Moots: Ancient Rome Paper

Very interesting, thank you very much Regio X. If we really want to face this discussion, however, we must place archaeologically the individual found in Croatia who was J2b2a-L283. It is not enough to say that he was proto-Illyrian. What was the bronze culture to which he belonged? In the autosomal DNA he had a significant amount of steppe-related ancestry.
Let's remember, this individual was a 5-7 year old boy, found near the town of Vrgorac in Split-Dalmatia County, in southern Croatia.
Individual I4331, dated 1631-1521 calBCE (~3591 ybp), Y-DNA haplogroup J2b2a-L283 mtDNA: I1a1
Thanks, Pax! I agree that the individual must be "contextualized", and also that other variables may possibly help to "refine" the chances we're talking about, since there is a window of time. I focused on the "crude" data, and started the analysis from informations shared in this thread. If I had the time, I'd check details on the "proto-Illyrian" Y-DNA.The categorization of the Etruscan was confirmed by Ted Kandell. These papers usually don't provide the most deep assignments possible. Even errors may occur. For example, Ted assures that R55 guy was G-S2808, whereas the paper suggests G-Z30771. At least they agree he was G-CTS4803.

@Mals
SNP and STR diversities are important references, but so is ancient DNA. Natufians should supposedly be mainly G2a, yet E1b was likely the "protagonist" among them. So, what if there wasn't such old sample in Croatia? Who would tell based only on SNP diversity* and hg distribution? Which doesn't mean what you talked isn't interesting, neither that we should despise all "ifs" and third clues, jumping to simple conclusions from isolated data or monodisciplinary approaches.
Your info on more than 99% of Albanians belonging to the same J-Z638, if accurate, seems also interesting. Is that so? Literally more than 99%? Wow!

*Generally speaking, wider areas may also be used as reference when it comes to estimate SNP diversity, not only specific countries, so ok. It depends. Still...

But I'd be careful especially with those Sardinians below J-Z2507. It seems possible they belong to a different context compared to those under J-YP29, J-YP157 and J-YP113. Apparently Cagliari is "overrepresented" in YFull, that's why you may find there Sardinians in "improbable" branches, and it's possible J-Z2507 is one of them. This overrepresentation doesn't seem to explain per se the several Sardinians under those three though.
Briefly looking YFull results only (no time for FTDNA's, where I'd consider mainly confirmed results rather than predictions), particularly I wouldn't rule out the possibility of J-L283 MRCA originating in Sardinia. If so, they would have left the island very early, possibly before 4200 ybp. In this case, that basal G-Y15058 Sardinian in YFull could result from a "back migration" (indeed, notice that IT-CA doesn't develop that much downstream G-Z2507, despite the mentioned "overrepredentation"), but it's also possible, "in theory", G-Y15058 originated in Sardinia, and, if so, the "out of Sardinia" would have possibly happened after 4400 ybp.
But... It also seems possible a flow of J-L283 from Balkans to Sardinia beginning very early. Here, sampling bias could perhaps explain the apparent abscence of basal J-L283 in Balkans, after all, they're almost completely G-Z638, at the same time there are tons of Sardinians in YFull.
Both are however speculative. :)

As a side note: low frequency and high SNP diversity may coexist. There are many examples, and G-M201 in Armenia, according to Rootsi et al. 2012, is one of them.

That's also a crude lecture of mine which involves too many assumptions. It still seems an open question. At least for me.
Feel free to elaborate, but this is my last post about it, 'cause the thread is not on J-L283. If the point is showing that this movement from Balkans to Italy could have happened, then I agree. It seems very possible, as far as I can see. And it's also possible the clade is "Italian" in origin, ending up in Balkan soon enough, also as far as I can see. Who knows!
Further ancient DNAs may help to solve the "J-L283 mistery".
 
Sure, no problem. On the basis of the three Parma Bell Beaker samples it is not clear if there were different routes.

Bell_Beaker_ITA:I1979 is very close to ITA_Etruscan:RMPR474b. This sample has both steppe-related ancestry and WHG similar to what two Etruscans and the north Italians have.

Bell_Beaker_ITA:I2477 is a modern Sardinian.

Instead Bell_Beaker_ITA:I2478 is close to ITA_Prenestini_tribe_IA:RMPR435b which plots with Spaniards and Southern French and has more steppe-related ancestry but also the highest value of WHG, almost 14%.

The difference is all around this WHG.


eJ0tnlz.jpg

Really as the subject has advanced. Congratulations to the authors of the graphics, spectacular. I am pleasantly surprised when I have seen the graphic with my own personal samples Penestrini. 435, Etruscan 474 and Belle Beker Italy I2478 and how they are situated and related.
 
Thanks Jovialis, cool :) I circle them out in red in the connected square.
Q9vIwlR.jpg
Sample R850 was found in the necroplis of campo del fico in 1982 by E.Tortorici.......the necropolis was only open for use from 600 bc to 800 bc....it had 24 bodies, 11 male , 10 female and 3 children.....all pottery in the necroplis is the etruscan Bucchero style
 
According to the study, here is where modern populations plot in comparison with the Rome samples. It looks like modern south Italy has a lot of similarity with many of the samples.1F6BEED3-EF9A-420A-9321-FFF12771E494.jpg
 
I think there must some kind of odd projection bias in the Global25 PCAs. They look nothing like the academic ones from the study.

That is always a problem for me.

I mean no disrespect to Brick; he's just using the Global 25 created by Polako.
 
@Pax Augusta @Regio X

Very interesting, thank you very much Regio X. If we really want to face this discussion, however, we must place archaeologically the individual found in Croatia who was J2b2a-L283. It is not enough to say that he was proto-Illyrian. What was the bronze culture to which he belonged? In the autosomal DNA he had a significant amount of steppe-related ancestry.


Let's remember, this individual was a 5-7 year old boy, found near the town of Vrgorac in Split-Dalmatia County, in southern Croatia.


Individual I4331, dated 1631-1521 calBCE (~3591 ybp), Y-DNA haplogroup J2b2a-L283 mtDNA: I1a1

Thanks, Pax! I agree that the individual must be "contextualized", and also that other variables may possibly help to "refine" the chances we're talking about, since there is a window of time. I focused on the "crude" data, and started the analysis from informations shared in this thread. If I had the time, I'd check details on the "proto-Illyrian" Y-DNA.The categorization of the Etruscan was confirmed by Ted Kandell. These papers usually don't provide the most deep assignments possible. Even errors may occur. For example, Ted assures that R55 guy was G-S2808, whereas the paper suggests G-Z30771. At least they agree he was G-CTS4803.

@Mals
SNP and STR diversities are important references, but so is ancient DNA. Natufians should supposedly be mainly G2a, yet E1b was likely the "protagonist" among them. So, what if there wasn't such old sample in Croatia? Who would tell based only on SNP diversity* and hg distribution? Which doesn't mean what you talked isn't interesting, neither that we should despise all "ifs" and third clues, jumping to simple conclusions from isolated data or monodisciplinary approaches.
Your info on more than 99% of Albanians belonging to the same J-Z638, if accurate, seems also interesting. Is that so? Literally more than 99%? Wow!

*Generally speaking, wider areas may also be used as reference when it comes to estimate SNP diversity, not only specific countries, so ok. It depends. Still...

But I'd be careful especially with those Sardinians below J-Z2507. It seems possible they belong to a different context compared to those under J-YP29, J-YP157 and J-YP113. Apparently Cagliari is "overrepresented" in YFull, that's why you may find there Sardinians in "improbable" branches, and it's possible J-Z2507 is one of them. This overrepresentation doesn't seem to explain per se the several Sardinians under those three though.
Briefly looking YFull results only (no time for FTDNA's, where I'd consider mainly confirmed results rather than predictions), particularly I wouldn't rule out the possibility of J-L283 MRCA originating in Sardinia. If so, they would have left the island very early, possibly before 4200 ybp. In this case, that basal G-Y15058 Sardinian in YFull could result from a "back migration" (indeed, notice that IT-CA doesn't develop that much downstream G-Z2507, despite the mentioned "overrepredentation"), but it's also possible, "in theory", G-Y15058 originated in Sardinia, and, if so, the "out of Sardinia" would have possibly happened after 4400 ybp.
But... It also seems possible a flow of J-L283 from Balkans to Sardinia beginning very early. Here, sampling bias could perhaps explain the apparent abscence of basal J-L283 in Balkans, after all, they're almost completely G-Z638, at the same time there are tons of Sardinians in YFull.
Both are however speculative. :)

As a side note: low frequency and high SNP diversity may coexist. There are many examples, and G-M201 in Armenia, according to Rootsi et al. 2012, is one of them.

