Rome as a genetic melting pot: Population dynamics over 12,000 years.

Status
Not open for further replies.
500 BC Founding Romans were more North Italian like
500 BC - 0 They slowly become more Southern Italian like
0 - 400 AD Levantine admixture increases
400 - 1000 AD Cities are population sinks-low reproduction, population reverts back to the 500 BC state by repopulation from rural areas

Caveat: I read rumors that some Samnites were Cypriot like, if that's true founding Romans may be more mixed or even more Southern like.

With the fall of Rome, the people in the cities died; the population didn't just wither away. It was the same in World War II when La Spezia and Aulla, for example, were bombed so intensely that almost nothing of the old cities is left. Sound familiar? Those who didn't die at enemy hands in the fighting, deprived of fresh water, food from the countryside, or bread from Egyptian grain just died. Farmers in the countryside stash away food they've grown themselves, have places to hide, and have a better chance of survival. It's what my relatives did, with supplies into caches carved into the hillside terraces, and and animals in caves in the woods. Pestilence spreads more easily in crowded urban centers as well. This was, after all, the time of Justinian's Plague. Survivalists today don't build their hideouts in the middle of New York City, right?

What is also often forgotten is that Rome and most cities of the West had begun to decline years before the actual "Fall". The City of Rome was a shadow of its former self by the end. The Empire of the East, centered in Constantinople, was the new lodestar. Some of the population would have been attracted there. It was certainly more of a locus for foreign trade than Rome by the last century or so. I wonder if these researchers bothered to read a comprehensive history of Rome the city before doing their analysis?

I doubt the population reverted completely back to the 500 BC state. Some of the people whom Rome attracted probably did stay, some may even have settled in the countryside. I have to see the actual samples to get a better handle on it.

Pax has already explained the difference between Sabines and Samnites.

So much confusion.
 
did the Visigoths and the Longobards never make it into Italy?

Yes, of course, but Visigoths and the Longobards were never so many as to be able to significantly change the genome of all northern Italians. Something they left, we see in the uniparental markers that can be traced back to the Germanic world, which to tell the truth can be found all over Italy not only in northern Italy.

Razib suggests this: "Basically, I think it is in line with work which suggests large fractions of non-natives in *cities*. When cities declined this genetic imprint diminished and Medieval cities were repopulated from rural areas"
 
did the Visigoths and the Longobards never make it into Italy?

I didn't say they never made it into Italy, but if Paul the Deacon, a chronicler of theirs is correct, there were 60,000 Langobards, including women and children. More of them settled in areas like the Veneto, so how much was left to spread over the rest of Italy? Had there been enough of them to effect big population change, we might be speaking a Germanic language today, like the English, and even that wasn't replacement level by a long shot.

Isn't it a staple of population genetics that one should look at yDna distribution?

I1 in Italy...Of course, given the reported results for Etruscan yDna, all of this may not be Germanic.

North Italy

In Cuneo, south-west Piedmont, 1 out of 30 samples are I1 (3.5%).

In Savona/Genova, central Liguria, 2 out of 50 samples are I1 (4%).

In Como, north-west Lombardy, 1 out of 41 samples are I1 (2.5%).

In Brescia, north-east Lombardy, 1 out of 39 samples are I1 (2.5%).

In Vicenza, central-west Veneto, 7 out of 40 samples are I1 (17.5%).

In Treviso, central-east Veneto, 1 out of 30 samples are I1 (3.5%).

In Bologna, central Emilia-Romagna, 3 out of 29 samples I1 (10.5%).


Central Italy

In La Spezia-Massa, north-west Tuscany, 1 out of 24 samples are I1 (4%).

In Pistoia, central-north Tuscany, 0 out of 13 samples are I1 (0%).

In Grosetto-Siena, southern Tuscany, 4 out of 86 samples are I1 (4.5%).

In Foligno, central-east Umbria, 1 out of 37 samples are I1 (2.5%).

