Ancient Lombard Dna from Szolad and Collegno

sz36
2.) Y Chromosome
T-M184 > M70 > L162 > L208 > CTS11451 > FGC3995/Y4119 > CTS2214 > Y15127
Known phylo equivalent SNPs:
Y15127 T+

http://genomes.yseq.net/WGS/SRR6703597/
I have seen similar SNP in Germany and Wales

gedmatch for above

Kit Num: Z961044
Threshold of components set to 1.000
Threshold of method set to 0.25%
Personal data has been read. 20 approximations mode.
Gedmatch.Com
Eurogenes K13 4-Ancestors Oracle
This program is based on 4-Ancestors Oracle Version 0.96 by Alexandr Burnashev.
Questions about results should be sent to him at: [email protected]
Original concept proposed by Sergey Kozlov.
Many thanks to Alexandr for helping us get this web version developed.

K13 Oracle ref data revised 21 Nov 2013

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 North_Atlantic 26.09
2 East_Med 24.14
3 West_Med 23.35
4 Baltic 12.78
5 West_Asian 9.24
6 Red_Sea 4.06


Finished reading population data. 204 populations found.
13 components mode.

--------------------------------

Least-squares method.

Using 1 population approximation:
1 Tuscan @ 3.102847
2 North_Italian @ 8.122145
3 West_Sicilian @ 8.855507
4 Greek_Thessaly @ 8.911358
5 Italian_Abruzzo @ 9.315313
6 Central_Greek @ 12.670668
7 East_Sicilian @ 13.153083
8 Bulgarian @ 14.283036
9 Romanian @ 15.024764
10 South_Italian @ 15.172022
11 Ashkenazi @ 16.307673
12 Portuguese @ 17.777485
13 Spanish_Extremadura @ 17.804836
14 Serbian @ 18.566311
15 Spanish_Andalucia @ 18.948435
16 Spanish_Murcia @ 19.066914
17 Spanish_Galicia @ 19.229887
18 Spanish_Valencia @ 19.531385
19 Spanish_Cataluna @ 20.183626
20 Spanish_Castilla_Y_Leon @ 20.318684

Using 2 populations approximation:
1 50% Greek_Thessaly +50% North_Italian @ 2.571756


Using 3 populations approximation:
1 50% North_Italian +25% Romanian +25% Sephardic_Jewish @ 1.680434


Using 4 populations approximation:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 Greek_Thessaly + North_Italian + Tuscan + Tuscan @ 1.135927
2 Italian_Jewish + North_Italian + North_Italian + Romanian @ 1.324796
3 Bulgarian + Italian_Jewish + North_Italian + North_Italian @ 1.484303
4 Central_Greek + Greek_Thessaly + Spanish_Valencia + Tuscan @ 1.495679
5 Lebanese_Druze + Romanian + Sardinian + Southeast_English @ 1.504609
6 Italian_Jewish + Serbian + South_Italian + Southwest_French @ 1.521174
7 Greek_Thessaly + North_Italian + North_Italian + West_Sicilian @ 1.589028
8 Bulgarian + Tuscan + Tuscan + Tuscan @ 1.595794
9 Central_Greek + Greek_Thessaly + Spanish_Cataluna + Tuscan @ 1.607105
10 Bulgarian + Italian_Abruzzo + Italian_Jewish + Southwest_French @ 1.610439
11 East_Sicilian + Greek_Thessaly + Spanish_Cataluna + Tuscan @ 1.637369
12 Italian_Jewish + Romanian + Southwest_French + West_Sicilian @ 1.647268
13 Bulgarian + Lebanese_Druze + Sardinian + Southeast_English @ 1.659656
14 Central_Greek + Greek_Thessaly + Spanish_Castilla_Y_Leon + Tuscan @ 1.676323
15 North_Italian + North_Italian + Romanian + Sephardic_Jewish @ 1.680434
16 Bulgarian + North_Italian + North_Italian + Sephardic_Jewish @ 1.683049
17 Bulgarian + Lebanese_Druze + Sardinian + West_Scottish @ 1.690521
18 Algerian_Jewish + North_Italian + North_Italian + Romanian @ 1.693925
19 Algerian_Jewish + Bulgarian + Spanish_Cataluna + Tuscan @ 1.696337
20 Bulgarian + Italian_Jewish + Southwest_French + West_Sicilian @ 1.701710
 
Apparently, Polako is now convinced that the more "southern" like samples from Collegno are Cretan like Greeks. Well, Sikelio must be disappointed: they're not Jews.

This just never ends.

Unlike him, I don't have a time machine or a crystal ball, so I don't know if ALL northern Italians (Piemontese) of that time presented genetically like this, of if perhaps these particular people were descended from, say, either Greeks or people from Magna Graecia. Given the strontium isotope analysis, they certainly weren't travelers like some idiotic earlier posts from the usual suspects. We'll need more contemporary samples from northern Italy from that time period.

Interestingly enough, if they "were" of Greek descent, then there must have been a lot more Slavic intrusion into Greece to get mainland Greece, and, as I've always said, it may be that Sicilians and southern Italians better preserve ancient Greek like genetics than some parts of mainland Greece. My husband would be thrilled. :)
 
However, there are individuals in the graveyard who plot in modern day north Italy or northern Spain, so I don't think we would have such genetic variation in a location without it being legitimate. Suggesting that people in 6th century northern Italy plot as modern day Cypriots is ridiculous, us lowly barbarians didn't have such a genetic impact. Did anyone suggest the J2b gladiator was a local Brythonic male from Britain, despite the fact he plotted in modern day Jordan and EVERYONE else was R1b and plotted somewhere in the vicinity of NW Europe? Come on now.
 
what subclade of I2a and R1b ?

It's overwhelmingly I2-M223 as expected. Whether it's Neolithic I2-M223, or Yamnayan I2-M223, I'm not too sure. That subclade was already spread from eastern to western Europe prior to the Neolithic advance.
 
SICILIANS MORE GREEK THAN GREECE! I'll have to tell my Nana that, her paternal grandparents were from Sicily.
 
Apparently, Polako is now convinced that the more "southern" like samples from Collegno are Cretan like Greeks. Well, Sikelio must be disappointed: they're not Jews.

Eurogenes and Global 25 have lost credibility. I think what the paper says is more than enough.

This is the typical comment of the users of that blog.

Simon_W: "I used to believe that the Sicilian-like and Cypriot-like admixture that can be detected using various methods in modern North Italians is merely the result of North Italian locals mixing with West Asian slaves and immigrants, creating a pseudo-Sicilian/Cypriot signal. But as there were concrete people of this type in ancient northern Italy it may be really ancient Greek and Sicilian admixture."


 
SICILIANS MORE GREEK THAN GREECE! I'll have to tell my Nana that, her paternal grandparents were from Sicily.

I'd hold off on that if I were you. We need ancient samples of first millennium BC mainland Greece to reach any meaningful conclusion, otherwise we're just wasting time with useless speculation.

As for northern Italy, as I said, I think we need some more samples of "native" North Italians from the pre-invasion period to understand the context for these samples. It shouldn't be surprising that there might be a variety of genetic signatures, given the normal movements within one area, i.e. peninsular Italy of the time, where one language was spoken, one government ruled etc., never mind the establishment of colonia by veterans.

If northern Italians of the period were all "Cretan" like, it would take a whole lot of genetic intrusion from the barbarian tribes to produce the "native" people of Piemonte of today, and I don't see the evidence for that if their ylines were exclusively U-106 and I1, which is the assumption which I and most other people have proposed. If some of the Lombards came into Italy bearing some clade of U-152, all bets would be off, but there's no indication of that so far.

@brick,
He's a racist and Nordicist from way back, or maybe Slavicist would be better, but at any rate his biases go way back, and he attracts like minded people. No surprises there, no nuances. The more good or at least rational posters he loses, the more "the inmates take over the asylum", to use a not quite accurate analogy. An FBI check of the real background of a lot of his posters would, I'm sure, be very revelatory.

The ironic thing is that he and others like him cannot conceive of a mindset where people would rather be related to West Asians than "Indo-Europeans" (who of course were at least 40% "West Asian" themselves), not that such preferences ought to guide a discussion of genetics and history.
 
