Genomic Diversity in Italy

is this also open border ideology?

"The village of Sumte, population 102, had to take in 750 asylum seekers. Most villagers swung into action, in keeping with Germany�s strong Willkommenskultur, or �welcome culture.� But one self-described neo-Nazi on the district council told The New York Times that by allowing the influx, the German people faced �the destruction of our genetic heritage� and risked becoming �a gray mishmash.�
In fact, the German people have no unique genetic heritage to protect. They�and all other Europeans�are already a mishmash, the children of repeated ancient migrations, according to scientists who study ancient human origins.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/05/theres-no-such-thing-pure-european-or-anyone-else

or this?
Genetic tests of ancient settlers' remains show that Europe is a melting pot of bloodlines from Africa, the Middle East, and today's Russia.


https://www.nationalgeographic.com/...europeans-immigrants-genetic-testing-feature/


no it's not, it's just reality. it has nothing to do with modern politics and it mostly hits those who have certain tendencies like that nazi from Sumte.

Enough with the politics, this is genetics thread, if you want to discuss open borders, take it to an appropriate thread.

Those places have been melting pots since ancient settlers migrated from there. They have developed their own unique cultures as traditions as well, since that time. You can't use this shallow and distorted explanation as an excuse to say that people have no right to their own countries. Or to how they are allowed to govern their own countries. The same could be said for Native Americans, perhaps, since they share ANE ancestry. Why don't you lecture them, as to why they should except European colonists into their land? Perhaps you should lecture Africans, as to why they should except Europeans as well, since there was a Back to Africa migration.

Enough already.

Also, STOP accusing people of extremist positions, or I will give you an infraction, and you will be out of here for some time.
 
ok last comment just need to make clear that i do not think that people have no right for their own countries. why is what i wrote about the fact that europeans are a mishmash with lots of ancestry from near east a "shallow and distorted explanation as an excuse to say that people have no right to their own countries."?
how exactly is this tied together for you? i'll leave it with that. i just can't see what this has to do with "open borders".
 
Aichu: How about we discuss this civilly in the Immigration forum. Not here. Just send me a PM saying your available and I will stop by that forum.

Regards.
 
ok last comment just need to make clear that i do not think that people have no right for their own countries. why is what i wrote about the fact that europeans are a mishmash with lots of ancestry from near east a "shallow and distorted explanation as an excuse to say that people have no right to their own countries."?
how exactly is this tied together for you? i'll leave it with that. i just can't see what this has to do with "open borders".

The source populations that make up modern Europeans are different from the modern Middle Eastern populations, genetically, and culturally. Anatolians and Caucasian people from both the Neolithic, and Copper age, are not the same as the post-medieval Middle Easterners. But, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that either. There is indeed some marginal, more recent admixture into Europeans as well. Of course they do share a lot, but they do also have their unique differences. We are all here to learn about the nuances of human population genetics. It is incorrect to make blanket statements that imply that they are the same throughout history. Especially, if inaccurate information is being used to justify political policy. I can't allow that to happen.
 
The source populations that make up modern Europeans are different from the modern Middle Eastern populations, genetically, and culturally. Anatolians and Caucasian people from both the Neolithic, and Copper age, are not the same as the post-medieval Middle Easterners. But, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that either. There is indeed some marginal, more recent admixture into Europeans as well. Of course they do share a lot, but they do also have their unique differences. We are all here to learn about the nuances of human population genetics. It is incorrect to make blanket statements that imply that they are the same throughout history. Especially, if inaccurate information is being used to justify political policy. I can't allow that to happen.

but can't you see that the logical conclusion from you saying this would be, that you connect border politics with those "unique" ethnic/genetic differences? how else are you going to explain to me that putting emphasis on genetic similarity or mixture is used to justify political policy according to you? because it does not have a connection with politics for me or any other person who does not tie genetics with politics.
is this also political? it's from a paper in the new thread about france.
"Genomes from early European farmers have shown a clear Near Eastern/Anatolian genetic affinity with limited contribution from hunter-gatherers."
if so then they shouldn't call farmers "European" either. modern europeans are different genetically and certainly culturally.

and i heard this already so many times, anatolia, neolithic, copper age are not the same as post-medieval middle easterners. what relevance does this particular seperation have in this discussion?

i understand, when i heard from some scientific discussion that migration was always good and brought new innovations and ideas and people started to wonder why there still exists fear of migrants nowadays when migration was actually always so good then it really gets political and also stupid. but here i really just can't see the connection. we should be careful with this i read more and more from people who do not want to believe scientists anymore because they think all they do is politics.so now those were really my last words here.
 
but can't you see that the logical conclusion from you saying this would be, that you connect border politics with those "unique" ethnic/genetic differences? how else are you going to explain to me that putting emphasis on genetic similarity or mixture is used to justify political policy according to you? because it does not have a connection with politics for me or any other person who does not tie genetics with politics.
is this also political? it's from a paper in the new thread about france.
"Genomes from early European farmers have shown a clear Near Eastern/Anatolian genetic affinity with limited contribution from hunter-gatherers."
if so then they shouldn't call farmers "European" either. modern europeans are different genetically and certainly culturally.

and i heard this already so many times, anatolia, neolithic, copper age are not the same as post-medieval middle easterners. what relevance does this particular seperation have in this discussion?

i understand, when i heard from some scientific discussion that migration was always good and brought new innovations and ideas and people started to wonder why there still exists fear of migrants nowadays when migration was actually always so good then it really gets political and also stupid. but here i really just can't see the connection. we should be careful with this i read more and more from people who do not want to believe scientists anymore because they think all they do is politics.so now those were really my last words here.

Do not play dumb, you should now by now that the Neolithic Anatolians are a component that overlap with all West Eurasians. They are a component of both European, and Middle Eastern heritage. There were no concepts of Europe, or the middle east, culturally or genetically in prehistoric times. There weren't even geographical concepts for them either at that point. They weren't genetically, or culturally Middle Eastern, as we know it today, either. You can use flower and water, to both make a glue, and a loaf of bread. It doesn't mean they turn out to be the same thing.

That better be your last comment on this matter, btw.
 
but can't you see that the logical conclusion from you saying this would be, that you connect border politics with those "unique" ethnic/genetic differences? how else are you going to explain to me that putting emphasis on genetic similarity or mixture is used to justify political policy according to you? because it does not have a connection with politics for me or any other person who does not tie genetics with politics.
is this also political? it's from a paper in the new thread about france.
"Genomes from early European farmers have shown a clear Near Eastern/Anatolian genetic affinity with limited contribution from hunter-gatherers."
if so then they shouldn't call farmers "European" either. modern europeans are different genetically and certainly culturally.

and i heard this already so many times, anatolia, neolithic, copper age are not the same as post-medieval middle easterners. what relevance does this particular seperation have in this discussion?

i understand, when i heard from some scientific discussion that migration was always good and brought new innovations and ideas and people started to wonder why there still exists fear of migrants nowadays when migration was actually always so good then it really gets political and also stupid. but here i really just can't see the connection. we should be careful with this i read more and more from people who do not want to believe scientists anymore because they think all they do is politics.so now those were really my last words here.

That statement you quoted is not political. It is a purely scientific statement. And that is talking about populations that are ancient source populations, Hunter Gather vs. Farmer are not modern European ethnic groups, they are source populations for modern European ethnic groups, just with different admixture ratios.
 
N5TuS4o.jpg
that table has some strange values. for example the lowest value is between tur and lit 0.0000. table 3 here makes much more sense, here the relative gap between europe near east is also way lower: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/059311v1.supplementary-material
 
Do not play dumb, you should now by now that the Neolithic Anatolians are a component that overlap with all West Eurasians. They are a component of both European, and Middle Eastern heritage. There were no concepts of Europe, or the middle east, culturally or genetically in prehistoric times. There weren't even geographical concepts for them either at that point. They weren't genetically, or culturally Middle Eastern, as we know it today, either. You can use flower and water, to both make a glue, and a loaf of bread. It doesn't mean they turn out to be the same thing.

That better be your last comment on this matter, btw.

