Population structure in Italy using ancient and modern samples

I would suggest waiting, unlike "Generalissimo" until, as I said above, we have definite and precise information about where each sample was found, the date, the burial context, and the isotope analysis.

I don't know how many of those samples, if any, come from places like Ostia, but if they do they're not terribly informative about Italian genetics as a whole.

In terms of Italian genetics in general and Southern Italian/Sicilian genetics in particular it's the late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age which interests me more. Did most of the gene flow into Southern Italy/Sicily during that period come by way of the Balkans and Greece, or did some come directly from Anatolia or other places, or both? When did it start to arrive and in what numbers? What were Southern Italians/Sicilians like in the beginning of the first millenium BC before Greek colonization, and what were they like afterwards? Once we know the answers to those questions we'll be in better shape to understand precisely what was going on during the empire and after.
Spot-on questions, that's exactly what we need to know. Do we know when the paper (related to the leaked PCA) is due to get published? By the way, this is not the Moots paper we are awaiting any time now, correct?
 
The Etruscans are closer to the Northern Italians, and the Romans are closer to the Central and Southern Italians..


Romans in that PCA are definitely closer to Southern Italians. Abruzzesi are genetically Southern Italians even if more northern shifted than southern Italian average. Of course assuming that PCA is accurate.
 
Spot-on questions, that's exactly what we need to know. Do we know when the paper (related to the leaked PCA) is due to get published? By the way, this is not the Moots paper we are awaiting any time now, correct?

I don't know for sure but I don't think so. The Moots paper, from the little information I have, is centered only on the environs of Rome itself, and doesn't include Etruscans. I think the PCA may be from the paper that I think is coming from Stanford.

My point throughout this discussion has been that people want to talk about what "Romans" were or were not like without defining what they mean by "Roman". I keep trying to get through to them that it has a different meaning through time, and applies to people from different genetic clusters through time. By the end of the Empire practically everyone within its borders would have considered themselves "Romans". The Byzantines considered themselves "Romans" for centuries after that. At what point does the term become meaningless for population genetics purposes, and especially as concerns Italian genetics?

In terms of Republican Era Romans I would be quite surprised if the Republican Era "Romans" were "Aegean" like. I would expect them to be like other members of the Latin League and related groups, which is NOT to say that they were "Gaulish" like. I don't expect even northern Italians of the Republican period to be the same as the Gauls, of, well, Gaul. :)

I wouldn't be at all surprised if inhabitants of many parts of southern Italy were "Aegean like" already during the Roman Republican Era period. I would expect Imperial Era Italians, which is the more appropriate term, in my opinion, even in the northern reaches of the peninsula, to be different from what they were like during the Republic, but the question is, how different? Did the cline still exist, even if less defined? Were the "Collegno" Italians of the late Empire the norm or was there variation? Although even there, not all were "Aegean" like. I'm extremely close to one, and I am not "Aegean" like.

I would remind people that the "leaks", if accurate, say that in Republican Rome the "Romans" were split into two groups, one more "northern" Italian like, and one more "southern" Italian like. Note that none of them are Germanic like. So much for much of 19th and early 20th century anthropology. None plotted with Central Italians. If the papers show I'm on the wrong track, fine. I have no problem with being "slightly" wrong. :)

The darkest red is the "original" Rome.

704px-Roman_conquest_of_Italy.PNG


Note that even the bright red is Rome and her "allies", not considered Romans by the Romans themselves.

Timeline of the conquest of Italy:

That's why the dates for each sample are crucial.

@lynxbythetv (Could you people pick shorter, more recognizable "names"? Sometimes I don't address people by their names just because it's too annoying to reproduce them.)

You think these people look "Celtic", do you?

aba5741611341b87214148e9c425cc19.jpg


66360-004-8393CE1A.jpg
 
I don't know for sure but I don't think so. The Moots paper, from the little information I have, is centered only on the environs of Rome itself, and doesn't include Etruscans. I think the PCA may be from the paper that I think is coming from Stanford.