In Macerata, central-east Marche, 0 out of 40 samples are I1 (0%).


South Italy

In L'Aquila, Abruzzo, 0 out of 23 samples are I1 (0%).

In Campobasso, Molise, 4 out of 29 samples are I1 (14%).

In Benevento, Campania, 1 out of 36 samples is I1 (2.5%).

In Matera, Basilicata, 0 samples out of 25 are I1 (0%).

In Lecce, Apulia, 1 out of 39 samples is I1 (2.5%).

In Cosenza/Catanzaro/Crotone, Calabria, 1 out of 38 samples is I1 (2.5%).

In Catania, eastern Sicily, 0 out of 62 samples is I1 (0%).

In Ragusa, southeast Sicily, 1 out of 44 samples is I1 (2%).

In Agrigento, southwest Sicily, 1 out of 42 samples is I1 (2.5%)

In Olbia/Tempio/Nuoro, north-east Sardinia, 0 out of 40 samples is I1 (0%).

In Oristano, central-west Sardinia, 0 out of 42 samples are I1 (0%).


Other than a few individual towns where there's a founder effect the levels are, as I said, not sufficient to produce big changes genetically.

This is the thread from which that came. Some of it is outdated material. We now know the Langobards were U-106, at least of the samples we have. The Visigoths and other Germanics might have been I1, but some, as I said, may be far older in Italy. It will depend on subclade information.
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threa...in-Italy-(Boattini-et-al-)?highlight=Boattini

Also from posts from that Boattini thread...
DiGaetano et al 2009
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2985948/

West Sicily = 8.2% I1-M253
---
East Sicily = 1.75% I1-M253
------

Also Rootsi et al 2004 - found 8.8% Hg I (not specified sub-clades)
http://www.familytreedna.com/pdf/DNA...oupISpread.pdf

Equally Capelli et al 2005 - 8.5% Hg I (not specified sub-clades)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...09.00538.x/pdf

Most of the samples [96 out of 141] from Boattini et al 2013 were from the East of Sicily; hence only 1.4% Hg I1

Historically the Normans settled in the Western part of the Island, amongst the fiefdoms they conquered from the Saracens;
Agrigento (the other 45 samples) declined in the Middle ages, so obv. not much Normannic resettlement;

The East was granted to Lombard (Christian / Latin) settlers; hence 7.1% R1b U-152 -Boattini 2013

R1a [M17] in Sicily is also interesting:
5.7% -Boattini 2013 / 5.5% -DiGaetano 2009

also to note of course:
R1b-U106 = 5.6% -Boattini 2013

They supposedly have yDna experts over there. They don't know this, or have forgotten it? I find that hard to believe. I also find it hard to believe that I have to repeat the same information over and over again. Do they want it buried for some reason?

The autosomal impact of the Germanics has also been studied, most completely by Ralph and Coop using modern dna, which is all we had at the time. In both Spain and Italy, and in parts of France, there is very small movement of genetic material from the Germanic areas. The results are particularly interesting because this was based on IBD analysis, not IBS.

https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threa...talian-genetics-revisted?highlight=Ralph+Coop

The paper:
https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001555

9Z0roms.png


""There is relatively little common ancestry shared between the Italian peninsula and other locations, and what there is seems to derive mostly from longer ago than 2,500 ya. An exception is that Italy and the neighboring Balkan populations share small but significant numbers of common ancestors in the last 1,500 years, as seen in Figures S16 and S17. The rate of genetic common ancestry between pairs of Italian individuals seems to have been fairly constant for the past 2,500 years, which combined with significant structure within Italy suggests a constant exchange of migrants between coherent subpopulations.""



"The implication here is that there’s population structure deeper than the Roman period. When I first saw these results I was surprised. Looking at genome-wide data I was pretty sure that most of the modern Italian population dated to the Roman Republican period, but I was not expecting provincial level substructure. It was like telling me that the Samnites and Umbrians were still with us!




But what about the great cosmopolitan cities of Neopolis, Rome, and Ravenna? Some commenters on this blog routinely get frustrated when I dismiss the textual and epigraphic evidence of massive migration into the Italian peninsula during the height of the Roman Empire. Actually, I believe that this migration occurred. I just do not believe it was particularly impactful genetically today. Though my general outlook on this issue goes back over ten years (in part thanks to the suggestion of Greg Cochran), I believe the issue here is that cities are such incredible demographic sinks."


Elsewhere in the paper Ralph and Coop opine that there apparently was not a mass migration during the Germanic Invasions into France, Spain and Italy. We have supporting data from that in the Ydna, and also in the autosomal analysis of the southern French, for example, who have low levels of steppe ancestry, ancestry which would have been higher in the Germanics.

If there's something wrong with my reasoning here I'm certainly willing to take it on board.



 
I didn't say they never made it into Italy, but if Paul the Deacon, a chronicler of theirs is correct, there were 60,000 Langobards, including women and children. More of them settled in areas like the Veneto, so how much was left to spread over the rest of Italy? Had there been enough of them to effect big population change, we might be speaking a Germanic language today, like the English, and even that wasn't replacement level by a long shot.

Isn't it a staple of population genetics that one should look at yDna distribution?

According to rumours, still unconfirmed, the Etruscan samples (low quality) are R1b1a1a1b-M269 and one of these (the high-quality one) was R1b-U152+. Another low quality Etruscan sample would have been I1.

R1b1a1a1b-M269 and R1b-U152+ found among the Etruscans, if confirmed, are not strange, they are still widespread in Etruscan areas.

While I1 may seem strange but as Maciamo writes "haplogroup I1 emerged from the testing of Early Neolithic Y-DNA from western Hungary (Szécsényi-Nagy et al. (2014)). A single I1 sample was identified alongside a G2a2b sample, both from the early Linear Pottery (LBK) culture, which would later diffuse the new agricultural lifestyle to most of Poland, Germany and the Low Countries. This means that haplogroup I1 was present in central Europe at the time of the Neolithic expansion. It is therefore possible that I1 lineages were among the Mesolithic European hunter-gatherers that were assimilated by the wave of East Mediterranean Neolithic farmers (represented chiefly by Y-haplogroup G2a)."

T
he Linear Pottery (LBK) samples from Austria, Germany and Hungary are the ones who were closest to the mtDNA of the Etruscans in the 2013 paper (Ghirotto 2013, Tassi 2013).

I wonder which subclade of I1 is Etruscan? If this subclade still exists, it should have a TMRCA of at least 3000 years and have a distribution centered around Tuscany.

Haplogroup-R1b-S28.gif


U152, some of it may be Etruscan, but it looks to me the majority of them are Gauls, who settled en masse in the Po Valley 400 BC - many more than the few Longobards later

Haplogroup-R1b-S21.gif


U106

the northern ones - in the Alps I'd say they are Germanic
in Sicily : could they have been Vikings?
and yes there are a few in the Rome area, but not so many in Tuscany

Haplogroup_I1.gif


more or less the same story as U106, except for a wider spread in the mountaneous area of central Italy
would some of them have been among the Italic tribes? Osci-Umbrians-Latins?
I would'nt say there are many of Etruscan descent there
 
I wonder which subclade of I1 is Etruscan? If this subclade still exists, it should have a TMRCA of at least 3000 years and have a distribution centered around Tuscany.

Haplogroup-R1b-S28.gif


U152, some of it may be Etruscan, but it looks to me the majority of them are Gauls, who settled en masse in the Po Valley 400 BC - many more than the few Longobards later

Haplogroup-R1b-S21.gif


U106

the northern ones - in the Alps I'd say they are Germanic
in Sicily : could they have been Vikings?
and yes there are a few in the Rome area, but not so many in Tuscany

Haplogroup_I1.gif


more or less the same story as U106, except for a wider spread in the mountaneous area of central Italy
would some of them have been among the Italic tribes? Osci-Umbrians-Latins?
I would'nt say there are many of Etruscan descent there

Good question, although I doubt it would be only "Etruscan". It would have come via LBK type inflow.

