More Y Dna results from Italy

Let's not get off topic. We're talking strictly about Puglia and especially Grecia Salentina. If you think the R1a there is not important, why draw the conclusions you drew from it? The northeast, areas near Slovenia etc., are a completely different topic.

You cannot logically draw the conclusions you are drawing for these areas from this paper. There is virtually nothing from M-458 that would indicate the presence of "Slavic" y. There is no indication of Slavic I2a being much of a possibility either, which you would think would be higher than any R1a anyway.

I also don't understand why you would think Grecia Salentina is particularly isolated. It's all nice and flat. No isolated, high altitude valleys there.

Now, perhaps you're drawing your conclusions from private testing company results. I'd like to see screen shots of the results from Grecia Salentina to see all this "Slavic" dna. I'm not interested in any "private" collections.

Of course, even if it exists in those data banks, those collections can be very deceiving. For one thing, no one is checking to see all four grandparents or, in this case, that the paternal grandfather is from the area. Also, it's self selected, not a random sample. In the early days a lot of incorrect predictions were made about R1b clades in Britain because people relied on results like that.

I think at this stage, unless I'm blown away by all the "Slavic" y lines in the data from the private testing companies, I would say that there doesn't seem to be much of an indication that the R1a and I2 in Puglia and especially Grecia Salentina is from the post Slavic era Balkans, particularly in light of the thousands of years of interactions between the two areas. Why on earth single that time period out?

Of course, people can believe whatever they want to believe, for whatever reason, and often do.

I said R1a in general is not common in Italy, and it can clearly be that the high R1a in Graecia Salentina can be from Founder effect, its possible that all the samples in Graecia Salentina in this paper could be from one village, and could drastically be different from the next village.

Again M458 is not the only Slavic R1a, CTS1211 is also largely Slavic and is much more common than M458, to your point about I-CTS10228, no R1a is more common than I-CTS10228 in the Slavic world.

Whoever said its isolated? Your added ideas that I never mentioned.

Its your decision not to see ftdna as valid as low resolution dna papers, there is over 2000 Italians (in projects) who tested their Y dna at ftdna of which a good 100-150 tested BigY, if anything more can be learnt from ftdna than this paper or many of the papers unfortunately, hopefully the next papers will be NGS tested.

As for your final comment you can believe what you want to be believe your entitled to your own opinion.
 
Yes, dating is always iffy, in admixture too. When we get ancient dna we'll have to look back at this and see how close they got.

As to the rest, perhaps you missed my post:

"More, and more resolved data is always better. However, the VAST majority of R1a in Apulia and even in Grecia Salentina is certainly not M-458 (only 1.2% of it TOTAL is M-458, for which they tested), and I don't see any big amounts of "Slavic I2" there either, which there would be if it came after the Slavic invasions, since that's the majority of the "Slavic" y which is in the areas from which it would have come, so I see no logical justification for speculating that most of it is from the Slavic migrations."

Of course, ancient dna is best, then high resolution modern data. Given the history of the area, the data we do have, and no sufficiently resolved randomly selected data showing "Slavic" y dna in Puglia, why would you conclude, as Azzurro did, that most of it was from migrations after the era of the Slavic input into the Balkans, particularly from contact with Croatians in the Middle Ages and probably has nothing to do with Greeks or Illyrians? Based on what?

Perhaps it was just carelessness, but there's not justification for that. Can't go confusing newbies to the topic.



It makes no sense to me. At best, say we can't yet tell.

I wholeheartedly agree. Given the extensive contact with Greeks dating all the way back to Magna Grecia, as well as the Illyrian settlement, it would only be plausible that these R1a lines could have come from these populations. It would be highly unlikely that it would connected to a Slavic contribution to that area. There's been migrations going back and forth from this area long before Slavs entered the Balkans. To say it came specifically from Slavs would be highly-dubious. One could defer to the history of the area to get an idea of where the lines may have originated.
 
Its your decision not to see ftdna as valid as low resolution dna papers, there is over 2000 Italians (in projects) who tested their Y dna at ftdna of which a good 100-150 tested BigY, if anything more can be learnt from ftdna than this paper or many of the papers unfortunately, hopefully the next papers will be NGS tested.As for your final comment you can believe what you want to be believe your entitled to your own opinion.

Can you verify the paper isn't NGS tested?


Also can we expect to get a down vote for disagreeing as well?
 
I wholeheartedly agree. Given the extensive contact with Greeks dating all the way back to Magna Grecia, as well as the Illyrian settlement, it would only be plausible that these R1a lines could have come from these populations. It would be highly unlikely that it would connected to a Slavic contribution to that area. There's been migrations going back and forth from this area long before Slavs entered the Balkans. To say it came specifically from Slavs would be highly-dubious. One could defer to the history of the area to get an idea of where the lines may have originated.

R1a in Greece is almost entirely Slavic and fairly recent sorry to burst your bubble. The only R1a that could be Greek in origin is Z93, and Z93 has been found in Bronze Age Bulgaria so it’s plausible, though Greeks have very low amounts of Z93 today, majority of R1a in Greece is CTS1211 and M458 which are Slavic in Greece’s case.
 
Can you verify the paper isn't NGS tested?

Also can we expect to get a down vote for disagreeing as well?

NGS testing is when snp’s are tested, like BigY, this test is low resolution str markers and you deserved that downvote.
 
R1a in Greece is almost entirely Slavic and fairly recent sorry to burst your bubble. The only R1a that could be Greek in origin is Z93, and Z93 has been found in Bronze Age Bulgaria so it’s plausible, though Greeks have very low amounts of Z93 today, majority of R1a in Greece is CTS1211 and M458 which are Slavic in Greece’s case.

Sorry to burst YOUR bubble, but that doesn't verify that the R1a in puglia is Slavic. How do you know it didn't come there from an earlier time from those other greek R1a?
 
NGS testing is when snp’s are tested, like BigY, this test is low resolution str markers and you deserved that downvote.

Really, why did I deserve it, for not believing your far-flung theory?

That completely violates what you said about people being entitled to their opinion.
 
Really, why did I deserve it, for not believing your far-flung theory?

That completely violates what you said about people being entitled to their opinion.

Because you wrote ridiculous assumption, then changed it to look better.
 
This is an unwarranted assumption considering the long ancient history of Greek and Illyrian settlement in Puglia.

Let's analyze this post Azzurro, tell me why it deserves a down vote. I'm curious to know.
 
Sorry to burst YOUR bubble, but that doesn't verify that the R1a in puglia is Slavic. How do you know it didn't come there from an earlier time from those other greek R1a?

It could be Z93 or a mix of the too. That’s why looking at results from ftdna is important because we can see what R1a’s are found and quite a few results of ftdna had NGS testing. On ftdna the most common R1a in Southern Italy is CTS1211 (which is largely Slavic), then M458 (Slavic), Z284 (Germanic) and finally Z93 (which in itself is a large branch, some could be Greek and others from the Middle East). Most of these samples are also from Southern Italians which includes samples from Puglia.
 
I said R1a in general is not common in Italy, and it can clearly be that the high R1a in Graecia Salentina can be from Founder effect, its possible that all the samples in Graecia Salentina in this paper could be from one village, and could drastically be different from the next village.

Again M458 is not the only Slavic R1a, CTS1211 is also largely Slavic and is much more common than M458, to your point about I-CTS10228, no R1a is more common than I-CTS10228 in the Slavic world.

Whoever said its isolated? Your added ideas that I never mentioned.

Its your decision not to see ftdna as valid as low resolution dna papers, there is over 2000 Italians (in projects) who tested their Y dna at ftdna of which a good 100-150 tested BigY, if anything more can be learnt from ftdna than this paper or many of the papers unfortunately, hopefully the next papers will be NGS tested.

As for your final comment you can believe what you want to be believe your entitled to your own opinion.

Excuse me, you don't get to re-write history here. I'm not the one pushing any particular explanation or "theory" for the R1a in Puglia and in particular in Grecia Salentina. You did.

"Azzurro: In that article it never says that Messapic isn’t Illyrian? R1a in Puglia could be Slavic in origin and probably has nothing to do with Illyrians and Greeks.

This paragraph from the Molise Croats page on wikipedia talks about the history of Slavs in Italy which isn’t limited to Molise Croats.

The Adriatic Sea since the Early Middle Agesconnected the Croatian and Italian coast.[11]The historical sources from 10-11th centuries mention Slavic incursions in Calabria, and Gargano peninsula.[11]Gerhard Rohlfs in dialects from Gargano found many old Croatian lexical remains, and two toponyms Peschici(*pěskъ-) and Lesina (*lěsь, forest), which indicate Chakavian dialect.[12]In 12th century are confirmed toponyms Castelluccio degli Schiavoni and San Vito degli Schiavoni.[11] In 13th and until 15th century toponyms Slavi cum casalibus (Otranto, 1290), Castellucium de Slavis (Capitanata, 1305), casale Sclavorum(Lavorno, 1306), clerici de Schalvis (Trivento, 1328), S. Martini in Sclavis (Marsia, 13th century), S. Nikolò degli Schiavoni (Vasto, 1362).[13]In 1487 the residents of Anconadiffered the Slavi, previously settled, and the newcomers Morlacchi.[10] In 16th century, Abraham Ortelius in his Theatrum Orbis Terrarum (1570), West of Gargano in today's province of Molise mentioned Dalmatia,[14] and on Gargano also exist cape Porto Croatico and cove Valle Croatica.[15]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molise_Croats

This probably explains the R1a."

The particular source you're pushing is Croatians in the Middle Ages.

There's no particular justification for that, especially not among Griko speaking Salentini, and especially not since, as you point out, the M17* is not further resolved.

I also doubt the proportion of I2a and R1a in the regions across the Adriatic from Grecia Salentina is in R1a's favor.

I'm still waiting for the screen shot of all the "Slavic" R1a in Grecia Salentina. I told you I'm prepared to be bowled over. What more do you want? I do want a screen shot however, and the total such "Slavic" R1a out of the total samples for that area.

Why would I care whether that small amount of R1a in Griko speaking Salentini is from Greeks from before or after the Slavic migrations or from all sorts of migrations? It's immaterial. I just don't like big conclusions being drawn from insufficient evidence. The Croats in Molise, for example, are, sorry, really lame for Griko speakers.

Yes, you are the one who said the Salentina area is isolated. Where do you think founder effects matter? Where do you think they occur?

"Azzurro: the high R1a in Graecia Salentina is probably founder effect and thus not really representative."

Actually, there may be a bit of a founder effect in Grecia Salentina, because of language isolation. Regardless, again, you brought it up, not me.

The R1a in Greece has nothing to do with this. There were documented folk migrations into Greece by Slavic speaking tribes.

Please stick to the topic, which is Puglia, and especially Grecia Salentina, and the predictions and conclusions you reached. I merely showed why that isn't necessarily the case.

You know, there's no shame in having overstated the case, or been careless. Everybody does it at times.

As you yourself mentioned, until we have more resolution on those results there's no way of knowing.




 
Excuse me, you don't get to re-write history here. I'm not the one pushing any particular explanation or "theory" for the R1a in Puglia and in particular in Grecia Salentina. You did.

"Azzurro: In that article it never says that Messapic isn’t Illyrian? R1a in Puglia could be Slavic in origin and probably has nothing to do with Illyrians and Greeks.

This paragraph from the Molise Croats page on wikipedia talks about the history of Slavs in Italy which isn’t limited to Molise Croats.

The Adriatic Sea since the Early Middle Agesconnected the Croatian and Italian coast.[11]The historical sources from 10-11th centuries mention Slavic incursions in Calabria, and Gargano peninsula.[11]Gerhard Rohlfs in dialects from Gargano found many old Croatian lexical remains, and two toponyms Peschici(*pěskъ-) and Lesina (*lěsь, forest), which indicate Chakavian dialect.[12]In 12th century are confirmed toponyms Castelluccio degli Schiavoni and San Vito degli Schiavoni.[11] In 13th and until 15th century toponyms Slavi cum casalibus (Otranto, 1290), Castellucium de Slavis (Capitanata, 1305), casale Sclavorum(Lavorno, 1306), clerici de Schalvis (Trivento, 1328), S. Martini in Sclavis (Marsia, 13th century), S. Nikolò degli Schiavoni (Vasto, 1362).[13]In 1487 the residents of Anconadiffered the Slavi, previously settled, and the newcomers Morlacchi.[10] In 16th century, Abraham Ortelius in his Theatrum Orbis Terrarum (1570), West of Gargano in today's province of Molise mentioned Dalmatia,[14] and on Gargano also exist cape Porto Croatico and cove Valle Croatica.[15]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molise_Croats

This probably explains the R1a."

The particular source you're pushing is Croatians in the Middle Ages.

There's no particular justification for that, especially not among Griko speaking Salentini, and especially not since, as you point out, the M17* is not further resolved.

I also doubt the proportion of I2a and R1a in the regions across the Adriatic from Grecia Salentina is in R1a's favor.

I'm still waiting for the screen shot of all the "Slavic" R1a in Grecia Salentina. I told you I'm prepared to be bowled over. What more do you want? I do want a screen shot however, and the total such "Slavic" R1a out of the total samples for that area.

Why would I care whether that small amount of R1a in Griko speaking Salentini is from Greeks from before or after the Slavic migrations or from all sorts of migrations? It's immaterial. I just don't like big conclusions being drawn from insufficient evidence. The Croats in Molise, for example, are, sorry, really lame for Griko speakers.

Yes, you are the one who said the Salentina area is isolated. Where do you think founder effects matter? Where do you think they occur?

"Azzurro: the high R1a in Graecia Salentina is probably founder effect and thus not really representative."

Actually, there may be a bit of a founder effect in Grecia Salentina, because of language isolation. Regardless, again, you brought it up, not me.

The R1a in Greece has nothing to do with this. There were documented folk migrations into Greece by Slavic speaking tribes.

Please stick to the topic, which is Puglia, and especially Grecia Salentina, and the predictions and conclusions you reached. I merely showed why that isn't necessarily the case.

You know, there's no shame in having overstated the case, or been careless. Everybody does it at times.

As you yourself mentioned, until we have more resolution on those results there's no way of knowing.





Nothing I say is careless this is what I think it is. I will state it exactly as I see it, Greeks and Illyrians are probably not responsible for R1a in Puglia and Slavic migrants from Croatia along with Byzantine Mercenaries are the most likely source which also correlate with results from ftdna, Sorry but until NGS samples are taken this is my opinion.
 
Nothing I say is careless this is what I think it is. I will state it exactly as I see it, Greeks and Illyrians are probably not responsible for R1a in Puglia and Slavic migrants from Croatia along with Byzantine Mercenaries are the most likely source which also correlate with results from ftdna, Sorry but until NGS samples are taken this is my opinion.

I guess that means there's not a plethora of "Slavic" y dna in Grecia Salentina in FTDNA?

Fine, that's your opinion. I'll leave it to readers to determine if you've backed that up with any yDna or historical and cultural proof, anything other than your ingrained belief that virtually everything in southern Italy must stem from migrations after the Romans. Why you have that ingrained belief is beyond me.
 
I guess that means there's not a plethora of "Slavic" y dna in Grecia Salentina in FTDNA?

Fine, that's your opinion. I'll leave it to readers to determine if you've backed that up with any yDna or historical and cultural proof, anything other than your ingrained belief that virtually everything in southern Italy must stem from migrations after the Romans. Why you have that ingrained belief is beyond me.

FTDNA's Italy project:
https://www.familytreedna.com/public/Italy?iframe=yresults

No R1a in Puglia/Grecia Salentina, but curiously, several samples from Calabria test positive for it (plus two from Sicily).
 
I guess that means there's not a plethora of "Slavic" y dna in Grecia Salentina in FTDNA?

Fine, that's your opinion. I'll leave it to readers to determine if you've backed that up with any yDna or historical and cultural proof, anything other than your ingrained belief that virtually everything in southern Italy must stem from migrations after the Romans. Why you have that ingrained belief is beyond me.

No, there are Roman-Italic Y dna is also prevalent in Southern Italy, U152 lineages are found in the South, plus we have lineages of J2a-L70, E-V13>S7461, G-L13, T-CTS54. There is even Neolithic lineages that are still found too. Also Greek brought in many lineages too before the Romans.

In the case of R1a most of it is post Roman, only Z93 could during and before Roman period.
 
FTDNA's Italy project:
https://www.familytreedna.com/public/Italy?iframe=yresults

No R1a in Puglia/Grecia Salentina, but curiously, several samples from Calabria test positive for it (plus two from Sicily).


There is one Brindisi, yes, although not the Salento?
R-Z283

Some don't have a location listed. Have they been contacted or did you check surnames? These are the ones I quickly noticed that are Southern Italian generally but might perhaps be from Puglia. Can't tell, though: nothing definite.

Raffa and Filardo-(R-YP3994, and R-M198)


Gasbarro-R-M173

So, I definitely don't see Slavic R1a here.

Actually, given the history of Puglia, with all the contacts with the Northmen, I would think Scandinavian R1a makes more sense than Slavic, but who knows?

[FONT=&quot]" Among the most remarkable of these Norman adventurers were the sons of Tancred de Hauteville, who established their rule over the southern Italian regions of Calabria and Puglia (Apulia) in the 1050s and over Sicily in the following decades. Their possessions were amalgamated by Roger II, a grandson of Tancred, in the early 12th century as the kingdom of Sicily, whose rulers retained a basically Norman character until the last decades of that century."
[/FONT]
http://www.orbilat.com/Encyclopaedia/N/Normans.html
 
There is one Brindisi, yes, although not the Salento?
R-Z283

Some don't have a location listed. Have they been contacted or did you check surnames? These are the ones I quickly noticed that are Southern Italian generally but might perhaps be from Puglia. Can't tell, though: nothing definite.

Raffa and Filardo-(R-YP3994, and R-M198)


Gasbarro-R-M173

So, I definitely don't see Slavic R1a here.

Actually, given the history of Puglia, with all the contacts with the Northmen, I would think Scandinavian R1a makes more sense than Slavic, but who knows?

" Among the most remarkable of these Norman adventurers were the sons of Tancred de Hauteville, who established their rule over the southern Italian regions of Calabria and Puglia (Apulia) in the 1050s and over Sicily in the following decades. Their possessions were amalgamated by Roger II, a grandson of Tancred, in the early 12th century as the kingdom of Sicily, whose rulers retained a basically Norman character until the last decades of that century."
http://www.orbilat.com/Encyclopaedia/N/Normans.html

Ah, I didn't catch that one from Brindisi.

The name Raffa appears to be from Campania, Sicily or Calabria:
RAFFA.gif


Filardo looks to be from Calabria or Sicily:
FILARDO.gif


And Gasbarro down from Abruzzo to Molise and Puglia:
GASBARRO.gif
 
@Falco,

I was trying to give a huge benefit of the doubt, but you're right.

FtDna doesn't prove anything that was alleged either. So much for that.

Jovialis was correct: with all these migrations throughout history being a possibility, and the results we did have, there was no reason to believe it was necessarily going to be Slavic.

Now, despite what was claimed, FTDNA doesn't show Slavic y there either.

The only thing to do is wait for the ancient dna and also for results like the ones in this Grugni paper to be further resolved.
 
@Falco,

I was trying to give a huge benefit of the doubt, but you're right.

FtDna doesn't prove anything that was alleged either. So much for that.

Jovialis was correct: with all these migrations throughout history being a possibility, and the results we did have, there was no reason to believe it was necessarily going to be Slavic.

Now, despite what was claimed, FTDNA doesn't show Slavic y there either.

The only thing to do is wait for the ancient dna and also for results like the ones in this Grugni paper to be further resolved.

Ftdna does not disprove it either, in Calabria and Basilicata mostly either CTS1211 or M458, anyways the high R1a in Graecia Salentina is an outlier, and in all honesty its only 8-9 samples in total. There is Slavs that settled in Puglia, so saying it cannot be Slavic is false.

https://www.familytreedna.com/public/R1a?iframe=ymap

One result in Foggia is projected to be under CTS1211, there is also the Z283 result in Brindisi. Granted the result in Foggia is under YP413 which is under Z93.
 

This thread has been viewed 60822 times.

Back
Top