An archaeologist friend of mine confirmed to me that Etruscan samples were sent to various laboratories for autosomal analysis.

And then certainly Stanford has already analyzed some Etruscan samples 4 or 5 years ago.

There are more than one university right now, so I'm guessing more than one study.
 
Romans in that PCA are definitely closer to Southern Italians. Abruzzesi are genetically Southern Italians even if more northern shifted than southern Italian average. Of course assuming that PCA is accurate.

So it would appear from the PCA. However, that doesn't square with the supposed "leak" that in Republican Rome there were "two" groups: one more Northern Italian like and one more Southern Italian like.

The question is which to believe, if any.
 
So it would appear from the PCA. However, that doesn't square with the supposed "leak" that in Republican Rome there were "two" groups: one more Northern Italian like and one more Southern Italian like.

The question is which to believe, if any.


In fact, they seem like two completely different things.


Beyond the conclusions that might be correct or wrong, Hannah Moots is real and we know from published sources that she is really working on her study.


On the rest so far only rumors.
 
I don't know for sure but I don't think so. The Moots paper, from the little information I have, is centered only on the environs of Rome itself, and doesn't include Etruscans. I think the PCA may be from the paper that I think is coming from Stanford.
Thanks a lot for your answer. I agree with all of your points. These are all valid questions you raise, that require answering. Before we jump on conclusions we need to examine all of the details. Hopefully the paper (if real after all) will be worthwhile and able to provide answers.
 
This is not a thread about phenotypes.

Anyone posting off topic responses to posts will find it has been deleted.
 
The rumour is that the majority of the samples used in the Stanford study, i.e. the one from which the PCA comes, were collected from Isola Sacra.

If that is true, and it's a BIG if, this is not going to be a paper that necessarily tells us a lot of useful information about Italian genetics.

Even Wiki knows that many of them aren't Italian. :)

See:

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

"The Isola Sacra Necropolis was the first large-scale pagan cemetery of Roman Imperial times to be excavated. The excavator-in-chief of most of Isola Sacra was Guido Calza. The necropolis was found on the manmade island of Isola Sacra, which lies between the cities of Portus and Ostia Antica, a region just south of Rome. The emperor Trajan was in power when this artificial island was created. Much of the excavated necropolis flanked the Via Severiana, which ran through Isola Sacra and traveled southeast from Ostica to Terracina."


"A great number of the inscriptions on the tombs suggest Graeco-Oriental origin. Scholars believe this is because Portus and Ostica were a cosmopolitan towns where the bourgeois population was full of businessmen of non-Italian birth.[4] Latin, however, was the language that most townspeople used during the time that the necropolis was built. "


Is that to say that there weren't Southern Italians who were similar to them? Absolutely not. It just means we won't be able to tell that from this paper.

It also seems that there is some sort of amazed disbelief at the supposed leaks that the Etruscan samples studied didn't have any J1 and J2a. Now, maybe some will show up somewhere in the future, but for now they seem to have been G2a, J2b, and some form of R1b, like maybe R1b V88. The latter is totally unexpected, but who knows with rumours. Maybe the samples are degraded and they couldn't get good data. Still, as I said, no J1 and J2a.

Some people really don't want to let go of that "Etruscans were from Asia Minor", even if it's only "Elite Etruscans were from Asia Minor".

Tell me again these people aren't operating from an agenda, and even that they are whom they claim to be.
 
dear angela
do you got some information on e1b1b1 ?
was it found in remains ?
and if they do which subclade .... { e-v13 , e-m34}?
regards
adam
 
dear angela
do you got some information on e1b1b1 ?
was it found in remains ?
and if they do which subclade .... { e-v13 , e-m34}?
regards
adam

All I heard is what I posted.

It wouldn't at all surprise me if they found some E-M34 in a cemetery full of Hellenes and "Orientals" from the east, but I've heard nothing about it.

It might have been present among some Southern Italians of the Empire as well, but I have no knowledge of that either.
 
Now it appears that of the strictly Etruscan samples, four low quality ones are R-M269, one high quality one is R-U152, and one is I1.

Yes, indeed, if true, very Asia Minor like elites! :)

There is a reason, as Pax has been saying since FOREVER, that there is so much R1b in Toscana.

Any of the huge proponents of the "the Etruscans were recently arrived people from Anatolia" group, i.e. Sikeliot, Principe, Claudio, Fritz, Agamemnon, and let's not forget Polako, admitted they were completely wrong yet???? I would very much bet not. :)
 
Now it appears that of the strictly Etruscan samples, four low quality ones are R-M269, one high quality one is R-U152, and one is I1.

Yes, indeed, if true, very Asia Minor like elites! :)

There is a reason, as Pax has been saying since FOREVER, that there is so much R1b in Toscana.

Any of the huge proponents of the "the Etruscans were recently arrived people from Anatolia" group, i.e. Sikeliot, Principe, Claudio, Fritz, Agamemnon, and let's not forget Polako, admitted they were completely wrong yet???? I would very much bet not. :)
does that lead to any clues in regards to the language. werent the etruscans always deemed to be middle-eastern or something due to the language being non indo-european.

maybe its a creole calcolithic/indo european one.

Sent from my SM-G977B using Tapatalk
 
The poster who leaked the Stanford paper said samples are from around Italy. Claiming they're all from one region comes off as dishonesty.

Using Etruscans as a proxy for pre-Greek Italians, the Latins would cluster where they do before they mingled with Greeks and Levantines.
 
I've never said a dishonest thing on this site in all the years I've been here. How dare you?

I reported what was said on other sites. Plus, I couldn't have made it clearer that I'm taking a wait and see attitude. Learn to read more carefully before you go shooting off your mouth. Or perhaps you need some remedial classes in reading comprehension, like Polako.

"The rumour is that the majority of the samples used in the Stanford study, i.e. the one from which the PCA comes, were collected from Isola Sacra.


"IF
that is true, and it's a BIG if, this is not going to be a paper that necessarily tells us a lot of useful information about Italian genetics."

Get it now? Did I make it simple enough for you?

You're punching above your weight class, buddy. It never ends well.
 
Angela, why do you think there is an agenda behind Etruscans from Anatolia hypothesis?
 
Angela, why do you think there is an agenda behind Etruscans from Anatolia hypothesis?

I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I believe everyone who maintained that had or has an agenda. Jean Manco believed it wholeheartedly. We had heated debates about it. I just thought she was too dogmatic about it, ignoring the archaeology completely in favor of believing Herodotus' version of events in preference to those of other ancient historians. She generally gave too much credence to these "historians", which they weren't really, who were just recounting myths of things which happened long before their time.

I myself stated more than once that it was possible that a small elite might have come from Asia Minor in the first millennium BC, but it was just that: a possibility. Certainly, there was no sign of a folk migration sufficient in size to have a real effect on the genome. There was just too much against it, with the archaeology first and foremost: there was and is absolutely no sign of a mass invasion, or destroyed settlements etc., just a gradual change in the culture as contact increased with the east. There was also the fact that the high levels of J2a are in the east, closer to the Balkans, not Toscana; that there is so much R1b in Toscana; that Greece, for example, has even more "West Asian" according to the old calculators based on modern populations which people loved to use; that there definitely seemed to be a south/north cline in terms of this ancestry etc. I specifically asked rhetorically many times if the Lydians went not just to Toscana but to Albania, Greece, Sicily, Calabria, Puglia, Campania and the Marche as well. I could go on, but you probably know all of this.