It Sicily it could have been Viking via the Normans. Being the elite, they might have spread it around in a sort of founder effect. If it was them, because the number of Norman who came to Sicily was very small. When speaking of Sicily one has to keep in mind the "Lombard" migrations of the Middle Ages, by which I mean migration from Northern Italy and even parts of France. True, their cities were not strongest around the northwestern tip, but elites would migrate to Palermo as the capital and most prosperous city.
 
I wonder which subclade of I1 is Etruscan? .

It is an unconfirmed rumor and therefore it is clear that it is necessary to wait for the study.



If this subclade still exists, it should have a TMRCA of at least 3000 years and have a distribution centered around Tuscany.


I1 has a TMRCA of 4600 years. Why on earth should I1 have a distribution centered around Tuscany? The explanation given by Maciamo is the most plausible. A few I1s entered the late Neolithic era into the LBK cultures and from there followed their destiny.

https://www.yfull.com/tree/I1/


U152, some of it may be Etruscan, but it looks to me the majority of them are Gauls, who settled en masse in the Po Valley 400 BC - many more than the few Longobards later


U152 is quite common in Italy and no way that the majority of them are Gauls. Moreover, there is no archaeological evidence that the Gauls settled en masse in the Po Valley 400 BC. Here is one of the many misunderstandings about the history of Italy. The greatest Celtic contribution in northern Italy came with Golasecca (Lepontic), whose inhabitants received proto-Celtic migrations, and similar, however, prior to the Gallic invasions. The Gauls of 400 BC were belligerent, but there weren't so many to leave a deep mark.


more or less the same story as U106, except for a wider spread in the mountaneous area of central Italy. would some of them have been among the Italic tribes? Osci-Umbrians-Latins?
I would'nt say there are many of Etruscan descent there


What does U106 have to do with Italics and Etruscans?
 
Last edited:
Good question, although I doubt it would be only "Etruscan". It would have come via LBK type inflow.

It Sicily it could have been Viking via the Normans. Being the elite, they might have spread it around in a sort of founder effect. If it was them, because the number of Norman who came to Sicily was very small. When speaking of Sicily one has to keep in mind the "Lombard" migrations of the Middle Ages, by which I mean migration from Northern Italy and even parts of France. True, their cities were not strongest around the northwestern tip, but elites would migrate to Palermo as the capital and most prosperous city.

the TMRCA for I1 is 4,6 ka, and it's origin in (Southern) Scandinavia
there may have been pre-I1 in LBK
if the Etrusc I1 came directly from LBK, and not Scandinavia, then it must have been pre-I1, and the branch went extinct
 
It is an unconfirmed rumor and therefore it is clear that it is necessary to wait for the study.
I1 has a TMRCA of 4600 years. Why on earth should I1 have a distribution centered around Tuscany? The explanation given by Maciamo is the most plausible. A few I1s entered the late Neolithic era into the LBK cultures and from there followed their destiny.
https://www.yfull.com/tree/I1/
U152 is quite common in Italy and now way that the majority of them are Gauls. Moreover, there is no archaeological evidence that the Gauls settled en masse in the Po Valley 400 BC. Here is one of the many misunderstandings about the history of Italy. The greatest Celtic contribution in northern Italy came with Golasecca (Lepontic), whose inhabitants received proto-Celtic migrations, and similar, however, prior to the Gallic invasions. The Gauls of 400 BC were belligerent, but there weren't so many to leave a deep mark.
What does U106 have to do with Italics and Etruscans?
read what I wrote, I didn't say I1 should be centered around Tuscany, I said a subclade of at least 3000 years old

400 BC the Gauls overran the Hallsstat elites and they moved with whole families to new homelands.
From their new homelands they organised raids into neighbouring areas, that is how they sacked Illyria from their new homelands in the Carpathian Basin.
Alexander the Great prevented them from raiding further south, but when his successor Lysimachus died, they thought the time was right to raid Delphi.
If you claim that was not the case in the Po Valley, that is fine.
But it is a fact that there was no continuity in Canegrate culture after 4th century BC.
Another fact is that early 4th century BC there were Gallic raids further down south into Italy.
And the Gallic raiders were eventually beaten in the south, but they stayed in their new homelands in the Po Valley.
The Boiï and the Insubres were still there when Hannibal crossed the Alps.
The Etruscans were beyond their high point 400 BC and they must have left a vacuum in the Po Valley.

If the Etrusc I1 came from Scandinavia, there might also have been some U106 along with them.
That's why I checked.
 
It is an unconfirmed rumor and therefore it is clear that it is necessary to wait for the study.




I1 has a TMRCA of 4600 years. Why on earth should I1 have a distribution centered around Tuscany? The explanation given by Maciamo is the most plausible. A few I1s entered the late Neolithic era into the LBK cultures and from there followed their destiny.

https://www.yfull.com/tree/I1/





U152 is quite common in Italy and no way that the majority of them are Gauls. Moreover, there is no archaeological evidence that the Gauls settled en masse in the Po Valley 400 BC. Here is one of the many misunderstandings about the history of Italy. The greatest Celtic contribution in northern Italy came with Golasecca (Lepontic), whose inhabitants received proto-Celtic migrations, and similar, however, prior to the Gallic invasions. The Gauls of 400 BC were belligerent, but there weren't so many to leave a deep mark.








What does U106 have to do with Italics and Etruscans?

It is not the center of this topic, but I think that R-U152 was common among the last wave of Celts and among Italics (not always the same precise subclades), but I don't forget the elites of Ligurians; I even suppose that this kind of Ligurians were more typically R-U152 than the most of Italics tribes I see as having had some other Y-haplos (some Y-J2 subclades among them?) catched during a longer stage around the Austria/Hungary borders, so under influences already there since BA, come from Anatolia. Just a bet.I lack new informations concerning Y-haplos of Balkans between Chalco and IA; the ones I had are very scarce.
 
It is not the center of this topic, but I think that R-U152 was common among the last wave of Celts and among Italics (not always the same precise subclades), but I don't forget the elites of Ligurians; I even suppose that this kind of Ligurians were more typically R-U152 than the most of Italics tribes I see as having had some other Y-haplos (some Y-J2 subclades among them?) catched during a longer stage around the Austria/Hungary borders, so under influences already there since BA, come from Anatolia. Just a bet.I lack new informations concerning Y-haplos of Balkans between Chalco and IA; the ones I had are very scarce.

That's how I see it too. Perhaps the J2b2 was picked up by the Italics there.
 
View attachment 11491

Lubomirski Family in Poland is J2b2 PH1602. It’s possible they MAY have migrated there from Rome long ago, at least based on this German historical account referenced above. Curious if any L283, specifically PH1602, shows up in this upcoming Moots study.
 
Or maybe it came from the Balkans as a Vlach. Too many maybes, so I think you should focus on finding people with the same clade and analyze more or less it geographical distribution rather than attribute it to a moving tribe. It could have been simply a moving family or merchant.
 
No evidence of a Roman origin of J2b2 PH1602 in Europe.

https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-PH1602/

Agreed, I don’t think it originated there but may have spread there from either Central Europe or across the Adriatic from the Balkans. The German publication mentioned claims the Lubomirski family descends from Aurelius Drusus. I have no idea who that was. When I google that name, I get Drusus Julius Caesar. I also don’t know where the German publication received that information, so it’s dubious at best, but curious since they are J2b2 L283, which is uncommon in Poland.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drusus_Julius_Caesar

My understanding is that they were from the gens Claudia who were originally Sabines from the Apennine Mountains. Last I heard the Moots paper is a month away from publication; Just curious if any Roman/Latin samples turn out to be L283 PH1602.
 
LBK is indeed too old to be linked to a "complete" I1.

As a side note, I'd like to remember y'all not to check only TMRCA in YFull, but sometimes also the 95% Confindence Interval. You find it by clicking on the blue box where formation and TMRCA are informed.
In this example, the TMRCA of I1 is 4600 ybp, yes, but there would be 95% of chance the most recent common ancestor of known modern I1 men lived anytime between 4000 and 5100 ybp.
 
LBK is indeed too old to be linked to a "complete" I1.

"haplogroup I1 emerged from the testing of Early Neolithic Y-DNA from western Hungary (Szécsényi-Nagy et al. (2014)). A single I1 sample was identified alongside a G2a2b sample, both from the early Linear Pottery (LBK) culture, which would later diffuse the new agricultural lifestyle to most of Poland, Germany and the Low Countries. This means that haplogroup I1 was present in central Europe at the time of the Neolithic expansion. It is therefore possible that I1 lineages were among the Mesolithic European hunter-gatherers that were assimilated by the wave of East Mediterranean Neolithic farmers (represented chiefly by Y-haplogroup G2a)"

"We analysed 33 Y-haplogroup defining SNPs located on the non-recombining part of the Y chromosome (NRY), using multiplex [38] and singleplex PCR. We successfully generated unambiguous NRY SNP profiles for nine male individuals (STA = 7, LBKT = 2; electronic supplementary material, datasets S3 and S5). Three STA individuals belong to the NRY haplogroup F* (M89) and two specimens can be assigned to the haplogroup G2a2b (S126), and one each to G2a (P15) and I2a1 (P37.2). The two investigated LBKT samples carry haplogroups G2a2b (S126) and I1 (M253). Furthermore, incomplete SNP profiles of eight specimens potentially belong to the same haplogroups—STA: three G2a2b (S126), two G2a (P15) and one I (M170); LBKT: one G2a2b (S126) and one F* (M89).

​LBKT = Linear pottery culture in Transdanubia (Hungary)


https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rspb.2015.0339
 
"haplogroup I1 emerged from the testing of Early Neolithic Y-DNA from western Hungary (Szécsényi-Nagy et al. (2014)). A single I1 sample was identified alongside a G2a2b sample, both from the early Linear Pottery (LBK) culture, which would later diffuse the new agricultural lifestyle to most of Poland, Germany and the Low Countries. This means that haplogroup I1 was present in central Europe at the time of the Neolithic expansion. It is therefore possible that I1 lineages were among the Mesolithic European hunter-gatherers that were assimilated by the wave of East Mediterranean Neolithic farmers (represented chiefly by Y-haplogroup G2a)"

"We analysed 33 Y-haplogroup defining SNPs located on the non-recombining part of the Y chromosome (NRY), using multiplex [38] and singleplex PCR. We successfully generated unambiguous NRY SNP profiles for nine male individuals (STA = 7, LBKT = 2; electronic supplementary material, datasets S3 and S5). Three STA individuals belong to the NRY haplogroup F* (M89) and two specimens can be assigned to the haplogroup G2a2b (S126), and one each to G2a (P15) and I2a1 (P37.2). The two investigated LBKT samples carry haplogroups G2a2b (S126) and I1 (M253). Furthermore, incomplete SNP profiles of eight specimens potentially belong to the same haplogroups—STA: three G2a2b (S126), two G2a (P15) and one I (M170); LBKT: one G2a2b (S126) and one F* (M89).

​LBKT = Linear pottery culture in Transdanubia (Hungary)


https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rspb.2015.0339
Yes, Pax, I get it's a M253+, i.e., positive for SNP M253 and probably to some equivalents. But he was likely a "pre-I1", as Bicicleur pointed out, if by I1 we understand being positive for M253 and all its current 311 equivalents. In other words, all modern I1 deeply tested men should be positive for all 312 SNPs that currently defines the haplogroup I-M253, and the most recent common ancestor of them all lived around 4600 years ago - or between 4000 and 5100 ybp. I1 suffered an amazing botteneck, as you can notice by the gap between formation (~27500 ybp) and TMRCA (~4600 ybp). We have to understand the "time of fomation" as the approximate time when the first of those 312 mutations happenep, and the TMRCA as when the last happened.
Then some "pre-I1s" must have lived here and there in Europe, however, only one of those who lived before 5100 ybp left descendants living today according to the data we have so far. A common ancestor (not the most recent one) to all living I1 men could have been linked to LBK, yes, but being M253+ itself doesn't evidences it. In short, if for example that "pre-I1" in LBK is positive for some SNPs for which modern I1s are negative, then it would be a clue that that line hasn't thrived.
 
Yes, Pax, I get it's a M253+, i.e., positive for SNP M253 and probably to some equivalents. But he was likely a "pre-I1", as Bicicleur pointed out, if by I1 we understand being positive for M253 and all its current 311 equivalents. In other words, all modern I1 deeply tested men should be positive for all 312 SNPs that currently defines the haplogroup I-M253, and the most recent common ancestor of them all lived around 4600 years ago - or between 4000 and 5100 ybp. I1 suffered an amazing botteneck, as you can notice by the gap between formation (~27500 ybp) and TMRCA (~4600 ybp). We have to understand the "time of fomation" as the approximate time when the first of those 312 mutations happenep, and the TMRCA as when the last happened.
Then some "pre-I1s" must have lived here and there in Europe, however, only one of those who lived before 5100 ybp left descendants living today according to the data we have so far. A common ancestor (not the most recent one) to all living I1 men could have been linked to LBK, yes, but being M253+ itself doesn't evidences it. In short, if for example that "pre-I1" in LBK is positive for some SNPs for which modern I1s are negative, then it would be a clue that that line hasn't thrived.


The TMRCA is reported by Yfull and we don't know how accurate it really is. As you rightly pointed out "I1 suffered an amazing botteneck, as you can notice by the gap between formation (~27500 ybp) and TMRCA (~4600 ybp)".

I have no problem with it if it's an I1 or a pre-I1. What I find interesting, if it were to be confirmed that one of the Etruscans was I1, and we cannot exclude that it is not confirmed, is that there is a different explanation from the idea that I1 in the Etruscans arrived from Scandinavia. Archaeologically, it would make no sense. Then, of course, the trade contacts of the Etruscans with Central Europe are well documented. There is even an object, if I remember correctly, found in Scandinavia that some believe to be Etruscan. But it is far too little.
 
The TMRCA is reported by Yfull and we don't know how accurate it really is. As you rightly pointed out "I1 suffered an amazing botteneck, as you can notice by the gap between formation (~27500 ybp) and TMRCA (~4600 ybp)".

I have no problem with it if it's an I1 or a pre-I1. What I find interesting, if it were to be confirmed that one of the Etruscans was I1, and we cannot exclude that it is not confirmed, is that there is a different explanation from the idea that I1 in the Etruscans arrived from Scandinavia. Archaeologically, it would make no sense. Then, of course, the trade contacts of the Etruscans with Central Europe are well documented. There is even an object, if I remember correctly, found in Scandinavia that some believe to be Etruscan. But it is far too little.
The TMRCA itself is not a "given truth", sure. It's a matter of statistics. The TMRCA is relatively close to the "average" of an interval with very high confidence. It's called CI (Confidence Interval). Particularly, I don't know about an ancient sample results that falsify any CI (Confidence Interval) in YFull. Keep in mind that YFull works with the average of roughly 1 SNP in the so-called combBED region of human Y chromosome each 144 years, so, importantly, the more samples used for calculation the better, naturally. For example, a branch with just two samples tend to have a less accurate TMRCA, but the CI will try to "correct" it, so to speak. This "margin" does vary proportionally according to the number of relevant IDs/samples associated* - not only, but at least in part. For example, the CI of G-M201's TMRCA is 27200-23300 ybp. It reaches then abt. 8% of variation around the TMRCA of 25200 ybp. G-Z1816's, 5500-3600 ybp, reachs 22%. Finally, just for instance, G-BY113713's (a branch that involves just two IDs), 850-150 ybp, a very high variation in percentage. And on and on. Given the mutation rate in humans and all samples involved in the estimation in this case, it's highly unlikely an actual TMRCA too different from the theoretical TMRCA.
*In this tendency, I-M253 (more frequent) and G-Z1816 (less frequent), for example, have a similar TMRCA, still, the CI of the former is substantially smaller (then the age per se is not the only factor, of course).

