J1 and Northern Italy (Tuscany)

[Angela]

Alan: How on earth could three so different Indo European groups (Greeks, Germanics and Celts) end up with deities who are equivalent to Hurrian Sky God Teshub, if they didn't originated near by or at least crossed the region at some point of history.

The only way I can see two groups of different linguistic background can end up with the same deities is if they influenced each other and therefore originated not too far from each.

So now, in addition to the Etruscans, the Greeks, Germanics and Celts also moved through Anatolia in the first millennium BC in order to reach Europe? That's what we're discussing, after all, not long standing ties between Anatolia and Europe. I don't want to derail this thread, but I thought it was pretty well settled that Celtic was present in Europe much earlier than that. I totally agree that if you have widely separated cultures which have a similar word for a similar type of "god", the ancestors of these people must have been in some sort of contact with one another at some point. However, that contact could have been trade, couldn't it, not necessarily that their ancestors were all living in adjoining valleys? Plus, the other really operative question is when were they in contact? I take Taranis' point that the specific word used by the Etruscans is close to the Luwian word. However, if they were close enough in space and time to adopt a Luwian word for this god, why didn't they speak Luwian? How do we know that they didn't adopt it just because of cultural or trade contacts? It just seems like a pretty minor bit of evidence...I can't see how it "seals the deal".

I had this question answered once. The thing here is we shouldn't expect modern Tuscans to be 100% descend of Etruscans. Maybe only 40% of modern Tuscans are. And we shouldn't take modern Anatolians as representative for ancients for that matter.

But thatn the fact that Tuscans are almost equal to Greeks and Albanians who are closer to Anatolia and therefore should naturally have more affinities to it, is also dubious. Why should Tuscans be like Albanians if they are further away from Anatolia?

Albania is right across the Adriatic from central Italy. At the times in question, prior to the Slavic migrations into the areas just north of Anatolia, "Albanian like" and "Greek like" people probably extended quite a bit further up the coast. At certain spots you can drive animals across the Adriatic. There has been gene flow across the Adriatic since time immemorial continuing into the present day. In fact, based on IBD segments, Ralph and Coop concluded that the Albanians are the only foreign group which had any type of significant impact on the Italian gene pool since about 400 BC. It surprised me too, but I haven't seen any paper refute those findings.
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#...he+geography+of+recent+ancestry+across+europe

Plus, the Dutch and the eastern English are very similar too and they have the storm tossed and very dangerous British Channel between them and one population is actually south of the other. In addition, modern Tuscan samples are taken from people whose grandparents all come from the area. That's under 100 years. Look at the levels in southern Italy. It could have been diffusing up from the south for 2800 years.

Or look at PCA's. Tuscans are basically eastern shifted Sardinians, or said another way, Indo-European admixed Sardinians. Goodness, a Copper Age sample from Iberia was already pretty similar to modern day Tuscans.

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...-Tuscans-not-Basque-or-Early-European-farmers

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-xPGV13M4lSM/VEaknJoP-jI/AAAAAAAAJ0I/XmX-S48tr2A/s1600/ncomms6257-f2.jpg

You can also take a look at the Globe 13 spreadsheet from Dodecad. The Greeks from the northern mainland (Thessaly) are 23% "West Asian", while Tuscans are about 18% "West Asian". This is what causes some of the members of the Greek sample from Thessaly on PCAs to overlap the most "southern" Tuscans, and with the rest plotting to the south and east of them. Now, you're assuming that the two groups plot like that because the Tuscans got additional gene flow from Anatolia. Perhaps another question that should be asked is what happened to the genomes in northern Greece that might have lowered their "West Asian" percentages? Isn't the obvious answer that the Slavic migrations affected the genetic signature? To cite Ralph and Coop again, they show that impact on at least the mainland parts of Greece very clearly.

This is the link to Globe 13.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ArAJcY18g2GadF9CLUJnTUdSbkVJaDR2UkRtUE9kaUE#gid=2

I'm not saying that there might not have been some elite migration from somewhere to the east, although I'd be more inclined to see it as coming from the northern Aegean rather than the middle of Anatolia. In that case at least there's a possibility that the people were speaking a pre-Greek language. In Anatolia, including Troy, everything I've seen would lead me to think those areas were Indo-European speaking. Even if it turns out that some sample in an elite grave comes out as identical to some "Lydian" sample of that periods, 40% replacement? I don't think there's any support for that in genetics or history. Where is the archaeological trail on the ground? For the Indo-Europeans we at least have all the kurgans going up the Danube and burned towns and fields in southeastern Europe. Plus, many of those areas were not very populated. There's none of that in central Italy, and it was also densely populated. Plus, as I pointed out, we have a Copper Age sample from Iberia that was already very "Tuscan" like.

Sorry, we're going to have to agree to disagree. None of you has persuaded me; I'm still an agnostic on this one.

Ed. To correct citation.

 

[Pax Augusta]

Herodotus could be right in the end, at least in terms of some elite migration from Lydia, but I've never understood why the other ancient authors who opined on the subject are never given as much credence.

Agree, an elite migration, more likely a priestly elite; my guess not from the Lydians but from a more ancient civilization. Etruscans clearly had many contacts with ancient Anatolia and Aegean islands and what was originally "Etruscan", or better "Rasna" or "Rasenna", could be mixed with what was simply the result of these contacts.

Thucydides groups them together with the Pelasgians and associates them with Lemnian pirates and with the pre-Greek population of Attica, and as for the Greek Historian Dionysius of Halicarnassus:

"For this reason, therefore, I am persuaded that the Pelasgians are a different people from the Tyrrhenians. And I do not believe, either, that the Tyrrhenians were a colony of the Lydians; for they do not use the same language as the latter, nor can it be alleged that, though they no longer speak a similar tongue, they still retain some other indications of their mother country. For they neither worship the same gods as the Lydians nor make use of similar laws or institutions, but in these very respects they differ more from the Lydians than from the Pelasgians."

This comment goes to some of the points you raised about the language of the Etruscans and what it can tell us about their origin. There doesn't seem to be any evidence that a language even remotely similar to that of the Etruscans was spoken in the area of Lydia or any area in Anatolia at the time they are supposed to be living there. The Lydians spoke a decidedly Indo-European language, which most linguists seem to feel is decidedly not the case for Etruscan. There's also the fact that we have evidence of Etruscan trading in the Aegean, so I don't know why the stele would necessarily mean the Etruscans came from the east.

Is it possible Pallottino was on the right track and they were one of the Sea Peoples who brought down the Bronze Age Civiliations? That doesn't illuminate matters very much, however, because the "Sea Peoples" were probably a group of not necessarily related peoples. They could have been Italics, Cretans, other Greeks, people from the northern Aegean...Who knows? Maybe they were some late arriving steppe or Caucasus group. Aren't there some linguists who see a link to Indo-European languages? Then there's that reference to similarities to Uralic languages.

If the linguists could agree on some of these things we might actually get somewhere.

We must never forget that all historical sources on the Etruscans are Greek or Roman. It did not survive a single Etruscan text. The Tuscae historiae written in Etruscan disappeared, all the Etruscan literature and poetry disappeared, as disapperead the monumental Tyrrenika written by emperor Claudius.

Livy was Roman, Herodotus was Greek, Theopompus was Greek, Dionysius of Halicarnassus was Greek... the Syracusans (Greeks) were bitter enemies of the Etruscans, they considered them pirates and they contributed to the bad reputation of the Etruscans. All we know about the Etruscans comes from their enemies, not exactly unbiased sources.

