New conference on Bronze Age mobility in Europe

Unbelievable.
 
Realy shocking, I was complaining about geneticists.
Maybe I need to write posts in French as Italians don't get nothing when I write in English about migrations from the south.

About possible migrations from the east providing Etruscans... I wouldn't try to explain in any language!
;)
 
berun said:
Realy shocking, I was complaining about geneticists.
Maybe I need to write posts in French as Italians don't get nothing when I write in English about migrations from the south.

About possible migrations from the east providing Etruscans... I wouldn't try to explain in any language!
;)
Click to expand...

We even understand what you wish you could say about Sardinians and Italians, but you don’t.
The problem is not the Language in your posts, but the content.
 
Salento said:
We even understand what you wish you could say about Sardinians and Italians, but you don’t.
The problem is not the Language in your posts, but the content.
Click to expand...

Lack of content, rather, but I get your point. :)
 
berun said:
Realy shocking, I was complaining about geneticists.
Maybe I need to write posts in French as Italians don't get nothing when I write in English about migrations from the south.

About possible migrations from the east providing Etruscans... I wouldn't try to explain in any language!
;)
Click to expand...
Why would these geneticists on a personal level care whether Sardinians have Phoenician or Carthage ancestry and how much is in them? Most if not all of the authors aren't even Sardinian to begin with so why would they have Nordicist concerns about Sardinian genetics and middle eastern/North African ancestry (not implying they would have these racial concerns if they actually are Sardinian)
 
Surely it is by the usual problems in this branch of science, not knowing the local history or getting advice from historians, being such laziness extended over the methodology choosen. Maybe many only care to publish raw results just to publish, who can set up a right peer review in this new discipline?
 
And I thought it was only Davidski. Very enlightening.
 
Aaron1981 said:
No doubt that U152 is the elephant in the room, but for some reason P312(xU152, L21) doesn't get a lot of mention but it's at non negligible frequencies throughout Italy.
ie:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03014460.2017.1409801

There is no doubt though that Iran_Neo came from the eastern Mediterranean, because it's at this time (BA) that this component spreads to the Levant.
Click to expand...

This part of the study linked above is very intriguing:

Northern Italy (Bergamo Valleys and plain, Tortona-Voghera and Borbera Valley) is characterised by an extremely high incidence of the R1b haplogroup (69.0%) when compared to all the other main haplogroups whose frequencies do not reach 10%. This haplogroup, which characterises a wide portion of the gene pool of the examined populations, shows a decreasing frequency pattern from North to South Italy, where it shows its lowest incidence (27.5%). This pattern is virtually totally ascribable to R1b-U152, the most represented R1b sub-lineage, whereas no frequency gradients were detected for the other sub-lineages. R1b-S116*(xU152, M529) is equally represented in all the Italian populations (Figure 3, dusty rose sector in secondary pies). This shows the highest frequencies in two isolated areas of Northern Italy: Borbera Valley (12.9%) and Bergamo Valleys (17.9%). The frequency peak is particularly noticeable in Bergamo Valleys in comparison to the neighbouring plain area (17.9% vs 3.8%, respectively, p < .01).
[...]
Thus, taking into account that the highest reported incidence of R1b-S116*(xU152, M529) is in Iberia (Adams et al., 2008 Adams SM, Bosch E, Balaresque PL, Ballereau SJ, Lee AC, Arroyo E, López-Parra AM, et al. 2008. The genetic legacy of religious diversity and intolerance: paternal lineages of Christians, Jews, and Muslims in the Iberian Peninsula. Am J Hum Genet 83:725–736.[Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®], , [Google Scholar]; Myres et al., 2011 Myres NM, Rootsi S, Lin AA, Järve M, King RJ, Kutuev I, Cabrera VM, et al. 2011. A major Y-chromosome haplogroup R1b Holocene era founder effect in Central and Western Europe. Eur J Hum Genet 19:95–101.[Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®], , [Google Scholar]), its high frequency in the relatively isolated populations of the Bergamo and Borbera Valleys could represent the outcome of ancient gene flow from that area, possibly magnified by genetic drift. On the other hand, R1b-M412*, so far described only in Turkey, Iran, Cyprus and Crete (Myres et al., 2011 Myres NM, Rootsi S, Lin AA, Järve M, King RJ, Kutuev I, Cabrera VM, et al. 2011. A major Y-chromosome haplogroup R1b Holocene era founder effect in Central and Western Europe. Eur J Hum Genet 19:95–101.[Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®], , [Google Scholar]; Voskarides et al., 2016 Voskarides K, Mazières S, Hadjipanagi D, Di Cristofaro J, Ignatiou A, Stefanou C, King RJ, et al. 2016. Y-chromosome phylogeographic analysis of the Greek-Cypriot population reveals elements consistent with Neolithic and Bronze Age settlements. Investig Genet 7:1.[Crossref], [PubMed], , [Google Scholar]), is observed in all the four Southern Italian samples, all from the ancient Magna Graecia area, but only sporadically in population groups from Northern Italy. The R1b-M412* Y chromosomes could, therefore, represent the legacy of an Eastern Mediterranean input associated with the early Hellenic colonisation, and/or the more recent Byzantine domination. This scenario is supported by the high frequency of R1b-M412* in the Griko-speaking community of Grecìa Salentina (13.4%), where haplogroup R1b-M412* probably reflects ancient colonisation events from Greek-speaking islands rather than continental Greece.
Click to expand...
Indeed, IMO it can theoretically indicate (especially considering the north-to-south gradient and the higher proportion of non-U152 subclades in mountainous areas) a pre-Italo-Celtic Indo-European (or Indo-Europeanized) incursion into Italy, linguistically replaced by "northern" Italic and Celtic peoples after the Bronze Age collapse (or not? We don't know exactly what linguistic branch peoples as Siculi, Sicel and other less well known illiterate tribes spoke, not to speak of the potentially highly divergent but eerily "IE-like" North Picene language). The decreasing frequency of U152 and its lower than average frequency in some mountainous areas suggest a second layer of R1b expansion into Italy, and considering that Italic and Celtic are both dated as languages that started to split into several sub-branches around ~1100 BC, it would make sense that these two languages and their corresponding peoples expanded and absorbed many others, IE or not, in a relatively late period (Late Urnfield and Early Hallstatt) - and these pre-Italo-Celtic peoples just did not leave any written attestation of their languages, because most of Europe was totally illiterate by then. In my opinion the U152 concentration in more northern parts of the Italian peninsula also suggests that its prevalence was not that ancient in Italy for it to spread more evenly.

