........imagine a scenario in Europe where no nations existed. Would that change your perspective of the areas of Europe?
    I'm not sure that I understand. I'm 100% European at 23andme as well, and I'm half Emilian and half eastern Ligurian/northwest Tuscan. All the Tuscans I know on there show up as 100% European, and the full Ligurians, and a Roman, and someone who is half Sicilian and half southern Italian, and someone who is half Calabrian and half Neapolitan, and one full Sicilian from Palermo. These are just from the results of people with whom I share. Yes, there are some southern Italians who show 93 or 94% "European", with some minor "Middle Eastern" ancestry, which as 23andme defines it is Turkey (Anatolia) and Persia. From the results I've seen, if they show any SSA at all, they show it at levels of about .4-.8, which is about what the "Other Italians" show.

    As for your k=12b results, they seem well within the range for a northern Italian; definitely Mediterranean, but not French or Iberian. All you need to do is look at the two results for northern Italians in the spreadsheet below. When you look at enough of those calculator results, you really don't even need the algorithm to tell you what the predicted first population will be. (Your North Euro is a little elevated, but not by much. The North Italian Dodecad group has an average of 24 for that component, after all. The rest of the scores are clearly in the Italian range. )
    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...hl=en_US#gid=0

    For a comparison, these are the results for the French: (Were more samples available, I think there would be substructure)
    Atlantic/Med: 44.4
    N.Europe: 36.5
    Caucasus: 8.4
    Gedrosia: 7.9
    S.W.Asian: 2.5
    N.W.African: .2
    S.Asian: 0
    SSA: 0

    Their results always seem to be somewhat higher in Atlantic Med and North Europe. The big difference, however, is in the Caucasus numbers and the S.W.Asian numbers.

    Then look at the numbers for the Spanish D population. If you see results with really high Atlantic Med, relatively low North Euro, low Caucasus, relatively high North African and trace SSA, it's someone from Iberia.

    Atlantic Med: 52.5
    North Euro: 22.7
    Caucasus: 8
    Gedrosia: 6.5
    S.W.Asian: 4
    N.W.African: 5.1
    S.Asian: .2
    SSA: .4

    I'm surprised by the composition of the "Other Italian" group from Dodecad that you mentioned. I always just assumed there were southerners in that group, or perhaps people of mixed northern Italian/southern Italian ancestry. Those numbers are closer to Tuscan levels than to Northern Italian levels, and sometimes even veer into southern Italian territory.

    Here are the results for all three groups from that same calculator: N.Italian/Tuscan/Other Italian
    Atlantic Med: 44/37.9/33.5
    North Euro: 22/18.7/21.8
    Caucasus: 22.9/30.5/ 28.5
    Gedrosia: 4.5/4.8/ 6.2
    S.W.Asian: 5.8/7.2/ 7.8
    N.W.African: .7/.5/1.1
    S.Asian: 0/0/0
    SSA: 0/0/.8

    The academic North Italian sample has 41.2 for Atlantic Med, and 23.7 as an average for North Euro. This Other Italian group has SSA, which the Northern Italians and the Tuscans do not on this analysis; they have more NW African than the other two groups, and more S.W.Asian, and almost as much Caucasus as the Tuscans. They also have .2 East African, which the others do not. So, either there are people in the group with recent ancestry from the south, or the Tyrol and these regions are really harboring ancient more southern and south eastern signals than regular North Italians. Perhaps those ancient stories of the Etruscans fleeing to the mountains to get out of the path of the Celts have some truth to them, or perhaps those areas are harboring even more ancient Neolithic signals (Oetzi had some East African and S.W. Asian, and a lot of Caucasus ), which have been preserved due to isolation.

    As to your comment about the unification of Italy, we northwesterners rather feel as if we made Italy, and we're rather fond of it. The pictures my father had on his wall were of Mazzini and Garibaldi, not the Pope, and no foreign emperor either.

    As to the greater geopolitical aspect, it's like how I feel about unilateral disarmament. It doesn't make any sense to me. If everyone else doesn't do it, you're...well, at a disadvantage let's say. And even if everyone claims they're going to do it, be suspicious, and really verify! I suppose I'm of the realpolitik school.

    The inability or the unwillingness during the Middle Ages and the Renaissance of the Italian city-states to unify ultimately led to all of them suffering at the hands of northern European, French and Spanish marauders. It was utter stupidity...and cupidity as well. Even Venice was forced into a long decline.

    I don't believe that people have changed, or that the world has changed. People... and nation states or ethnic groups... act in their own self-interest. I think it's as well to remember it.

    Just my two cents, to steal a phrase,

Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •