liguri v13

I don't know how much E-V13 is in Venice and I don't much care, but it is not at all difficult to prove your ancestry in Italy: it's not like the U.S. Most people's ancestors have moved very little if at all. Records are extremely good and in most instances can be traced back to the mid-1500s when the Council of Trent mandated that birth, marriage, etc. records be kept in the parish. Certainly, going back one hundred or two hundred years or more is normally absolutely no problem, so this can't be the explanation.
 
There is an argument to be made that the stricter are the standards the less representative of Venice will be the results. Venice, for a long time, has been riddled with tradesmen, fishermen, ordinary folk. If you want to know the DNA of Venice, go sample the locals. Not people in the diaspora, people in Northern Europe, etc. Moreover, the more documentation you demand, the more likely you are going to skew the results toward the wealthy & well-to-do. If you demand people be able to prove they're from Venice, that their progenitors are from Venice, that their progenitors' progenitors are from Venice, etc. you're basically just sampling the nobility. The numbers you have here therefore are probably more representative of the nobility than Venice as a whole. Look at the extreme R1b numbers! This is exactly what would be expected from such a system. This is like determining the Y-DNA of Americans based upon a sampling of people with the surname "Rockefeller". The Boattini data gives us 70 samples for Veneto as a region. 10% is E-V13 & another 4% other E1b1b. That sounds about right for Veneto as a whole. However, E-V13 has a particular coastal distribution in the east of the Italian peninsula. Therefore I'd expect E-V13 to be slightly to somewhat above 10% in the historic Venetian population, perhaps 12 or 14%. 6-8% seems very, very, very low, but I think it can be explained by the sampling issues I addressed. Poor immigrants & poor residents will be far less likely to be able to prove they are true Venetians.

I cannot believe you are arguing about 2% ..........all DNA tests regardless of which nation have a few % either way from the results of the samples tested, that is because they do not test 100% of the testables ( if that is a word )

- There where no Venetians prior 452AD ..........there was only Veneti . ..............there where no venetians in Roman times.
The Venetians originate from Treviso, Padua and the Dogana ( lagoon area ) ...........these migrants became Venetians over time.

The Nat-Geno tests IIRC......where to cover about 1000 years ............they also stated


The Veneti from Brittany do not match with the Veneti of the Adriatic


To conclude - i know due to archaeology ( Elisa Perego ) .........the Veneti/c people arrived not earlier than 1200BC in the Adriatic and comprise of less than 15% of modern Veneti who must have some % of the indigenous Euganei tribes ( of which Cato the Roman historians state there where 34 towns of Euganei )
 
I don't know how much E-V13 is in Venice and I don't much care, but it is not at all difficult to prove your ancestry in Italy: it's not like the U.S. Most people's ancestors have moved very little if at all. Records are extremely good and in most instances can be traced back to the mid-1500s when the Council of Trent mandated that birth, marriage, etc. records be kept in the parish. Certainly, going back one hundred or two hundred years or more is normally absolutely no problem, so this can't be the explanation.

-My point was more a general criticism of setting up barriers to sample admission. I'm not sure how great record keeping was in Venice in say the mid-1800s. I'm not sure how expensive it is for citizens or non-citizens to get such information today. My point is simply that the more barriers you set up, the more you will skew the results toward people with the means & the will to acquire such records.
-I simply think you're much better off simply sampling the local population, weeding out recent immigrants, etc.
-I don't know that much about the natgeo study, nor does Sile seem to have provided many details, but at least from what I could glean, they appeared to also be taking samples from Westerners (French, Americans) who claimed Venetian ancestry. I suspect this will further skew the results toward dominant Western haplos like R1b.
-8% just seems very low for an eastern Italian city that was the center of a maritime republic that lasted more than a millennium & incorporated various E-V13 hotspots? E-V13 is what, 16%, 18% in Rimini just down the coast? That 8% number just seems suspect to me, but I don't have a strong position on the subject. Someone should randomly sample the local population.
 
Any respectable scientific analysis usually follows standard protocol and insures that all four grandparents come from the same area. That is extraordinarily easy to do in any area of Italy.

I personally think that ancestry should be tracked back further, especially in Italy, perhaps to great-grandparents at least, unless the testees are all elderly, so at least we know that the "signal" goes back to the 1860s-1880s. Otherwise, with all the migration from southern Italy to central and northern Italy after that point you are going to get unreliable results.
 
-My point was more a general criticism of setting up barriers to sample admission. I'm not sure how great record keeping was in Venice in say the mid-1800s. I'm not sure how expensive it is for citizens or non-citizens to get such information today. My point is simply that the more barriers you set up, the more you will skew the results toward people with the means & the will to acquire such records.
-I simply think you're much better off simply sampling the local population, weeding out recent immigrants, etc.
-I don't know that much about the natgeo study, nor does Sile seem to have provided many details, but at least from what I could glean, they appeared to also be taking samples from Westerners (French, Americans) who claimed Venetian ancestry. I suspect this will further skew the results toward dominant Western haplos like R1b.
-8% just seems very low for an eastern Italian city that was the center of a maritime republic that lasted more than a millennium & incorporated various E-V13 hotspots? E-V13 is what, 16%, 18% in Rimini just down the coast? That 8% number just seems suspect to me, but I don't have a strong position on the subject. Someone should randomly sample the local population.

Record keeping in the mid 1800's in Venice was done by the Austrians ...........The hapsburgs are stated as excellent record keepers in those times as well as the Spanish in most of their history and also the Venetian republic till 1797.

If the % is skewed it is only because they have only 156 samples and not 100% of all the people that could be sampled ..........but a 5 year project is a long project and this would seem to me that they took great lengths to ensure that the sampled tested where true Venetians.
You could be correct in that if they found another 100 Venetians the percentages per haplogroups would change and more E could be found .....or not.

just found this below ..........so we have only 99.

the Genographics project released the results of the DNA analyses conducted on the 156 Venetian cheek-swabs we had sent to the Unitat de Biologia Evolutiva of the Universitat Pompeu Fabra in Barcelona. After two years of work, we were finally able to look at the DNA evidence which Kyle faithfully tallied up for a first look at where we stand, his Canadianess betrayed by the use of French labels in the maps. Out of the 156 samples we collected, 57 were not viewable on the Genographic site for one of two reasons: 34 were Invalid (not enough DNA?) and 23 others (labeled Faulty in pie chart) simply failed to show up on the site. We have initiated an inquest on these issues and we are hoping to retrieve at least some of these unusable samples. "In the end" (as Adrian is fond of saying), the total number of valid samples thus far is 99.
 
Record keeping in the mid 1800's in Venice was done by the Austrians ...........The hapsburgs are stated as excellent record keepers in those times as well as the Spanish in most of their history and also the Venetian republic till 1797.

If the % is skewed it is only because they have only 156 samples and not 100% of all the people that could be sampled ..........but a 5 year project is a long project and this would seem to me that they took great lengths to ensure that the sampled tested where true Venetians.
You could be correct in that if they found another 100 Venetians the percentages per haplogroups would change and more E could be found .....or not.

I can't debate the finer points of the analysis because I don't know what "quality standards" were used.
I don't even want to concede that Italian record keeping was fantastic at the time because intuitively it seems wrong, knowing what I know about Italian governance generally. I also don't know what the cost is of procuring official records from various former eras. Venice was under Austrian control for roughly 35 years. There was a lot of conflict, instability & government turnover in the area in the 1800 & 1900s.
I simply looked at the numbers, where some of the samples were from, etc. & saw some red flags.
Does anyone know what filters were used or where the samples were from? Not as far as I can tell. So to some degree we're arguing in a data vacuum.
 
Oh for goodness' sakes...all birth, marriage, baptismal and death records are kept in the parishes. All you have to do is walk in and look at them. The parish of the spouses, parents, etc. is listed, so you can just go back from there. You would have to be illiterate and unable to walk or use public transportation not to be able to do it.

An uncle of mine traced all of my paternal lines going back to the time of the Council of Trent using only parish records. How hard would it be to go back three generations?

Can people stop opining on things about which they have absolutely no knowledge?
 
