Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 87

Thread: Genomic Diversity in Italy

  1. #26
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    10-05-19
    Posts
    541
    Points
    7,340
    Level
    25
    Points: 7,340, Level: 25
    Level completed: 58%, Points required for next Level: 210
    Overall activity: 99.1%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I2-M223
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H2A3

    Ethnic group
    Italian-Siicly-South
    Country: United States



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by torzio View Post
    Any paper that only includes the Near-East ( Anatolia , Asia Minor ) for Italy and not the Caucasus is basically wrong ........the populace of Italy also included the people around the black sea , which was smaller in size and not linked to the med ................they also ignore Ghirotto 2013 paper that etruscans have been in Italy since 3000BC , so this Anatolian/near-east only for Italy is garbage
    Valid points about the CHG and just lumping it together. As Angela noted, all those populations in Near East should be defined with appropriate terminology. I always hate when anything Anatolian/Near East is all lumped together. Anyone who has been on youtube where Genetics videos are discussed or blogs sees this kind of crap all the time. With respect to the Sazzinni et al 2020 paper that Angela linked in post #1 in this thread. A couple of criticisms I have related to the Authors Literature review and the Editorial review process.

    1) The article was received by the Journal (From the authors) for peer review on 1 October 2019. It was accepted for publication on 1 April 2020 (6 month review process) and published 22 May 2020

    2) Raveane et al 2019 (Figure 2) was able to document a CHG (Green) component in every Italian regional sample from Sicily1 to NorthItaly2. Antonio et al 2019 (p.709) documents a CHG (or Iran Neolithic) type ancestry appearing in Neolithic era Rome (Referred to Supplementary Figure S12). The Raveane et al 2019 study was published 4 September 2019 and the Antonio et al 2019 paper 8 November 2019

    3) In light of points 1 and 2 above, why did Sazzinni et al 2020 not do their analysis in light of the 2 papers findings above, 1 which was in print before they submitted and the other early on in the review process for their own paper. As noted in point 2, both Raveane et al 2019 and Antonio et al 2019 document CHG type ancestry

    4) As I think Pax noted, this is 2020, and readers expect more from scholars.

    5) In conclusion, and speaking from personal experience as someone who has reviewed papers for publication in my own field and published as well, the failure to include both the Raveane et al 2019 and Antonio et al 2019 paper in their literature review and references and thus failure to model their results in light of those 2 recent papers indicates a weakness of their part and the part of the editorial and review process of the journal, "In My Opinion."

    As and addendum, if someone in the forum knows some of the authors and has contacted them before, maybe there is an explanation for why those 2 papers were not included. Not sure I would still agree with their explanation but maybe their are professional disagreements among one group of researchers vs. others.

  2. #27
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Three Friends50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Community Award
    Salento's Avatar
    Join Date
    30-05-17
    Posts
    3,902
    Points
    70,105
    Level
    82
    Points: 70,105, Level: 82
    Level completed: 21%, Points required for next Level: 1,345
    Overall activity: 79.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2 - BY143483
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H12a

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    a map of Ancient Italy

    ... once upon a time the Salentini were called Calabresi and the Calabresi were the Brutti, lol :)




  3. #28
    Banned Achievements:
    10000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    10-05-19
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,261
    Points
    17,717
    Level
    40
    Points: 17,717, Level: 40
    Level completed: 59%, Points required for next Level: 333
    Overall activity: 14.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2 - BY143483
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H95a1

    Ethnic group
    North Italian
    Country: Australia



    Quote Originally Posted by Palermo Trapani View Post
    Valid points about the CHG and just lumping it together. As Angela noted, all those populations in Near East should be defined with appropriate terminology. I always hate when anything Anatolian/Near East is all lumped together. Anyone who has been on youtube where Genetics videos are discussed or blogs sees this kind of crap all the time. With respect to the Sazzinni et al 2020 paper that Angela linked in post #1 in this thread. A couple of criticisms I have related to the Authors Literature review and the Editorial review process.

    1) The article was received by the Journal (From the authors) for peer review on 1 October 2019. It was accepted for publication on 1 April 2020 (6 month review process) and published 22 May 2020

    2) Raveane et al 2019 (Figure 2) was able to document a CHG (Green) component in every Italian regional sample from Sicily1 to NorthItaly2. Antonio et al 2019 (p.709) documents a CHG (or Iran Neolithic) type ancestry appearing in Neolithic era Rome (Referred to Supplementary Figure S12). The Raveane et al 2019 study was published 4 September 2019 and the Antonio et al 2019 paper 8 November 2019

    3) In light of points 1 and 2 above, why did Sazzinni et al 2020 not do their analysis in light of the 2 papers findings above, 1 which was in print before they submitted and the other early on in the review process for their own paper. As noted in point 2, both Raveane et al 2019 and Antonio et al 2019 document CHG type ancestry

    4) As I think Pax noted, this is 2020, and readers expect more from scholars.

    5) In conclusion, and speaking from personal experience as someone who has reviewed papers for publication in my own field and published as well, the failure to include both the Raveane et al 2019 and Antonio et al 2019 paper in their literature review and references and thus failure to model their results in light of those 2 recent papers indicates a weakness of their part and the part of the editorial and review process of the journal, "In My Opinion."

    As and addendum, if someone in the forum knows some of the authors and has contacted them before, maybe there is an explanation for why those 2 papers were not included. Not sure I would still agree with their explanation but maybe their are professional disagreements among one group of researchers vs. others.

    because as some scholars say EEF, CHG, WHG is too old , more than 5 years old .............why is it mentioned, did not Reich and another I cannot recall backtrack on some of their recent findings because they relied on these EEF, WHG etc

    I do not know if Sazzini is right or wrong, but let us not stick to Laz stuff either

    Papers are started a long way out, sometimes it takes years to publish, either due to lack of funding or the reluctance of national governments ( france and italy being the worse ) to find out the truth

    BTW, just because I ask the question does not mean I support Sazzini ....................it seems the youth of today are reluctant to find details on any topic, only interested in one line summaries of topics

  4. #29
    Banned Achievements:
    10000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    10-05-19
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,261
    Points
    17,717
    Level
    40
    Points: 17,717, Level: 40
    Level completed: 59%, Points required for next Level: 333
    Overall activity: 14.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2 - BY143483
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H95a1

    Ethnic group
    North Italian
    Country: Australia



    Quote Originally Posted by Salento View Post
    a map of Ancient Italy

    ... once upon a time the Salentini were called Calabresi and the Calabresi were the Brutti, lol :)



    how accurate is it ?............the 2 tribes in apulia and the calabrian tribe all speak the same exact messapic language that originated in the northern parts of the adriatic ................maybe the calabrians here got greek influence more than their autosomal brothers in Apulia ........................see the tribe above the word Dalmatia , that is the origins of the messapic and apulian tribes

  5. #30
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Three Friends50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Community Award
    Salento's Avatar
    Join Date
    30-05-17
    Posts
    3,902
    Points
    70,105
    Level
    82
    Points: 70,105, Level: 82
    Level completed: 21%, Points required for next Level: 1,345
    Overall activity: 79.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2 - BY143483
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H12a

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by torzio View Post
    how accurate is it ?............the 2 tribes in apulia and the calabrian tribe all speak the same exact messapic language that originated in the northern parts of the adriatic ................maybe the calabrians here got greek influence more than their autosomal brothers in Apulia ........................see the tribe above the word Dalmatia , that is the origins of the messapic and apulian tribes
    ... multidimensional, the map calls the same places different names ...

  6. #31
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    10-05-19
    Posts
    541
    Points
    7,340
    Level
    25
    Points: 7,340, Level: 25
    Level completed: 58%, Points required for next Level: 210
    Overall activity: 99.1%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I2-M223
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H2A3

    Ethnic group
    Italian-Siicly-South
    Country: United States



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by torzio View Post
    because as some scholars say EEF, CHG, WHG is too old , more than 5 years old .............why is it mentioned, did not Reich and another I cannot recall backtrack on some of their recent findings because they relied on these EEF, WHG etc

    I do not know if Sazzini is right or wrong, but let us not stick to Laz stuff either

    Papers are started a long way out, sometimes it takes years to publish, either due to lack of funding or the reluctance of national governments ( france and italy being the worse ) to find out the truth

    BTW, just because I ask the question does not mean I support Sazzini ....................it seems the youth of today are reluctant to find details on any topic, only interested in one line summaries of topics
    Torzio: I took nothing in your post to say you support Sazzini one way or the other. I think your posts were neutral and post raised legitimate questions (i.e. failure to consider CHG) about what was published in the final version of Sazzini et al 2020. Research projects in STEM fields (Science, Tech, Engineering and Math) do require extensive amounts of funding more so that most Social Science fields so I understand the financial constraints for doing in this case Genetics (Science) based research. Nevertheless, I still find it puzzling why the Sazzini et al 2020 paper could not acknowledge in their discussion the findings of Raveane et al 2019 and Antonio et al 2019, even if they did not have the enough data to model it?, they still could point out that what they are modelling as Near East in the table you posted likely contains CHG type ancestry as well (given the recent findings of Raveane et al 2019 and Antonio et al 2019).


    With respect to modern Youth, yes, your description is accurate. Not sure how many young people today know how or are capable to sit down and read a book. As for the politics of modern Italy, well I can't speak directly to that but there is a line of thinking in terms of language used in some of this genetic research that has lets see if I can say it as civilly as possible, has suggestions that the authors have strong EU/NGO/open border ideology. But EU/NGO/open border are political issues so I will stop here on that front.

  7. #32
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    17,808
    Points
    388,227
    Level
    100
    Points: 388,227, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    The Reich Lab and Planck are the two premier population genetics research teams in the world. There is no comparison.

    As for WHG, EEF, EHG, steppe who in hell is saying those components are outdated????

    If you're talking about ancient dna those are the components which have to be discussed.

    Honestly, sometimes I feel like ALICE after she fell down the rabbit hole.


    Non si fa il proprio dovere perchè qualcuno ci dica grazie, lo si fa per principio, per se stessi, per la propria dignità. Oriana Fallaci

  8. #33
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    10-05-19
    Posts
    541
    Points
    7,340
    Level
    25
    Points: 7,340, Level: 25
    Level completed: 58%, Points required for next Level: 210
    Overall activity: 99.1%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I2-M223
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H2A3

    Ethnic group
    Italian-Siicly-South
    Country: United States



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    The Reich Lab and Planck are the two premier population genetics research teams in the world. There is no comparison.

    As for WHG, EEF, EHG, steppe who in hell is saying those components are outdated????

    If you're talking about ancient dna those are the components which have to be discussed.

    Honestly, sometimes I feel like ALICE after she fell down the rabbit hole.
    Angela: For clarification purposes and in the context of addressing you as moderator/advisor, my issue was clearly why didn't Sazzini et al 2020 take into account Raveane et al 2019 and Antonio et al 2019 and not do a better job of parsing out the CHG ancestry that those 2 studies documented, and thus by extension better model EEF, WHG, EHG, CHG/Iran Neolithic, etc. type admixture. So I just want to be clear where I am in this discussion and where I am not. Since the samples in this recent study included 3 Southern Regions (1 of them from Sicily) to model the Southern Italian admixture that was presented earlier in the thread (Table S1), I would have hoped that Sazzini et al 2020 would have done a better job parsing out what was in the Near East (91%) of the Major Source Ancestry in the Southern Italian samples (68% Major). What are the damn components in the 91% Near East? pardon me. Not taking into account what both Raveane et al and Antonio et al documented (Anatolian EEF, CHG and Iran Neolithic) to me was a weakness of their study and a failure on the editorial and review process of the journal that published the study

  9. #34
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran1000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    02-09-16
    Posts
    53
    Points
    3,358
    Level
    16
    Points: 3,358, Level: 16
    Level completed: 77%, Points required for next Level: 92
    Overall activity: 30.0%


    Country: Germany



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ack View Post
    These are the participants of the Portuguese big brother. Nothing particularly light or dark by Southern European standards. Lighter or darker people than usual can be brought in anywhere in Europe, but some stereotypes are suitable for some people's personal fantasies.



    I cannot say that this is the case, but some northern Italians are unable to overcome the fact that they are not genetically north of the Iberians despite centuries of Moorish political domination in Iberia. Somehow they try to compensate for the discomfort by feeding stereotypes about pigmentation as much as the Iberians and the Italians are within the usual for southern Europe and really significant changes in phenotype are from Paris upwards. Iberians, northern Italians and French have more in common than differences. The intrigue is completely meaningless.

    Unfortunately, some northern Italians are known to have this type of complex even with their closest countrymen from central or southern Italy. But I still believe that most do not have this type of complex and they know that they are not Austrians - and even if they were: it would not be any kind of pride or demerit to the point of reacting badly to any association with everything that is from the south.
    Northern Italians, the local ones may not be more Northern when going by their genotype but phenotypically they are more Northern looking than Iberians. When I visited the different Northern Italian regions I was surprised to see pretty many Germanic looking Northern Italians. Don't get me wrong I don't mistake Italians with blond hair and blue eyes for Germanic looking since many with light pigmentation still look typical Italian when going by their facial features. Hence I know what I'm talking about. However, Iberians with the real Germanic look are very rare. Besides, I remember vividly how some Spaniards/Iberians on a certain forum pretend to be closer to Celts from Britain than to other Southern Europeans. So there are Iberians that bash Italians and vise versa.
    The bottom line Italians, Iberians, Greeks are one of the most trolled people on the internet, just look at Quora.
    Furthermore, among Southern Europeans, Italians have the highest frequency of blue eyes from what I have observed from real-life experience.

    People here talk a lot about Nordicism that is not relevant in Germany or Scandinavia at all. I was staggered by the fact that many Nordicists are not even German or Swedes. My American friends told me that they have encountered plenty of Mexicans in the USA who told them that their European ancestors were all blond, blued eyed, and tall Nordic people. Geez. On another forum a Mexican user couldn't emphasize enough ho much European admixed Mexicans are and that many of them are blue-eyed and blond. The thing is that those who obsess with the Nordic look are actually neither Germans nor Scandinavians but often Southern Europeans, people from the Balkan, Eastern Europe, or even Non-whites. On the contrary in Scandinavia and Germany dark skin and dark hair are considered highly desirable while the Nordic look is viewed as boring, nothing special, and out.

  10. #35
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran
    ThirdTerm's Avatar
    Join Date
    22-03-16
    Posts
    113
    Points
    4,446
    Level
    19
    Points: 4,446, Level: 19
    Level completed: 49%, Points required for next Level: 204
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: Russian Federation



    Environmental conditions characterized by a mean value of annual solar radiation nearly double with respect to Northern Italy [89] might have played a role in the evolution of S_ITA-specific selection signatures at FZD/Wnt genes that are involved in melanogenesis (Fig. 4). In fact, being responsible for basal and ultraviolet (UV)-induced melanin production, melanocytes expressing these genes represent a frontline defense against harmful UV-B radiation. FZD genes found to have adaptively evolved in S_ITA act as receptors of Wnt protein ligands that showed comparable selection signatures and regulate the expression of the microphthalmia-associated transcription factor (MITF) [90]. By controlling pigmentation genes (e.g., TYR, TYRP1, and TYRP2), MITF is the main modulator of melanogenesis in response to environmental stimuli and was also proposed to exert an oncogenic role in several skin cancers [91]. This might explain the involvement of the identified FZD/Wnt genes under selection in the basal cell carcinoma pathway. Overall, these selective events could have mediated adaptations of S_ITA ancestors aimed at preventing skin micronutrient photodegradation and/or impairment of sweat gland-mediated thermoregulation due to UV damage [92]. Because substantial UV exposure represents the main risk factor for developing basal cell carcinoma and other types of skin malignancies, these adaptive mechanisms might have also indirectly contributed to reduce the predisposition of modern S_ITA to such diseases (Fig. 4). This hypothesis seems to be in agreement with the almost halved incidence of melanomas reported for Southern Italian regions with respect to northern ones [93].
    The environmental explanation completely overlooks the fact that the ancestors of S_ITA were ancient Romans, while the ancestors of N_ITA were a Germanic people who played a major role in the fall of the Roman Empire. In the northernmost part of Italy, the percentage of blonde hair is 20-25% because the ancestors of N_ITA settled mostly in northern Italy, and kept themselves largely apart from the Roman population. Environmental adaptations of S_ITA ancestors to prevent UV damage could not have been completed in the last 1,600 years after the sack of Rome in 410 A.D., then differentiating themselves from N_ITA ancestors based on differing values of annual solar radiation.




    So far, the Langobards are all R1b U-106. Other groups may have carried some I. Even if you add both of them together, the percentages even in Northern Italy are very low.

    As for this small population being responsible for the higher proportion of blondes in the north, I don't think that's necessarily the case, although I'm sure there was some influence. We know from ancient dna that some of the Italics were lighter haired and eyed, although not the majority, perhaps, and the Gauls certainly had a fair share of light haired and eyed people as well. The people of the northern Apennines tend to have a certain percentage of blondes and redheads, and while Gauls settled there, the Germanics did not.


    It was an oversimplification and the northern genetic influence in the
    N_ITA population is actually less than 20% (green). Both Italian population groups also share similar proportions of DNA segments (purple) with Sardinians (N_ITA, 48%; S_ITA, 43%), which may point to a complex history of admixture in northern Italy as it is shown in Figure 1.



    Fig.1 - Clustering analysis and inference of admixture proportions performed on the “high-density Euro-Mediterranean dataset”. a fineSTRUCTURE hierarchical clustering reporting population clusters defined by collapsing branches of the obtained dendrogram that split with a posterior probability lower than 80%. N_ITA formed a cluster with Iberians and continental Balkan individuals from Bulgaria and Albania (C_Balkans). b Percentages of chromosome chunks shared between Italian and Euro-Mediterranean population clusters obtained with CHROMOPAINTER. Painting profiles showed in the pie charts are color-coded according to the palette used for fineSTRUCTURE clusters. c Ancestry proportions of the Italian population clusters inferred with the GLOBETROTTER pipeline from CHROMOPAINTER outputs. For each cluster, the bar on the left represents the major source of admixture, while the bar on the right represents the minor one. For details on the different subcomponents of these admixture sources, see Additional file 1: Table S1. To infer potentially different mixing proportions of N_ITA e S_ITA groups with respect to the other identified population clusters, all Euro-Mediterranean individuals were considered as recipients, while the two Italian groups were excluded from the donors. Admixture proportions showed in the bar charts are color-coded according to the palette used for the fineSTRUCTURE clusters.
    Last edited by ThirdTerm; 24-05-20 at 03:55.
    Давайте вместе снова сделаем мир великий!