For example, Tyrrhenians was an exonym used by Greeks to refer to the Etruscans, but probably not only to them (see the case of exonym Pelasgians). To show the link with the Lydians is said that Tyrrhenian derived from the Lydian word Tyrant or from a Lydian town, called Tyrrha. Great. It could be. But the Etruscans called themselves Rasna or Rasenna and not Tyrrhenians! Also Etruscans is more likey an exonym, probably of Italic origin. How could be the Rasenna related to the word Teresh of the Sea People? Teresh is more probably related to the Tyrrhenians. But the Rasna and Tyrrhenians are exactly the same people? Can we say that with mathematical certainty? Too many questions are still unanswered.

You know, I quite liked the idea that the Etruscans were fugitive Trojans. I've always sort of been on their side...never much of a fan of the cuckolded, vengeful Menelaus, or Agamemnon, murdering his own daughter, or even of Achilles, although I always liked the wily and clever Ulysses. To be honest though, ever since it started to seem that they might have been Indo-Europeans too I haven't felt quite the same way about ancient Troy. We all have our prejudices, although I try very hard not to let them interfere with intellectual analysis.

Me too. The Trojan War was extremely symbolic.

Aeneas: An Etruscan Foundation Legend by Peter Mountford (University of Melbourne)

http://www.ascs.org.au/news/ascs32/Mountford.pdf

Anyway, figuring out the linguistics is above my pay grade, and we've gotten sort of off topic from J1 in northern Italy and Tuscany.

We are all off-topic, I think it's better to move in more appropriate threads.

I already mentioned it.

But the issue here is that Hittite Tarhun and Hattian Taru are all derived from Hurrian Teshub. There are archeological evidences that Hattians/Hittites adopted the Hurrian Sky God. Also Hurrians were the first of these groups. Yet why is Teshub equivalent to Odin and Zeus thats the mystery.

Also another reason why Etruscan Tarchun has to be from Asian Minor, beside it's attributes, is the name. If we would assume that it is a common "Indo European" goddes. Why on earth Tarchun like the Hittite Tarhun and Hurrian Teshub instead of something similar to Zeus or Thor? This in combination to Heredotus records, linguistic and archeological affinities. There are too many evidences that it can be explained simply by "coincidence".

And now the most "stunning" part. Hurrians "are not Indo Europeans". One of the many reasons why I am sceptical of an "Steppic" origin of Proto Indo Europeans and instead tend to the area between the Zagros/Albruz and Taurus mountains.

Your conclusions are too hasty. Hurrians are said to be non-Indo European but they are said to be ruled by the Mitanni an Indo-Aryan ruling class. There is no evidence that Hittite Tarhun and Hattian Taru are all derived from Hurrian Teshub.

I had this question answered once. The thing here is we shouldn't expect modern Tuscans to be 100% descend of Etruscans. Maybe only 40% of modern Tuscans are. And we shouldn't take modern Anatolians as representative for ancients for that matter.

I agree that we shouldn't take modern Anatolians as representative for ancient people but 40% is extremely exaggerated. More likely not even more than 5%. According to one of the last paper, a post-Neolithic gene flow from the Near East to Tuscany can be estimated at about 8% (and not proved that is entirely related to the Etruscans). The same authors in a previous paper wrote that "When all the genetic evidence obtained so far are taken together, it seems clear that the Etruscans cannot be regarded as ancestral of all modern-day Tuscans". The previous guess about a post-Neolithic gene flow were ∼5% of mtDNA haplotypes, while many other studies show genetic discontinuities between Etruscans and modern Tuscans. Most of the modern Tuscans do really descend from the Proto-Villanovan people.

But thatn the fact that Tuscans are almost equal to Greeks and Albanians who are closer to Anatolia and therefore should naturally have more affinities to it, is also dubious. Why should Tuscans be like Albanians if they are further away from Anatolia?