Completely agree, 60.000 years ago "Europeans" would have been Neandertals and Homo sapiens "Near Easterners". So what? Many ancestral groups to many modern populations lived in different places in the past. "Migrants" in the modern sense of the word practically didn't exist, because people moved as groups, as communities, clans, tribes and people, made alliances or conquests.
 
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


I didn't confuse anything. I saw North-Italians who looked like Germans, Scandinavians, and NOT Noric. Please read my comment thoroughly. I said I know the difference between Germanic looking and typical Italian looking people with light hair and eye coloring. For instance; I have seen some Greeks with blondish hair and light eyes who apart from their light pigmentation looked like regular Greeks.


These blond Sicilian men aside from their light hair and eyes have typical Italian features, especially their eyes. They don't look German.










aMg84uP.jpg





I'm from Germany I know how typical Germans look like.

Typical Germans:

6521e7fd811a27a0295b4968359bc129--oliver-bierhoff-hamburger-sv.jpg



bender_zwiliinge-1183028261_crop_600x450_600x450+88+4.jpg



Actually, some blonde Italians rather have a Slavic vibe, for instance, Trappatoni.





However; the Germanic "Barbarians" had some genetic impact on North Italians and here and there it shows up in some Italian‘s people phenotype. Besides Germans were often described as Faelid and rarely as Noric.
 
ED: Still regarding the genetic distance table, I wonder if "aos" has some issue, since it's getting too low values to other pops. It'd be interesting to see more recent tables involving these statistics (including shared IBD segments) for Euro pops.
that table has some strange values. for example the lowest value is between tur and lit 0.0000. table 3 here makes much more sense, here the relative gap between europe near east is also way lower: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/059311v1.supplementary-material
Odd values, indeed. Thanks for finding this alternative. There is another one in Raveane et al., even more recent, but I'm affraid it only compares Italians to other Euro pops (in fst and IBD), nothing more. I'd have to re-check it. As Angela said, it's good to remember sometimes that there are these alternative perspectives.
Anyway, these results for Bergamo mean that my first explanation was likely not good. Maybe the second one was better (in regards to timing and perhaps to the amount of the component that correlated more strongly to this kind of traits in certain historical context).

Completely agree, 60.000 years ago "Europeans" would have been Neandertals and Homo sapiens "Near Easterners". So what? Many ancestral groups to many modern populations lived in different places in the past. "Migrants" in the modern sense of the word practically didn't exist, because people moved as groups, as communities, clans, tribes and people, made alliances or conquests.
@Jovialis @Riverman
Plus, some of these components are too old. They evolved from more ancient components, became something else and likely kept changing till now under selective pressure etc. An example would be LP. It was pretty uncommon till "recently", and suffered a huge positive selection in North Europe, regardless of how the different components were combined.

I didn't confuse anything. I saw North-Italians who looked like Germans, Scandinavians, and NOT Noric. Please read my comment thoroughly. I said I know the difference between Germanic looking and typical Italian looking people with light hair and eye coloring. For instance; I have seen some Greeks with blondish hair and light eyes who apart from their light pigmentation looked like regular Greeks.


These blond Sicilian men aside from their light hair and eyes have typical Italian features, especially their eyes. They don't look German.










aMg84uP.jpg





I'm from Germany I know how typical Germans look like.

Typical Germans:

6521e7fd811a27a0295b4968359bc129--oliver-bierhoff-hamburger-sv.jpg



bender_zwiliinge-1183028261_crop_600x450_600x450+88+4.jpg



Actually, some blonde Italians rather have a Slavic vibe, for instance, Trappatoni.





However; the Germanic "Barbarians" had some genetic impact on North Italians and here and there it shows up in some Italian‘s people phenotype. Besides Germans were often described as Faelid and rarely as Noric.
Yes. Another example would be this internet friend from my area, full Venetian in ancestry, and completely red headed, with light eyes etc. However, if you ignore these traits specifically, she looks a typical North Italian in my opinion. Indeed, her father, who is also red headed, did a genetic test, and there's nothing different about his results, i.e., he's not too different from most of Venetians (which was expected). He just casually inherited the alleles for these traits.
 
The source populations that make up modern Europeans are different from the modern Middle Eastern populations, genetically, and culturally. Anatolians and Caucasian people from both the Neolithic, and Copper age, are not the same as the post-medieval Middle Easterners. But, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that either. There is indeed some marginal, more recent admixture into Europeans as well. Of course they do share a lot, but they do also have their unique differences. We are all here to learn about the nuances of human population genetics. It is incorrect to make blanket statements that imply that they are the same throughout history. Especially, if inaccurate information is being used to justify political policy. I can't allow that to happen.

@Regio X, Indeed

We can see now from the recent studies that have come out, that places such as the Levant, also were markedly different from other parts of the middle east. For example half of the admixture of the northern Levantine population was from the previous inhabitants, which differentiated them from the clinal-hybrid of people from Anatolia, and the Caucuses, who were the incoming population. Moreover, there was an extra layer of possibly Mesopotamian-like ancestry that arrived in the late Bronze-age. Furthermore, successive waves of south-eastern European ancestry had come by means of the sea peoples and others. Not to mention all of the subsequent population changes that occurred in the Middle Ages, with the Caliphate, and Sub-Saharan African slavery; the invasion of the Turks, in Anatolia, etc.

Thus, I confidently stand by the fact that just because there is an overlap between Anatolian, and Caucasian people in Europeans, there are marked differences with the "Near East". To suggest otherwise, completely ignores the subsequent changes that have happened, which are well documented. As I said before, we are here not to gloss over, but to understand the nuances of population genetics. Frankly, papers such as the one that this thread is based on paints a shallow and ignorant picture.
 
Not to be creepy, but who is the handsome blonde Sicilian?

I'm asking for my daughter. :)
 
Not to be creepy, but who is the handsome blonde Sicilian?

I'm asking for my daughter. :)

For a second I thought he was Guido Caprino, who played the Magistrate in the movie Last God Father and plays Inspector Mannara, the Sicilian Police Chief Inspectorr stationed in a rural town in Tuscany where he find his Deputy Commander, played by Roberta Giarusso (also from Sicily),who is not so happy about him being there (he does not know why) but obviously there is a love interest between the two that becomes known by the end of the show. But Guido has a little darker hair, although maybe it is a younger Guido Caprino. I will defer to Stuvane who in my view is the resident Eupedia expert on Italian TV shows, maybe he knows.
 
I should have known. They were probably obsessing about him over at someplace like theapricity...

Alessandro-DAvenia-credit-Marta-D%E2%80%99Avenia-240x360.jpg
Alessandro D’Avenia, holds a PhD in Classical Literature, and teaches Ancient Greek, Latin and Literature at a high school in Milan. His debut novel, Bianca come il latte, rossa come il sangue (White as Milk, Red as Blood), published by Mondadori in 2010, was translated into more than twenty languages and sold more than one million copies in Italy. A film version was released in 2012. His book, L’arte di essere fragili (The Art of Being Fragile), published by Mondadori in 2016, was number one across all genres in Italy for more than five months and has since sold more than 400,000 copies in hardback. His latest book, Ogni storia e’ una storia d’amore (Every story is a love story), published in October 2017, was also number one in the charts. Both these books became bestselling theatre shows directed by Gabriele Vacis. His five books combined have sold 2.5 million copies in Italy alone.

Strikingly handsome and all of that as well; talk about life not being fair. :)

Guido Caprino-also very handsome, and very Italian looking, but in a very different way, a more masculine way to me...what a difference hair makes...like him better with dyed black hair.


Guido_Caprino_cropped.jpg

search

search


guido_caprino.jpg
 
Angela: Yes, that is Guido Caprino. Very good actor, got to know him via MHZ Rai shows like I mentioned before. Good actor, and yes, I can see why the ladies love him. The Professor D'Avenia sort of looks like Michele Riondino (from Puglia), who played Young Montalbano.
 
Last edited:
Other example of how "details" can be a distraction from the actual ancestry is Mario Girotti. He looks North Italian, but his hair must have been painted for movies, along his career, which made him look something else for some people. Perhaps Katia Ricciarelli is another good example too.
 