  11. #36
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    17,808
    Points
    388,227
    Level
    100
    Points: 388,227, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Palermo Trapani View Post
    Angela: For clarification purposes and in the context of addressing you as moderator/advisor, my issue was clearly why didn't Sazzini et al 2020 take into account Raveane et al 2019 and Antonio et al 2019 and not do a better job of parsing out the CHG ancestry that those 2 studies documented, and thus by extension better model EEF, WHG, EHG, CHG/Iran Neolithic, etc. type admixture. So I just want to be clear where I am in this discussion and where I am not. Since the samples in this recent study included 3 Southern Regions (1 of them from Sicily) to model the Southern Italian admixture that was presented earlier in the thread (Table S1), I would have hoped that Sazzini et al 2020 would have done a better job parsing out what was in the Near East (91%) of the Major Source Ancestry in the Southern Italian samples (68% Major). What are the damn components in the 91% Near East? pardon me. Not taking into account what both Raveane et al and Antonio et al documented (Anatolian EEF, CHG and Iran Neolithic) to me was a weakness of their study and a failure on the editorial and review process of the journal that published the study
    So I said in one of the first posts on this thread.

    This group is doing an autosomal analysis of modern Italians using other modern populations to model them. That is an essentially flawed approach, in my opinion, because the dating programs are inaccurate, and so it cannot tell you when certain ancestry arrived in location X.

    If they did wish to do that, they should at least, imo, have incorporated what we know from ancient dna. That might have led them to realize there were real problems with their analysis, and they might have made adjustments in order to get a more accurate picture.

    I was also responding to Torzio's claim that it is "outdated" to use these components when, in fact, they are essential in any analysis of ancient dna. Of course, they aren't using ancient dna, which, to circle back to the beginning, is the problem.

  12. #37
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    10-05-19
    Posts
    541
    Points
    7,340
    Level
    25
    Points: 7,340, Level: 25
    Level completed: 58%, Points required for next Level: 210
    Overall activity: 99.1%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I2-M223
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H2A3

    Ethnic group
    Italian-Siicly-South
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    So I said in one of the first posts on this thread.

    This group is doing an autosomal analysis of modern Italians using other modern populations to model them. That is an essentially flawed approach, in my opinion, because the dating programs are inaccurate, and so it cannot tell you when certain ancestry arrived in location X.

    If they did wish to do that, they should at least, imo, have incorporated what we know from ancient dna. That might have led them to realize there were real problems with their analysis, and they might have made adjustments in order to get a more accurate picture.

    I was also responding to Torzio's claim that it is "outdated" to use these components when, in fact, they are essential in any analysis of ancient dna. Of course, they aren't using ancient dna, which, to circle back to the beginning, is the problem.
    Ok thanks. I was just wanting to be clear I was in favor of using ancient components and where my position was since there were a few posts where Torzio and I were responding back and forth (all respectfully on both parts). These threads get long sometimes and it is hard to remember what was said and when. I will peel back to the first page of posts and re-read your earlier ones. And between this thread and the one on Sicily-Pre Greek colonization, my darn head is spinning trying to remember what I said since these 2 for me are sort of overlapping. Thanks again.

  13. #38
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    17,808
    Points
    388,227
    Level
    100
    Points: 388,227, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    Quote Originally Posted by ThirdTerm View Post
    The environmental explanation completely overlooks the fact that the ancestors of S_ITA were ancient Romans, while the ancestors of N_ITA were a Germanic people who played a major role in the fall of the Roman Empire. In the northernmost part of Italy, the percentage of blonde hair is 20-25% because the ancestors of N_ITA settled mostly in northern Italy, and kept themselves largely apart from the Roman population. Environmental adaptations of S_ITA ancestors to prevent UV damage could not have been completed in the last 1,600 years after the sack of Rome in 410 A.D.
    I don't know where you got this impression, but it is completely incorrect, as numerous lines of investigation show.

    First of all, any analysis of samples from Lombardia or the Veneto, and perhaps even more so, Piemonte, shows that Northern Italians are extremely high in EEF, and have a good chunk of Iran Neo as well. Yes, they have steppe as well, but at lower levels than are present in Central and northwestern Europe, and those percentages are a total of all the central European migrations into the Italian peninsula, from the Ligures and the Italics and the Veneti, then on to the Gauls of the first millennium BC, and finally, yes, the Langobards, but the Langobards are the least significant, as we know from an analysis of the y dna.

    So far, the Langobards are all R1b U-106. Other groups may have carried some I. Even if you add both of them together, the percentages even in Northern Italy are very low.

    All of this makes sense given that the Langobards numbered about 60,000 people in a peninsula of millions of people. Even if they were concentrated in the North, which they were, and if there had been some de-population, which there was, there weren't enough of them to make big changes in the gene pool. Theirs was an elite take over. There weren't enough of them even to change the language, and they couldn't impose their form of Christianity either.

    As for this small population being responsible for the higher proportion of blondes in the north, I don't think that's necessarily the case, although I'm sure there was some influence. We know from ancient dna that some of the Italics were lighter haired and eyed, although not the majority, perhaps, and the Gauls certainly had a fair share of light haired and eyed people as well. The people of the northern Apennines tend to have a certain percentage of blondes and redheads, and while Gauls settled there, the Germanics did not.

    Who the Romans were genetically is time dependent. We have the dna of the Republican Era Romans, the "founders", and they were somewhere between modern North Italians and Iberians, so not very classical Greek like, but certainly Southern European like. However, by 650 BC we have a Roman tribesmen who already showed an increase of Iran Neo lke ancestry, and by 350 BC we have one who is very much like modern Greeks from Crete.

    You might want to familiarize yourself with Raveane et al and Antonio et al.