Tuscans are grossly considered almost equal to Greeks from Thessaly and Albanians due to similar ratios and proportions of ENF, ANE, WHG as showed in the last K something. But Tuscans have very different Y-DNA haplogroups from Greeks and Albanians, they are more western shifted and Tuscans are exactly placed where they should be found and perfectly fitting in the Italian genetic cline (intermediate between North Italians and Central Italians, closer to the former). Majority of Tuscan males are R1b: 53%. You can not say the same of Greek and Albanian males: Greeks 15.5 %, Albanians 16%. By the way, how would this prove the link with Anatolia? I don't understand. Also the Greeks and the Albanians come from a post-Neolitich migration from Anatolia?

Sorry it wasn't Heredotus, Livy wrote that the Raetians are Etruscans who fled into the Alps from the Invading Celts.

According to an interpretation of this Livy's text Etruscans come from North and not from Anatolia, so to speak.

 

[giuseppe rossi]

Albanians had a genetic impact only on Southern Italians, and since Ralph and Coop used the Italian samples from the POPRES database, who are mostly from the South (120 samples out of 210 according to Moorjani et al 2011), the results are skewed.

Indeed Southerns are about 20% of the total population of Italy, and many Northerners share IBD segments with NW Europeans in the same study by Ralph and Coop.

BTW Southerners share IBD segments also with South Slavs, Romanians and to a lesser extent with Germans and Poles in the 555-1500 AD period.

On the other hand Spaniards are generally from Barcellona and to a lesser extent from Madrid AFAIK.

 

[Alan]

@Angela

Taranis already gave the reasoning. The loudshift of Tarchun is typical for the late Anatolian variant of Hittite Tarhun. That all the versions of Teshub ultimately came from Western Asia doesn't automatically mean that all of them came during the same time period.

The variant Tarchun is typical for a loudshift which occured after the PIE split in Anatolia.

Thats what we mean

@Pax Augusta

I think you missed the part where I wrote obviously it can not be the Mitanni influence because Teshub exists pre Mitanni. The only Deities Mitanni additionally brought were Mithra, Varna and Indra, typically Indo_Iranian.

Mitanni dates back to 1500 BC, while Hurrians are recorded as far back as 3000 BC. Teshub was not a Mitanni deity.

Teshub according to Hurrian mythology is descend of ANU the Sumerian God. But in reality Teshub is also equivalent to Anu (Sky God) Therefore the figure of the Sky and Thunder God dates much further back than Mitanni.

And this is why it is a mystery why Indo European Zeus, Taranis, Thor are obviously equivalent to Teshub. The only explanation is common mythological root.

Even the legend of Teshub being born after Kumarbi bites of Anu's genital and swallows it, is the same as the Greek story of Uranus, Cronus and Zeus.

 

[Angela]

Albanians had a genetic impact only on Southern Italians, and since Ralph and Coop used the Italian samples from the POPRES database, who are mostly from the South (120 samples out of 210 according to Moorjani et al 2011), the results are skewed.

Indeed Southerns are about 20% of the total population of Italy, and many Northerners share IBD segments with NW Europeans in the same study by Ralph and Coop.

BTW Southerners share IBD segments also with South Slavs, Romanians and to a lesser extent with Germans and Poles in the 555-1500 AD period.

On the other hand Spaniards are generally from Barcellona and to a lesser extent from Madrid AFAIK.

This thread has nothing to do with admixture in Spain. It is irrelevant and your comment is completely off topic.

In terms of the period 555 to 1500 ya, the question is not whether there was any IBD sharing, the question is whether there was any significant amount of IBD sharing during that period. There was no significant gene flow from anywhere during that period. There was some small amount of IBD sharing with the Balkans. Yes, most of it was probably from Albanians, although not all, and therefore most of it would have gone into the genomes of southern Italians. So? That would and does show up in the clinal nature of the results.

This graphic might be more helpful.



In terms of the graphic you posted, it's unfortunate that you chose to post the version which doesn't include Poland because that would have shown readers what really significant IBD sharing looks like...obviously, it stems from the period of the Slavic migrations

As I've explained before, for yDna and mtDna testing you need a lot of samples to get a reliable average for an area because there is so much variation, particularly in a country like Italy, and there are so many clades and subclades. For autosomal testing as few as 5 will do. You can see this from the Dodecad runs. The five members from Northern Italy are very similar to one another and not significantly different from the academic sample from Bergamo.

