Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 148

Thread: Understanding 6th-Cent Barbarian Social Organization & Migration thru Paleogenomics

  1. #76
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points
    AdeoF's Avatar
    Join Date
    06-03-13
    Location
    London - England
    Posts
    251
    Points
    5,643
    Level
    22
    Points: 5,643, Level: 22
    Level completed: 19%, Points required for next Level: 407
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R-L21 (R-DF13)
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1 (H1h1) or (H1e1)

    Ethnic group
    Spanish
    Country: UK - England



    So as someone as me is reading most of this topic I can say that people here without notice change the subject quite a bit. Because of that I still don't get much of this topic to be honest. But this is a academic page so I only got myself to blame.

  2. #77
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    14,476
    Points
    232,900
    Level
    100
    Points: 232,900, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    Quote Originally Posted by LATGAL View Post
    Angela, the Mathieson quasi-Tuscan northern Thracian (probably) you have in mind is labeled Balkan_IA here. Check out the Northern Italian Beaker samples too. The non-included Sicilian Beaker one looks Early Neolithic with a little Caucasus but no steppe btw, in case you haven't checked out that paper yet.

    In general, it seems that Southern Europe (Iberia_BA -> modern Iberia, NItaly_Beaker -> modern Northern Italy, Balkan_BA_IA-Mycenaean -> modern Balkans and South Italy-Sicily) has moved towards the position that the outlying Yamnaya_Bulgaria occupies, which imo indicates further northern and near eastern influx since the Bronze Age. Check out some of the labeled northern Europe too, quite a bit of change there as well towards more southern and western directions.

    It'll be interesting to see what the genomes from this paper are like, since their analysis doesn't clear everything up, including the fact they the didn't bother to include some sort of Iran_N source and kept to the usual WHG-EEF-steppe trichotomy in their ADMIXTURE analysis, even though we know that at least the Aegean (so likely much of Italy down the line too) already had a good amount of it in the Bronze-Iron Age.

    It's certainly interesting that genetics often agrees with traditional accounts of migration which is what this paper is more about than more personal amateur desires, anyway...
    Thanks for the update, LATGAL. No, I haven't dived into the new Mathiesen samples. I've been pretty busy trying to keep the conversation honest on this particular paper. :)

    Well, well, so he is very southern indeed, pretty close to a "pure" Mycenaean, by God, and more "southern" than Southern Italians and Sicilians, yes? It seems that the authors of that paper, and I, for finding them credible, were correct, and a certain person's list of wrong predictions has just gotten another entry. No need to respond to that. :)

    If this result is repeated by other samples, then could the people of the Southern Balkans have remained pretty largely Mycenaean like down to and through the Romans? Or perhaps that was at least the case for the lower part of the social pyramid? How I wish they'd hurry up and test some Classical Era Greek samples.

    The Northern Italian Beaker samples are pretty different, imo. One is Remedello like, the two others are more "north" than that, but of the other two, one is still substantially more south, and one much more west. So, even if we think the changes were "straight" line, there were changes. Plus, I'm not sure they were straight line changes. These Bell Beakers probably didn't replace the whole population, did they? I mean, there's no suggestion Italy was basically empty, like the British Isles when the Beakers arrived, is there? So, perhaps admixture with the remaining EEF made them more "southern", then the Gallic invasions of the first millennium BC made them more "northern", as did some Northern admixture. Do you see what I mean? I don't think we can know until we get more samples from various time periods.

    For the Balkans, wouldn't the progression have been perhaps from a Mycenaean like population at the beginning, then the Balkan Bronze Age with elites who are very Western European, then the Balkan Iron Age showing the survival of a Mycenaean like population, as well as other elite newcomers, then perhaps admixture, and then the Slavic migrations?

    Why would we assume the Mycenaean sacrifice is a new arrival when we have Mycenaean like people in Greece in the Bronze, and, as pertains to this paper, "Lombards" or perhaps more accurately this assemblage of more northern tribes, picked up some perhaps Mycenaean like people during their travels. Not all of them were local to Pannonian Roman remnants there according to the strontium isotope analysis.

    I'm not saying I know the answer to this yet, just as I don't know whether the "southern" samples in Collegno were "local" for only a few hundred years, or "local" for a thousand years. I'm just looking at all the possibilities and trying to keep an open mind.

    I'd feel better about any analysis of these samples if the "analyzer" or modeler wasn't someone not particularly known for integrity, to be honest.


    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

  3. #78
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    09-03-17
    Posts
    110
    Points
    1,744
    Level
    11
    Points: 1,744, Level: 11
    Level completed: 65%, Points required for next Level: 106
    Overall activity: 14.0%


    Country: Greece



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Wonomyro, in fairness metageographical apportioning is always very subjective. I have met quite a few people (mostly familiar with Dalmatia) who'd consider Croatia a(n at leas partially) "Mediterranean" country as you said but it's true that from a genetic perspective, Croats fit in more as "Central-East" European. They're about as "northern" as the French, just in a more steppe-heavy direction.

    Angela, the Thracian appears more northern than the South Italians and Sicilians, about as northern as the Greek sample average used in the dataset (dominated by mainland + some islands + maybe a couple Anatolians) who are equidistant to IA and BA and less southern than Tuscans who are a bit closer to BA. Its overal distance is shortest to those (Tuscans > Sicilians/South Italians > Greeks), then Albanians who are also slightly more northern on average and are overall closer to Balkans_BA. The Mycenaeans we have are of course very southern as we already knew and by pure distances, closest to the southernmost Europeans (South Italians, Sicilians, Maltese, Aegean islanders, Cypriots, European Jews).

    In general, the distances of Southern Europeans to their respective regional ancient samples seem about the same as northern Europeans to the Bronze-Iron Age locals, who have also moved towards the south and west apparently. Basically, nothing remained exactly the same it seems and modern Europeans are much closer to their neighbors than their distant linguistic/cultural/ethnic ancestors (quelle surprise).

    And yeah I get your overall point about back-and-forths which must be the case but it does currently seem like the overall trend down to modern times is towards 'easternization' and depression of the local EEF/EEF-WHG in favor of steppe-heavy+extra Caucasus in all of Southern Europe. I generally agree with your apparent scheme of Bronze Age steppe/northern intrusion (with more "outliers", greater heterogeneity) -> Iron Age predominance of local population with admixture from the former -> subsequent admixture in more unified periods and periods of great disturbance like during the Volkerwanderung (this is something Lawrence Angel argued back then about Grece, via his cranial series). Something similar seems to have happened in Northern Europe with the initial very steppe-heavy intrusions like CW giving way to more WHG/EEF-heavy populations by the Late Bronze Age then subsequent decrease in WHG to modern times due to contacts with the south(?).

    But as you said, we need much more sampling to hash all this out. The Lombard paper is quite interesting if one focuses more on the topic it tries to elaborate on (and which it does quite successfully I think) than make some wild guesses until the samples are released and we have even more of them for sure. Well, I guess I failed too.

  4. #79
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered1000 Experience Points
    Promenade's Avatar
    Join Date
    08-01-16
    Posts
    288
    Points
    4,459
    Level
    19
    Points: 4,459, Level: 19
    Level completed: 53%, Points required for next Level: 191
    Overall activity: 2.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-U106 R-L1
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1e

    Country: USA - New York



    @Angela
    As it turns out there is a video teasing a paper with 8 Classical era samples from Amvrakia(Ambracia) along with a few others from different eras (He is specifically studying the connection between Greek Metropoleis and their Apokia, so I'm sure we can expect dna from Corinth in the coming future and perhaps other poleis)

    Skip to 14:10
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGKZKoH4yv0

    You can see the mtdna haplogroups listed appear to be H7, H2a, W6 and (This one is harder to make out) H5a3a. The sole Y-Dna sample from the classical era they have is R1b1b and they describe his phenotype as Blue eyed and blonde to dirty blonde hair, but his is the only one revealed.

    I remember we were discussing Agvi's possible eye color earlier and the orator mentions they are working on discerning her phenotype too. He seems interested in the diseases they carried as well so perhaps later on we will get aDNA from Athens as they probe the cause for the Athenian Plague.

  5. #80
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    14,476
    Points
    232,900
    Level
    100
    Points: 232,900, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    Quote Originally Posted by LATGAL View Post
    Wonomyro, in fairness metageographical apportioning is always very subjective. I have met quite a few people (mostly familiar with Dalmatia) who'd consider Croatia a(n at leas partially) "Mediterranean" country as you said but it's true that from a genetic perspective, Croats fit in more as "Central-East" European. They're about as "northern" as the French, just in a more steppe-heavy direction.

    Angela, the Thracian appears more northern than the South Italians and Sicilians, about as northern as the Greek sample average used in the dataset (dominated by mainland + some islands + maybe a couple Anatolians) who are equidistant to IA and BA and less southern than Tuscans who are a bit closer to BA. Its overal distance is shortest to those (Tuscans > Sicilians/South Italians > Greeks), then Albanians who are also slightly more northern on average and are overall closer to Balkans_BA. The Mycenaeans we have are of course very southern as we already knew and by pure distances, closest to the southernmost Europeans (South Italians, Sicilians, Maltese, Aegean islanders, Cypriots, European Jews).

    In general, the distances of Southern Europeans to their respective regional ancient samples seem about the same as northern Europeans to the Bronze-Iron Age locals, who have also moved towards the south and west apparently. Basically, nothing remained exactly the same it seems and modern Europeans are much closer to their neighbors than their distant linguistic/cultural/ethnic ancestors (quelle surprise).

    And yeah I get your overall point about back-and-forths which must be the case but it does currently seem like the overall trend down to modern times is towards 'easternization' and depression of the local EEF/EEF-WHG in favor of steppe-heavy+extra Caucasus in all of Southern Europe. I generally agree with your apparent scheme of Bronze Age steppe/northern intrusion (with more "outliers", greater heterogeneity) -> Iron Age predominance of local population with admixture from the former -> subsequent admixture in more unified periods and periods of great disturbance like during the Volkerwanderung (this is something Lawrence Angel argued back then about Grece, via his cranial series). Something similar seems to have happened in Northern Europe with the initial very steppe-heavy intrusions like CW giving way to more WHG/EEF-heavy populations by the Late Bronze Age then subsequent decrease in WHG to modern times due to contacts with the south(?).

    But as you said, we need much more sampling to hash all this out. The Lombard paper is quite interesting if one focuses more on the topic it tries to elaborate on (and which it does quite successfully I think) than make some wild guesses until the samples are released and we have even more of them for sure. Well, I guess I failed too.
    Well, it's a pleasure discussing this with someone who has a) read the paper, and b) is prepared to discuss it rationally and without some agenda guiding the discussion, and c)sees what the paper is proposing and what it's not proposing, and d) sees the complexity of it all.

    Just to reiterate, there is no doubt, imo, that those "southern" samples are local. Whether all northern Italians of that time had a similar autosomal structure, or we just happened to land on some particularly "southern" ones with recent, but not too recent ancestry from other places (the strontium isotope signature is "local"), I don't know, and neither does anyone else.

    You know, I've spent my entire professional life having a sword dangling over my head ready to drop if I one time lied, or lied by omission, or said something was a fact if it wasn't, or attempted to prove anything without a solid foundation of facts to back it up. I just can't get used to the way certain, indeed, a lot of people, in this "hobby" operate.

    Hey, I think they were Jews, no, they were Syrian Catholics, never mind that no proof is presented, no concrete data that any Syrian Catholics had a settlement anywhere in the area, hey, no, they were Etruscans, like we have a carefully analyzed genome of the elite Etruscans or average Etruscans. This is like college bull sessions, not quasi academic analysis. People think they can put forth any, yes, wild speculation based on absolutely nothing other than their, yes, "wild" imaginations and perhaps a favorite agenda, and everybody is supposed to pretend to take it seriously.

    Sorry, I can't do that. If you have no proof, no data points, I'm not interested, it's all malarkey, and if you prevaricate, watch out.

    Ok, now back to the Iron Age Thracian. Are you basing that assessment on something other than the PCA you showed me? Or, is the PCA not oriented with top as north, bottom as south, left as west and right as east? If it is, and even if it's late, isn't the Thracian-Iron Age Balkan sample not very far north of the Mycenaean and a shade further south than the most southern Italians. I used a ruler, too! See how hi-tech I am? :)

    @Wonomyro,
    You can hold any view you want, but to hold a contrary view is not an insult. I will continue to call it as I see it.

  6. #81
    Regular Member Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Sile's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-09-11
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,120
    Points
    29,699
    Level
    52
    Points: 29,699, Level: 52
    Level completed: 96%, Points required for next Level: 51
    Overall activity: 37.0%

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

    Ethnic group
    North Alpine Italian
    Country: Australia



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    [IMG][/IMG]

    This is very interesting because it's based on 10 whole genomes. SZ36 seems to land right on the Tuscans. On other PCAs, it would appear perhaps right on TSI. SZ43 is perhaps around the Romagna? SZ1 Bulgarian like.

    Are we looking at populations picked up in the northern Balkans?

    When the Thracian paper came out, my proposal on this thread that perhaps the "elite" graves were giving us a false impression of what was going on in the Balkans, and that very "Tuscan like", i.e. Southern European like populations survived in the Balkans into the late Iron Age, was disputed, and, in some circles, ridiculed. Maybe I was right, eh, "gentlemen"?
    Which Thracian do you refer to as there where 4 samples that I recall..........the rich one was the contaminated one with "steppe" mix
    có che un pòpoło no 'l defende pi ła só łéngua el xe prónto par èser s'ciavo

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

  7. #82
    Princess Achievements:
    1 year registeredOverdrive10000 Experience Points
    davef's Avatar
    Join Date
    19-06-16
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,174
    Points
    10,051
    Level
    30
    Points: 10,051, Level: 30
    Level completed: 17%, Points required for next Level: 499
    Overall activity: 21.0%


    Ethnic group
    Italian, Irish, Jewish
    Country: USA - New York



    Quoting LATGAL:

    "Balkan_BA_IA-Mycenaean -> modern Balkans and South Italy-Sicily) has moved towards the position that the outlying Yamnaya_Bulgaria occupies, which imo indicates further northern and near eastern influx since the Bronze Age".
    So you're saying it's possible that Mycenaean like populations in the balkans and southern Italy mixed with more northern populations as well as near eastern populations giving rise to modern balkans and south Italians/ Sicilians right? Sounds likely since the Sicilian, south Italian, and greeks are more East and North than the Mycenaean.

    I don't want to derail this thread too much, I just simply want to ensure I understand what you're saying :)
    mmmmmmmmmm doughnuuuuutz

  8. #83
    Moderator Achievements:
    1 year registeredTagger Second ClassThree Friends10000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Community Award

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,616
    Points
    24,073
    Level
    47
    Points: 24,073, Level: 47
    Level completed: 53%, Points required for next Level: 477
    Overall activity: 29.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    So, if the isotope analysis does not favor a local origin for all the northern and also the southern individuals buried in Szabo in a context that appears that of a migrating people (lots of indications of high moblity), then do we have, even if in other studies, a reliable suggestion of what the local Pannonians were like autosomally? Could those "southern-shifted" migrating people be just other Pannonians, more or less exactly like the average people of the region, who came accompanying the Lombards (their masters, or maybe their higher commanders?) from places far away from Szabo? I'm still a bit confused about this, since I and also other commenters I've read about this study were talking cofidently about all this "Southern European" genetic makeup of early medieval Hungary.

  9. #84
    Regular Member Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Sile's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-09-11
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,120
    Points
    29,699
    Level
    52
    Points: 29,699, Level: 52
    Level completed: 96%, Points required for next Level: 51
    Overall activity: 37.0%

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

    Ethnic group
    North Alpine Italian
    Country: Australia



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    So, if the isotope analysis does not favor a local origin for all the northern and also the southern individuals buried in Szabo in a context that appears that of a migrating people (lots of indications of high moblity), then do we have, even if in other studies, a reliable suggestion of what the local Pannonians were like autosomally? Could those "southern-shifted" migrating people be just other Pannonians, more or less exactly like the average people of the region, who came accompanying the Lombards (their masters, or maybe their higher commanders?) from places far away from Szabo? I'm still a bit confused about this, since I and also other commenters I've read about this study were talking cofidently about all this "Southern European" genetic makeup of early medieval Hungary.
    if the isotopes are not italian , then they cannot be southern European, so saying TUS or BER or IBS makes no sense since they are all southern............might go back to the current dilemma of what is balkan and what is not balkan......border countries fall on either side

    Pannonians where recorded from bronze age as an illyrian/dacian mix , leter celtinized in the Iron age.........eventually in AD roman times the lombards where granted access to settle there by the Romans........clearly this suggest a 300 year mix of existing peoples with Roman soldiers and families with migrating lombards......300 years is a long time

  10. #85
    Moderator Achievements:
    1 year registeredTagger Second ClassThree Friends10000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Community Award

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,616
    Points
    24,073
    Level
    47
    Points: 24,073, Level: 47
    Level completed: 53%, Points required for next Level: 477
    Overall activity: 29.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by Sile View Post
    if the isotopes are not italian , then they cannot be southern European, so saying TUS or BER or IBS makes no sense since they are all southern............might go back to the current dilemma of what is balkan and what is not balkan......border countries fall on either side

    Pannonians where recorded from bronze age as an illyrian/dacian mix , leter celtinized in the Iron age.........eventually in AD roman times the lombards where granted access to settle there by the Romans........clearly this suggest a 300 year mix of existing peoples with Roman soldiers and families with migrating lombards......300 years is a long time
    300 years? Are you saying that Lombards were already present living in Pannonia with the Romanized Pannonians and Romans in the early 3rd century, still during the heyday of the Western Roman Empire? Do we have evidences of such an early arrival of German tribes there?

  11. #86
    Regular Member Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Sile's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-09-11
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,120
    Points
    29,699
    Level
    52
    Points: 29,699, Level: 52
    Level completed: 96%, Points required for next Level: 51
    Overall activity: 37.0%

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

    Ethnic group
    North Alpine Italian
    Country: Australia



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    300 years? Are you saying that Lombards were already present living in Pannonia with the Romanized Pannonians and Romans in the early 3rd century, still during the heyday of the Western Roman Empire? Do we have evidences of such an early arrival of German tribes there?
    They left north Germany in AD17 heading for Pannonia.....they arrived on the opposite bank and asked the Romans for permission to enter Pannonia.......clearly an indication that the Roman empire still existed ...........we also know they invaded Italy After the fall of the Roman empire plus 200 years for the settlement of ostrogoths in Italy .........so do the calc
    They are recorded in Roman sources for the first time in the second century AD.
    .
    The only debate is
    There is fierce debate as to whether these “new” Longobards had anything in common with and whether there was any continuity between them and those mentioned during the Roman period, or whether a second ethnogenesis took place and resulted in a group that adopted the old name.
    Clearly some are saying the original lombards of the second century are not the same as the lombards that went to Italy in the 5th century.
    .
    It could be that the long stay in pannonia changed the Lombard genes by more than half

  12. #87
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    09-03-17
    Posts
    110
    Points
    1,744
    Level
    11
    Points: 1,744, Level: 11
    Level completed: 65%, Points required for next Level: 106
    Overall activity: 14.0%


    Country: Greece



    0 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    Ok, now back to the Iron Age Thracian. Are you basing that assessment on something other than the PCA you showed me? Or, is the PCA not oriented with top as north, bottom as south, left as west and right as east? If it is, and even if it's late, isn't the Thracian-Iron Age Balkan sample not very far north of the Mycenaean and a shade further south than the most southern Italians.
    On overall nmonte distances based on Davidski's Global25, what the modern samples generally seem to model as etc. Either way, it's still a very 'southern' and (obviously) 'western' sample considering its geographical origins in the northern Thracian area which either indicates still ongoing processes down to the 6th century BC or a generally very EEF-heavy and steppe-light population still being the norm south of the Danube. But yeah, one sample and all...

    Quote Originally Posted by davef View Post
    I don't want to derail this thread too much, I just simply want to ensure I understand what you're saying :)
    I have done that too, unfortunately...Yes, with a similar process apparently happening in Iberia and the rest of Italy. But keep in mind that we still have very little data to create any good long-term models. Even the process within the steppe itself, before the migrations to Europe, which happens to actually have more (but still very few) samples currently, isn't perfectly clear yet. The overall impression based on the current sparse sampling is such to me though. We'll see. The world was certainly a very dynamic place, to put it mildly.

    Promenade, that R1b1b caught me a bit off-guard too. Unless it's just a nomenclature difference and they actually mean some expected subclade of R1b1a.

  13. #88
    Enfant Terrible Achievements:
    1 year registered500 Experience Points
    Wonomyro's Avatar
    Join Date
    06-08-17
    Posts
    440
    Points
    614
    Level
    6
    Points: 614, Level: 6
    Level completed: 32%, Points required for next Level: 136
    Overall activity: 1.0%


    Country: Croatia



    Quote Originally Posted by LATGAL View Post
    Wonomyro, in fairness metageographical apportioning is always very subjective. I have met quite a few people (mostly familiar with Dalmatia) who'd consider Croatia a(n at leas partially) "Mediterranean" country as you said but it's true that from a genetic perspective, Croats fit in more as "Central-East" European. They're about as "northern" as the French, just in a more steppe-heavy direction.
    Thank you, LATGAL! That's exactly my argument. However, when I said the same thing on another thread, both me and the other Croatian guy were labeled as being "nordicists" (I collect infractions on the regular basis). Of course, culturally and geographically, Croatia is both Central European and Mediterranean country. I mentioned our affinity for Mediterranean cultural circle only to explain that my motivation has nothing to do with "hating people of Southern European genetic ancestry" when rejecting "Balkan" label.

  14. #89
    Moderator Achievements:
    Three FriendsTagger First Class1 year registered50000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Master Tagger
    Jovialis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-05-17
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    2,487
    Points
    62,937
    Level
    77
    Points: 62,937, Level: 77
    Level completed: 81%, Points required for next Level: 313
    Overall activity: 91.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a1a2b1 (R-F1794)
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H6a1b

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Wonomyro View Post
    Thank you, LATGAL! That's exactly my argument. However, when I said the same thing on another thread, both me and the other Croatian guy were labeled as being "nordicists" (I collect infractions on the regular basis). Of course, culturally and geographically, Croatia is both Central European and Mediterranean country. I mentioned our affinity for Mediterranean cultural circle only to explain that my motivation has nothing to do with "hating people of Southern European genetic ancestry" when rejecting "Balkan" label.
    a small difference in interpretation doesn't give you the right to insult another member, especially not a moderator.

  15. #90
    Regular Member Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Sile's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-09-11
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,120
    Points
    29,699
    Level
    52
    Points: 29,699, Level: 52
    Level completed: 96%, Points required for next Level: 51
    Overall activity: 37.0%

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

    Ethnic group
    North Alpine Italian
    Country: Australia



    Quote Originally Posted by Wonomyro View Post
    Thank you, LATGAL! That's exactly my argument. However, when I said the same thing on another thread, both me and the other Croatian guy were labeled as being "nordicists" (I collect infractions on the regular basis). Of course, culturally and geographically, Croatia is both Central European and Mediterranean country. I mentioned our affinity for Mediterranean cultural circle only to explain that my motivation has nothing to do with "hating people of Southern European genetic ancestry" when rejecting "Balkan" label.
    Nordicist from Scandinavia or Noricist from eastern alps ............2 different race of people ..........I do not understand

  16. #91
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points
    AdeoF's Avatar
    Join Date
    06-03-13
    Location
    London - England
    Posts
    251
    Points
    5,643
    Level
    22
    Points: 5,643, Level: 22
    Level completed: 19%, Points required for next Level: 407
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R-L21 (R-DF13)
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1 (H1h1) or (H1e1)

    Ethnic group
    Spanish
    Country: UK - England



    Quote Originally Posted by Wonomyro View Post
    Thank you, LATGAL! That's exactly my argument. However, when I said the same thing on another thread, both me and the other Croatian guy were labeled as being "nordicists" (I collect infractions on the regular basis). Of course, culturally and geographically, Croatia is both Central European and Mediterranean country. I mentioned our affinity for Mediterranean cultural circle only to explain that my motivation has nothing to do with "hating people of Southern European genetic ancestry" when rejecting "Balkan" label.
    That was quite a dumb thing to say that you get a lot of infractions. That like saying you got a big criminal record In which you lied too everyone saying that "you never got arrested"

  17. #92
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    14,476
    Points
    232,900
    Level
    100
    Points: 232,900, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    So, if the isotope analysis does not favor a local origin for all the northern and also the southern individuals buried in Szabo in a context that appears that of a migrating people (lots of indications of high moblity), then do we have, even if in other studies, a reliable suggestion of what the local Pannonians were like autosomally? Could those "southern-shifted" migrating people be just other Pannonians, more or less exactly like the average people of the region, who came accompanying the Lombards (their masters, or maybe their higher commanders?) from places far away from Szabo? I'm still a bit confused about this, since I and also other commenters I've read about this study were talking cofidently about all this "Southern European" genetic makeup of early medieval Hungary.
    Upthread I posted excerpts from the Supplementary Text section on the strontium isotope analysis of the samples at Szabo. Indeed, none of the residents of Szabo were "locals" to that particular area.

    From the study:

    "Within Szólád we find that adult individuals with both predominantly central/northern and southern genomic ancestry possess similar non-local signatures (Alt et al.13 described this as Range I) (Fig 4). This might suggest that individuals from both ancestry groups immigrated into Szólád together despite the differences in material culture. However, we also note generally a quite diverse non-local range amongst adults with central/northern ancestry (for example SZ4 and SZ16 are extreme outliers), pointing to not all individuals having origins from the same location prior to settling in Szólád."

    Perhaps what they're saying is that the adults all show prior residence within a "Range 1" strontium isotope environment, but there is variation within that Range 1?

    "A comparison of ancestry groups with the evidence of mobility at Szólád, aspreviously published in Alt et al.28, shows much greater heterogeneity than at Collegno. Like at Collegno, most children display local isotopic values. However, at Szólád there isa distinct cluster of children with >70% ‘northern’ ancestry who clearly all grew uptogether (identified as Range II in 56), whereas the two children with >70% ‘southern’ancestry (SZ36 and 40) grew up in a different location from them (in Range I). The adultsare highly variable. Individuals with >70% ‘northern’ ancestry have a greater range ofstrontium isotope values than those with >70% ‘southern’ ancestry. The latter group mayhave been local to the Balaton environs, based on bioavailable reference data from theregion, but their strontium isotope values do not overlap with the tight cluster of childrenin ‘range II’."
    Doesn't this read as if the southern samples are connected to the Lake Balaton region which is also in Pannonia?

    Also from upthread:

    "Balaton is one of the areas of the
    Keszthely culture, to which we were alerted on the prior thread by Wonomyro.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keszthely_culture

    There were only a couple of thousand of them left by that time, poor people, so it hardly seems likely that the ones brought with the Lombards to Italy would have had a huge impact, but some, perhaps. The fact that the Lombards were in such a horrible state by the time they arrived, in terms of not only battle injuries but malnutrition, adds to that. The isotope analysis at other sites would tell us.

    It's nice to see that calm and steady and objective analysis of all the variables pays off."

    Now, is that published speculation that there were only a few thousand of these people left, which was the source of my statement, correct, or was that autosomal signature spread throughout Pannonia, and this was the last group remaining which had some independence? I don't know, and I don't think anyone else does as of yet either.

    Also upthread is a chart from the paper which attributes "ethnicity" to the Szabo southern samples. Using the Popres samples and algorithm the samples come out as Italian (3), French (2), and Romania (1). Using the Hellenthal data set and algorithm, they come out as Sicilian (2), TSI (2), Italian North (1), and Bulgarian (1). On the PCAs, if my memory serves, they all plot in Italy.

    What I do know is that there was a lot of documented Slavic and Germanic input into Hungary, the latter way into the medieval period, which could have changed the genetic signature substantially.

  18. #93
    Regular Member Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Sile's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-09-11
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,120
    Points
    29,699
    Level
    52
    Points: 29,699, Level: 52
    Level completed: 96%, Points required for next Level: 51
    Overall activity: 37.0%

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

    Ethnic group
    North Alpine Italian
    Country: Australia



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    Upthread I posted excerpts from the Supplementary Text section on the strontium isotope analysis of the samples at Szabo. Indeed, none of the residents of Szabo were "locals" to that particular area.

    From the study:

    "Within Szólád we find that adult individuals with both predominantly central/northern and southern genomic ancestry possess similar non-local signatures (Alt et al.13 described this as Range I) (Fig 4). This might suggest that individuals from both ancestry groups immigrated into Szólád together despite the differences in material culture. However, we also note generally a quite diverse non-local range amongst adults with central/northern ancestry (for example SZ4 and SZ16 are extreme outliers), pointing to not all individuals having origins from the same location prior to settling in Szólád."

    Perhaps what they're saying is that the adults all show prior residence within a "Range 1" strontium isotope environment, but there is variation within that Range 1?

    "A comparison of ancestry groups with the evidence of mobility at Szólád, aspreviously published in Alt et al.28, shows much greater heterogeneity than at Collegno. Like at Collegno, most children display local isotopic values. However, at Szólád there isa distinct cluster of children with >70% ‘northern’ ancestry who clearly all grew uptogether (identified as Range II in 56), whereas the two children with >70% ‘southern’ancestry (SZ36 and 40) grew up in a different location from them (in Range I). The adultsare highly variable. Individuals with >70% ‘northern’ ancestry have a greater range ofstrontium isotope values than those with >70% ‘southern’ ancestry. The latter group mayhave been local to the Balaton environs, based on bioavailable reference data from theregion, but their strontium isotope values do not overlap with the tight cluster of childrenin ‘range II’."
    [COLOR=#333333]Doesn't this read as if the southern samples are connected to the Lake Balaton region which is also in Pannonia?
    the way I read this is that the northern are new ( recent migration ) to Pannonia and the southern where born there

  19. #94
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    14,476
    Points
    232,900
    Level
    100
    Points: 232,900, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    Quote Originally Posted by Sile View Post
    the way I read this is that the northern are new ( recent migration ) to Pannonia and the southern where born there
    This would seem to support that view, although it's not carved in stone. We just don't know for sure yet: that's why the authors said "MAY".

    "The latter group may have been local to the Balaton environs, based on bioavailable reference data from the region." since the latter group was the autosomally "southern" group.

  20. #95
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    14,476
    Points
    232,900
    Level
    100
    Points: 232,900, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    This would seem to support that view, although it's not carved in stone. We just don't know for sure yet: that's why the authors said "MAY".

    "The latter group may have been local to the Balaton environs, based on bioavailable reference data from the region."

    (The latter group was the southern group.)
    Sorry, I left out some important and clarifying information from the Supplement:

    "Pannonia hadfallen first under Hunnic, then under Ostrogothic control, when the Ostrogoths movedinto the Balkans in 473. Soon after, in 476, Odoacer, a Roman commander of barbarianorigin in Italy who led a mixed army of Heruli, Rugii and others, overthrew the last WestRoman emperor and ruled Italy as king and patricius by arrangement with the EastRoman emperor in Constantinople. He exerted loose control over the former Romanprovinces to the north and east including Pannonia. The population of the region thuspresumably comprised descendants of Roman provincials as well as members of thevarious barbarian populations that had entered the region over the previous twocenturies2–4."

    The length of stay by the Langobards in Szabo was only one generation.

    "The small population settled for only one14generation in Pannonia at the shore of Lake Balaton and therefore appears to have beenvery mobile - especially the women indicate isotopically and genetically heterogeneousbackgrounds"

    Also, "Most of the Longobard-period burial grounds in Pannonia are located nearformer Roman villas, forts and camps, and the Szólád cemetery seems not to be anexception, since there are hints of a Roman villa nearby."

    As to how and why and when they got to Pannonia:

    "in 535 the Byzantine (East Roman Empire)invaded Italy and began a reconquest under Emperor Justinian I. From around this time,Byzantine diplomacy began to develop treaties with the Longobards in order to isolatethe Ostrogoths and to counter the Gepids, another barbarian people along the Danube and3Tisa Rivers, and granted them the “city of Noricum and the fortifications in Pannonia aswell as other towns and a great amount of money”."

    "Seventh-century sources attribute the Longobard invasion of Italy in 568 toan invitation issued to the Longobard King Alboin by the Roman commander Narses,although this is not mentioned in sixth-century sources and is greeted with skepticism bymodern scholars2, p. 98-100). It was clear that the battered infrastructure in Pannonia4could not meet the ambitions of a growing Longobard army."

    From that it doesn't seem that they spent more than about a generation in Pannonia as a whole, i.e 535 to 568.


    "The invasion met with surprisingly little organizedRoman resistance, but still the Longobard conquest of parts of Italy was a poorlyorganized and long-drawn out affair. The main army moved westward and took Pavia,which would later become the Longobard capital, after a siege, but did not move on toattack Ravenna or Rome. Instead, Alboin’s army began to fall apart into separate bandsled by individual dukes who went their own ways, some into southern Italy and othersinto Burgundy, and some straight into Roman service."

    "c Paul the Deacon wrote a much fuller history of the Longobards7, drawing on theOrigo Gentis Langobardorum, the now-lost history of Secundus, and otherseventh-century sources. His account, although written over two centuries or more afterthe events it recounts, has nevertheless been taken, often uncritically, as a reliableaccount of Longobard history, a position increasingly disputed8,9. Concerning theinvasion of Italy, he states that Alboin’s invading army included not only Longobards butGepids, Bulgars, Sarmatians, Pannonians, Suevi, Noricans, and others6,10."

    Emphasis mine.

  21. #96
    Moderator Achievements:
    1 year registeredTagger Second ClassThree Friends10000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Community Award

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,616
    Points
    24,073
    Level
    47
    Points: 24,073, Level: 47
    Level completed: 53%, Points required for next Level: 477
    Overall activity: 29.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by Sile View Post
    They left north Germany in AD17 heading for Pannonia.....they arrived on the opposite bank and asked the Romans for permission to enter Pannonia.......clearly an indication that the Roman empire still existed ...........we also know they invaded Italy After the fall of the Roman empire plus 200 years for the settlement of ostrogoths in Italy .........so do the calc
    They are recorded in Roman sources for the first time in the second century AD.
    .
    The only debate is
    There is fierce debate as to whether these “new” Longobards had anything in common with and whether there was any continuity between them and those mentioned during the Roman period, or whether a second ethnogenesis took place and resulted in a group that adopted the old name.
    Clearly some are saying the original lombards of the second century are not the same as the lombards that went to Italy in the 5th century.
    .
    It could be that the long stay in pannonia changed the Lombard genes by more than half
    Very interesting, I wasn't aware of those long relations with Romans, especially since it is usually considered pretty much demonstrated that Lombards were much less Romanized and "civilized" (to the Roman pov) than the average Franks and Goths. However, if they were living in Pannonia with locals and Romans for 300 years and their genes had changed "by more than half", then that didn't show in the individuals analyzed in the study we're discussing about here. There is not a sign of strong admixture and long established relations in those buried individuals at all. Not only are they very mobile and most of them probably not local, but there is also a striking genetic difference between some individuals and others, which does not correlate well with a history of 300 years of interbreeding and mutual assimilation. If Lombards were living in Pannonia much before the Volkerwanderung, then we'd have to assume that they were somewhat of a closed community maybe even with some hints of an ethnic "caste" system, because at least their higher social echelons didn't mix much at all, and there was not a gradual cline from one group to the other, but striking differences even though they probably lived together.

  22. #97
    Regular Member Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Sile's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-09-11
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,120
    Points
    29,699
    Level
    52
    Points: 29,699, Level: 52
    Level completed: 96%, Points required for next Level: 51
    Overall activity: 37.0%

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

    Ethnic group
    North Alpine Italian
    Country: Australia



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    Very interesting, I wasn't aware of those long relations with Romans, especially since it is usually considered pretty much demonstrated that Lombards were much less Romanized and "civilized" (to the Roman pov) than the average Franks and Goths. However, if they were living in Pannonia with locals and Romans for 300 years and their genes had changed "by more than half", then that didn't show in the individuals analyzed in the study we're discussing about here. There is not a sign of strong admixture and long established relations in those buried individuals at all. Not only are they very mobile and most of them probably not local, but there is also a striking genetic difference between some individuals and others, which does not correlate well with a history of 300 years of interbreeding and mutual assimilation. If Lombards were living in Pannonia much before the Volkerwanderung, then we'd have to assume that they were somewhat of a closed community maybe even with some hints of an ethnic "caste" system, because at least their higher social echelons didn't mix much at all, and there was not a gradual cline from one group to the other, but striking differences even though they probably lived together.
    It seems that there was a steady flow of "lombards" into Pannonia over many decades ...........they could be Heruli or Rugii even suevi and some sarmatians .......we will never know.......we do have history stating that as the lombards enetered italy to fight against the ostrogoths, their allies stopped and settled in Concordia Friuli, we do not know who else went to Italy.

    BTW....was there not 2 separate cemeteries in Collegno ...a lombard and a goth one?

  23. #98
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    14,476
    Points
    232,900
    Level
    100
    Points: 232,900, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    Quote Originally Posted by Sile View Post
    It seems that there was a steady flow of "lombards" into Pannonia over many decades ...........they could be Heruli or Rugii even suevi and some sarmatians .......we will never know.......we do have history stating that as the lombards enetered italy to fight against the ostrogoths, their allies stopped and settled in Concordia Friuli, we do not know who else went to Italy.

    BTW....was there not 2 separate cemeteries in Collegno ...a lombard and a goth one?
    I have no idea where you get this stuff. Don't you read other people's posts?

    The Romans with whom they were in contact were the Eastern Romans, the Byzantines.

    They weren't given the right to enter Pannonia until 535 and left in 568.

    This is the second time I've highlighted it.

    If you have no source for a contradictory view then you're making it up, and you know what I told you about that.

    Find a source, or retract the comment. I'll give you some time to do one or the other, or you're going to get an infraction.

    You have to stop confusing other people.

  24. #99
    Moderator Achievements:
    1 year registeredTagger Second ClassThree Friends10000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Community Award

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,616
    Points
    24,073
    Level
    47
    Points: 24,073, Level: 47
    Level completed: 53%, Points required for next Level: 477
    Overall activity: 29.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    Now, is that published speculation that there were only a few thousand of these people left, which was the source of my statement, correct, or was that autosomal signature spread throughout Pannonia, and this was the last group remaining which had some independence? I don't know, and I don't think anyone else does as of yet either.

    Also upthread is a chart from the paper which attributes "ethnicity" to the Szabo southern samples. Using the Popres samples and algorithm the samples come out as Italian (3), French (2), and Romania (1). Using the Hellenthal data set and algorithm, they come out as Sicilian (2), TSI (2), Italian North (1), and Bulgarian (1). On the PCAs, if my memory serves, they all plot in Italy.

    What I do know is that there was a lot of documented Slavic and Germanic input into Hungary, the latter way into the medieval period, which could have changed the genetic signature substantially.
    Thanks! Now things are getting clearer to me. It does seem to me, from the way they phrased their results, that the southern individuals were not "locals", but were from the same region in the Pannonian plain. As for the assertion written in the Wikipedia article that there were just a few surviving populations of Romanized Pannonians, if all previous findings (in genetic studies and elsewhere) have taught us something good it is that we should take such claims with many grains of salt, especially if the population in question is not some bunch of hunter-gatherers or primitive Neolithic farmers, but a large civilized population. Most of the past claims of huge slaughters and displacements of the previous populace during the medieval Folk Migrations have turned out to be extremely exaggerated.

  25. #100
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    14,476
    Points
    232,900
    Level
    100
    Points: 232,900, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    2 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    Thanks! Now things are getting clearer to me. It does seem to me, from the way they phrased their results, that the southern individuals were not "locals", but were from the same region in the Pannonian plain. As for the assertion written in the Wikipedia article that there were just a few surviving populations of Romanized Pannonians, if all previous findings (in genetic studies and elsewhere) have taught us something good it is that we should take such claims with many grains of salt, especially if the population in question is not some bunch of hunter-gatherers or primitive Neolithic farmers, but a large civilized population. Most of the past claims of huge slaughters and displacements of the previous populace during the medieval Folk Migrations have turned out to be extremely exaggerated.
    As to the first I absolutely agree.

    As to the second I'm leaning more toward your position, although I remain cautious. It's my nature. :)

    An awful lot of "Italian like" people still around by the early Middle Ages, really until the Slavic Migrations, even in Central Europe. Maybe we're just the ones who didn't get over-run by them.
    Last edited by Angela; 23-02-18 at 23:47.

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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