Actually i remember results of a woman who's supposedly (yes, supposedly) from Greece who lived around 500 AD and she was pretty close to southern Italians. Forgive me, this was from an anthrogenica thread. Still, nothing beats a study of samples from Ancient Greece, but if ancient Greeks were like her, it wouldn't be a surprise at all.
 
Apparently, Polako is now convinced that the more "southern" like samples from Collegno are Cretan like Greeks. Well, Sikelio must be disappointed: they're not Jews.

I'm pretty sure the last time I was browsing The Apricity Sikeliot made a thread claiming those very southerly samples were medieval Calabrians or some such (based on Eurogenes). All conjecture ofc.

Actually i remember results of a woman who's supposedly (yes, supposedly) from Greece who lived around 500 AD and she was pretty close to southern Italians. Forgive me, this was from an anthrogenica thread. Still, nothing beats a study of samples from Ancient Greece, but if ancient Greeks were like her, it wouldn't be a surprise at all.

That sample was from a recent study too, but I can't recall which one.
 
Apparently, Polako is now convinced that the more "southern" like samples from Collegno are Cretan like Greeks.

Are they still discussing about the more "southern" like samples? Really? What a surprise. If they were or not "native"? The isotope analysis doesn't establish that someone is native, it rather suggests where someone grows up.

Wasn't already found by this study that more "southern" like samples from Collegno are Cretan like Greeks? Of course we can't know for sure they were exactly Cretan Greeks. Definitely not with the method that they are following which is a spreadsheet (Global25) where many reference samples are cherrypicked or incomplete.

What a pity, no one who reads books on history and archeology, but all spend their time making hypotheses based on nothing to support their own agendas.



kA73p4K.png
 
Last edited:
Are they still discussing about the more "southern" like samples? Really? What a surprise. If they were or not "native"? The isotope analysis doesn't establish that someone is native, it rather suggests where someone grows up.

Wasn't already found by this study that more "southern" like samples from Collegno are Cretan like Greeks? Of course we can't know for sure they were exactly Cretan Greeks. Definitely not with the method that they are following which is a spreadsheet (Global25) where many reference samples are cherrypicked or incomplete.

What a pity, no one who reads books on history and archeology, but all spend their time making hypotheses based on nothing to support their own agendas.



kA73p4K.png

The usual suspect often claims to have made a discovery that was already made or implied by the academics. Razib Khan also got fooled by this dodge.

What had been happening, perhaps, was that he was responding to the claim by Sikeliot (and his socks) that there were Jews among the remains.
 
Are they still discussing about the more "southern" like samples? Really?


The relevance of the samples is that if they represent native Italic people and aDNA from ancient Romans and other Italics cluster with those samples, that means Italics did not spread from the Steppe, but were rather a mixture of CHG IEs and native farmer populations, just like what we've seen from Hittites and Mycenaean Greeks. Then of course the entire narrative of how IEs spread will have to change, which is why 'Davidski' is worried.
 
The relevance of the samples is that if they represent native Italic people and aDNA from ancient Romans and other Italics cluster with those samples, that means Italics did not spread from the Steppe, but were rather a mixture of CHG IEs and native farmer populations, just like what we've seen from Hittites and Mycenaean Greeks. Then of course the entire narrative of how IEs spread will have to change, which is why 'Davidski' is worried.

How can ancient samples from a Lombard cemetery of the 6th century AD represent the Italic people who lived between the late Bronze Age and the Iron Age in other areas of Italy? There is no scientific basis for this assumption.

I really don't care what he's worried about. But what he is doing is extremely clear.
 
^^yes. We have no way of knowing where they came from at all (but to certain people, if the magic eurogenes k-36 map plots them in the Aegean, they're officially Greek).
 
How can ancient samples from a Lombard cemetery of the 6th century AD represent the Italic people who lived between the late Bronze Age and the Iron Age in other areas of Italy? There is no scientific basis for this assumption.


