Ancient Lombard Dna from Szolad and Collegno

[Promenade]

I'm sorry for interjecting, but given the amount of studies recently released when should the Rackigarhi paper be joining them? I've heard rumors it could be released this month, does anyone know when we will finally get our ancient dna from south Asia?

 

[davef]

Your guess? ITS A FACT, and it says it in the paper. They are locals of Collegno .

Got it, thank you!

 

[Jovialis]

Got it, thank you!

You should read the paper before making assumptions about the content. It will only serve to cause confusion.

 

[Angela]

Now here's a perfect example of what I mean about agenda driven people posting opinions not only based on no evidence, but posting "supposed" evidence which is, in fact, misinformation for propaganda purposes.

The genetically "southern" people in Collegno's cemetery not only might be non-Italians, but are non-Italian, and the proof is this:


"Originally Posted by Principe,

Collegno was a Roman Trading post, and would have been a Merchant city during Roman times, it makes sense that we would see a variation in population."

See, there's this slight problem. It wasn't a merchant city from any information I've been able to gather. It was a mansio.

Mansio is sometimes translated as a post office, but it was more like the buildings erected as way stations for the Pony Express in the American west. They were rest stops for messengers to get fresh horses, and food, and served to house royal officials on imperial business.

So, no, not a Mecca for Jewish merchants.

This is from the "Who, me, I'm not a Nordicist!", "I would never try to make all Italians Jews or Lebanese or anything other than Italian", late poster.

How can people fall for this crap, even nice people like KingJohn?

Now, does it mean absolutely that 100% of the ancestors of these people had been in Northern Italy for the previous 1000 years? No, it doesn't mean that. We have no way of knowing that, but why would you assume or speculate they're JEWS for God's sake, when they fit within Italian genetic variation.

We'll see when we finally get more dna if in other areas the people were more "northern" shifted. We would also have to keep in mind, though, that those people might be not yet assimilated Gallic peoples. It takes a long time for people to totally mix even in a relatively proscribed area. I actually don't think it happened in Italy until the Middle Ages were well under way.

Are most people really not capable of distinguishing agenda driven special pleading, and twisted data from attempts to be fair and balanced in analyzing papers. Can't they at least bother to read the papers?

 

[Wonomyro]

Your guess? ITS A FACT, and it says it in the paper. They are locals of Collegno .

It is not a fact yet. Just your wishful thinking.

(Why did you send me an infraction?)

 

[Jovialis]

It is not a fact yet. Just your wishful thinking.

(Why did you send me an infraction?)

It's not a fact they were locals? Yes it is, it's in the paper.

You received an infraction for resisting moderation.

 

[Wonomyro]

It's not a fact they were locals? It's in the paper.

We need more papers to be sure.

 

[Angela]

You people who want to challenge the findings of the paper that the "southern" samples were locals have to prove that the authors performed the strontium isotope analysis on the samples incorrectly and/or on misdated samples. Good luck with that.

Otherwise, you're doing nothing but showing that you're not analyzing the paper honestly and objectively.

By the way, Wonomyro, saying that Croatia is considered a Balkan country by the rest of the world, and might be modeled as "Southern European" was not an insult, and so was no grounds for you to insult me. That infraction was richly deserved, as was the one for refusing to abide by a moderator warning to desist from persistently dragging a thread off topic to discuss your "theories".

 

[A. Papadimitriou]

[

To be absolutely clear, so that everyone should be able to understand it: a lot of people have speculated a lot of things when we didn't have dozens of papers on ancient dna. Even then, those speculations weren't pulled out of thin air: they were based on what data we had. They didn't stem from any noxious agenda, either.

WE NOW HAVE THAT ANCIENT DNA. It doesn't matter. Now things are made up without any factual support at all. If you can't see the difference then you're really not being honest.

To compare people like Bicicleur and Maciamo, men for whom I have the utmost respect, to the clowns now running around unsupervised at anthrogenica is an insult of the highest order.

Is that clear enough?

As for sites other than anthrogenica, I don't frequent racist sites so I don't know what they're saying, and don't care, frankly. Anyone who reads them is a lost cause. Let the FBI and various monitoring agencies deal with them and their members.

I used to respect anthrogenica, on the other hand, and a lot of their members. I barely see any of those respectable members there any more. Instead, the madmen have taken over the asylum. In the past, people who posted such crap unsupported by any data whatsoever would have been banned outright. Now, either there are no full time moderators, or they're asleep at the wheel, or stormfront, forumbiodiversity, or theapcity types have inadvertently been made moderators. It's too bad.

Now get back on topic, and, btw, write for yourself, not for people who don't have the guts to say it here themselves.

Maciamo is a person who is as racist as it can get and there is nothing scientific about his texts and maps. You have chosen to overlook that but I wasn't born yesterday.

I noticed that when he understood that the data didn't fit his agendas that well, he started to become less vocal. But your posts that target Anthrogenica or even Davidski serve more as a diversion because some people (maybe people from FBI too) know what has been written here.

I am the exact opposite of people like Principe and Sikeliot by the way but I don't forget easily. The 'Libyan slaves' is something that I can't forget, for example.

I won't comment again here.

 

[Angela]

Maciamo is a person who is as racist as it can get and there is nothing scientific about his texts and maps. You have chosen to overlook that but I wasn't born yesterday.

I noticed that when he understood that the data didn't fit his agendas that well, he started to become less vocal. But your posts that target Anthrogenica or even Davidski serve more as a diversion because some people (maybe people from FBI too) know what has been written here.

I am the exact opposite of people like Principe and Sikeliot by the way but I don't forget easily. The 'Libyan slaves' is something that I can't forget, for example.

I won't comment again here.

If I believed that, I wouldn't be a moderator here. You're not allowed to insult Maciamo, both because it's his site, and because I owe him a great deal, and I believe he doesn't deserve it.

Some of the things that are said are not meant as insults, Papadimitriou.

I'm sorry about all of this, because you've provided good information, and I have nothing against you personally.

 

[LATGAL]

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...

 

[Angela]

It just keeps getting better.

Now that I've showed that there was deliberate misinformation being pedaled, and that Collegno was not a trading city with perhaps lots of people from other parts of the world, including Jews, but a mansio or inn and post office for imperial officials, the story has now changed. Wait for it...it's great!

"Jews from the area around Milano, 141 kilometers away, during a time of constant warfare, where there was supposedly a large community of them(except for the fact that Mediolanum had been attacked and destroyed numerous times during the Barbarian Invasions, last destroyed by the Goths, and there was no "city" of any kind there for Jews or anyone else) took a trip and rested at this particular way station. Maybe one of them, who, if we could just analyze the sample some more, might have carried a "Jewish" subclade of E-V13 (which Jewish sub-clade, Ashkenazi in origin, didn't rise to prominence for another 400 years when the Ashkenazi population was created in the Rheinland through a bottleneck), was overtaken by the beauty of the local girls and decided to stay and voila! Oh, and the other two samples? Maybe, if they just analyzed their y lines more, we would discover some hitherto unknown "Jewish" clades?

This is what passes for reasoned analysis in some places.

Oh, and go ahead, Azzurro, down vote it, like you have dozens and dozens of my posts. I DON'T CARE. You're the one who writes these "masterpieces", not me. That's all anyone needs to know.


https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collegno

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

Ed. Milano:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milan

 

[Wonomyro]

deleted-...

 

[Wonomyro]

By the way, Wonomyro, saying that Croatia is considered a Balkan country by the rest of the world

That’s the remain of the colonial discourse. People in Slovenia and Croatia don’t like that term for many reasons, and that is the fact. You may respect that or not - It’s your choice. Now when you know it you can’t play on ignorance.

"European colonizers tended to construct the identities of colonized peoples and lands as other: undeveloped, primitive, and immature; as homogeneous objects, rather than sources of knowledge; see Anand (2007) New Polit. Sci. 29, 1 on Western colonial representations of the (non-Western) other."

http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095625148

Sounds familiar?

However, Croatians call their country a (partly) Mediterranean one, which is true. (And you blame us for racism against "EEF" people...what a nonsense...).

, and might be modelled as "Southern European"

It might be modelled whatever you like but this is what happens:

https://www.researchgate.net/public...me_series_from_coastal_and_hinterland_Croatia

Please, take a look at the PCA and tell me in which cluster do you see Croatian samples (CRO)? They were supposed to belong to “southern Europe” by the authors, therefore the letters have same colour (blue) as the rest of the SE countries, but obviously showed up somewhere else, and that makes them easily observable.

All papers I’ve seen show more or less the same or similar arrangement. That is the fact.

 

[Jovialis]

"Originally Posted by Principe,

Collegno was a Roman Trading post, and would have been a Merchant city during Roman times, it makes sense that we would see a variation in population."


See, there's this slight problem. It wasn't a merchant city from any information I've been able to gather. It was a mansio.

Wow, that’s an incredibly ignorant assumption for Azzurro to make. Not only does he not understand genetics, he can’t even get his translation for the Latin words right to fit into his bogus agenda driven theories! It’s no wonder places like anthrogenica are a dump; they allow this kind of nonsense to be written on their boards. It’s a good thing people like that are eventually ejected from this forum.

 

[AdeoF]

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.

 

[Angela]

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.

 

[LATGAL]

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. :embarassed:

 

[Promenade]

@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.

 

[Angela]

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. :embarassed:

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.