Even with lots more samples from northern Italy the cline would be the same, and the general parameters of the IBD sharing would be the same.

 

[giuseppe rossi]

So what? You are actually not contradicting what I've said before.

Anyway I just meant to correct your post and point out that the results from Ralph and Coop are skewed because of poor sampling in Italy.

 

[Sile]

Albanians had a genetic impact only on Southern Italians, and since Ralph and Coop used the Italian samples from the POPRES database, who are mostly from the South (120 samples out of 210 according to Moorjani et al 2011), the results are skewed.

Indeed Southerns are about 20% of the total population of Italy, and many Northerners share IBD segments with NW Europeans in the same study by Ralph and Coop.

BTW Southerners share IBD segments also with South Slavs, Romanians and to a lesser extent with Germans and Poles in the 555-1500 AD period.

On the other hand Spaniards are generally from Barcellona and to a lesser extent from Madrid AFAIK.

IIRC, didn't ralph and coop state Albanians have only been around for 1500 years in the balkans?

 

[Semitic Duwa]

All this talk about J1 coming to Europe with Neolithic farmers from the Near East... All I can say is this: If that's true then J1 is pretty damn good at hiding from most researchers, it deserves the "stealthiest neolithic haplogroup" label hands down (J2 is a strong contender as well).

As far as the Eupedia article on J1 is of concern, it's seriously outdated and relies on obnoxious clichés such as J1 being "Arabian". Finally, I sense some are quite uneasy with the prospect of J1 having mainly expanded with Semitic speakers (and, in turn, Afroasiatic speakers).

Edit: If you're looking for a more or less up-to-date assessment of J1's phylogeography, I suggest you take the time to read this thread.

 

[Angela]

Thank you, but we can access ISOGG without going to a forum run by an "Assyrian Nordicist", of all bizarre things. It's hardly the kind of place where I would expect to find unbiased scientific analysis.

I'm sure that you're aware that not all J1 is P-58? So, why is it not possible or even probable that different branches might have taken different paths at different times into Europe? How do you know that other, earlier branches of J1 could not have been a minor part of the Neolithic migrations? How do you know that there were not clades of J1 from around the Caucasus that could have been swept up in the Bronze Age migrations? Those branches are not Semitic speaking by the way.

You might also notice that many of the comments on this thread have been heavy with qualifiers like "might have" or "could have". Most of us don't claim your kind of certainty because we know how very little any of us know at this stage.

Everything is not always about your own particular branch of J1, or that of Elias Alucard for that matter. Also, for your information, there's been no anti-Jewish rhetoric here, nor will there be. It's unacceptable. I would suggest that's the sort of thing you're infinitely more likely to find at ForumBioviversity and The Apricity. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I was under the impression you're a moderator at the latter forum, are you not? If you are, perhaps your time would be better spent moderating those kinds of comments there than taking us to task for something that was never done.

As for J2 I have been saying for years that it probably didn't come to Europe until the Bronze Age. I specifically remember that I took that position in the threads about Boattini et al. in 2013. You might want to look them up. Of course, both of us are speculating at this point.

I would just finish by saying it isn't helpful to make such broad brush accusations without all the necessary information.

As for our members here, I would advise against seeing this as some kind of provocation and responding inappropriately. Keep it civil or there will be consequences.

 

[giuseppe rossi]

Both J1 and J2 arrived into Europe with late neolitich Goat herders from Southern Caucasus.

Farmers and herders lived in different gated villages and very rarey mixed with each other.

Pretty much like Beduins and farmers in Iraq/Levant or Mongols/Chinese in East Asia.

 

[Angela]

Both J1 and J2 arrived into Europe with late neolitich Goat herders from Southern Caucasus.

Farmers and herders lived in different gated villages and very rarey mixed with each other.

Pretty much like Beduins and farmers in Iraq/Levant or Mongols/Chinese in East Asia.

Very interesting...do you have any evidence whatsoever to proffer as support for that opinion?

 

[Semitic Duwa]

Thank you, but we can access ISOGG without going to a forum run by an "Assyrian Nordicist", of all bizarre things. It's hardly the kind of place where I would expect to find unbiased scientific analysis.

I'm sure that you're aware that not all J1 is P-58? So, why is it not possible or even probable that different branches might have taken different paths at different times into Europe? How do you know that other, earlier branches of J1 could not have been a minor part of the Neolithic migrations? How do you know that there were not clades of J1 from around the Caucasus that could have been swept up in the Bronze Age migrations? Those branches are not Semitic speaking by the way.

You might also notice that many of the comments on this thread have been heavy with qualifiers like "might have" or "could have". Most of us don't claim your kind of certainty because we know how very little any of us know at this stage.

Everything is not always about your own particular branch of J1, or that of Elias Alucard for that matter. Also, for your information, there's been no anti-Jewish rhetoric here, nor will there be. It's unacceptable. I would suggest that's the sort of thing you're infinitely more likely to find at ForumBioviversity and The Apricity. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I was under the impression you're a moderator at the latter forum, are you not? If you are, perhaps your time would be better spent moderating those kinds of comments there than taking us to task for something that was never done.

As for J2 I have been saying for years that it probably didn't come to Europe until the Bronze Age. I specifically remember that I took that position in the threads about Boattini et al. in 2013. You might want to look them up. Of course, both of us are speculating at this point.

I would just finish by saying it isn't helpful to make such broad brush accusations without all the necessary information.

As for our members here, I would advise against seeing this as some kind of provocation and responding inappropriately. Keep it civil or there will be consequences.

ISOGG is even more unreliable than Eupedia as far as J1 goes, it still refers to L147.1 as a major SNP for instance (while we know it's unstable). As I said, if you want a more or less up-to-date assessment of J1's phylogeography you should read this thread (which, I can assure you, is quite unbiased).

How do I know that earlier J1 branches didn't take part in the Neolithic revolution? Truth be told, I know that absence of evidence doesn't stand for evidence of absence but arguing that J1 (or indeed, J as a whole) was some sort of major Neolithic marker is sheer madness at this point given the fact that we've managed to uncover haplogroups such as I1 (from Hungary; Szécsényi-Nagy et al. 2014), R1b (from the cave site of Els Trocs; Haak et al. 2015), E-V13 (from the Avellaner cave; Lacan et al. 2011), C1a2 (from Hungary; Gamba et al. 2014) and T-M70 (from Germany; Haak et al. 2015) in a Neolithic context.
Contrast this with the deafening absence of J1 in all Neolithic remains to date and it becomes pretty clear that invoking the Neolithic revolution in order to explain J1's presence in Europe is nothing short of a self-defeating endeavour.

Of course, finding a few singleton J1 samples in a Neolithic context remains a possibility, nevertheless I think it's pretty clear that the spread of Neolithic farmers from the Near East wasn't J1-driven phenomenon. In fact, a Mesolithic entry for some of J1's earliest branches (such as Z2223) sounds far more likely than a Neolithic one right now. The "J1 came with Neolithic farmers from the Near East" chestnut is dying a slow and painful death right now, and I'm expecting archeogenetic data from the Near East (especially from the Levantine PPNB sites) to deal the final blow.

So to answer your question: Is it possible that some earlier J1 branches were minor Neolithic lineages? Yes. Is it likely? No, and either way odds are such branches simply didn't thrive enough to make it past the Neolithic.

And I am well aware that not all of J1's branches are P58+, if you'd taken the time to read the thread I linked you to you would've noticed that only a single J1 branch fits the bill for the spread of Semitic (several subclades on the same phylogenetic level, TMRCA fits with the break up of Proto-Semitic, north-to-south phylogeography and so on): J1-YSC0000234.
As you said, much of what is said in the thread is theoretical, and that's pretty normal considering the fact that J1 hasn't even showed up in archeogenetic remains yet, therefore every explanation we come up with is an educated guess based on contemporary data.
For the record, I'll reiterate what I've been saying for years now, namely that J1 is every bit as diverse as R1b (if not more in fact), so labeling all of J1 "Semitic" isn't just wrong, it's counterintuitive. I agree with you regarding J2, in fact I already favoured an arrival during the Bronze Age back when everyone was busy invoking the Neolithic in order to explain J2's distribution (much like J1, mind you).

Regarding forum drama: I have never been a mod on The Apricity (from which I've actually been banned by the past... IMHO, it is one of the most anti-intellectual forums out there and I don't want to have anything to do with it), but that's above the point since I'm not hunting jew-haters on Eupedia (nor anywhere else, for that matter).

 

[giuseppe rossi]

Bro you are dreaming.

Untill a years ago everyone was thinking that R1b arrived into Europe from the Levant.

Untill 3 years ago everyone was thinking that R1b was a native Paleolitich haplogroup from Iberia.

Now we know that R1b haplogroup arrived into Europe from the Siberian steppe.

Nothing is certain untill we get Neotlich samples from Italy and the Balkans.

 

[Alan]

Bro you are dreaming.

Untill a years ago everyone was thinking that R1b arrived into Europe from the Levant.

Untill 3 years ago everyone was thinking that R1b was a native Paleolitich haplogroup from Iberia.

Now we know that R1b haplogroup arrived into Europe from the Siberian steppe.

Nothing is certain untill we get Neotlich samples from Italy and the Balkans.

When was anyone believing R1b arrived from the Levant?
When was R1b found in Siberian Steppes?

 

[Semitic Duwa]

Bro you are dreaming.

Untill a years ago everyone was thinking that R1b arrived into Europe from the Levant.

Untill 3 years ago everyone was thinking that R1b was a native Paleolitich haplogroup from Iberia.

Now we know that R1b haplogroup arrived into Europe from the Siberian steppe.

Nothing is certain untill we get Neotlich samples from Italy and the Balkans.

^^ My point exactly, in fact this is so obvious that J1 hasn't even showed up in archeogenetic remains to date. So yeah, J1 being a major Neolithic marker is wishful thinking... At best.

 

[Semitic Duwa]

When was anyone believing R1b arrived from the Levant?
When was R1b found in Siberian Steppes?

What he meant is that a few months ago, it was common knowledge that R1b arose in the Zagros/Taurus/Transcaucasus (which, ironically, also happens to be the area where most would place J1's emergence)... Until the Haak et al. 2015 results showed pretty conclusively that R1b is native to the Pontic-Caspian steppe (since it was found on a ~7500 kya old hunter-gatherer from the Samara oblast).

I've been saying the above for some time now so as to advise caution against relying on contemporary data in the absence of ancient data.

 

[Angela]

Hardly just the last few months.

How soon they forget.

Myres et al:
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v19/n1/full/ejhg2010146a.html

 

[Semitic Duwa]

^^ The "R1b from West Asia" theory is still popular mind you, it's been around for a long time now. In a sense, it was a breakthrough compared to all the theories implying a "Palaeolithic" time frame in Western Europe (often coupled with ridiculous theories surrounding "Basque/Vasconic migrants", in fact Maju keeps parroting a slightly upgraded version of this narrative to this very day).

IMO the funniest circumstances surrounding the Haak et al. 2015 results is that they came out shortly after Lucotte et al. published a paper which reiterated the "Neolithic R1b" theory.

 

[Yetos]

an interesting area is Kappadokia or Hatti-dava Hat-dayia,
and the minotaurs,
except the historical mentions,

so I leave genetists to more search

 

[Angela]

Semitic Duwa;456212]ISOGG is even more unreliable than Eupedia as far as J1 goes, it still refers to L147.1 as a major SNP for instance (while we know it's unstable). As I said, if you want a more or less up-to-date assessment of J1's phylogeography you should read this thread (which, I can assure you, is quite unbiased).