Another important part of the study refers to the R1a frequency. Was R1a-M17 (x M458), presumably R1a-Z93 (I think), an important Ancient Greek lineage, possibly one of "the Pontic-Caspian portion" of the Y-DNA makeup of Proto-Greeks together with R1b-Z2103, as opposed to the "Iran_Neo+Anatolian+Neo marker" J2a? That would fit the hypothesis that Proto-Greeks derived from Late Catacomb culture, which was IIRC mainly R1b-Z2103 like Yamnaya but already pressed by R1a-Z93 "northern" tribes that would eventually mix with it to form the Srubnaya (probably Indo-Iranian or even Proto-Iranian).

The R1a haplogroup is observed along the entire Peninsula. With the exception of the Tortona-Voghera sample, it displays lower frequencies in the North and in the Centre in comparison with the southern populations, especially those of the Ionian Coast (8.6% in Ionian Calabria, 5.9% in Apulia and 15.8% in Grecìa Salentina). R1a-M17 represents an important component of the modern gene pool of Greece, where it reaches its highest frequencies (16.3% and 22.0%, in mainland Greece and in Thracia, respectively) (Battaglia et al., 2009 Battaglia V, Fornarino S, Al-Zahery N, Olivieri A, Pala M, Myres NM, King RJ, et al. 2009. Y-chromosomal evidence of the cultural diffusion of agriculture in southeast Europe. Eur J Hum Genet 17:820–830.[Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®], , [Google Scholar]; Heraclides et al., 2017 Heraclides A, Bashiardes E, Fernández-Domínguez E, Bertoncini S, Chimonas M, Christofi V, King J, et al. 2017. Y-chromosomal analysis of Greek Cypriots reveals a primarily common pre-Ottoman paternal ancestry with Turkish Cypriots. PLoS One 12:e0179474.[Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®], , [Google Scholar]). Taking into account that it is found virtually only as R1a-M17*(xM458) in both the Southern Italian samples and in mainland Greece, it is likely that R1a-M17* is a signature of the Southern Balkan (mainland Greece) influence into Southern Italy. Thus, differently to haplogroup R1b-M412*, R1a-M17* seems a hallmark of a significant male seaborne input from Balkan populations towards the eastern coast of Southern Italy.
Click to expand...
 
Ygorcs said:
This part of the study linked above is very intriguing:


Indeed, IMO it can theoretically indicate (especially considering the north-to-south gradient and the higher proportion of non-U152 subclades in mountainous areas) a pre-Italo-Celtic Indo-European (or Indo-Europeanized) incursion into Italy, linguistically replaced by "northern" Italic and Celtic peoples after the Bronze Age collapse (or not? We don't know exactly what linguistic branch peoples as Siculi, Sicel and other less well known illiterate tribes spoke, not to speak of the potentially highly divergent but eerily "IE-like" North Picene language). The decreasing frequency of U152 and its lower than average frequency in some mountainous areas suggest a second layer of R1b expansion into Italy, and considering that Italic and Celtic are both dated as languages that started to split into several sub-branches around ~1100 BC, it would make sense that these two languages and their corresponding peoples expanded and absorbed many others, IE or not, in a relatively late period (Late Urnfield and Early Hallstatt) - and these pre-Italo-Celtic peoples just did not leave any written attestation of their languages, because most of Europe was totally illiterate by then. In my opinion the U152 concentration in more northern parts of the Italian peninsula also suggests that its prevalence was not that ancient in Italy for it to spread more evenly.
Click to expand...

I largely agree. I don't, however, think it came from Iberia.

I always thought this is the "Ligurian" element in Italy, which once covered broad swathes of the Northwest, stretching to the North Central.

cartina+Gallia+Cisalpina.jpg


I do think the lack of penetration of U-152 to the south, and indeed some of the autosomal differences are also partly the result of the fact that the area covered by the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies was separated politically from the north for at least 1000 years. That also explains the "amalgamation" in the south which makes them more similar to one another than areas in the north, very separated from one another as well as the south for the same 1000 years.

The genetic "break" in the cline is just south of Rome.

map-of-kingdom-of-the-two-sicilies.gif


It would be very interesting if they "were" that subclade of R1a given its relative scarcity in Greece today, and would be further support for the smallness of the original nucleus.

This wasn't an isolated island like Sardinia where a ydna line can drift to prominence so easily.

Sorry. I'm out of juice temporarily. I'll hit you up later.
 
Why is ancient Italy and Rome so understudied despite proportionately being way more important to european history than obscure swamps
 
We don't have the money or the facilities and Northern European scholars are more interested in Northern European ethnogenesis. That's the glib answer.

Reich has been more interested in the "big" picture.

A Spanish group was supposedly doing one, but so is Reich, at long last. Thank goodness for the latter, as I trust them to do a good job.

I also think it's much more complicated than Northern and Central European genetics to be honest. How do you disentangle all the different strands and when they came and with whom? Balkan genetics is just as complicated, and we don't have a comprehensive look at that through time either. The likely political reactions likely put people off the latter. The Italian public would embrace it no matter what.
 
After finding clear Y-DNA African among Sardinians, I have checked the monster admixture graph of Genetiker, it's not peer reviewed but being so big and with so many pops it is much better than children-level admixtures with few pops which are prone to find up false admixtures. In such graph, from 12 Sardinians, they show 5% dark blue (WHG), 10% blue, 70% ligh blue (EEF), 3% green (Iran) and 7% cyan, this cyan is lacking among Bronze Age Asia Minor, Mycaenians and Minoans, but actual Tunisians have a share of 40%, actual Lebanese have a share of 25% and Lebanon MBA a 30%, ailas an aficionado can find easily such genetic facts which support what many classic and modern historians tell (!!).
 
modern Greeks have it, as all Southern Europeans

Utilizzando Tapatalk
 
Yes, let's by all means go with someone who finds European in South American Indians who are blonde and blue eyed.

It never ends.
 
Johane Derite said:
Why is ancient Italy and Rome so understudied despite proportionately being way more important to european history than obscure swamps
Click to expand...

To find Real early Roman DNA is a bit complicated, Cremation was popular until the rise of Christianity, and by that time around 1 million people lived in Rome from all over the Empire.
 
It must have some autosomal effect either as Turks ruled the Balkans five centuries, otherwise we might take into acount the Byzantine empire and little and free movements inside it, the Roman empire, the same, Alexander the Great empire, even if colonies were in Asia, but we can think about movements of artisans into the Balkans, or then the dark and shadowed epoch of the Sea Peoples, but it was mainly an Aegean expansion to me.
 
Eitherway the Altaic in Turks is lesser than the Levantine? the proportion would be keept or even be less depending on the Turkish region and momentum.
 
Wasn't after the Caucasus paper, Reich doing research on Prehistoric Italy?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 106403 times.

Back
Top