That's also a crude lecture of mine which involves too many assumptions. It still seems an open question. At least for me.
Feel free to elaborate, but this is my last post about it, 'cause the thread is not on J-L283. If the point is showing that this movement from Balkans to Italy could have happened, then I agree. It seems very possible, as far as I can see. And it's also possible the clade is "Italian" in origin, ending up in Balkan soon enough, also as far as I can see. Who knows!
Further ancient DNAs may help to solve the "J-L283 mistery".

7pzSZae.png

QaEYwE4.png
 
The outliers list is almost at the end of the pdf, maybe some people didn’t see it, and they focused their attention on other samples.

... giving the benefit of the doubt :)

6CrKYXC.jpg




https://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/suppl/2019/11/06/366.6466.708.DC1/aay6826_Antonio_SM.pdf

Imo, they don't deserve the benefit of the doubt.

However, that said, the paper also doesn't inspire the greatest confidence in their characterization of these samples with so many samples with these kinds of numbers for WHG.

We also have a quasi "Carthaginian" sample. Why on earth use Iberomaurusian?

I'm always disappointed in the papers that come out of Stanford. Maybe because they're taking cues from Piazza's clique, who haven't had a new idea in two decades.
 
Few quotes about these connections from archaeologist Govedarica who wrote on Dinara culture (Posušje culture per other archaeologist who researched it) from 1989.

By differentiating Dinara and Cetina culture and by placing the older phase of Dinara culture within the frame of the Br. A2 period, a need arises to reassess the chronological evaluation of the origin of handles with Axe-like extensions, that are among the most recognizable traits in the pottery material of this culture. The question of appearance of these forms in the Middle-Adriatic area is not resolved in an appropriate manner, and this problem is showing itself as one of the most critical moments in the cultural and chronological evaluation of this culture..


Handles of this type ("anse ad ascia") are best documented on the Apennine peninsula and in the Southeast France, their mass appearance is being connected with the proto-Apennine culture ("proto-apenninico B") whose datation is not fully agreed upon but is most commonly placed in the period which corresponds to the younger phase of the Early Bronze Age per South German chronology, that is Br. A2.


Individual finds of "pseudobrassarda" from the Dinara culture also have best analogues in the area of Northern Italy, in the late Polada culture.

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

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

Thank you, as soon as I have time I read everything and I look for more information in the books in Italian, English, French and German that I own. And I answer you.



Thanks, Pax! I agree that the individual must be "contextualized", and also that other variables may possibly help to "refine" the chances we're talking about, since there is a window of time. I focused on the "crude" data, and started the analysis from informations shared in this thread. If I had the time, I'd check details on the "proto-Illyrian" Y-DNA. The categorization of the Etruscan was confirmed by Ted Kandell. These papers usually don't provide the most deep assignments possible. Even errors may occur. For example, Ted assures that R55 guy was G-S2808, whereas the paper suggests G-Z30771. At least they agree he was G-CTS4803. .


Agreed, errors may occur. On the other hand, sometimes we get obsessed with the details when in these papers what is most important is the whole picture.
 
The problem with you is that, you already start with a basis which is based on logical fallacy. You already concluded in your mind that Y-DNA J2b2 is Indo-European despite being non-existent at any Indo-European speaking people except for Albanians that they might have well incorporated from non-IE speaking people from the Balkans.

You cannot make conclusion from scarce almost to non-existent proofs.

