Genomic Diversity in Italy

^^That sentiment seems to exist in Portugal as well, when I was in the airport in Porto, the buffoon airport officer asked us where we had stayed. We told him we were in Lisbon, and he felt the need to express how much he disliked people from that region, because of "different culture". To an outsider, the culture seemed fairly the same to me.

The guy in Porto sort of looked like that Sicilian guy in that video, actually.

In terms of phenotype, Sardinians are darkest people in Italy. Perhaps the high amount of EEF in both Sardinians and Iberians can partly explain why they look as dark, or are darker than some Southern Italians. Despite being genetically "North" of Northern Italians:

F68fKST.png


At any rate, this isn't a sociology thread, so lets get back on topic.

At no time did I assume that tanning was in any way specific to Sicilians - I even mentioned that pigment alleles are a small part of the genome. Regardless of the total genome, whether more or less south, the tanning capacity seems to exist throughout southern Europe - it would risk including all western Europe. The purpose was not to imply that Sicilians are darker - on the contrary, I reaffirmed that the issue of pigmentation is a minority in the genotype. I have been to Iberia, France, Bergamo and other Western countries and in all of them I have seen white and tanned people. I believe that the phenotypic difference between north and south of Italy is more related to the color of eyes and hair, but in terms of tanning response all south / west of Europe - I think outside the British - have. There is absolutely no demerit in that. I don't understand why some people are sensitive to the topic.


It makes no evolutionary sense to expect southern Europeans to be as pale as northern ones - regardless of whether they are in Iberia, Italy, Greece or any other southern region
 
Sicilian rapper Ensi untanned.

ygVZgAj.jpg



3MLbDU2.png

.No surprise. This is called tanning and is common throughout western Europe - regardless of whether it is in Sicily, Lombardy, France or Iberia. I think the difference between north and south of Italy is not in the color of the skin or the ability to tan, but in the color of the eyes and hair. Maybe I have been misunderstood, but there is no need to chase photos where he is not tanned to 'prove' something because at no time did I want to imply anything negative about it.
The ability to tan is useful in Western Europe and there is no reason to react sensitively to the topic. Tanning is a useful skill, not a demerit.
 
Another fact: Sardinians may have less alleles for light eyes and hair than Sicilians, but the western appearance is not limited to pigmentation and the facial features of Sardinians are very Western - unlike many Sicilians and even people from the Lazio region - Which is obviously not a demerit for Sicilians or for any population more related to the Middle East - including some Iberians who also have more 'Semitic' traits, although the EEF predominance in Iberia is much greater. Although Sicilians and other southern Italians group together with Ashkenazi Jews in autosomes, the perception of pigmentation of Ashkenazi Jews is different - many are red, blond and have an 'east' pigmentation, although the autosomal issue is different. The autosomal issue does not always effectively predict the phenotype. For this reason, it is complicated to generalize any European population based on autosomes. Probably many Sicilians have 'western' characteristics while others do not. Fortunately, diversity exists in the overwhelming majority of populations and this should never be understood as a demerit.
 
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.

bbv-concorrentes.png.opt1176x697o0%2C0s1176x697.png


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.

I have no idea what you're carrying on about. The only one posting off topic after off topic post about pigmentation is you. There's also no one here now who is comparing the pigmentation of various Southern European communities except you. Cut it out. There are sites where people do that. This isn't one of them.

As for Sardinians, you can hunt for pictures of exceptionally light ones all you want. Clearly you have never been there. They are noticeably darker not only in hair and eyes but in skin pigmentation, which is borne out by the results of snp analysis. Some of them in the interior also have a very "unique" look definitely not found in the mainland or elsewhere in Europe.

Likewise you've obviously never spent decades surrounded by Askenazim as I have. They do not, minus some exceptions, look like eastern Europeans. That's why it was so difficult for them to hide during the 30s and 40s. All I see here is the nonsense you've read on racialist sites, which is completely ungrounded in reality and scientific data.

There will be no more off topic posts on this thread by anyone.
 
I have no idea what you're carrying on about. The only one posting off topic after off topic post about pigmentation is you. There's also no one here now who is comparing the pigmentation of various Southern European communities except you. Cut it out. There are sites where people do that. This isn't one of them.

As for Sardinians, you can hunt for pictures of exceptionally light ones all you want. Clearly you have never been there. They are noticeably darker not only in hair and eyes but in skin pigmentation, which is borne out by the results of snp analysis. Some of them in the interior also have a very "unique" look definitely not found in the mainland or elsewhere in Europe.

Likewise you've obviously never spent decades surrounded by Askenazim as I have. They do not, minus some exceptions, look like eastern Europeans. That's why it was so difficult for them to hide during the 30s and 40s. All I see here is the nonsense you've read on racialist sites, which is completely ungrounded in reality and scientific data.

There will be no more off topic posts on this thread by anyone.

Just deleted it because it was off topic. I should have read the last sentence, sorry Angela.
 
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.
 
a map of Ancient Italy

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

19T6ptZ.jpg


l6jBVub.jpg
 
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
 
a map of Ancient Italy

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

19T6ptZ.jpg


l6jBVub.jpg

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
 
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 ...
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.

bbv-concorrentes.png.opt1176x697o0%2C0s1176x697.png


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.
 
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.

12915_2020_778_Fig1_HTML.png


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:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.

N5TuS4o.jpg


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.
 

This thread has been viewed 30868 times.

Back
Top