| Forum | Europe Travel Guide | Ecology | Facts & Trivia | Genetics | History | Linguistics |
| Austria | France | Germany | Ireland | Italy | Portugal | Spain | Switzerland |
 Eupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
|
Originally Posted by Angela
Most Yamnaya genomes studied to date exhibit admixedEHG & CHG ancestry with each in robust proportions, oftenwith CHG ancestry higher than 50% (Wang et al. 2018: Figure2c).
https://www.academia.edu/39985565/Ar...ent_on_BomhardHere's something interesting I noticed, Yamnaya is 10% more CHG than even Anatolian Bronze-Age on average. Perhaps that's why the Raveane et al paper suggests that it may be underestimated in Modern European populations.PCA (Fig. 2B ) indicates that all the Anatolian genome sequences from the Early Bronze Age (~2200 BCE) and Late Bronze Age (~1600 BCE) cluster with a previously sequenced Copper Age (~3900 to 3700 BCE) individual from Northwestern Anatolia and lie between Anatolian Neolithic (Anatolia_N) samples and CHG samples but not between Anatolia_N and EHG samples. A test of the form D(CHG, Mbuti; Anatolia_EBA, Anatolia_N) shows that these individuals share more alleles with CHG than Neolithic Anatolians do (Z = 3.95), and we are not able to reject a two-population qpAdm model in which these groups derive ~60% of their ancestry from Anatolian farmers and ~40% from CHG-related ancestry (P = 0.5). This signal is not driven by Neolithic Iranian ancestry, because the result of a similar test of the form D(Iran_N, Mbuti; Anatolia_EBA, Anatolia_N) does not deviate from zero (Z = 1.02).Taken together with recent findings of CHG ancestry on Crete (58), our results support a widespread CHG-related gene flow, not only into Central Anatolia but also into the areas surrounding the Black Sea and Crete. The latter are not believed to have been influenced by steppe-related migrations and may thus correspond to a shared archaeological horizon of trade and innovation in metallurgy (59).
https://science.sciencemag.org/conte...b-figures-data
I believe it was only 40% by previous estimates for Yamnaya, in Haak et al 2015.
Hush! Some prominent "bloggers" and "posters" would prefer to bury that. :)
The CHG percentages vary depending on the location on the steppe and the time period, but yes, from my recollection, most of Yamnaya has 40% or more.
Non si fa il proprio dovere perchè qualcuno ci dica grazie, lo si fa per principio, per se stessi, per la propria dignità. Oriana Fallaci
Ultimately, math is their true detractor. :)
If David Anthony is to be believed, and we know he has worked with the Reich Lab in the past, the first movement onto the steppe from the south of the Caucasus was of CHG as defined perhaps as Kotias like, and they were still hunter/fishers. They carried no Anatolian Neo. I'm not so sure that it was necessarily "CHG" as in the 10,000 year old HG population. We may not have a sample for the precise group which brought this "Iranian like" admixture to the steppe, but I do agree it probably arrived very early on, because some of the researchers even model EHG as having a bit of CHG, and there's that J up around Karelia.
Later, Anthony is of the opinion that cattle and sheep flowed north. Perhaps the CHG or whatever admixing group from the south it was had maintained contact with the groups south of the Caucasus?
From pretty early on there was extensive admixture in the Near East of Levant Neo, Anatolian Neo and Iran Neo. Some have even found some admixture in very early times, despite that paper saying they were three very disparate populations. Certainly, if by Iran Neo people mean the sample in the very south of Iran, close to Mesopotamia, it makes sense it would have some other admixtures perhaps even a bit from India.
Still, Iran Neo and CHG are very similar. Given that fact, and given that both might very well have arrived further west admixed with Anatolian Neo, and would have met EEF people who were mostly Anatolian Neo, I'm a little skeptical that the researchers have the strands totally separated and dated as to arrival time. So, for example, I'm a bit skeptical that Raveane et al have really found a distinct "Iranian Neo" signal in southern Italy.