I can't debate the finer points of the analysis because I don't know what "quality standards" were used.
I don't even want to concede that Italian record keeping was fantastic at the time because intuitively it seems wrong, knowing what I know about Italian governance generally. I also don't know what the cost is of procuring official records from various former eras. Venice was under Austrian control for roughly 35 years. There was a lot of conflict, instability & government turnover in the area in the 1800 & 1900s.
I simply looked at the numbers, where some of the samples were from, etc. & saw some red flags.
Does anyone know what filters were used or where the samples were from? Not as far as I can tell. So to some degree we're arguing in a data vacuum.

The tests arranged via Nat-geno is/was initiated by Worcester Polytechnic Institute and I doubt they will run any more DNA testing............they are more concerned in saving the 15kms of texts in the venetian archives using a computer program called UScript ...........they are still there today.

They also developed ArchEasy to compile these manuscripts
ArchEasy. The necessary features ofArchEasy were planned and described, and efforts were made to promote its development.Future funding for ArchEasy will functionalize all of its features, and incorporate the autonomous agent approach, a technology that will render the system capable of semi-autonomous data interpretation. Once fully developed, ArchEasy hopes to greatly increase the efficiency of the Venetian archaeological process.

To conclude, I doubt any more DNA testing will be done
 
Oh for goodness' sakes...all birth, marriage, baptismal and death records are kept in the parishes. All you have to do is walk in and look at them. The parish of the spouses, parents, etc. is listed, so you can just go back from there. You would have to be illiterate and unable to walk or use public transportation not to be able to do it.

An uncle of mine traced all of my paternal lines going back to the time of the Council of Trent using only parish records. How hard would it be to go back three generations?

Can people stop opining on things about which they have absolutely no knowledge?


1) Woah! You should probably consult your uncle about how easy that was to do. My expectation is it was not very easy, though again, with the right resources it's probably sometimes doable.
2) From what I could glean, some of these "Venetians" were not current residents, they were people in the diaspora, etc. So yeah, it's easy, just buy a plane ticket, fly to Italy, find the right parish among many wrong parishes, sift through numerous parish records for particular names, trace that name to other names in other parishes, connect dot after dot, hoping that there are no gaps or members born elsewhere, no factors which confuse matters like adoptions or illegitimate births, etc. I'm sure you could do it in an afternoon. Indeed, I bet you did it just sitting there typing. You probably divined your own ancestry psychically using only a seance, a cauldron, some myrrh & a pinch of beet root. : )
3) Do we even know how many generations they went back? The premises of this dispute seem extremely slippery, since we know so little about the study.
4) You keep asserting that the record keeping was great. You really haven't offered any evidence for this claim. You just keep asserting & re-asserting it. However, even US governmental record-keeping a mere 100 years ago was pretty darned unreliable. And if there is anything Italians are not known for it's good governance. You also keep claiming it's so easy because "churches kept records". Churches! Ha! I mean, we all know how reliable church records are! And the only evidence you've provided regarding their reliability & the ease with which they're accessed is that your beloved uncle Joe wandered around Naples in a fugue state & did this one afternoon. Very convincing evidence.

*Nothing in this critique was meant to insult your beloved uncle Joe or the afternoon he spent tracing your ancestry back to the Etruscans.
 
You're an American with absolutely no experience of our system, so your expectations are hardly relevant.

It was my Zio Edoardo, Italian, btw, at least back to the mid-16th century, who made the family tree; not one of those Italian-Americans who often don't even remember the specific town from which their ancestors came. I had to find out for my husband's family, which only took fifteen minutes on the internet looking at immigration records, but they had no idea how to do it.

Also, stop with the straw man arguments. Where did I say that someone could trace all lines back to the mid-1500s quickly? Of course it takes time. However, the standard protocol for these studies is all four grandparents. That's the protocol for all the percentages with which you agree, btw. That'sfour people. Get it? You can do that quickly even if you have to use church records, which you don't for anything in the last 150 years and more. You can just contact the appropriate government agency and they'll give you the whole run down back at least that far. There are whole websites set up so Italian-Americans can do it.