So far, and so less. I am seeing a pattern, Nuragics to a degree, Etruscans to a certain degree, if J2b2 is continued to be found among shore Mediterraneans and Anatolians then this logical puzzle will be solved.
are you ok?
J2b2 is the most obvious Indo-European haplogroup besides R1a. It stretches from India, Bangladesh to Portugal and all in between with low frequency, but present everywhere.
 
Sample R850 was found in the necroplis of campo del fico in 1982 by E.Tortorici.......the necropolis was only open for use from 600 bc to 800 bc....it had 24 bodies, 11 male , 10 female and 3 children.....all pottery in the necroplis is the etruscan Bucchero style

The necropolis time period fits in with when Rome was an etruscan colony
 
What happened to J1 after imperial Rome? Did they coincidentally took samples from some immigrant cemetery? Or perhaps some Phoenicians which they happen to have selected. At the very least, one could argue that immigration into Rome stopped at some point. And J1 was absorbed by the locals. As such it decreased rapidly.

This fact was raised a couple of times upthread. A number of samples come from the cemetery for the port city of Ostia. Some others come from the catacombs, and we know early Christians were usually foreign, including Jews.

Unfortunately, these graves provide no context whatsoever. The authors mention inscriptions having been found with Greek names, for example, but if you read the Supplement it's clear that was a general statement, and none of the samples they present have any context as to background, class etc.

It's very disappointing, nothing like what Patrick Geary was able to get and do with the Langobard cemetery in Piemonte.

The least they could have done is checked to see if the samples which plot south and east of modern Italians come predominantly from certain cemeteries.
 
This is not meant to be a thread about one particular y lineage.

I think all the possibilities have been exhausted, and there is no way currently to decide the issue.
 
That is always a problem for me.
I mean no disrespect to Brick; he's just using the Global 25 created by Polako.

Indeed, I too use Polako's calculators. Despite the fact I disagree on key interpretations. But I always make sure to look at it relative to the academic results. As well as the ancient samples relative to one another.
 
Sample R850 was found in the necroplis of campo del fico in 1982 by E.Tortorici.......the necropolis was only open for use from 600 bc to 800 bc....it had 24 bodies, 11 male , 10 female and 3 children.....all pottery in the necroplis is the etruscan Bucchero style

What are you trying to suggest, Torzio? If you're insinuating that sample R850 might be Etruscan, you must have the courage to write it down.

This reminds me a lot when you always confused the alphabet/script with the language. Which is an incredible mistake.

Etruscans were the most influential cultural group in this period and the Latium Vetus, where the necropolis of Campo del Fico is located, was much backward both culturally and socially than Etruria. it is obvious that in this phase the Latins imitate the Etruscans, as the Etruscans had imitated the Greeks. Latium Vetus in this period has also many relations with southern Italy, especially with Campania.

The Campo del Fico necropolis from Ardea belongs to the Orientalizing period of the Latial culture. So it is obvious that there may have been foreigners in Latium Vetus coming from outside Italy.

FTKsAYW.png


jKaTyuG.png



The necropolis time period fits in with when Rome was an etruscan colony


Apart from the fact that it is very incorrect to call Rome an Etruscan colony, but on the other hand I realize that the level of discussion is this. And so what? Torzio you're really old enough to start taking these discussions more seriously.





 
I said I wouldn't talk about it anymore, but I'd like to thanks Duarte.

@Duarte
Thanks. je je
He says "likely" (!) fully developed, then the ancient must have no reads for some equivalent(s). See my first post on the subject.

@Pax
Well, yes. Particularly, I'm not obsessed. At the end I was off-topic discussing a very specific point as if it were a thread on Y-DNA.

@Angela
Sorry. I'm done. That's a promise. :)
 
This is not meant to be a thread about one particular y lineage.

I think all the possibilities have been exhausted, and there is no way currently to decide the issue.

Thanks Regio, you’re kind :)

Sorry me Angela. :)

In fact this is not a topic about the Y J2b2 lineage. In an effort to collaborate I did not see the observation below, made by Regio in his last post. Once again, sorry my lack of atention. Next time I be more careful in my posts, avoiding precipitation:

That's also a crude lecture of mine which involves too many assumptions. It still seems an open question. At least for me.
Feel free to elaborate, but this is my last post about it, 'cause the thread is not on J-L283. If the point is showing that this movement from Balkans to Italy could have happened, then I agree. It seems very possible, as far as I can see. And it's also possible the clade is "Italian" in origin, ending up in Balkan soon enough, also as far as I can see. Who knows!
Further ancient DNAs may help to solve the "J-L283 mistery".