As for the nature of the "Caucasus" like admixture which arrived in Greece, as well as the steppe admixture, I think it's best to go to Lazaridis' paper on the Mycenaeans and Minoans.
All in all I think it's clear why the researchers talk about "CHG/Iranian like" admixture on the steppe, in the Near East, and in Europe. What is clear is that it, whatever "it" is, and whatever its variations, is a Near Eastern centered "component", as WHG is a European centered component, whether it offends Daviski's white nationalist sentiments or not.
I guess this makes Norwegians the most CHG/Iran-Neo, in Northern Europe. Since they are the most Yamnaya, according to Haak et al 2015.
My Italian-American Genetic Communities!
Last edited by Salento; 02-02-20 at 15:58.
Hi, I'm a Northern (Lombardy)/Central-Southern (mostly Abruzzo with a bit of Umbrian) mix. I suppose I descend from many different Italic peoples.
It's curious for me to see this is an "Italy & Greece" sub-forum, I'm not sure what's the link which I undoubtedly see in the Benelux, Ireland & UK, Spain and Portugal sub-forums for example.
Umbria and Abruzzo have much more in common with Greece than the countries you mention, and they are part of your genetic connection!to Greece.
Do you really mean that Umbria and Abruzzo have more in common with Greece than UK has in common with Ireland, Spain with Portugal and Benelux countries have with one another? Sorry but I strongly disagree.
By the way, also in absolute terms I don't see a special connection of Italy to Greece (except maybe in those parts which were Greek colonies 2500 years ago), not in food, not in architecture, not in religion, pretty much in nothing really.
Nothing but respect for Greece and the Greeks but that's reality of everyday life (and being from norther Italy, geography).
Bottom line the "Italy & Greece" subforum strikes me as odd, but no problem with it I really don't care if that's how the site was designed.
Italy is not confined to your town, ... and you just listed some important Italian connections to Greece, ... and you showed that the main title is not odd, thanks :)
Northern Italy is not a town, contrary to what some may think in the US. And no, really, I did not list any "important Italian connections to Greece", quite the opposite in fact. I rest my case that an "Italy & Greece" subforum is curious, at least as much as a "France & Germany" subforum would be. Anyway I drop it as it seems to be a sensitive issue for you.
You mentioned the Greek Colonies (Magna Grecia), that’s important enough to contradict your case!
... If you reply than I would say you are the sensitive one.
and for the record: la geografia l'ho studiata a Lecce!
Cool. Next time an "Italy & France" subforum then because of the Gauls in both France and Northern Italy, or an "Italy & Croatia" one because of Istria and Dalmazia, or an "Italy & Spain" because of the Aragonese rule in Southern Italy, or an "Italy & Britain" subforum because of the Roman Empire, or...
Jokes aside, I'm surprised that an Italian wouldn't consider that Italy "alone" makes sense in a subforum. Have it how you like it anyway, as you seem emotionally attacked to the "Magna Graecia" thingy.
yes, Italy alone would obviously make sense, and we have many threads about Italy. You should browse around the forum and see for yourself.Cool. Next time an "Italy & France" subforum then because of the Gauls in both France and Northern Italy, or an "Italy & Croatia" one because of Istria and Dalmazia, or an "Italy & Spain" because of the Aragonese rule in Southern Italy, or an "Italy & Britain" subforum because of the Roman Empire, or...
Jokes aside, I'm surprised that an Italian wouldn't consider that Italy "alone" makes sense in a subforum. Have it how you like it anyway, as you seem emotionally attacked to the "Magna Graecia" thingy.
You were talking about the title of the thread and Italy and Greece have a strong ancient genetic connection especially in some parts of Italy.
So that there are no misunderstandings: I’m not talking about threads (as a matter of fact this is about Italics) I’m talking about this subforum quite randomly (if you ask me unless you are an ancient Greek from Salento) called “Italy & Greece”.
I’m not an Ancient Greek, I’m probably more Italian than you are.
... and even if I was an Ancient Greek it would be ok by me.
Yes, I've noticed that in your head Italy means "territories formerly known as Magna Graecia".
If that is the case you are more "Italian" than me, indeed.
You are not alone though, it seems to be a common misconception around athrofora.
You have no idea what I'm thinking, and I have no idea what you're talking about!Yes, I've noticed that in your head Italy means "territories formerly known as Magna Graecia".
If that is the case you are more "Italian" than me, indeed.
You are not alone though, it seems to be a common misconception around athrofora.
... moving on !
EDIT...
after 2300+ years, the Latins R850 and R437 still share the same positions in my 8th and 20th chromosome, ... (they also share the same 8th chr. position with 3.300 BC Otzi):
Last edited by Salento; 08-09-20 at 06:25.
3.300 BC
... The Iceman, Otzi, is a descendant from the first farmers to have arrived in the Italian Peninsula, which may have harbored remnant hunter-gatherer populations during the Pleistocene who resettled Northern Europe with the glacier retreats ... (NatGeo) ... MTA:
Umbria and Abruzzo are genetically assigned as "Southern Italian" clusters. Which have similarity to Greeks. Peloponnesians are "east" of Italians in central Italy,A sharp north-south division in cluster distribution was detected, the separation between northern and southern areas being shifted north along the peninsula (Fig. 1B) (12). The reported structure dismissed the possibility that the Central Italian populations differentiated from the Northern and Southern Italian groups (Fig. 1A) (13). Individuals from Central Italy were, in fact, assigned mostly to the Southern Italian clusters, except for samples from Tuscany, which grouped instead with the Northern Italian clusters (Fig. 1, A and B) (12). Contrary to previous results, no outliers were detected among the Northern Italian clusters (12).
https://advances.sciencemag.org/cont.../eaaw3492.full
Furthermore, there were a lot of Italics in the South, I seriously doubt we are predominately descended from Magna Grecia as a whole:
There are also the Iapygian (Illyrian) tribes to consider, who I speculate were similar to Mycenaeans.
As far as I know, R1 from Antonio et al 2019 is the only Italic that I've seen. She is similar to North Italians, which come out to be on the cline between European (65%) and Central Mediterranean population sources (35%).
I'm looking forward to see what these other Italic tribes are made of, like the Samnites, Lucanians, and Bruttians. I would suspect there is a cline, with Central Mediterranean increasing as you go south.
Thank you for the material. Even assuming this is correct (as an Italian knowing the inter-regional dynamics within Italy and people's movements IRL, I really struggle to see how someone from Umbria, but even an Abruzzese, may be genetically closer to a Greek than a Tuscan), that was really not my point: what I mean is, just because a part of Italy may bear genetic resemblance to Greece (or part of it) I don't see much sense in grouping these otherwise quite different countries in one subforum (just as one example of many, parts of France are genetically very similar to parts of Germany still I bet they would never be grouped together in a "France & Germany" subforum as it would make very little sense considering the marked cultural differences).
I especially don't believe it for Apulia.
In Italy there is a main cline that goes from north to south on a west-east axis, with the exception of some areas of north-eastern Italy that go to the northeast. The Abruzzese (genetically, culturally and linguistically are southern Italians) are more southeast of the Tuscans. The Umbrians are central Italians but they also seem on the whole to be a bit more southeast of the Tuscans, although on the whole they remain further north than the Abruzzese.
Obviously this is the genetic discourse, from a cultural point of view I understand that grouping all Italy with Greece does not reflect reality. The Italian Alps really have almost nothing in common culturally with Greece and have much more in common with neighbouring countries. As well as other areas of Italy have something more in common culturally with the south of France than with Greece. But even in southern France there is something Mediterranean like in Greece, unlike the rest of France which is clearly more a country similar to central Europe, or even in northern France, to the countries of northern Europe.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