As for those with an agenda, I know they have one partly because I know who they are and what their motivations are. They were quite open about their ideas in the past, although they aren't now. One, Polako, is a Slavic/Nordic racist of long standing, member for years, and prolific poster at horrifically racist sites who, while such a member, posted numerous times highly anti-semitic content and highly racist comments about Southern Italians, calling them mongrels and non-Europeans because they had "too much" of the "Near Eastern" ancestry he so disdained. It's always amazed me that South Asians like Razib Khan could stomach him. I guess they didn't see the posts where he called "them" mongrels too.

As for Sikeliot, I have it in personal PMs from him that his father was Sicilian and rejected his son for his sexual orientation, as well as disdaining his Islander Portuguese mother for her African ancestry. Sikeliot has now convinced people that he is just a "fan" of Levantine and Anatolian ancestry. That couldn't be further from the truth. For years he masqueraded as "Portuguese Princess" (and under other sock accounts) at theapricity, and under other sock accounts here and elsewhere, even at citydata, and his only mission was to prove the Portuguese were "superior" to Sicilians and Southern Italians because they had less "Levantine" and/or Anatolian ancestry. How people don't know the latter is beyond me.

Principe is one of those Southern Italian Americans or Southern Italian Canadians, if he isn't just another one of Sikeliot's socks, rare but present, who like to believe they're Jewish. A Calabrian woman is sort of famous for this, actually converted and became a rabbi, and now lives in Italy. It takes all kinds, I guess. In his case it's all supposedly because he thinks his ydna is Jewish. Maybe it is. I have no doubt some Jews in southern Italy converted and tried to blend into the background to escape expulsion. It happened in Portugal and Spain, why not in Sicily and Southern Italy? That doesn't make you Jewish or Levantine. For crying out loud, I carry an mtDna from the European hunter-gatherers, no doubt via steppe people who came into Italy. Does that mean I should identify with them, tout all things hunter-gatherer and steppe just for that reason, try to get accepted by some far right group? It's completely ridiculous. We are what our autosomal inheritance, 98% of our genome, and culture make us. Anything else is as ridiculous as Elizabeth Warren claiming to be Amerindian because she carries 2% of that ancestry.

There are way too many people in this hobby who just aren't stable mentally, or are just out and out racists, and for whatever reason, partly, I'm sure, because we are living proof that "excellence", and achievement, and contribution to European civilization doesn't depend on high levels of WHG and steppe, and also probably because most of us don't give a **** about whether we have more "West Asian" or "Levantine" than northerners. I certainly don't, and I certainly don't disdain that ancestry. Would I have married someone more than half Calabrian if I did?

I could go on, but I won't. These are what could be called impeachable witnesses. Certain behaviors call people's veracity into question.

They're all very quiet about their motivations now, but I've been around for a long time, and I know who they are and what motivates them, and I see how they ignore any facts that don't fit into their "explanation" of things. Nothing that they say should be taken at face value. You have to check every statement of supposed "fact" because some of them, especially someone like Polako, and on every topic, think absolutely nothing of outright lying, misrepresenting the findings of academic papers, or manipulating the data.

I've spent my professional life pinning liars to the wall and exposing them, and I'm not going to do any different when the topic is genetics.
 
@Angela But Etruscans were very sophisticated / advanced people and had considerable influence on Romans. I mean from their perspective you can understand why would they want Italians to have more Arab ancestry, so that they could call them non-European/white etc. But why would these Nord-Eastern supremacists would like Etruscans to be Near Eastern? Isn't Etruscans being closer to the steppe better for their ideology? Then in their mind they can claim Romans' successes too.

On Razib Khan, he used to write on Unz along with Jared Taylor etc. I think he is Republican too. I find it a little weird, i don't think most republicans would have positive views about South Asians, even though they are the richest/most educated group in US. Maybe he thinks deeper than me, i don't know.
 
Politics and Genetics don’t match.

It’s called Cultural Appropriation, but I call it Cultural Misappropriation.

... and don't assume that all Republicans are racist !!!

Republicans come in all sizes shapes and colors!
 

This thread has been viewed 326368 times.

Back
Top