  14. #39
    Banned Achievements:
    10000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    10-05-19
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,261
    Points
    17,717
    Level
    40
    Points: 17,717, Level: 40
    Level completed: 59%, Points required for next Level: 333
    Overall activity: 14.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2 - BY143483
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H95a1

    Ethnic group
    North Italian
    Country: Australia



    Quote Originally Posted by real expert View Post
    Northern Italians, the local ones may not be more Northern when going by their genotype but phenotypically they are more Northern looking than Iberians. When I visited the different Northern Italian regions I was surprised to see pretty many Germanic looking Northern Italians. Don't get me wrong I don't mistake Italians with blond hair and blue eyes for Germanic looking since many with light pigmentation still look typical Italian when going by their facial features. Hence I know what I'm talking about. However, Iberians with the real Germanic look are very rare. Besides, I remember vividly how some Spaniards/Iberians on a certain forum pretend to be closer to Celts from Britain than to other Southern Europeans. So there are Iberians that bash Italians and vise versa.
    The bottom line Italians, Iberians, Greeks are one of the most trolled people on the internet, just look at Quora.
    Furthermore, among Southern Europeans, Italians have the highest frequency of blue eyes from what I have observed from real-life experience.

    People here talk a lot about Nordicism that is not relevant in Germany or Scandinavia at all. I was staggered by the fact that many Nordicists are not even German or Swedes. My American friends told me that they have encountered plenty of Mexicans in the USA who told them that their European ancestors were all blond, blued eyed, and tall Nordic people. Geez. On another forum a Mexican user couldn't emphasize enough ho much European admixed Mexicans are and that many of them are blue-eyed and blond. The thing is that those who obsess with the Nordic look are actually neither Germans nor Scandinavians but often Southern Europeans, people from the Balkan, Eastern Europe, or even Non-whites. On the contrary in Scandinavia and Germany dark skin and dark hair are considered highly desirable while the Nordic look is viewed as boring, nothing special, and out.
    are you confusing the terms for North-italy ............do you mean Noric ?

    The Noric race (German: Norische Rasse) was a racial category. The term derived from Noricum, a province of the Roman Empire roughly equivalent to southern Austria and northern Slovenia. The term is not to be confused with Nordic.

    Norics were characterized by tall stature, brachycephaly, nasal convexity, long face and broad forehead. Their complexion was said to be light, and blondness combined with light eyes to be their anthropologic characteristic.[5]


    Veneti evolved with the indigenous Euganei peoples of modern Veneto and Friuli circa 1150BC , the euganei are "first cousins " of the Rhaeti
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euganei
    The Euganei are part of the Polada Culture and maybe even the Este Culture

  15. #40
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience PointsThree Friends
    Regio X's Avatar
    Join Date
    12-03-14
    Posts
    873
    Points
    18,110
    Level
    41
    Points: 18,110, Level: 41
    Level completed: 7%, Points required for next Level: 840
    Overall activity: 38.0%


    Country: Italy



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by real expert View Post
    Northern Italians, the local ones may not be more Northern when going by their genotype but phenotypically they are more Northern looking than Iberians. When I visited the different Northern Italian regions I was surprised to see pretty many Germanic looking Northern Italians. Don't get me wrong I don't mistake Italians with blond hair and blue eyes for Germanic looking since many with light pigmentation still look typical Italian when going by their facial features. Hence I know what I'm talking about. However, Iberians with the real Germanic look are very rare. Besides, I remember vividly how some Spaniards/Iberians on a certain forum pretend to be closer to Celts from Britain than to other Southern Europeans. So there are Iberians that bash Italians and vise versa.
    The bottom line Italians, Iberians, Greeks are one of the most trolled people on the internet, just look at Quora.
    Furthermore, among Southern Europeans, Italians have the highest frequency of blue eyes from what I have observed from real-life experience.
    People here talk a lot about Nordicism that is not relevant in Germany or Scandinavia at all. I was staggered by the fact that many Nordicists are not even German or Swedes. My American friends told me that they have encountered plenty of Mexicans in the USA who told them that their European ancestors were all blond, blued eyed, and tall Nordic people. Geez. On another forum a Mexican user couldn't emphasize enough ho much European admixed Mexicans are and that many of them are blue-eyed and blond. The thing is that those who obsess with the Nordic look are actually neither Germans nor Scandinavians but often Southern Europeans, people from the Balkan, Eastern Europe, or even Non-whites. On the contrary in Scandinavia and Germany dark skin and dark hair are considered highly desirable while the Nordic look is viewed as boring, nothing special, and out.
    Most people don't really care about pigmentation and other stuff such being less or more "European", thankfully. Many have just a more "technical" interest on pigmentation, or intellectual curiosity. But I agree that there're few Southern Europeans obsessed with this subject, and so are few Northern Europeans, yes; generally some immature young men, but there must be exceptions.

    Well, that said, here we go. There're certainly variations within North Italy itself in phenotype. When it comes to genotype, admixture is one perspective. There is also the actual genetic distance/Fst between populations. So, perhaps the table below helps to dissolve the "dichotomy"? It comes from the paper The Italian genome reflects the history of Europe and the Mediterranean basin. See: n.it, c.it, ibe, fra, ceu, gbr etc.



    Perhaps an explanation would be possible even under the perspective of admixture, if we consider selective process and timing. I mean, we've to keep in mind that these "light" traits were uncommon in all ancient populations, and that they become more frequent through selection (more in some areas, less in others). We associate them to certain modern populations, and that may be misleading in this case. So, I wonder if it's possible that what you observed could be explained also by the fact that the relevant "conditions" that shifted North Italians towards North (in a modern perspective) were more recent than those that shifted Iberia (beginning from Neolithic, if Bicicleur is right in saying that Iberian farmers had more WHG than Central European/North Italian farmers). It would mean that, when Steppe-rich folks arrived in Iberia to add up with farmers and WHGs, the selective process was in an earlier stage, at the same time that "later" migrations from Central Europe haven't had the same impact over Iberians than they had over North Italians, and also at the same time that selective process in Iberia itself was not that strong (as it was in Central Europe), due to geographical reasons. On the other hand, when these pops Angela just listed reached Italy, some selection has already been done. Perhaps it helps to explain it too?
    Finally, still regarding this perspective, Iberians must get extra-WHG compared to Bergamo, and fewer extra-CHG/Iran. The former component is weak in "West Asians", so it's naturally more strongly related to the North in some of these tools, even if indirectly, while the latter is shared with "West Asians", being Southern or Northern depending on the other components associated. The CHG/Iran in Steppe must be associated to North, but the extra-CHG/Iran must be Southern. That's possibly why other people such Romanians may plot South as well (if the North reference is not East Europe), compared to Iberians. Some Westerners (such S. English and N. Spanish) may even plot closer to each other than to Easterners, depending on the PCA.
    Possibly there're other components involved, of course, and not just these two.