^^Different eyes, I guess, see slightly different things.

Mario Girotti's mother was German, and I always thought, as Terence Hill, and still think he looks very German, whether dark haired or light haired.

closeup-of-italian-actor-terence-hill-as-the-priest-in-a-photo-on-picture-id470671120


If someone showed me picture number 1 I'd say Northern Italian. When she was older, I would say maybe Scandinavian.
Katia_Ricciarelli_1979.png


Schermata-2019-10-05-alle-08.13.13-1024x703-1-696x478.jpg


It does happen; from my father's Apennines: Giuliano Razzano. No doubt where he comes from...
Giuliano_Razzoli_Schladming_2010.jpg


Giuliano+Razzoli+Iceberg+Front+Row+Milan+Fashion+NMRCqD-Vouel.jpg


My father's first cousin:


My first cousin once removed i.e. the daughter of my first cousin, and completely Emilian. Now, while I can understand my father's cousin being mistaken for something other than Italian, to me my young cousin looks completely Italian, but Americans don't think so.
 
Last edited:
^^Different eyes, I guess, see slightly different things.

Mario Girotti's mother was German, and I always thought, as Terence Hill, and still think he looks very German, whether dark haired or light haired.

closeup-of-italian-actor-terence-hill-as-the-priest-in-a-photo-on-picture-id470671120


If someone showed me picture number 1 I'd say Northern Italian. When she was older, I would say maybe Scandinavian.
Katia_Ricciarelli_1979.png


Schermata-2019-10-05-alle-08.13.13-1024x703-1-696x478.jpg


It does happen; from my father's Apennines: Giuliano Razzano. No doubt where he comes from...
Giuliano_Razzoli_Schladming_2010.jpg


Giuliano+Razzoli+Iceberg+Front+Row+Milan+Fashion+NMRCqD-Vouel.jpg


My father's first cousin:


My first cousin once removed i.e. the daughter of my first cousin, and completely Emilian. Now, while I can understand my father's cousin being mistaken for something other than Italian, to me my young cousin looks completely Italian, but Americans don't think so.
Yeah, I was referring to the younger and "natural" version of Katia Ricciarelli. :) As for Mario, I think he took after his father. Particularly, I see more Italian than German on him. Don't you think so looking to these pictures below?

640px-Mario_Girotti_54.jpg


Film_Cerasella_1959_Mario_Girotti.JPG


Anyway I'm not great in identifying ethnicity. :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah, I was referring to the younger and "natural" version of Katia Ricciarelli. :) As for Mario, I think he took after his father. Particularly, I see more Italian than German on him. Don't you think so looking to these pictures below?

640px-Mario_Girotti_54.jpg


Film_Cerasella_1959_Mario_Girotti.JPG


Anyway I'm not great in identifying ethnicity. :)

Yes, a little bit more, but I still wouldn't have looked at him then, and said, oh yes, I definitely see the Italian in him, even with the dark Roman like hair. In old age it's the eyes, but throughout his life it's the robustness of the jaw and width of his face and maybe the not very Italian nose. Not that those features are unknown in Northern Italy; they're all over my paternal family, and they become more obvious in old age.

People do change as they age. Part of the reason I've always watched my weight is that I always had this fear that if I got heavy my face would go round or really square (yes, unfortunately I'm that vain) and I'd wind up looking like a lot of the women in my father's family, like his first cousin. We share a similar face shape, forehead, squarish jaw line, chin. My young cousin has them too, along with the long neck that runs in that part of the family. By no means did I get the more oval face of my mother, although my face is longer than that of my father's cousin. My nonna used to say I got my mother's features in her husband's face, i.e. the one I didn't like. :) Maybe that had something to do with not liking that look. :) In old age his face looked like Razzano's. In fact, quite a few of my father's male cousins looked like Razzano. OK on a man, but not my preference in a woman.

Yes, I've always been a very vain woman. It's another one of my character flaws. The nuns would tell me that when they'd see me looking in mirrors as I passed and adjusting my hair or whatever. :)
 

This thread has been viewed 30867 times.

Back
Top