Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567
Results 151 to 175 of 175

Thread: Ancient genomes reveal structural shifts after the arrival of Steppe-related ancestry

  1. #151
    Advisor Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    20,521


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    My post number 149 is a prime example of what's going on with me with the site lately. I edited my original post extensively, as real expert's post shows, and yet it took forever to "register" so to speak.

    I guess I better write out my posts on Word, first, or something, or my trial attorney side will always be front and center. :)


    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

  2. #152
    Regular Member Hawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    11-11-19
    Location
    Honolulu
    Posts
    1,297

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-V13

    Country: Albania



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    My post number 149 is a prime example of what's going on with me with the site lately. I edited my original post extensively, as real expert's post shows, and yet it took forever to "register" so to speak.

    I guess I better write out my posts on Word, first, or something, or my trial attorney side will always be front and center. :)
    Would be good to upgrade the forum to Xenforo.

  3. #153
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    1,389


    Country: Austria



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    Why you would assume that Steppe people would wipe it out in Italy and the Balkans the way they might have done in Central and Northern Europe, I have no idea.
    My assumption is basically similar to yours and I'm not saying they did "wipe it out" or something like that at all. I said reduced, probably even drastically, not wiped out. But in any case they won't have increased it! That's that basic point and my assumption is its initial impact wasn't nearly as big as it would have to be to account for the later ancestral profile. Even when it entered the scene and even less so after the steppe-heavy migrations came down. That's why I'm assuming the increase can be largely attributed to later migration, just not fully so. We have so far:
    - No samples proving a drastic increase of Iranian before the IA in Italia.
    - No proof for the survival of these people, if they ever existed and had that impact, until historical and Imperial times.
    We're all speculating, agreed. If it would be done and over, we would discuss the implications rather than the "if at all". Its just my personal impression from the available facts that it doesn't add up to the numbers of Antiquity and modern populations. I might be wrong, yes of course, but I think the chances for my position are minimum as good up to this point.

  4. #154
    Advisor Jovialis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-05-17
    Posts
    6,779

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a1b2a2a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H6a1b7

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    My assumption is basically similar to yours and I'm not saying they did "wipe it out" or something like that at all. I said reduced, probably even drastically, not wiped out. But in any case they won't have increased it! That's that basic point and my assumption is its initial impact wasn't nearly as big as it would have to be to account for the later ancestral profile. Even when it entered the scene and even less so after the steppe-heavy migrations came down. That's why I'm assuming the increase can be largely attributed to later migration, just not fully so. We have so far:
    - No samples proving a drastic increase of Iranian before the IA in Italia.
    - No proof for the survival of these people, if they ever existed and had that impact, until historical and Imperial times.
    We're all speculating, agreed. If it would be done and over, we would discuss the implications rather than the "if at all". Its just my personal impression from the available facts that it doesn't add up to the numbers of Antiquity and modern populations. I might be wrong, yes of course, but I think the chances for my position are minimum as good up to this point.
    What do you mean if they ever existed? Of course they existed, that's why CHG exists in minoans, Mycenaeans, as well as people we see in Iron Age Italy. Why would it not happen in south Italy, where the geography and migrations patterns are conducive to such a scenario. We simply have not explored this area in that time yet.

  5. #155
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    1,389


    Country: Austria



    Quote Originally Posted by Jovialis View Post
    What do you mean if they ever existed? Of course they existed, that's why CHG exists in minoans, Mycenaeans, as well as people we see in Iron Age Italy. Why would it not happen in south Italy, where the geography and migrations patterns are conducive to such a scenario. We simply have not explored this area in that time yet.
    Sorry, bad wording. I meant if people with Iranian-CHG ancestry that high and having such a big impact on Italia ever existed. I mean that more Eastern shifted Mediterraneans existed and expanded in the Copper Age is for sure, yes.

  6. #156
    Advisor Jovialis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-05-17
    Posts
    6,779

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a1b2a2a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H6a1b7

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    Sorry, bad wording. I meant if people with Iranian-CHG ancestry that high and having such a big impact on Italia ever existed. I mean that more Eastern shifted Mediterraneans existed and expanded in the Copper Age is for sure, yes.
    I guess until we have a comprehensive amount of samples from southern Italy in the Bronze Age, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

  7. #157
    Advisor Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    20,521


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    Quote Originally Posted by Hawk View Post
    Would be good to upgrade the forum to Xenforo.
    From your lips to God's ears as my Jewish friends say. :)

  8. #158
    Advisor Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    20,521


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    My assumption is basically similar to yours and I'm not saying they did "wipe it out" or something like that at all. I said reduced, probably even drastically, not wiped out. But in any case they won't have increased it! That's that basic point and my assumption is its initial impact wasn't nearly as big as it would have to be to account for the later ancestral profile. Even when it entered the scene and even less so after the steppe-heavy migrations came down. That's why I'm assuming the increase can be largely attributed to later migration, just not fully so. We have so far:
    - No samples proving a drastic increase of Iranian before the IA in Italia.
    - No proof for the survival of these people, if they ever existed and had that impact, until historical and Imperial times.
    We're all speculating, agreed. If it would be done and over, we would discuss the implications rather than the "if at all". Its just my personal impression from the available facts that it doesn't add up to the numbers of Antiquity and modern populations. I might be wrong, yes of course, but I think the chances for my position are minimum as good up to this point.
    For the record, never have I said or even implied that CHG/Iran Neo might not have increased with Greek migration, or with some migration in the Imperial Era.

    I just think it's highly speculative to make the kind of pronouncements you've been making. You'd get thrown out of my court for that kind of reasoning. :) That's especially true in light of the fact that we don't have any ancient samples from the Southern Italian peoples before the Greeks and the Italics, nor any sign in Italy of the kind of ethnic cleansing which took place in central Europe and northwestern Europe with the arrival of the steppe admixed groups. The Latins of the Iron Age are proof of that.

  9. #159
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    1,389


    Country: Austria



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    For the record, never have I said or even implied that CHG/Iran Neo might not have increased with Greek migration, or with some migration in the Imperial Era.

    I just think it's highly speculative to make the kind of pronouncements you've been making. You'd get thrown out of my court for that kind of reasoning. :) That's especially true in light of the fact that we don't have any ancient samples from the Southern Italian peoples before the Greeks and the Italics, nor any sign in Italy of the kind of ethnic cleansing which took place in central Europe and northwestern Europe with the arrival of the steppe admixed groups. The Latins of the Iron Age are proof of that.
    Probably the Etruscan study will help out, because the Daunian results were of great importance for me coming to that judgement. Because what I just don't believe is what some people always say (not necessarily you): "The other people were hiding." In most cases, the people sampled represent the people of the respective region and ethnicity. That was the main reason for my argument, that I don't think some local highly Iranian shifted Copper Age survivors were hiding en masse somewhere. They might be there, those locals with more Iranian shifted local ancestry, but they won't change the big picture all too much - I guess.

  10. #160
    Advisor Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    20,521


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    Probably the Etruscan study will help out, because the Daunian results were of great importance for me coming to that judgement. Because what I just don't believe is what some people always say (not necessarily you): "The other people were hiding." In most cases, the people sampled represent the people of the respective region and ethnicity. That was the main reason for my argument, that I don't think some local highly Iranian shifted Copper Age survivors were hiding en masse somewhere. They might be there, those locals with more Iranian shifted local ancestry, but they won't change the big picture all too much - I guess.
    Are you assuming the Daunians were "native"?

    To my knowledge we have no Copper Age or Bronze Age samples from mainland southern Italy. Were Calabria and Basilicata and southern Campania empty of inhabitants?

    Not trying to be a smart slick; just trying to understand your reasoning.

  11. #161
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    1,389


    Country: Austria



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    Are you assuming the Daunians were "native"?
    They were native at the time of the Greek and later Roman colonisation. I mean what's native, that's always relative, because nobody and no people lived in a place forever. Humans always migrated and replaced others.

    To my knowledge we have no Copper Age or Bronze Age samples from mainland southern Italy. Were Calabria and Basilicata and southern Campania empty of inhabitants?
    The question is how much remained from those after all the migrations of the Iron and Roman Age. E.g. some could argue that Daunians actually did already incorporate some native element and this being reflected in their profile, rather then them living closely packed together, surrounded by a still existing majority of Copper Age survivors which preserve the high Iranian component until modern times.
    I know the next settlement and tribe might have looked quite different and probably being that kind of people, but I don't think they largely outnumbers the Illyrians, Italics and Greeks at the time the Romans conquered those and even less for Imperial times, when the Latifundia system, Roman Age migration pattern, including slave trade and large scale resettlements emerged. I won't say that nothing survived at all, but their total contribution won't be that big like some might imagine. That was my main argument, nothing more.
    I generally don't believe in a lot of continuity in areas in which large scale replacements and migrations being known. That's nothing I do think for Italia alone, but other places as well. Like I don't think there was one general continuity in Northern Europe from the Nordic Bronze Age to Proto-Germanics. The difference is just that largely similar people, mostly from within replaced, while in this case, in Southern Italia and Sicily, it looks more like a replacement by external, distinct people coming in and forming layer after layer, rather than general continuity which can explain the later historical and modern increased CHG-Iranian component.
    If it would be otherwise, if such a continuity would be real, from the Copper Age, that would be really exceptional, from my point of view, and being largely contradictory to the historical accounts and uniparentals. But who knows for sure at this point. I'm just writing what I think is more likely at the moment. A larger scale continuity doesn't seem feasible for me, right now.

  12. #162
    Advisor Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    20,521


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    2 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    They were native at the time of the Greek and later Roman colonisation. I mean what's native, that's always relative, because nobody and no people lived in a place forever. Humans always migrated and replaced others.



    The question is how much remained from those after all the migrations of the Iron and Roman Age. E.g. some could argue that Daunians actually did already incorporate some native element and this being reflected in their profile, rather then them living closely packed together, surrounded by a still existing majority of Copper Age survivors which preserve the high Iranian component until modern times.
    I know the next settlement and tribe might have looked quite different and probably being that kind of people, but I don't think they largely outnumbers the Illyrians, Italics and Greeks at the time the Romans conquered those and even less for Imperial times, when the Latifundia system, Roman Age migration pattern, including slave trade and large scale resettlements emerged. I won't say that nothing survived at all, but their total contribution won't be that big like some might imagine. That was my main argument, nothing more.
    I generally don't believe in a lot of continuity in areas in which large scale replacements and migrations being known. That's nothing I do think for Italia alone, but other places as well. Like I don't think there was one general continuity in Northern Europe from the Nordic Bronze Age to Proto-Germanics. The difference is just that largely similar people, mostly from within replaced, while in this case, in Southern Italia and Sicily, it looks more like a replacement by external, distinct people coming in and forming layer after layer, rather than general continuity which can explain the later historical and modern increased CHG-Iranian component.
    If it would be otherwise, if such a continuity would be real, from the Copper Age, that would be really exceptional, from my point of view, and being largely contradictory to the historical accounts and uniparentals. But who knows for sure at this point. I'm just writing what I think is more likely at the moment. A larger scale continuity doesn't seem feasible for me, right now.
    Now you're just obfuscating.I know the question. Everyone knows the question. The point is that you purport to know the answer.

    You knew very well that by native in this specific context I meant do you think the Daunians migrated to Puglia relatively recently in terms of the samples, or do you think they were a long established population in Southern Italy? It's a simple question requiring a one word answer.Then, how do you know it?

    Do we or do we not have Copper Age or Bronze Age samples from Campania or Basilicata or Calabria or even from, say, the Salento? It's a question requiring a one word answer.

    How do you know what those people were like? Or perhaps there's no answer because all those areas were empty?

    That was a bit of a rhetorical question, as there is no way you can possibly know what they were like. There's no way I can know either, and therefore I don't wildly speculate. I do know,however, that Otzi was about 20 percent or so West Asian. If that ancestry could make it all the way up to the Alps, why not to Southern Italy?

    You can't say, well, they were wiped out in Southern Italy, because that's circular reasoning.

    Btw, were you right or wrong about the Etrscans?

  13. #163
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    1,389


    Country: Austria



    I think the debate doesn't make any more sense until we get more results.

    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    Btw, were you right or wrong about the Etrscans?
    I never had a strong opinion on them, but thought about three options being the most likely for their specific component
    - North Italian Neolithic-Copper Age survivors
    - Recent Pannonian migrants
    - Aegean-East Mediterranean migrants

    What would you say?

  14. #164
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-11-19
    Posts
    143


    Country: Italy



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    They were native at the time of the Greek and later Roman colonisation. I mean what's native, that's always relative, because nobody and no people lived in a place forever. Humans always migrated and replaced others.



    The question is how much remained from those after all the migrations of the Iron and Roman Age. E.g. some could argue that Daunians actually did already incorporate some native element and this being reflected in their profile, rather then them living closely packed together, surrounded by a still existing majority of Copper Age survivors which preserve the high Iranian component until modern times.
    I know the next settlement and tribe might have looked quite different and probably being that kind of people, but I don't think they largely outnumbers the Illyrians, Italics and Greeks at the time the Romans conquered those and even less for Imperial times, when the Latifundia system, Roman Age migration pattern, including slave trade and large scale resettlements emerged. I won't say that nothing survived at all, but their total contribution won't be that big like some might imagine. That was my main argument, nothing more.
    I generally don't believe in a lot of continuity in areas in which large scale replacements and migrations being known. That's nothing I do think for Italia alone, but other places as well. Like I don't think there was one general continuity in Northern Europe from the Nordic Bronze Age to Proto-Germanics. The difference is just that largely similar people, mostly from within replaced, while in this case, in Southern Italia and Sicily, it looks more like a replacement by external, distinct people coming in and forming layer after layer, rather than general continuity which can explain the later historical and modern increased CHG-Iranian component.
    If it would be otherwise, if such a continuity would be real, from the Copper Age, that would be really exceptional, from my point of view, and being largely contradictory to the historical accounts and uniparentals. But who knows for sure at this point. I'm just writing what I think is more likely at the moment. A larger scale continuity doesn't seem feasible for me, right now.

    This is a myth that the historical accounts and the uniparentals back up a significant genetic turnover in Sicily and south Italy as a result of "Greeks and Near Eastern migrants": it ought to be breaken down into three bits because "Greek" is one category, whereas "Near Eastern" ought to be breaken down into "north east med/western Anatolian" and "south east med/Levantine" since the Levant and Anatolia never formed a single cluster. "Greeks" and "Anatolian" might have formed a cluster, since they did in the neolithic period, though according to Lazaridis 2016 by the bronze age they became distinct, and we have no idea how Anatolians in the iron age looked like (we have just two samples from this paper, https://science.sciencemag.org/conte.../6396/eaar7711 , and they may with some likelihood be settlers, and the context of burials isn't specified in the supplementary info), so let's talk about "Greek" and "Levantine".
    I hope it is clear that any "Levantine" contribution is out of the question: Pace to Principe Azzurro and many people on Anthrogenica, all the genetic studies on both modern Italians and also the Daunians (who had also modern Apulians) used consistently Iran_N/CHG, EFF and WSH (western steppe herders, a better label for pure Yamna), and a bit of WHG, without any need for extra Levant_N, thus the scenario in which a massive migration from the Levant shaped modern Italians' ancestry is out of the question (Nota Bene: the claim is not "there is not a sigle drop of Levantine", as it is hard that there isn't in other places in Europe since the millenial presence of Jews, but there is a big difference between "some drops", which often can pop up in some rare exotic uniparentals, and autosomal shift of at least a digit, which you get when there is some real folk migration [rather than a few individuals]).
    As for Greeks, I shouldn't expect any significant contribution outiside deep south Italy, that is the bulk of Magna Graecia (except Campania), so they likely contributed to the east shift (though it seems ancient Greeks too were more west than modern ones), but they can't likely be the only responsible.
    As for Anatolians, if Iron age and classical age Anatolians were like those two samples we have they can work as a proxy for the so called eas med gene flow, since they have high CHG/Iran_N and virtually zero Levantine (BA Anatolians from the southwest had 6% Levant_N, so in the IA samples that component could be overlooked as negligible), but it remains speculation and I am not aware that Anatolia poured into Italy (though many Anatolians were in italy).

    As for uniparentals, the mtDNA is largely the same, https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4425/12/5/636/htm , and it was already "(north) east med", and as for yDNA, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4005757/ , the similarities are with the south Balkans, and the minorily with the Levant (and that study had a very big obvious flaw: it didn't take into account Anatolia, and a swift check I've done has confirmed that the so-called levantine haplogroups are more common in Anatolia and/or originating from Anatolia or the Caucasus, which is in line with the literature about the region during the calcolithic.)

  15. #165
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    1,389


    Country: Austria



    Quote Originally Posted by Leopoldo Leone View Post
    This is a myth that the historical accounts and the uniparentals back up a significant genetic turnover in Sicily and south Italy as a result of "Greeks and Near Eastern migrants": it ought to be breaken down into three bits because "Greek" is one category, whereas "Near Eastern" ought to be breaken down into "north east med/western Anatolian" and "south east med/Levantine" since the Levant and Anatolia never formed a single cluster. "Greeks" and "Anatolian" might have formed a cluster, since they did in the neolithic period, though according to Lazaridis 2016 by the bronze age they became distinct, and we have no idea how Anatolians in the iron age looked like (we have just two samples from this paper, https://science.sciencemag.org/conte.../6396/eaar7711 , and they may with some likelihood be settlers, and the context of burials isn't specified in the supplementary info), so let's talk about "Greek" and "Levantine".
    I hope it is clear that any "Levantine" contribution is out of the question: Pace to Principe Azzurro and many people on Anthrogenica, all the genetic studies on both modern Italians and also the Daunians (who had also modern Apulians) used consistently Iran_N/CHG, EFF and WSH (western steppe herders, a better label for pure Yamna), and a bit of WHG, without any need for extra Levant_N, thus the scenario in which a massive migration from the Levant shaped modern Italians' ancestry is out of the question (Nota Bene: the claim is not "there is not a sigle drop of Levantine", as it is hard that there isn't in other places in Europe since the millenial presence of Jews, but there is a big difference between "some drops", which often can pop up in some rare exotic uniparentals, and autosomal shift of at least a digit, which you get when there is some real folk migration [rather than a few individuals]).
    As for Greeks, I shouldn't expect any significant contribution outiside deep south Italy, that is the bulk of Magna Graecia (except Campania), so they likely contributed to the east shift (though it seems ancient Greeks too were more west than modern ones), but they can't likely be the only responsible.
    As for Anatolians, if Iron age and classical age Anatolians were like those two samples we have they can work as a proxy for the so called eas med gene flow, since they have high CHG/Iran_N and virtually zero Levantine (BA Anatolians from the southwest had 6% Levant_N, so in the IA samples that component could be overlooked as negligible), but it remains speculation and I am not aware that Anatolia poured into Italy (though many Anatolians were in italy).

    As for uniparentals, the mtDNA is largely the same, https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4425/12/5/636/htm , and it was already "(north) east med", and as for yDNA, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4005757/ , the similarities are with the south Balkans, and the minorily with the Levant (and that study had a very big obvious flaw: it didn't take into account Anatolia, and a swift check I've done has confirmed that the so-called levantine haplogroups are more common in Anatolia and/or originating from Anatolia or the Caucasus, which is in line with the literature about the region during the calcolithic.)
    Have you already looked at the new samples from the Etruscan study? Especially the VEN samples are shifted towards the South East. Agamemnon from Anthrogenica wrote:
    VEN however is undoubtedly South Italian, quite possibly Campanian, and overlaps almost completely with present-day South Italians (Campanians, Calabrians, Basilicatans, Sicilians) as well as Ashkenazi Jews and Cretans:
    The majority clusters with Imperial Roman. Will be interesting to get the archaeological context and dates for these samples of which some seem to be Greek, others Jewish and some might represent locals or they are a complex Imperial mixture of these and other more Eastern populations. I think these samples might be of interest for the debate.

    Map from Ph2ter, Anthrogenica:
    https://imgur.com/aPlBHYY

    https://anthrogenica.com/showthread....l=1#post791867
    https://imgur.com/aPlBHYY

  16. #166
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-11-19
    Posts
    143


    Country: Italy



    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    Have you already looked at the new samples from the Etruscan study? Especially the VEN samples are shifted towards the South East. Agamemnon from Anthrogenica wrote:


    The majority clusters with Imperial Roman. Will be interesting to get the archaeological context and dates for these samples of which some seem to be Greek, others Jewish and some might represent locals or they are a complex Imperial mixture of these and other more Eastern populations. I think these samples might be of interest for the debate.

    Map from Ph2ter, Anthrogenica:
    https://imgur.com/aPlBHYY

    https://anthrogenica.com/showthread....l=1#post791867
    https://imgur.com/aPlBHYY
    As usual, whatever G25 spits out is 100% true despite the fact that virtually all the genetic literature has debunked such laughworthy histories: it is quite spectacularly a circular reasoning to argue that they are "100% imperial romans" because they cluster with south Italians, despite the fact that it was a minority of imperial roman samples that clustered with modern Italians. and hence south Italians have "near eastern admixture" because the imperial Romans had it (though "imperial roman" as a real genetic profile linked to a pop instead of an average likely makes as much sense as "21th century american").
    G25 south Italian samples look tremendously wrong compared to what all the literature about Italians show.
    Last but not least, the VEN samples are "south east" shifted compared to the other samples if you mean "towards south Italy and Greece", but in the PCA it is up-right shifted, and a near eastern gene flow would have made them down-right shifted.
    I wonder why there is such a nonsensical obsession with phantasmagorica massive repopulations of Italy with "oriental blood", which is not something supported or even hinted at by the modern research but just dusted off theories from the beginning of the 20th century.

  17. #167
    Regular Member Archetype0ne's Avatar
    Join Date
    11-06-18
    Posts
    1,275

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    J2b2-L283/J-Y197198

    Country: Albania



    Quote Originally Posted by Leopoldo Leone View Post
    As usual, whatever G25 spits out is 100% true despite the fact that virtually all the genetic literature has debunked such laughworthy histories: it is quite spectacularly a circular reasoning to argue that they are "100% imperial romans" because they cluster with south Italians, despite the fact that it was a minority of imperial roman samples that clustered with modern Italians. and hence south Italians have "near eastern admixture" because the imperial Romans had it (though "imperial roman" as a real genetic profile linked to a pop instead of an average likely makes as much sense as "21th century american").
    G25 south Italian samples look tremendously wrong compared to what all the literature about Italians show.
    Last but not least, the VEN samples are "south east" shifted compared to the other samples if you mean "towards south Italy and Greece", but in the PCA it is up-right shifted, and a near eastern gene flow would have made them down-right shifted.
    I wonder why there is such a nonsensical obsession with phantasmagorica massive repopulations of Italy with "oriental blood", which is not something supported or even hinted at by the modern research but just dusted off theories from the beginning of the 20th century.
    I concur.

    This East Med continuum seems all but confirmed.

    Personally I find G25 to confirm what you are implying. Its not the model at fault, its peoples interpretations that might be lacking.

    Plus. You do not Levantine or North African to pull ancient south Italians where they are today (sure there is some traces of it but not the major factor), an East Med shift should be enough to do that.
    “Man cannot live without a permanent trust in something indestructible in himself, and at the same time that indestructible something as well as his trust in it may remain permanently concealed from him.”

    Franz Kafka

  18. #168
    Advisor Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    20,521


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    2 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    I think the debate doesn't make any more sense until we get more results.



    I never had a strong opinion on them, but thought about three options being the most likely for their specific component
    - North Italian Neolithic-Copper Age survivors
    - Recent Pannonian migrants
    - Aegean-East Mediterranean migrants

    What would you say?
    For almost ten years I said that, given the archaeology and history of the Etruscans, it was likely that Herodotus was wrong, and that the other historians of the period were correct. I maintained that belief in the face of near universal often hysterical attacks (except for Pax and then Jovialis) by people who were SURE I was wrong, based not only on Herodutus, and without at all understanding the nature of history writing in that era, and their "modeling".

    I also maintained for almost the same period of time that the Mycenaeans were most probably NOT going to be blonde, blue eyed Corded Ware warriors from the steppe, that contrary to nonsense written everywhere, it was Neolithic farmers who brought cattle to Europe, not the steppe migrations, that the steppe people probably were not lactose tolerant, that metal working began and continued In a nexus between the Near East and the Balkans, including the production of Bronze, and that people like Corded Ware arrived with virtually no metallurgy, certainly not metal weapons, and with carts pulled overwhelmingly by oxen. I could go on and on.

    Having taken a lot of pre-history and archaeology courses and continuing to read extensively in those subjects to stay abreast of new discoveries can be very helpful, that and training in being as objective as possible about the data.

    Ed. For what it's worth, , there are contemporary accounts about the presence of a lot of Greeks in Etruria,

  19. #169
    Moderator Pax Augusta's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-06-14
    Location
    Ara Pacis
    Posts
    1,582


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: Italy



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    Have you already looked at the new samples from the Etruscan study? Especially the VEN samples are shifted towards the South East. Agamemnon from Anthrogenica wrote:


    The majority clusters with Imperial Roman. Will be interesting to get the archaeological context and dates for these samples of which some seem to be Greek, others Jewish and some might represent locals or they are a complex Imperial mixture of these and other more Eastern populations. I think these samples might be of interest for the debate.

    Map from Ph2ter, Anthrogenica:
    https://imgur.com/aPlBHYY

    https://anthrogenica.com/showthread....l=1#post791867
    https://imgur.com/aPlBHYY

    The Italian breakdown is incomplete on G25 (only 1 Ligurian, Emilia-Romagna completely missing...). Ph2ter is a good user but these maps reflect the problems the G25 has.

  20. #170
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    1,389


    Country: Austria



    Quote Originally Posted by Archetype0ne View Post
    I concur.

    This East Med continuum seems all but confirmed.

    Personally I find G25 to confirm what you are implying. Its not the model at fault, its peoples interpretations that might be lacking.

    Plus. You do not Levantine or North African to pull ancient south Italians where they are today (sure there is some traces of it but not the major factor), an East Med shift should be enough to do that.
    Basically that's about the proportions. You can pull over either by having a near complete replacement with Greeks, by having a huge chunk of Anatolians or just a minor Levantine-Near Eastern. They all will pull you to an at least similar spot. If, what's the most likely scenario for me, all these interpretations are right the same time, because we deal with layers from Copper Age to Medieval, which pulled towards the South East in comparison to the Italic samples, it gets more complicated and we should consider the uniparentals as well.
    That's the main reason I'm looking more carefully on those VEN, because one seems to be E-L618+ and I want to know his context.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pax Augusta View Post
    The Italian breakdown is incomplete on G25 (only 1 Ligurian, Emilia-Romagna completely missing...). Ph2ter is a good user but these maps reflect the problems the G25 has.
    The raw data is out there, I'm very curious and would like to take a look at any other easy to interprete analysis.

    Probably the paper adds something new and I hope it gets out soon.

  21. #171
    Advisor Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    20,521


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    I find it amazing that people still put faith in G25 when Daidski, who created it, said there are problems with it, including problems with the samples.

    Of course, I and others had been saying that for years, to deaf ears.

    I'd also point out that the authors of the Daunians paper tried to model with Levant, and it failed. What novel explanation have the usual suspects come up with to explain that away?

  22. #172
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    1,389


    Country: Austria



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    I find it amazing that people still put faith in G25 when Daidski, who created it, said there are problems with it, including problems with the samples.

    Of course, I and others had been saying that for years, to deaf ears.
    I tried it with known samples and its still imho the best out there. I'm not claiming its perfect, but I simply know no better custom, easy to use tool out there. The intuitive way with which you can model samples down to the right sources is amazing and the results can look better than those from some ethnicity estimated the big companies deliver.

    I'd also point out that the authors of the Daunians paper tried to model with Levant, and it failed. What novel explanation have the usual suspects come up with to explain that away?
    The Daunians are supposed to be Adriatic Illyrians before the Celts or Roman colonisation. They might have mixed with locals in Southern Italia though. A big chunk of Levantine would have come as a suprise.

  23. #173
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-11-19
    Posts
    143


    Country: Italy



    To be precise the authors used Yoruba as a proxy for Levantine and North Africa influences, and given the wording ("compared to the contemporary Roman", which suggests to me that it isn't measuring real yoruba but just "african affinities")
    Republicans, I do think it has a relative utility: maybe it isn't the best test, but it does tell something for North Africa and the south Levant at least; they used also the two medieval Apulians, and they too were negative, so despite their position in the PCA I do not think that Lucera has anything to do.

    Pag 10 from the paper, last paragraph in the section "the pan-mediterranean genetic landscape of Iron Age Apulia".
    We also investigated whether the PCA scattering was due to varying African or Levantine
    contributions with f4(Rome Republican, IAA, Levant_N/YRI, Mbuti) and tried the same on
    Medieval ancient Apulians (ORD010 and SGR001). However, none of the tested ancient Apulians
    shows a significant excess of YRI ancestry when compared to the contemporary Roman
    Republicans, even though ORD014, SAL007 and SAL011 show negative f4 values with a Z-score
    between 2 and 3 (FigureS8B).

  24. #174
    Regular Member kingjohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    05-09-16
    Posts
    1,547

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    Rare e-fgc7391
    MtDNA haplogroup
    h3ap

    Country: Uruguay



    Genos Historia [email protected], Arza,

    Looks like this Bronze age, Eneolithic DNA in Italy is available.
    Seguin-Orland 2021
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...60982221005352

    The accession number for the DNA sequences reported in this paper is ENA:PRJEB37660 (https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/data/view/PRJEB37660). The data are also available through the data depository of the EBC (http://evolbio.ut.ee).
    ancestery :
    mostly western jewish here is the overlapp with south europe[U]

    "Know where you came from and where you are going."

    Direct paternal line : mizrahi from damascus

  25. #175
    Regular Member Salento's Avatar
    Join Date
    30-05-17
    Posts
    5,296

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2 - SK1480
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H12a

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    3 members found this post helpful.
    Unless I missed it, I don't see around La Sassa utigLSC005A1_013 and Broion utigBRC001_023 coordinates.
    So just in case I'm going to add them to the rest of the Dodecad K12b samples.

    (I had issues with the utigBRC001_023 .bam, ... used fastq )

    Dod K12b (credit to Jovialis, ... S) :

    Code:
    utigBRC001_023,0,0,3.47,0,54.97,4.94,0,0.75,9.95,0,24.98,0.94
    utigBRC002,0.87,0,1.36,0,45.47,25.27,2.32,0,4.39,0,18.99,1.33
    utigBRC003,1.48,0,2.35,1.33,46.70,24.27,0,0,5.74,0,17.40,0.74
    utigBRC007_019,3.5,0,1.75,0.58,48.28,18.96,0,0,9.11,0.52,16.2,1.1
    utigBRC010_018,0,0,5.13,0.5,47.79,19.51,0,0,7.86,0,18.69,0.51
    utigBRC011,0,0,0,0,37.8,0,0,0,42.9,0,19.29,0
    utigBRC012,0,15.45,0,0,40.8,0,0,0,43.74,0,0,0
    utigBRC013,0,0,6.28,0,57.75,0,0,0,6.97,0,29,0
    utigBRC022,0,0,0,0.94,62.87,3.14,0,0,10.14,0,22.91,0
    utigBRC024,0,0,0,0,52.32,30.37,0,5.35,0,0,10.84,1.12
    utigGCP002A1,2.18,0,3.15,3.26,44.5,29.77,0,0,5.27,0,11.87,0
    utigGCP003A1,7.58,1.55,0.86,0,49.29,22.95,0,0,4.32,0,13.45,0
    utigGCP004A1,22.15,0,0,0,37.5,23.7,6.64,0,10.01,0,0,0
    utigGLR001A1,0,1.77,4.40,0,58.27,5.15,0,0,11.05,0.22,17.72,1.41
    utigGLR002A1,0,0,6.65,0,63.81,1.89,0,0,5.79,0,21.86,0
    utigGLR003B1,0,0,9.49,4.97,65.66,0,0,0,0,0,17.94,1.93
    utigLSC002_004,0,0,0,0,62.94,2.45,0,0,6.28,0,26.23,2.11
    utigLSC005A1_013,0,0,2.64,1.84,57.50,6.67,0,0,9.34,0,21.45,0.55
    utigLSC007A1,0,0,0,0,95.95,0,0,0.6,3.45,0,0,0
    utigLSC011A1,0,0,8.94,0,53.32,7.47,0,0,14.31,0,15.96,0
    utigLSC012A1,0,0,0,0,97.48,0,0,0,0,2.52,0,0
    Distance to: utigBRC001_023
    4.62720218 Sardinian
    20.45580847 French_Corsica
    25.64014821 Spanish_Asturias
    25.66368446 Italian_Tuscany
    25.74127036 Italian_Liguria

    Distance to: utigLSC005A1_013
    3.33318166 Sardinian
    21.89993151 French_Corsica
    23.35002998 Spanish_Asturias
    24.18018610 Spanish_Andalusia
    24.36773892 Spanish_Aragon


    Distance to: utigBRC001_023
    3.41580152 SX29_Switzerland_LN
    3.99321925 SX30_Switzerland_LN
    4.07586801 I3122_Sicily_EBA_Buffa_Cave_II
    4.11038928 I4063_Sicily_MN_Stretto_Partanna
    4.52833303 ZBC_Pinarbasi_Epipalaeolithic

    Distance to: utigLSC005A1_013
    4.02572975 SX30_Switzerland_LN
    4.20146403 I10365_Sardinia_BA_Seulo
    4.23491440 R104_Late_Antiquity_Crypta_Balbi
    4.24572726 I3122_Sicily_EBA_Buffa_Cave_II
    4.52582589 R4_Chalcolithic_Grotta_Continenza


    utigBRC001_023 and utigLSC005A1_013 Dod Globe 13:
    Code:
    utigBRC001_023_Dod_Globe13,0,0,2.25,0,13.15,0,60.51,0.53,0,2.83,20.72,0,0
    utigLSC005A1_013_Dod_Globe13,0,0.33,1.14,1.07,12.72,0,59.26,0,0,3.45,22.03,0,0
    Last edited by Salento; 16-09-21 at 07:35.

Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567

Posting Permissions

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