  16. #41
    Banned Achievements:
    10000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    10-05-19
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,261
    Points
    17,717
    Level
    40
    Points: 17,717, Level: 40
    Level completed: 59%, Points required for next Level: 333
    Overall activity: 14.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2 - BY143483
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H95a1

    Ethnic group
    North Italian
    Country: Australia



    Quote Originally Posted by Regio X View Post
    Most people don't really care about pigmentation and other stuff such being less or more "European", thankfully. Many have just a more "technical" interest on pigmentation, or intellectual curiosity. But I agree that there're few Southern Europeans obsessed with this subject, and so are few Northern Europeans, yes; generally some immature young men, but there must be exceptions.
    Well, that said, here we go. There're certainly variations within North Italy itself in phenotype. When it comes to genotype, admixture is one perspective. There is also the actual genetic distance/Fst between populations. So, perhaps the table below helps to dissolve the "dichotomy"? It comes from the paper The Italian genome reflects the history of Europe and the Mediterranean basin. See: n.it, c.it, ibe, fra, ceu, gbr etc.

    Perhaps an explanation would be possible even under the perspective of admixture, if we consider selective process and timing. I mean, we've to keep in mind that these "light" traits were uncommon in all ancient populations, and that they become more frequent through selection (more in some areas, less in others). We associate them to certain modern populations, and that may be misleading in this case. So, I wonder if it's possible that what you observed could be explained also by the fact that the relevant "conditions" that shifted North Italians towards North (in a modern perspective) were more recent than those that shifted Iberia (beginning from Neolithic, if Bicicleur is right in saying that Iberian farmers had more WHG than Central European/North Italian farmers). It would mean that, when Steppe-rich folks arrived in Iberia to add up with farmers and WHGs, the selective process was in an earlier stage, at the same time that "later" migrations from Central Europe haven't had the same impact over Iberians than they had over North Italians, and also at the same time that selective process in Iberia itself was not that strong (as it was in Central Europe), due to geographical reasons. On the other hand, when these pops Angela just listed reached Italy, some selection has already been done. Perhaps it helps to explain it too?
    Finally, still regarding this perspective, Iberians must get extra-WHG compared to Bergamo, and fewer extra-CHG/Iran. The former component is weak in "West Asians", so it's naturally more strongly related to the North in some of these tools, even if indirectly, while the latter is shared with "West Asians", being Southern or Northern depending on the other components associated. The CHG/Iran in Steppe must be associated to North, but the extra-CHG/Iran must be Southern. That's possibly why other people such Romanians may plot South as well (if the North reference is not East Europe), compared to Iberians. Some Westerners (such S. English and N. Spanish) may even plot closer to each other than to Easterners, depending on the PCA.
    Possibly there're other components involved, of course, and not just these two.
    that paper was not treated well because nearly all the adriatic side italians where excluded ...................IIRC , the author wanted to point out an iberian connection with Italy, be it a non-adriatic side

  17. #42
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience PointsThree Friends
    Regio X's Avatar
    Join Date
    12-03-14
    Posts
    873
    Points
    18,110
    Level
    41
    Points: 18,110, Level: 41
    Level completed: 7%, Points required for next Level: 840
    Overall activity: 38.0%


    Country: Italy



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by torzio View Post
    that paper was not treated well because nearly all the adriatic side italians where excluded ...................IIRC , the author wanted to point out an iberian connection with Italy, be it a non-adriatic side
    Hmm... I don't know how the paper itself was treated, but I'm affraid the fact that Eastern parts of Italy were not well covered doesn't change the point, even if more coverage is generally a good thing. At the end it's an additional attempt on my side to make sense of these differences between Iberians and N. Italians when it comes to certain traits, using actual genetic distance. Se non è vero, è bene trovato. :) The paper was discussed here more deeply.
    Perhaps these genetic distances are somehow related to this "timing" I mentioned in my previous post?

    Finally, as a side note, I'd say that even some admixture tool may reinforce this notion, depending on how it was built. An example is perhaps the similarity map based on K36 (see post here), with huge fragmentation of clusters. My own results show a certain overlap between N. Italy and vicinities (likely due to natural contacts along history) - including C. Italy, obviously -, but certainly contained by the Alps, an important genetic barrier. That's also why North Italy is into Italian cline in the first place, not in another cline. :)
    By the way, interesting to notice that both the mentioned similarity map and the table of genetic distance I posted above evidence N. Italians and C. Italians are pretty close to each other, more than to Iberians, for example. It may be not in agreement with certain admixture tools. Those which shows Tuscans as the closest for N. Italians are likely right.
    ED: Angela commented some times that the major gap happens from C. Italy to S. Italy, which is also shown by these tools above.

  18. #43
    Banned Achievements:
    10000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    10-05-19
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,261
    Points
    17,717
    Level
    40
    Points: 17,717, Level: 40
    Level completed: 59%, Points required for next Level: 333
    Overall activity: 14.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2 - BY143483
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H95a1

    Ethnic group
    North Italian
    Country: Australia



    Quote Originally Posted by Regio X View Post
    Hmm... I don't know how the paper itself was treated, but I'm affraid the fact that Eastern parts of Italy were not well covered doesn't change the point, even if more coverage is generally a good thing. At the end it's an additional attempt on my side to make sense of these differences between Iberians and N. Italians when it comes to certain traits, using actual genetic distance. Se non è vero, è bene trovato. :) The paper was discussed here more deeply.
    Perhaps these genetic distances are somehow related to this "timing" I mentioned in my previous post?
    Finally, as a side note, I'd say that even some admixture tool may reinforce this notion, depending on how it was built. An example is perhaps the similarity map based on K36 (see post here), with huge fragmentation of clusters. My own results show a certain overlap between N. Italy and vicinities (likely due to natural contacts along history) - including C. Italy, obviously -, but certainly contained by the Alps, an important genetic barrier. That's also why North Italy is into Italian cline in the first place, not in another cline. :)
    By the way, interesting to notice that both the mentioned similarity map and the table of genetic distance I posted above evidence N. Italians and C. Italians are pretty close to each other, more than to Iberians, for example. It may be not in agreement with certain admixture tools. Those which shows Tuscans as the closest for N. Italians are likely right.
    ED: Angela commented some times that the major gap happens from C. Italy to S. Italy, which is also shown by these tools above.
    I cannot see it

    here is mine .................not much diversity for me



    is K36 too much to be reliable?