Enviado do meu iPhone usando Tapatalk
 
Thanks Regio, you’re kind :)

Sorry me Angela. :)

In fact this is not a topic about the Y J2b2 lineage. In an effort to collaborate I did not see the observation below, made by Regio in his last post. Once again, sorry my lack of atention. Next time I be more careful in my posts, avoiding precipitation:




Enviado do meu iPhone usando Tapatalk

Duarte, you never put a foot wrong, in my book. :)
 
@I was just going to respond to Torzio's post, and ask what point he was trying to make. :)

So what if a Latin site had Etruscan pottery?

Haven't we learned by now that pots are not always people? Were all the people who possessed Beaker pots the same in terms of autosomal genetics? Clearly not. Does the fact that goods from the Mediterranean wound up in graves in far northern Europe mean there was a mass migration from southern Europe to Denmark in the Bronze and Iron Age? I feel stupid just posing these questions.

Sometimes pots are just pots, and the fact that a town of a neighboring culture had some Etruscan pots means absolutely nothing.

If we've learned anything valuable from this paper, it's that the Etruscans had quite a bit of WHG. They didn't freaking come from Lydia in Anatolia.

Is it so hard for some people to say: I WAS WRONG?
 
How can you say a language came from the Near East, when the only person who posited such a link between Etruscan and any ancient Near Eastern languages is an amateur whose speculations aren't even considered in linguistic circles.

I didn't. I have no idea where the Etruscan language came from (east, west, north, south, or right where it was). All that is relatively certain is that it wasn't Indo-European. The transmission of genes and a language/cultural package are two different things. Languages can expand, but also absorb other cultures (or be absorbed by them), while the genes of their original carriers can be progressively diminished, even disappear, over time. I don't doubt that the ancient population (a word with an Etruscan root) was largely genetically indistinguishable, regardless of on which side of the Tiber they dwelled.

I mentioned the Sea Peoples only because the Etruscans were renowned in the classical world as seafarers, traders, and pirates, in contrast to the ancient Latins who were, from all accounts, farmers and landlubbers. Does that mean I think that Etruscan-speakers (let's leave gene-bearers aside) can be traced back to a branch of the Sea Peoples landing on the Italian shore circa 1100 BC? No, but they scattered widely, need not have all been Indo-Europeans, and might have had iron weapons, which the natives likely lacked. So, who knows? Not I.

You mentioned the Bronze Age "gap" in the samples. A group coming in with the Copper Age expansion looking for metals (which Etruria had) can't automatically be excluded, it seems to me. Stuart Piggott in Ancient Europe archaeologically traces one such possible movement from the coast of the Near East, up the Adriatic, and then across the Alps to the Tyrol, with similar metallurgical technology and products cropping up at both ends. The Adriatic was named after Adria, an Etruscan port at the mouth of the Po. So, once again who knows?

As to what I'm reading now, it is History of Florence by Machiavelli. Florence is, of course, smack dab in the middle of Tuscany.

My paternal line (surname) came from Ireland to Virginia, possibly speaking Gaelic and as indentured servants, well over 200 years ago, then traveled to Pennsylvania, Iowa, Nebraska, and Bellingham, Washington, in the Pacific Northwest, where I was born. How much Irish "blood" still courses through my veins? My sister got tested (I haven't yet) and it said maybe 10%. I'm pretty much "Irish" in name only. If I claim it as a descent (from the Kings of Cork!), it is only when in an exceedingly romantic mood. (I have no children, but my sister's children are related to Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce Indian tribe through their father.)

Personally, I believe most "high cultures" are hybrids and can't be traced back to a single line.
 
I always thought the Etruscans were related to the Raetians and therefore, mostly local. Sometimes legends are based in fact, so there may have been a small immigration from the eastern Aegean area.
 

This thread has been viewed 358010 times.

Back
Top