I have said numerous times that beyond that point (Council of Trent) nothing can be proved because there are no records. Well, there are records, but usually scanty, sometimes using only first names, and at any rate not reliable enough to draw a clear genealogical chart. By those standards, I could track some of my father's lines back to the mid-1300s and the founding of his ancestral maternal village. Their name is engraved helpfully over the gate to the village along with the date. So no, I can't prove descent from the Etruscans or the later Romans or even the population present in those villages in the beginning of the Dark Ages. I never said that I could, so, again, stop with the straw man arguments.

Actually, I did most of the research on my mother's side, and indeed, a lot of it has been digitized, sometimes by the local authorities, sometimes, believe it or not, by the LDS. I got a lot of lines back to the 1600s using those digitized records at a branch of their local library.

You obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

While I'm at it, enough with the OCD please. As Sile has already pointed out what difference does a few percent make? No one sample has results that can be engraved in stone.
 
Do we know the distribution of Italian EV 13 members? (Z5017, Z5018 and other?)
 
People, please don't encourage this...
 
From Greece we know that in the North the Z5017 is the common, but in South Greece the Z5018 is the common EV13 subclade. This means that, among the "classical" greek's main EV-13 branch was the Z5018, but among the thracians and the makedons it was the Z5017.

Similar data are also interested in other countries (for example Italy) from which we can learn more about our EV 13 family.

I would also interested in Garibaldi's exact subgroup. He was a ligurian if I knew it well.
 
sono in alto mare in giro. Avrebbero ricostruito l'analisi precedente, dove al massimo abbiamo raggiunto il V13. Personalmente provengo dall'area ligure, sono positivo per cts 5856 e negativo sia per Z5017 che per Z5018. Ho un amico in Piemonte che ? positivo per Z5017 e precisamente EBY4281.
Deve ancora essere scritto. Ci vorr? un po 'di tempo.
 
sono in alto mare in giro. Avrebbero ricostruito l'analisi precedente, dove al massimo abbiamo raggiunto il V13. Personalmente provengo dall'area ligure, sono positivo per cts 5856 e negativo sia per Z5017 che per Z5018. Ho un amico in Piemonte che è positivo per Z5017 e precisamente EBY4281.
Deve ancora essere scritto. Ci vorrà un po 'di tempo.


“sono in alto mare in giro” ???
Maybe you made a mistake.
That’s not how we usually say it.

More or less this is how we say it:
Giro in Alto Mare.
Sto Girando in Alto Mare,
Sto Girovagando in Alto Mare,
Sperduto in Alto Mare,
Perso in Alto Mare,
Sto in Alto Mare,
Mi trovo in Alto Mare,
Mi sto perdendo in Alto Mare,
.........., .....
(meaning: I’m unable to find what I’m looking for, I’m clueless, I’m Lost, ...)

Angela said not to encourage this, is that why you are not writing in English?
 
No, I'm sorry. It was a mistake in the translation. I mean to say that, unfortunately, in an important nation like Italy, they have not yet reached deep levels. And therefore, so many options are still open in order to know better the story of the descendants of our ancestors V13.The interest is still always high and, I hope, to be able to better understand by more competent people. Good day.
 
Grazie, se ci sono nuovi, risultati più accurati, per favore fatemelo sapere.

Thanks, if there are new, more accurate results please let me know.

Can we know Garibaldi's exact subgroup?
 

Can we know Garibaldi's exact subgroup?

Garibaldi didn't do SNP's yet but he is 100 % E-FGC11450. Not sure yet which clade under. In Liguria there is a concentration of FGC11450 especially in La Spezia. In study "The Greeks in the West genetic signatures of the Hellenic colonisation in southern Italy and Sicily" on a sample of 43 no less than 5 seem to be FGC11450 so 11.6 % of FGC11450 there.
To confirm this there is another Italian from Genova that seems FGC11450.
 
Well, so much for all that discussion about how the y chromosome determines men's looks. He looks like an American Civil War general.


General John Bell Hood
2a458de68c82bf7f9db02cab587387d1--hoods-leveon-bell.jpg


u2JL1g0.png
[/IMG]
 

This thread has been viewed 31937 times.

Back
Top