QZj7Lpc.jpg

Etruscans were more northern European than modern Tuscans, Cisalpine Gauls that had come to northern Italy recently from France even more so, so the Roman autosomal profile that pushed those populations southwards must have been something very southern Italian, like the aforementioned samples.

zcX23Iq.jpg

LQPZsD9.jpg

sBTVzqE.png

In terms of Y-DNA you can see that the haplogroups strongly associated to Roman colonies (settled by ethnic Romans) are J2, J1, G, T, the same haplogroups we have found in all the other southeast Europe Indo-Europeans:

Anatolian IEs : J2, G, J1 - Autosomally unchanged from ca. 4000BC when they were IEzid all the way to the Iron Age.
Mycenaean Greeks: J2 - No difference between royals and commoners
Thracians: J2, E1b - J2 individual from an aristocratic burial containing rich grave goods

Anyway, aDNA from Italics will either look like what I'm saying or it won't, right? Quite a sad situation that we have Germanic aDNA from Italy but not Italic aDNA.
 
Honestly, haven't we moved beyond some of this kind of analysis/speculation? There are two major studies of ancient dna from Italy in the works. I'm particularly interested in the one coming from the Reich group. Why can't we wait for the actual ancient dna? Don't we know yet that it always surprises? Whatever it shows, it shows.

If I had to respond, I'd say that while the first PCA with Etruscan samples may indeed be correct, I wouldn't bet the farm on something that was never published or explained. Even if they've been handled a lot and so are surely contaminated, a really good analysis of Etruscan bones will hopefully clarify a lot.

As to the Romans, it depends on the time period. If you want to know the yDna and genetic makeup of the first Latin speaking people in the vicinity of Rome you're going to have to get some really old samples, not ones from the period(s) after the admixture with "locals", plus movement northward from Greek areas etc. Even by the time of Giulio Cesare admixture had taken place.

Also, just generally, I don't see much correlation between the location of the Roman colonies in Iberia and any particular yDna, other than perhaps E-V13. Even in that case, how much of it came with Greek speakers vs Latin speakers? E-V13 is pretty mysterious. It expanded quite late and it's still unclear with which group of people it actually expanded.

The "royal" Mycenaean was a woman, so no ydna of any kind.

There are two very different G2a groups in Italy, entering from opposite directions. T is a very old Neolithic marker. There's not much J1 in Italy.

All of that said I have no particular strong feeling about what dna the first Italic speakers carried, but I presume it was some form of R1b.
 
QZj7Lpc.jpg

Etruscans were more northern European than modern Tuscans, Cisalpine Gauls that had come to northern Italy recently from France even more so, so the Roman autosomal profile that pushed those populations southwards must have been something very southern Italian, like the aforementioned samples.

I can show you dozens of results from fully Tuscans who are further north of TSI. TSI is a huge sample but based on 3 out of 4 grandparents born in Tuscany. Not the best and most reliable sample.

I notice you're literally trying to change the subject. So we went from the Italics in a Lombard cemetery to the Etruscans.
 
Honestly, haven't we moved beyond some of this kind of analysis/speculation?

Unfortunately, it is everywhere like that, no one who reads a book, but all who elaborate analysis/speculation trying to push their theories. We know very well that these theories are all about the same obsessions.
 
Unfortunately, it is everywhere like that, no one who reads a book, but all who elaborate analysis/speculation trying to push their theories. We know very well that these theories are all about the same obsessions.

I just don't understand why, if you're going to speculate, you can't at least get the facts straight.

Those yDna maps, for example, all have different scales. There's very little J1 in Italy, but you'd never guess it from that map. The designations are also way too broad. Some G2a came down from central Europe, some from Anatolia, some may be Neolithic. You need very specific subclades, and even then nothing beats ancient dna. E-M81, of which there's little in Italy, probably came to Italy around the same time as it came to Spain, and from North Africa. E-M34 is again a very large category; different sub-clades may have a different history.

The Roman colonies in Spain may have had some local impact, but we're talking a few hundred people in each one, and the Romans, unlike the Steppic Bell Beakers, may have killed and enslaved some locals, but they didn't wipe out 90% of them, not even the men.

Even if you're going to speculate, you should do better than this.
 

This thread has been viewed 100125 times.

Back
Top