I see. My fault. I wasn't aware that you (and Forum Biodiversity) are the world wide authority on J1 and ISOGG are pikers in comparison. You certainly have a healthy sense of self esteem, Semitic Duwa.

Semitic Duwa: I know that absence of evidence doesn't stand for evidence of absence but arguing that J1 (or indeed, J as a whole) was some sort of major Neolithic marker is sheer madness at this point.

Perhaps you would care to point me to the post where I stated that J1 was a major Neolithic player? Isn't that a bit of a straw man argument? (I am also quite aware of what yDna has been found in a Neolithic context in Europe. We do manage in our humble way here to keep up with the relevant papers. There are threads for all of those papers.)

Semitic Duwa: I think it's pretty clear that the spread of Neolithic farmers from the Near East wasn't J1-driven phenomenon.

There you go again. Certainly I've never thought or posted any such thing. Perhaps you could point me to a place here where it has been said that J1 was the driver of the spread of Neolithic farmers from the Near East?

Semitic Duwa:For the record, I'll reiterate what I've been saying for years now, namely that J1 is every bit as diverse as R1b (if not more in fact), so labeling all of J1 "Semitic" isn't just wrong, it's counterintuitive.

Sorry, wasn't that what I've been saying not only in this thread but in others? The whole point has been that research on J1 has lagged and that as a result we don't have subclade resolution for the J1 in Italy or anywhere else in Europe.

Semitic Duwa: only a single J1 branch fits the bill for the spread of Semitic (several subclades on the same phylogenetic level, TMRCA fits with the break up of Proto-Semitic, north-to-south phylogeography and so on): J1-YSC0000234.

Great. So precisely how does that conflict with what I've been saying? How do we know how much of that is in Italy, even if you're correct?

Semitic Duwa: I agree with you regarding J2, in fact I already favoured an arrival during the Bronze Age back when everyone was busy invoking the Neolithic in order to explain J2's distribution

Well, if you agree with it I must be right.

I must say that I have the strange feeling I get when someone is facing me and addressing me but is actually directing his comments to someone else over my shoulder. If you have a disagreement with the opinion of a particular poster, perhaps it would be best if you address that specific poster. Also, it's not helpful to exaggerate people's opinions to the point of absurdity...to wit, to say that some branches of J1 in Europe may be older than the Bronze Age or the Iron Age or the modern age for that matter, or that it is not all Semitic is not to say that J1 was a major Neolithic lineage, or the driver of the Neolithic or that some, perhaps a lot of the J1 might not turn out to be "Semitic".

As for the forum "drama", I apologize if I associated you incorrectly with The Apricity, although I have to be honest and say I don't find forum biodiversity much better...more lip service to the papers, but very unbalanced and biased interpretations by many of the posters, in my opinion, which could hardly be otherwise given the stated opinions of the site owner and many of the posters. I understand it's been cleaned up lately (those crashes have proved very fortuitous, have they not?), but people have sent me hair raising screen shots of comments on there, particularly in the past. Have those leopards really changed their spots? I doubt it. However, I don't have enough exposure to it to indite all the posters, and I don't actually recall your posts there so none of this is personal.

Also, I was actually going by the fact that when I raised the issue that a member of The Apricity was "trawling" for 23andme data on Sicilians and southern Italians for use in his infamous threads about these people (totally misinterpreting them, in my opinon) and how they are really Middle Easterners in disguise and not Europeans, I thought it was you who came to his defense. I assumed it was because you were from The Apricity. Again, I apologize if that wasn't the case. I can't go back and check now because 23andme apparently agreed with me, and proceeded to pull the thread. I understand he still posts hundreds of pictures of people at discotheques in southern Italy at forum biodiversity however, yes? Very scientific indeed.