Moots: Ancient Rome Paper

Could it be that R80 and R132 are part
carthegenian ?
 
The fist thing that came into my mind after getting 3 ancient J2b-L283 results from Sardinia, Etruria, and Dalmatia, was the Neolithic distribution of Cardium pottery and its successor cultures where the earliest finds are from Albania and Corfu, then Dalmatia and Bosnia, then crossed over to Italy a couple of hundred years later and so on (approx 6,000 BC).

Now Cardium pottery might explain only the initial spread of J2b parent clades and not the later Etruscan with TMRCA of 2000 BC, but it could serve as an indication of a specific cultural area which facilitated a sort of "internal migration".

For all we know, there could have been a strong North Adriatic kingdom destroyed by incoming IE tribes, he could have been a later Proto-Illyrian from Hallstatt, or a proto-Italic, etc. so it's useless to involve Iron Age ethnicities as of yet because we have J2b with TRMCA of 4,500 ybp found in Armenia and even in India, so it could have been any IE or non-IE.
 
Last edited:
I didn't want to comment anymore but was adressed directly.

Yes, CTS6190 has been found in a turkish guy who says he has Albanian origins. We also have clades other than z638, which has tmrca of 4200 ybp, so its not some young founder effect.

Sardinia is known for sampling bias and overrepresentation on YFull since it had some study done, but i still think its normal some clades will show up there that wont among albs, but are nonetheless related to same origins.

Cardium culture and 6000BC is not serious.

Dalmatian sample is 17th -16th Century BC
Nuragic Civilization begins 18th Century BC, and the Sardinian L283 samples come from around 13th Century BC and were not found in sardinian samples dated prior to Nuragic civillization.

The evidence points to seafaring introduction of l283 that is IE. The language those l283 spoke is possibly hinted at by work of non-albanian linguists that have poinyed out certain non-latin words in sardinian language that point to an albanoid linguistic substratum.
 
I didn't want to comment anymore but was adressed directly.

Yes, CTS6190 has been found in a turkish guy who says he has Albanian origins. We also have clades other than z638, which has tmrca of 4200 ybp, so its not some young founder effect.

Sardinia is known for sampling bias and overrepresentation on YFull since it had some study done, but i still think its normal some clades will show up there that wont among albs, but are nonetheless related to same origins.

Cardium culture and 6000BC is not serious.

Dalmatian sample is 17th -16th Century BC
Nuragic Civilization begins 18th Century BC, and the Sardinian L283 samples come from around 13th Century BC and were not found in sardinian samples dated prior to Nuragic civillization.

The evidence points to seafaring introduction of l283 that is IE. The language those l283 spoke is possibly hinted at by work of non-albanian linguists that have poinyed out certain non-latin words in sardinian language that point to an albanoid linguistic substratum.


On Yfull, under CTS6190 there are four Portuguese, one Italian, one Dutch, one British, one Russian. There's not a single Albanian.



https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-CTS6190/
 
I meant the parent clade to cts6190, common to etruscan and dalmatian. Contact J2 project admin for confirmation. I am not falsifying anything.
 
Nuragic Civilization begins 18th Century BC, and the Sardinian L283 samples come from around 13th Century BC and were not found in sardinian samples dated prior to Nuragic civillization.

The sample prior to Nuragic era is very small. The TMRCA of Sardinian samples (5400 ybp) suggests an older presence there. Additionally there is also a Tuscan NA20763 who is J-Z585*. The Tuscan is also older than any clades found in Albanians...

There is no real evidence whatsoever that the L283 arrived to Sardinia in 13th century BC.

In fact if you go strictly by the find, the only new addition in Nuragic era is J-L283, so logic dictates J-L283 is proto-Nuragic. :grin:
 
Significant genetic outliers for each time period identified by f4 statistics

6CrKYXC.jpg


Judging by the title, I'm assuming that this is the Official Outliers list.
Guess who's NOT on the list :)

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

These WHG results are seriously weird!
 
What about it being downstrwam of the mathieson sample do you not understand? Etruscans were not IE, so if it was "common equally" to both an IE and etruscan group, ot cannot always have been. What type of argumentation is that.

The nuragic j2b2 is also further evidence of illyrian origin, not continental. Im not spamming this thread. Its the most obvious origin for the and the push to ignore it is wholly recationary and ideological.

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.
 
Am I getting this right?

435-Prenestini Tribe plots with the Southern French


One in Spain, four near it but veering toward Sardinia, so even more Anatolian Neolithic?

851-Ardea Latini plots in the Spanish cluster. Which region is that?
1021 Boville Latini
1016 Rome Latini
473 Etruscan
1015 Villanovan


Etruscan 474-Italy, but which province is it actually in? Lombardia?

R1 Proto-Villanovan-Italy. It looks like it's near Liguria, but which province is it actually in?

So, anyone want to tell me again that Etruscans are from Lydia in the first millennium BC?

Both are, as I said, Southern Europeans.

Good-bye to so many myths.

Not Basque like so why model with them?

Did they model with only the steppe admixed Parma Beakers? Where would they plot here?

Assuming that nMonte with G25 is accurate, the Latins all have a high WHG (12-13% WHG), which is why they move a lot in the direction of Iberia and southern France.

ITA_Prenestini_tribe_IA:RMPR435b plots with the southern French because he might have 14.4% of WHG.

Two Etruscans also have high WHG (8%) but it is more in line with northern Italy than with Iberia/southern France; Villanovan R1015 has around 13% of WHG but her steppe related ancestry is lower than that calculated in the paper. So here it could be lack of accuracy on my side.

ITA_Proto-Villanovan:RMPR1 has the lowest WHG (3%) and higher steppe-related ancestry (37%) and that's why she ends up with the Italians in the PCA and not with Iberians and Southern French. This sample plots with Italian Piedmont and not distantly from other Italian clusters. Liguria has only one sample, so it doesn't form a cluster.

ITA_Etruscan:RMPR474b in the PCA plots in the Bergamo and Veneto clusters (in the area of intersection between these two clusters).

In the PCA I highlighted the clusters of the regions of Tuscany, Piedmont, Lombardy, Bergamo (Lombardy), Veneto.

4ukB9Mc.jpg



What happened to the other samples, especially 850?


ITA_Etruscan_o:RMPR475b seems to be only a 1/4 North African, definitely not half North African. Also nMonte suggests this.

In the PCA there are also the two Latin outliers.

ITA_Prenestini_tribe_IA_o:RMPR437b and ITA_Ardea_Latini_IA_o:RMPR850

rPm37ct.jpg
 
Illyrians are Indo-European speakers, what do they have to do with Etruscans?
 
Assuming that nMonte with G25 is accurate, the Latins all have a high WHG (12-13% WHG), which is why they move a lot in the direction of Iberia and southern France.

ITA_Prenestini_tribe_IA:RMPR435b plots with the southern French because he might have 14.4% of WHG.

Two Etruscans also have high WHG (8%) but it is more in line with northern Italy than with Iberia/southern France; Villanovan R1015 has around 13% of WHG but her steppe related ancestry is lower than that calculated in the paper. So here it could be lack of accuracy on my side.

ITA_Proto-Villanovan:RMPR1 has the lowest WHG (3%) and higher steppe-related ancestry (37%) and that's why she ends up with the Italians in the PCA and not with Iberians and Southern French. This sample plots with Italian Piedmont and not distantly from other Italian clusters. Liguria has only one sample, so it doesn't form a cluster.

ITA_Etruscan:RMPR474b in the PCA plots in the Bergamo and Veneto clusters (in the area of intersection between these two clusters).

In the PCA I highlighted the clusters of the regions of Tuscany, Piedmont, Lombardy, Bergamo (Lombardy), Veneto.

4ukB9Mc.jpg






ITA_Etruscan_o:RMPR475b seems to be only a 1/4 North African, definitely not half North African. Also nMonte suggests this.

In the PCA there are also the two Latin outliers.

ITA_Prenestini_tribe_IA_o:RMPR437b and ITA_Ardea_Latini_IA_o:RMPR850

rPm37ct.jpg

Thanks. It's difficult for me to make out the separate clusters sometimes.

Also, it just seemed to me that in the PCA in the paper the samples seemed more to be in an almost no man's land between Spain and northern Italy.

If you don't mind, where would Parma Beakers place in relation to this?

As the result of that huge gap for the Bronze Age in their analysis it makes it difficult to figure out the direction of flow for the steppe admixed people. Certainly a Balkan route makes sense. Connections with Apennine Culture always hinted at that, but what about a route through the Alps, or even from the direction of France? Was it predominantly one route, a combination? Might Latial be a different route from Villanovan?
 
I think there must some kind of odd projection bias in the Global25 PCAs. They look nothing like the academic ones from the study.


Likely. There's nothing weird about it. They're different tools. Rarely what you see in the papers is exactly identical to what is seen with these amateur tools.
 
Likely. There's nothing weird about it. They're different tools. Rarely what you see in the papers is exactly identical to what is seen with these amateur tools.

True,

Here are the southern Italian-like samples highlighted according to region. I used the results that Kingjohn provided, from Global25 FST. Here you can see that samples from Umbria, and Marche cluster closer to the South. The real genetic break is north of these regions. Based on these results, I see a lot of Campanians are similar to many samples:

9uOq6NM.png


Lazio: 1283
Puglia: 113, 836, 107, 57
Campania: 56, 58, 64, 65, 1290, 437, 47, 131, 835, 1544, 32, 35, 136,
Basilica: 49, 54, 973,
East Sicily: 51, 122, 52, 53, 59,
West Sicily: 60
Calabria: 30, 117,
Abruzzo: 1549,
Umbria, 111, 118, 969, 970,
Marche: 36, 120, 121, 1285, 1287,

7qsoNOr.png


I would suspect Calabrians, or East Sicilians to be closest to the 850 Ardea Latini sample.

Campanians are closest to the 435 Latin.
 
Thanks. It's difficult for me to make out the separate clusters sometimes.

Also, it just seemed to me that in the PCA in the paper the samples seemed more to be in an almost no man's land between Spain and northern Italy.

If you don't mind, where would Parma Beakers place in relation to this?

As the result of that huge gap for the Bronze Age in their analysis it makes it difficult to figure out the direction of flow for the steppe admixed people. Certainly a Balkan route makes sense. Connections with Apennine Culture always hinted at that, but what about a route through the Alps, or even from the direction of France? Was it predominantly one route, a combination? Might Latial be a different route from Villanovan?


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
 

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 thread has been viewed 357931 times.

Back
Top