    the alpine people of france , italy, swiss, austrian etc are mostly all similar ............if they create an admixture of only alpine peoples, then one can at least see differences, but no, everyone wants to use nationalistic borders for admixture results...............fine, nations began after 1750 , why are we using national theories for pre 17 century results

  19. #44
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsTagger First Class50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Master Tagger
    Jovialis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-05-17
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    3,815
    Points
    156,875
    Level
    100
    Points: 156,875, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 35.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a1a2b1 (R-F1794)
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H6a1b

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Regio X View Post
    Hmm... I don't know how the paper itself was treated, but I'm affraid the fact that Eastern parts of Italy were not well covered doesn't change the point, even if more coverage is generally a good thing. At the end it's an additional attempt on my side to make sense of these differences between Iberians and N. Italians when it comes to certain traits, using actual genetic distance. Se non è vero, è bene trovato. :) The paper was discussed here more deeply.
    Perhaps these genetic distances are somehow related to this "timing" I mentioned in my previous post?

    Finally, as a side note, I'd say that even some admixture tool may reinforce this notion, depending on how it was built. An example is perhaps the similarity map based on K36 (see post here), with huge fragmentation of clusters. My own results show a certain overlap between N. Italy and vicinities (likely due to natural contacts along history) - including C. Italy, obviously -, but certainly contained by the Alps, an important genetic barrier. That's also why North Italy is into Italian cline in the first place, not in another cline. :)
    By the way, interesting to notice that both the mentioned similarity map and the table of genetic distance I posted above evidence N. Italians and C. Italians are pretty close to each other, more than to Iberians, for example. It may be not in agreement with certain admixture tools. Those which shows Tuscans as the closest for N. Italians are likely right.
    ED: Angela commented some times that the major gap happens from C. Italy to S. Italy, which is also shown by these tools above.
    Actually according to Raveane et al. 2019, Central Italians are closer to Southern Italians. However, Tuscans cluster with Northern Italians.

    A sharp north-south division in cluster distribution was detected, the separation between northern and southern areas being shifted north along the peninsula (Fig. 1B) (12). The reported structure dismissed the possibility that the Central Italian populations differentiated from the Northern and Southern Italian groups (Fig. 1A) (13). Individuals from Central Italy were, in fact, assigned mostly to the Southern Italian clusters, except for samples from Tuscany, which grouped instead with the Northern Italian clusters (Fig. 1, A and B) (12). Contrary to previous results, no outliers were detected among the Northern Italian clusters (12).

    https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/9/eaaw3492.full
    There can be no covenants between men and lions

  20. #45
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience PointsThree Friends
    Regio X's Avatar
    Join Date
    12-03-14
    Posts
    873
    Points
    18,110
    Level
    41
    Points: 18,110, Level: 41
    Level completed: 7%, Points required for next Level: 840
    Overall activity: 38.0%


    Country: Italy



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by torzio View Post
    I cannot see it

    here is mine .................not much diversity for me



    is K36 too much to be reliable?

    the alpine people of france , italy, swiss, austrian etc are mostly all similar ............if they create an admixture of only alpine peoples, then one can at least see differences, but no, everyone wants to use nationalistic borders for admixture results...............fine, nations began after 1750 , why are we using national theories for pre 17 century results
    It's just one more reference, a subsidiary tool to add up to the table, with the difference that the genetic similarity map is an "amateur" one. It'd be kind of an improved Oracle with so many clusters, but at the expense of their individual meaning.
    I'm not discussing politics. Notice that you're closer to Tuscans than to Iberians and Central Europeans according also to this tool, and so am I. The exception is my mother, but I trust more on the non-amateur tool anyway. I'd like to check her also in Dodecad.
    Additionally, you seem to share something more with the vicinities, yes. Especially with part of France, Switzerland, Austrian Tyrol/South Germany...

    Admixture and genetic distance are different things; both have their use and limitations. The former is useful to break down ancestry, for example.
    I mean, if you married an English woman and had a child with her, you'd be closer to other North Italians than to this child in ancestry, right? However, you'd be still closer to your child genetically, in absolute terms.


    Quote Originally Posted by Regio X View Post
    >=85; >= 80; >=75; >=70; >= 60; >=50. Roughly.








  21. #46
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience PointsThree Friends
    Regio X's Avatar
    Join Date
    12-03-14
    Posts
    873
    Points
    18,110
    Level
    41
    Points: 18,110, Level: 41
    Level completed: 7%, Points required for next Level: 840
    Overall activity: 38.0%


    Country: Italy



    Quote Originally Posted by Jovialis View Post
    Actually according to Raveane et al. 2019, Central Italians are closer to Southern Italians. However, Tuscans cluster with Northern Italians.
    Thanks, Jovialis. So it "more or less" corresponds to the maps above.

    I wonder if c.it means Tuscans in Fiorito et al. then. If not, who are they? (I'll check later.)

  22. #47
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    17,808
    Points
    388,227
    Level
    100
    Points: 388,227, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    Quote Originally Posted by Regio X View Post
    Most people don't really care about pigmentation and other stuff such being less or more "European", thankfully. Many have just a more "technical" interest on pigmentation, or intellectual curiosity. But I agree that there're few Southern Europeans obsessed with this subject, and so are few Northern Europeans, yes; generally some immature young men, but there must be exceptions.
    Well, that said, here we go. There're certainly variations within North Italy itself in phenotype. When it comes to genotype, admixture is one perspective. There is also the actual genetic distance/Fst between populations. So, perhaps the table below helps to dissolve the "dichotomy"? It comes from the paper The Italian genome reflects the history of Europe and the Mediterranean basin. See: n.it, c.it, ibe, fra, ceu, gbr etc.