So keep in mind we're talking on an haplogroup with likely hundreds of IDs associated. Particularly, I doubt a "completed" (a sample positive for M253 and for virtually all current equivalents) I1 would pop up in LBK culture, which ended abt. 6500 years ago. That was the point, and I also called atention to the existence of a CI for TMRCA in YFull, 'cause many people don't know it. That's all.

Again: In theory, common ancestors to all living I1 men could have been linked to LBK. We just don't know. But likely not I1's MRCA or descendants, and this is relevant, hence the Bicicleur's comment.

If I find a free time I can try to figure out if this (pre-)I1 from LBK had additional mutations not shared with present day I1s.
 
Last edited:
"haplogroup I1 emerged from the testing of Early Neolithic Y-DNA from western Hungary (Szécsényi-Nagy et al. (2014)). A single I1 sample was identified alongside a G2a2b sample, both from the early Linear Pottery (LBK) culture, which would later diffuse the new agricultural lifestyle to most of Poland, Germany and the Low Countries. This means that haplogroup I1 was present in central Europe at the time of the Neolithic expansion. It is therefore possible that I1 lineages were among the Mesolithic European hunter-gatherers that were assimilated by the wave of East Mediterranean Neolithic farmers (represented chiefly by Y-haplogroup G2a)"
[FONT=&]"We analysed 33 Y-haplogroup defining SNPs located on the non-recombining part of the Y chromosome (NRY), using multiplex [[/FONT]38[FONT=&]] and singleplex PCR. We successfully generated unambiguous NRY SNP profiles for nine male individuals (STA = 7, LBKT = 2; electronic supplementary material, datasets S3 and S5). Three STA individuals belong to the NRY haplogroup F* (M89) and two specimens can be assigned to the haplogroup G2a2b (S126), and one each to G2a (P15) and I2a1 (P37.2). The two investigated LBKT samples carry haplogroups G2a2b (S126) and I1 (M253). Furthermore, incomplete SNP profiles of eight specimens potentially belong to the same haplogroups—STA: three G2a2b (S126), two G2a (P15) and one I (M170); LBKT: one G2a2b (S126) and one F* (M89).
[/FONT]
​LBKT = Linear pottery culture in Transdanubia (Hungary)
[FONT=&]
[/FONT]

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rspb.2015.0339
uptill now three early pre-I1 are known
- mesolithic NE Spain, 11 ka, with both positive and negative SNP's for I1
- Stora Forvär in the Baltic Sea, with both positive and negative SNP's for I1
- KO1 of which only 1 SNP is confirmed (unless Szécsényi-Nagy knows more)
you may say that I1 was all around Europe, it probably evolved along with I2, but only 1 branch survived and expanded ca 4,6 ka somewhere around southern Scandinavia
my bet is that their origin lays in the formation of TRB farmers, 6,3 ka
that origin is supposed to lay between lower Elbe and middle Vistula and to be the result of a merger between farmers and hunter-gatherers
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

This thread has been viewed 55803 times.

Back
Top