    Perhaps an explanation would be possible even under the perspective of admixture, if we consider selective process and timing. I mean, we've to keep in mind that these "light" traits were uncommon in all ancient populations, and that they become more frequent through selection (more in some areas, less in others). We associate them to certain modern populations, and that may be misleading in this case. So, I wonder if it's possible that what you observed could be explained also by the fact that the relevant "conditions" that shifted North Italians towards North (in a modern perspective) were more recent than those that shifted Iberia (beginning from Neolithic, if Bicicleur is right in saying that Iberian farmers had more WHG than Central European/North Italian farmers). It would mean that, when Steppe-rich folks arrived in Iberia to add up with farmers and WHGs, the selective process was in an earlier stage, at the same time that "later" migrations from Central Europe haven't had the same impact over Iberians than they had over North Italians, and also at the same time that selective process in Iberia itself was not that strong (as it was in Central Europe), due to geographical reasons. On the other hand, when these pops Angela just listed reached Italy, some selection has already been done. Perhaps it helps to explain it too?
    Finally, still regarding this perspective, Iberians must get extra-WHG compared to Bergamo, and fewer extra-CHG/Iran. The former component is weak in "West Asians", so it's naturally more strongly related to the North in some of these tools, even if indirectly, while the latter is shared with "West Asians", being Southern or Northern depending on the other components associated. The CHG/Iran in Steppe must be associated to North, but the extra-CHG/Iran must be Southern. That's possibly why other people such Romanians may plot South as well (if the North reference is not East Europe), compared to Iberians. Some Westerners (such S. English and N. Spanish) may even plot closer to each other than to Easterners, depending on the PCA.
    Possibly there're other components involved, of course, and not just these two.
    It's good to be reminded that there are other tools besides Admixture and the newer statistical measures, but fst is a more "blunt" tool imo.

    It does, of course, show overall genetic similarity. My usual take away from looking at it, though, is how similar most Europeans are to one another. :)

    Be that as it may, I definitely think and have previously said that the extra WHG in Spain, which was present even in the Neolithic, and the fact they have less CHG/Iran Neo is what makes them plot slightly "north" of Italians. You can see it on any PCA.

  23. #48
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience PointsThree Friends
    Regio X's Avatar
    Join Date
    12-03-14
    Posts
    873
    Points
    18,110
    Level
    41
    Points: 18,110, Level: 41
    Level completed: 7%, Points required for next Level: 840
    Overall activity: 38.0%


    Country: Italy



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    It's good to be reminded that there are other tools besides Admixture and the newer statistical measures, but fst is a more "blunt" tool imo.

    It does, of course, show overall genetic similarity. My usual take away from looking at it, though, is how similar most Europeans are to one another. :)

    Be that as it may, I definitely think and have previously said that the extra WHG in Spain, which was present even in the Neolithic, and the fact they have less CHG/Iran Neo is what makes them plot slightly "north" of Italians. You can see it on any PCA.
    Yes, fst won't break down ancestry given a timeframe. Not its goal. That's something to other tools do. It just provides a raw genetic distance.

    Indeed, Europeans seem very similar to each other genetically. Physical traits, for example, may distract us from this fact. :)

  24. #49
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    17,808
    Points
    388,227
    Level
    100
    Points: 388,227, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    2 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Regio X View Post
    It's just one more reference, a subsidiary tool to add up to the table, with the difference that the genetic similarity map is an "amateur" one. It'd be kind of an improved Oracle with so many clusters, but at the expense of their individual meaning.
    I'm not discussing politics. Notice that you're closer to Tuscans than to Iberians and Central Europeans according also to this tool, and so am I. The exception is my mother, but I trust more on the non-amateur tool anyway. I'd like to check her also in Dodecad.
    Additionally, you seem to share something more with the vicinities, yes. Especially with part of France, Switzerland, Austrian Tyrol/South Germany...
    Admixture and genetic distance are different things; both have their use and limitations. The former is useful to break down ancestry, for example.
    I mean, if you married an English woman and had a child with her, you'd be closer to other North Italians than to this child in ancestry, right? However, you'd be still closer to your child genetically, in absolute terms.
    Yours makes it look like "Central" Italy begins in southern Toscana and goes to the border of Campania? That might be pretty accurate.

    It was Novembre et al, in first talking about genetic "breaks" in Europe, which said there was a pronounced break at the Alps, and a smaller one "just south of Rome". So, in this two part bifurcation, it's just about where the originally Campanian areas of Lazio are located?

    The difficulty with all of this is the population of Lazio itself. In relatively recent times (I don't mean post 1950) wasn't there a very large migration from the Abruzzi into Lazio? That's in addition to the incorporation of former areas of Campania.

    All that complicates our understanding of the more ancient borders.

    "Central Italy" might have become more "southern" relatively recently.

    I wish we had more samples from Umbria. That might clarify matters. Are they more like Tuscans or more like Lazio?

    The one thing that is clear is that Toscana is more related to northern Italy, and I think that increases the more north in Toscana you go. At the end, I don't think there's probably much difference between some Tuscans and some Romagnoli.

  25. #50
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    18-03-17
    Posts
    456
    Points
    3,294
    Level
    16
    Points: 3,294, Level: 16
    Level completed: 61%, Points required for next Level: 156
    Overall activity: 14.0%


    Ethnic group
    swiss,italian
    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by Palermo Trapani View Post
    With respect to modern Youth, yes, your description is accurate. Not sure how many young people today know how or are capable to sit down and read a book. As for the politics of modern Italy, well I can't speak directly to that but there is a line of thinking in terms of language used in some of this genetic research that has lets see if I can say it as civilly as possible, has suggestions that the authors have strong EU/NGO/open border ideology. But EU/NGO/open border are political issues so I will stop here on that front.
    why that? can you explain why for example the use of the term "near eastern" here is EU/NGO/open border ideology? if the standpoint is that borders should be closed because of genetic difference then i understand why you would think terminology that puts emphasis on genetic similarity could be there because of EU/NGO/open border ideology. else i see no logic behind this. and it's not even wrong terminology it's just that it's a bit broad. it might provocate some people but that's it.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •