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

Thanks guys.

So KingJohn, "Finally, in a five-way model with Iran Neolithic and Moroccan Neolithic samples added as sources, neither source is inferred to contribute ancestry during the Middle Neolithic to Nuragic (point estimates are statistically indistinguishable from zero, Supp. Fig. 14)."

If you have read the L283 speculative theory thread I started some months ago. What I was trying to test just now is, what if the L283 Nuragics reached Sardinia before IE expansions. And what if the theory of CHG origin of L283 was correct, and some CHG group of L283 somehow ended in Sardinia before the IE admixture event. Bu the facts based on what I quoted from your response seem to deny it.

So Nuragics will keep being a massive mystery I guess.
Just as I found further evidence, for L283 possibly having been the CHG component in Yamnaya.

"Ancient J-M410, specifically subclade J-Y12379*, has been found, in a mesolithic context, in a tooth from the Kotias Klde Cave in western Georgia dating 9.529-9.895 cal. BP.[13] This sample has been assigned to the Caucasus hunter-gatherers (CHG) autosomal component.[14] J-M410, more specifically its subclade J-PF5008, has also been found in a mesolithic sample from the Hotu and Kamarband Caves located in Mazandaran Province of Iran, dating back to 9,100-8,600 B.C.E (approximately 11,000 ybp).[15] Both samples belong to the Trialetian Culture. It is likely that J2 men had settled over most of Anatolia, the South Caucasus and Iran by the end of the Last Glaciation 12,000 years ago."

^It should be easy to see what I was thinking when formulating the hypothesis. Since L283 was formed 9.5kya around the same area this upstream J2 was found, and since this J2 (albeit M410) was found to be a CHG population, if L283 and this CHG group, living together around the same period, around the same area were indeed similar autosomally and culturally... Maybe maybe, if the Nuragics could by some stroke of luck ended up directly in Sardinia from such a soruce population, way before they intermixed with IE peoples, finding any CHG component in their autosomal makeup would be circumstantial evidence, and in the opposite case falsifying evidence for such a theory. But now I am very confused and have no idea how to even go about this. Need to untangle my brain.
 
But wait. It says no Iran Neo... But nothing about CHG. They did not even test CHG in their model it seems?
So this still might need to be falsified or verified as a hypothesis.
 
Another paper on ancient Sardinians:
Despite evidence of extraordinary ancestry continuity inSardinia from the Neolithic through the Bronze Age, there are twonotable outliers.The most surprising is Sardinia_Chalcolithic15940 from the siteof Anghelu Ruju, for whom we obtained a radiocarbon date of 2345–2146 cal. bc from the same bone sample that we analysed for DNA.We modelled this individual as 22.7±2.4% Anatolia_Neolithic and77.3±2.4% Morocco_EN (P=0.321). This individual is similar inancestry composition to the approximately contemporary Iberianindividual I4246 from the site of Camino de las Yeseras, radiocarbon dated to 2473–2030 cal. bc, who also had North-Africanrelated ancestry as well as the same mtDNA haplogroup M1a1b1and Y-chromosome haplogroup E1b1b1, which are both typical ofNorth Africans25 (Supplementary Table 14). The finding of Africanto-European gene flow in both individuals shows that such movement was widespread across the Mediterranean long before theclassical period when such gene flow became intensive and theancestries had a larger demographic impact.The second outlier is Sardinia_BA10365 (1643–1263 cal. bc;Fig. 2b), whom we fit as a mixture of a local Sardinian source anda second source carrying eastern Mediterranean-related (such asMycenaean or Jordan_EBA) or steppe (Italy_Bell_Beaker or France_Bell_Beaker; Supplementary Table 23) ancestry. Uniparental markeranalyses provided additional hints that the material culture exchangebetween Sardinians and the eastern Mediterranean was accompanied by some movement of people74. Sardinia_Chalcolithic15943from Anghelu Ruju carried a rare U1a mitochondrial haplogroup,known from ancient individuals from the Early Bronze Age Balkansand western Asia51,54,62 (Supplementary Data 1). Sardinia_BA10553carried Y-chromosome haplogroup J2b2a (Supplementary Data 1),which today occurs at highest frequencies in the Balkans and theMiddle East75 and which was nearly unique to these regions duringthe Bronze Age and earlier40,44,54,76.The earliest definitive evidence of steppe and Iranian-relatedancestries in Sardinia comes from two Iron Age individuals—Sardinia_IA16163 (762–434 cal. bc), with 22.5±3.6% Yamnayarelated ancestry, and Sardinia_IA10366 (391–209 cal. bc), with12.7±3.5% Iran_Ganj_Dareh_Neolithic-related ancestry (Fig. 4,Supplementary Tables 14 and 24, Supplementary Information).The qpAdm models fit even when Bronze Age Sardinians areincluded in the outgroups, consistent with the hypothesis that theseindividuals, similar to the Phoenician from Ibiza in the BalearicIslands, had little ancestry from preceding local peoples. Iranianrelated ancestry was even higher in at least some individuals inLate Antiquity, with the Sardinia_LateAntiquity cluster harbouring29.3±4.1% Iran_Ganj_Dareh_Neolithic-related ancestry (P=0.009for rejection of the alternative model that attempts to modelancestry as derived from the Yamnaya; Supplementary Table 14).Sardinia_LateAntiquity is consistent with being a clade with Ibiza_Phoenician (P=0.238) as would be expected if this ancestry beganto be introduced with the Phoenicians77 (Supplementary Table 25).Although we do not model Sardinia_EarlyMedieval owing to hislimited SNP coverage, his Y-chromosome haplogroup, E1b1b1b2,belongs to the same branch (E1b1b) as Sardinia_Chalcolithic15940and Hellenistic-period Egyptians48, consistent with a source in theeastern Mediterranean. Taken together, these results show that thefive most recent Sardinians in our time series—from the Iron Age(n=2), Late Antiquity (n=2) and Early Medieval period (n=1)—harboured minimal ancestry from Bronze Age, Chalcolithicor Neolithic Sardinians. All five individuals were from coastalsites, suggesting immigration from groups outside of Sardinia.Unsampled regions of Sardinia (possibly on the coast and almostcertainly in the interior) probably retained high proportions ofancestry from pre-Iron-Age Sardinians in the Iron Age and later,as pre-Iron-Age Sardinians remain the single largest contributor tomodern Sardinians (see below).

https://reich.hms.harvard.edu/sites/reich.hms.harvard.edu/files/inline-files/s41559-020-1102-0.pdf
 
^^Of course not.


You can find the percentages for blue eyes by country at the link below. At 57% the Irish are far more blue eyed than the people of Germany and Belgium, as just one example.


https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/countries-with-the-most-blue-eyed-people.html

Yet, only 38% of the Irish have blonde hair.

View attachment 12735

I'm sure you can see the disconnect. I think it's fair to say that the most common Irish phenotype is brown hair and blue eyes, and as someone who has spent the majority of my life around Irish people, I can say that quite often the hair is very dark brown.

At the same time, they have the fairest skin in Europe, with most people of Irish descent never really tanning, just burning, while Northeast Europeans and Scandinavians do.

Blue eyes were present in dark haired and relatively dark skinned WHG. Somewhere in far northeastern Europe the blonde hair gene seems to have arisen to a very high frequency. That's where there are the most people with blonde hair and blue eyes, but it needn't and often isn't the case in other parts of Europe.

This isn't to say, of course, that the blondest countries don't usually have very high percentages of blue eyes, because they do, but those countries are precisely in the area where the people who possessed those alleles admixed, not necessarily because the two sets of alleles are linked genetically and pass as a unit, because it's clear they don't.

Even very fair skin doesn't pass linked with light eyes and hair. I'm a perfect example. I have extremely dark hair and eyes and extremely fair skin; it's a combination more often seen in the British Isles, but, well, not always.

I believe if you look back at the data for the first Bell Beakers who arrived in Britain, brown hair and brown eyes appear, and brown hair and blue eyes, with blonde hair and blue eyes being the least common. I also think it's interesting that the blonde hair/blue eye combination is more common in the area settled by the Danes and where the Anglo-Saxon ancestry is the most frequent, not in the rest of England. Indeed, the southwest and the border areas are darker altogether, which is why I always thought the people of Appalachia, where they settled, were noticeably different in ***mentation from the people in, say, New England, settled by people from eastern England.

I have to say I disagree here.
Statistically, everywhere (everywhere!) the connexion between blue eyes and blond hairs is evident. The better way to study it is to take very mixed countries concerning pigmentation. Exceptions exist, but as a whole, blue eyes are more common with blond hair and brown eyes with dark brown-blackish hair, even in mixed regions. I think after crossings, crossing-over occurred explaining the more confuse situation among the middle coloured (brown of every sort) haired people. It's true blue eyes are VERY more common among dark haired people than brown eyes among light haired people (seldom): here I pay you tribute: some of our blue or very light eyes are inherited from a dark haired group of ancestors; and yes, the Atlantic margins show it very clearly, Irish people heading them; some corners of Balkans too with less striking%'s. But it seems that the most of light hair come coupled with light eyes. It has been confirmed by studies in Scandinavia, focusing on correlations. BTW the lighter hues of irish people skins (as a whole) interrogate us about the skin pigmentation of Western HG's: some weak but cumulative effect of their own supposed lightening mutations?
&: surely I told this already. But these maps are inaccurate, not reflecting the respective "hyerarchy" between regions even by taking their criteria.
Ireland show between 12% to 22% of blond/blondish hair (rather golden very light brown), the average being 15/16% in Eire and 19/20% in Northern Ireland (were Catholics are darker), when the lighter regions of England and Scotland score around 38/40%. No country or region is over 70% of blond/blondish, and Danes are the lighter ones as an average along Finns of Finnland (around 65%), lighter than Norwegians. (Danes of old Europe before the 1970's).
Everyone may take this as he want.
 
The North African outlier could be a Ivory merchant

Inviato dal mio POT-LX1T utilizzando Tapatalk
 
Not really. This study only has two Bronze Age Y-DNA samples (both R1b-P312, one U152>L2>DF90 and the other one apparently U152 based on the SNP calls). Hardly representative. We would need over 100 samples to get a better idea of whether E-V13 was found among BA and IA Italics.

If you remember what I wrote in my E-V13 history several years ago, I explained that E-V13 probably came to Italy in 3 waves:

1) Italic invasion

2) Greek immigration

3) Ostrogoths (who had absorbed Balkans people before settling in Italy)

Rather than Italic proper, I would look out for the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon, Hallstatt and Thraco-Illyrian migrations (only those influenced by Eastern Urnfield got it at higher frequency), including soldiers and slave trade. I actually think that even the Celts might have brought more E-V13 than the Italics, because they got more of it in the Iron Age, whereas Italics might have entered from an Urnfield branch which was not heavily influenced by the South Eastern Urnfielders of the Channelled/Fluted Ware groups, which were the primary carriers of E-V13 in the transitional phase (1.200-1.100 BC in particular).

Greek, Germanic, even Slavic and of course Albanian migrations played their role as well, because of all of these carried at least some E-V13 when coming on Italian territory.

E-V13 is therefore a good marker, in all likelihood, for post-Italic paternal migrations from CE and SEE to Italia, together with others like R-U106, I1, R1a etc.

Its possible that already with the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon and Hallstatt E-V13 came especially to Northern Italia:

Thraco-Cimmerian horizon:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thraco-Cimmerian

Hallstatt related cultures:
https://live.staticflickr.com/331/19533839060_e7fd3fb6fa_b.jpg

To Southern Italia most likely later, earliest with Illyrians which were more influenced by Eastern Urnfielders/Channelled Ware, but primarily with Greek colonisation and later migrants (slaves primarily, but also workers, soldiers, merchants, and large waves of refugees from the Balkan when the Roman-Byzantine control got lost).
The majority looks older, so probably being Greek-related, because Greeks, especially Northern Greeks and Dorians, being more heavily influenced by the Channelled Ware/Fluted ware people than some coastal Illyrians.
 
I have to say I disagree here.
Statistically, everywhere (everywhere!) the connexion between blue eyes and blond hairs is evident. The better way to study it is to take very mixed countries concerning pigmentation. Exceptions exist, but as a whole, blue eyes are more common with blond hair and brown eyes with dark brown-blackish hair, even in mixed regions. I think after crossings, crossing-over occurred explaining the more confuse situation among the middle coloured (brown of every sort) haired people. It's true blue eyes are VERY more common among dark haired people than brown eyes among light haired people (seldom): here I pay you tribute: some of our blue or very light eyes are inherited from a dark haired group of ancestors; and yes, the Atlantic margins show it very clearly, Irish people heading them; some corners of Balkans too with less striking%'s. But it seems that the most of light hair come coupled with light eyes. It has been confirmed by studies in Scandinavia, focusing on correlations. BTW the lighter hues of irish people skins (as a whole) interrogate us about the skin pigmentation of Western HG's: some weak but cumulative effect of their own supposed lightening mutations?
&: surely I told this already. But these maps are inaccurate, not reflecting the respective "hyerarchy" between regions even by taking their criteria.
Ireland show between 12% to 22% of blond/blondish hair (rather golden very light brown), the average being 15/16% in Eire and 19/20% in Northern Ireland (were Catholics are darker), when the lighter regions of England and Scotland score around 38/40%. No country or region is over 70% of blond/blondish, and Danes are the lighter ones as an average along Finns of Finnland (around 65%), lighter than Norwegians. (Danes of old Europe before the 1970's).
Everyone may take this as he want.

I can't speak for the Scandinavian countries, as I haven't researched them myself. I can, however, speak to Italy, and the hair color data is unassailable, as thousands of young men were examined and the results documented. As for the eye color, prior studies have documented the light eye color levels in northern Italy. I've traveled throughout Italy and I can also personally attest to the fact that in the Veneto, for example, at least 40% of the population has light eyes.

It's also a fact that the blonde hair alleles and the light eye alleles are not linked. They pass separately.
 
...............
It's also a fact that the blonde hair alleles and the light eye alleles are not linked. They pass separately.


Ok. Have you an idea why then all kinds of individuals from the Near East to Southern Europe, the Bell beakers and Steppe people that were predicted of being blond, were almost always blue-eyed? For instance, the blond/dark blond Italians that I've met had blue eyes, too. From my observation, blond folks with brown eyes aren't that common.
 
Ok. Have you an idea why then all kinds of individuals from the Near East to Southern Europe, the Bell beakers and Steppe people that were predicted of being blond, were almost always blue-eyed? For instance, the blond/dark blond Italians that I've met had blue eyes, too. From my observation, blond folks with brown eyes aren't that common.

Yes, blonde haired people almost always (though not always) have light eyes, but the reverse is not true and was never true. The phenotype of, for example, the Bell Beakers is not as pictured in the imagination of the blogosphere. At least half if not more were dark haired and dark eyed, although light skinned. Another quarter were dark haired and light eyed, and the final 20-25%, depending on the area, were light haired and light eyed, at least if you give credence to Genetiker. Since he never published his methodology I've always been skeptical, but if anything, in comparison to academic predictions, he overstates the blonde, blue eyed prediction. If you check his sheet below you can see that the dark haired blue eyed combo was at least as common in British Bell Beakers, for example, as blonde hair and light eyes, and there's a few brown eyed blondes as well.
Pigmentation of the Bell Beaker people | Genetiker (wordpress.com)

In modern people, no data for Italy is going to be as accurate as the one taken at the end of the 19th century of military conscripts, because tens of thousands of samples from all over the country were described. As you can see from the map, the vast majority of the Veneto has from 7.5% to 15% blonde hair, yet light eyes are present in 40% of the population. That's quite a discrepancy.

As for Ireland, the percentages for Ireland for light eyes are extraordinarily high.

In this paper, the commonest eye colours were blue (59%) and green (21%). The commonest hair colours were dark brown (36%) and light brown (31%).

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02944190#page-1

That's taken from the summary. It would place light eyes at a whopping 80%. Just dark brown and light brown hair are at 67%. Now, I don't know the percentage of medium brown or blonde hair, but other studies have found blonde hair somewhere around 25%, so I think we can generalize and say somewhere around 75% of the Irish are brown haired. To get the specific percentages you need a springer or institutional account; it's blocked for me.

The further west you go in Ireland, the less the "Germanic" ancestry, and the more dark haired and dark eyed the people.

If you were going by just pictures of Irish people, the percent of medium to dark brown hair among adults would seem to be the most common.

722994.jpg


Maria Doyle Kennedy:
tumblr_p4shzbZSuF1sy17tpo1_1280.png


The brown eyed version: Dervla Kirwan
tumblr_nrucybsCDc1tlix2so1_1280.jpg


Michelle Dockery:
michelle-dockery-at-downton-abbey-film-premiere-alice-tully-hall-new-york-4.jpg


"Internet" population geneticists, in my opinion, aren't very good at "guesstimating" pigmentation in the British Isles.
 
Yes, blonde haired people almost always (though not always) have light eyes, but the reverse is not true and was never true. The phenotype of, for example, the Bell Beakers is not as pictured in the imagination of the blogosphere. At least half if not more were dark haired and dark eyed, although light skinned. Another quarter were dark haired and light eyed, and the final 20-25%, depending on the area, were light haired and light eyed, at least if you give credence to Genetiker. Since he never published his methodology I've always been skeptical, but if anything, in comparison to academic predictions, he overstates the blonde, blue eyed prediction. If you check his sheet below you can see that the dark haired blue eyed combo was at least as common in British Bell Beakers, for example, as blonde hair and light eyes, and there's a few brown eyed blondes as well................
Pigmentation of the Bell Beaker people | Genetiker (wordpress.com)





Angela, thanks for your detailed answer. With that being said, it appears you didn't get exactly my point. I’m aware of the fact, that the Bell beakers were far from being predominantly blond with blue eyes. Plus, I’m well aware of the fact, that brown haired folks with blue eyes are common, too. What I'm trying to bring across is the fact, that whenever blond folks pop up among any populations, they were as a rule blue-eyed. I wonder why, given the fact, that it's stated that the trait for blue eyes isn't connected to the genes that produce blond hair.
 
Angela, thanks for your detailed answer. With that being said, it appears you didn't get exactly my point. I’m aware of the fact, that the Bell beakers were far from being predominantly blond with blue eyes. Plus, I’m well aware of the fact, that brown haired folks with blue eyes are common, too. What I'm trying to bring across is the fact, that whenever blond folks pop up among any populations, they were as a rule blue-eyed. I wonder why, given the fact, that it's stated that the trait for blue eyes isn't connected to the genes that produce blond hair.

I said they weren't "linked", i.e. they don't pass to the egg or the sperm as a "linked"pair.

If they were linked, i.e. blonde hair and light eyes, you wouldn't have brown eyed blondes, who do exist, btw, even as far back as the Beaker samples, if you check them. My daughter is a prime example. She had platinum hair all through her childhood and up until her late teens, but very dark brown eyes. You also wouldn't have these huge numbers of people in certain countries who have dark hair and light eyes, yes?

In so far as I can see, the blonde hair and light eyed "combination" first appeared in Europe among the SHG of far northeastern Europe. To this day, if my recollection serves, that area has the highest percentage of blue eyed blondes, followed by the Scandinavian countries. When those people migrated, the combination was passed along. I don't see the mystery.

I wondered at one point if perhaps the blue eyed alleles affected hair color to some degree, but that can't be correct because there's no question the WHG had dark hair and blue eyes, whatever the precise tone of their skin. Nor do I think that alleles for blonde hair necessarily lighten the skin or eyes.

Just look at the Solomon Islanders. A mutated allele on TYRP1 gives them blonde hair. There's no snp for blue eyes or for pale skin. Their skin remains very dark, as do their eyes. There's no transference of effect.

We're talking about correlations here, and very homogeneous populations where the combination seems to be present in high percentages. I'm sure you saw the paper on Denmark, for example, which showed how homogeneous they are. In countries where there was migration from different ethnic groups you're not going to see that combination as often, as is indeed the case in Italy. In the case of Ireland, the Bell Beakers who arrived carried a dark hair/light eye combination, a blonde hair/light eye combination, and a dark hair/dark eye combination, and that remains true to this day, with dark hair, light eyed people being more numerous than blondes with blue eyes. The further east you go in Ireland, the more blondes you'll find. The same is true in England. It was the Germanic people who had a higher concentration of blonde hair and blue eyes in one person. What caused that sweep in later centuries I don't know, although I recall reading that there was a massive depopulation of certain parts of Scandinavia at one point. Perhaps it was in the paper on Denmark? Heck, we don't even know why the LP allele swept Europe so massively, and continued to do so for hundreds of years.


As for why I included the percentages for Ireland and Italy, there was a dispute as to which figures were correct. That should now be laid to rest.

Another question which was raised, but not, I think, by you, was what is meant by "olive" skin. You'd have to be a woman to know, I guess. :) It's not a skin color, per se, but a skin "tone", an underlying tone. You can get fair foundation which is neutral, or with a "cool" undertone (blue), olive undertone (greenish), or warm undertone. The olive undertone here is a bit exaggerated.


Gj1tyWy.png


"Cool" undertones are not rare in the British Isles, but are not the most common, and are more prevalent in what used to be called the "Celtic fringe", but can be found in other countries as well. They even used to provide a service along with the choice of foundation which told you what color clothing would be the most becoming for your specific undertone. :) As someone with a "cool" undertone, I was told that clear fire engine red, royal blue, emerald green, black, were good colors, but not beige, grey, most shades of brown, and NEVER, yellow. They didn't need to tell me; I already knew. As my mother had drilled into me that only navy, white, cream, beige, brown and black were "elegant" colors, I spent years in black. It works in New York. You'd think there was no other color for evenings. Vanity, thy name is woman, as the saying goes. :)
 
Iranian influence did come in earlier, but at such a low level, that its not really important for explaining the later shifts.
You don't know that, so I don't know why you would even say that. Where is your proof it was too low? Khan even says it is a possibility, so does Raveane et al. 2018. Sarno et al. 2021 says it's a possibility. Who are you to say it isn't?
 
You don't know that, so I don't know why you would even say that. Where is your proof it was too low? Khan even says it is a possibility, so does Raveane et al. 2018. Sarno et al. 2021 says it's a possibility. Who are you to say it isn't?

I don't know how any conclusion can be reached until we have samples from the people inhabiting the southern mainland before the arrival of even the Greeks or the "Daunians", especially since samples like ORD001 and Latin samples like R437 and R850 tell us that this ancestry reached Central Italy long before the period of the Empire. The question is when and to what extent did it reach southern Italy.

I've been saying this for almost ten years now, and also that the Greeks would probably have also brought CHG/Ir. Of course, the latter was devaluated because they were supposed to be identical to Corded Ware, and as for any arriving in the Bronze Age, that was an impossibility. I remember calling it a pincer movement on Europe, with Indo-Europeans carrying CHG moving laterally and then south into Europe, and West Asians carrying the almost indistinguishable to CHG Iran Neo along with Anatolian Neolithic moving from a southern latitude. I also remember saying that perhaps in a way Dienekes was right, and the Caucasus was the mother of nations.

Other narratives also have their adherents.

We'll see what the data shows, Jovialis, but certainly, no one can now deny that this ancestry was present on the peninsula by the Iron Age.
 
I said they weren't "linked", i.e. they don't pass to the egg or the sperm as a "linked"pair.

If they were linked, i.e. blonde hair and light eyes, you wouldn't have brown eyed blondes, who do exist, btw, even as far back as the Beaker samples, if you check them. My daughter is a prime example. She had platinum hair all through her childhood and up until her late teens, but very dark brown eyes. You also wouldn't have these huge numbers of people in certain countries who have dark hair and light eyes, yes?

In so far as I can see, the blonde hair and light eyed "combination" first appeared in Europe among the SHG of far northeastern Europe. To this day, if my recollection serves, that area has the highest percentage of blue eyed blondes, followed by the Scandinavian countries. When those people migrated, the combination was passed along. I don't see the mystery.

I wondered at one point if perhaps the blue eyed alleles affected hair color to some degree, but that can't be correct because there's no question the WHG had dark hair and blue eyes, whatever the precise tone of their skin. Nor do I think that alleles for blonde hair necessarily lighten the skin or eyes.

Just look at the Solomon Islanders. A mutated allele on TYRP1 gives them blonde hair. There's no snp for blue eyes or for pale skin. Their skin remains very dark, as do their eyes. There's no transference of effect...........


I already got what you mean, Angela, blond hair and blue eyes are Not genetically connected.
No misunderstanding on my side, here. The thing is, that no matter how common or not common, rare blond hair was among all kinds of West- Eurasians, when they were blond, they had usually blue yes, too. Therefore, I think there are (unknown) reasons why blond hair comes nearly always with blue eyes in spite of being not linked with each other. By the way, the blondism of the Solomon Islanders isn't that relevant here, since they have their own mutation for blond hair that has nothing to do with the blond hair mutation in Western Eurasians. It appears to me, that although certain traits are not linked, they behave as if they were connected.
 
I don't know how any conclusion can be reached until we have samples from the people inhabiting the southern mainland before the arrival of even the Greeks or the "Daunians", especially since samples like ORD001 and Latin samples like R437 and R850 tell us that this ancestry reached Central Italy long before the period of the Empire. The question is when and to what extent did it reach southern Italy.

I've been saying this for almost ten years now, and also that the Greeks would probably have also brought CHG/Ir. Of course, the latter was devaluated because they were supposed to be identical to Corded Ware, and as for any arriving in the Bronze Age, that was an impossibility. I remember calling it a pincer movement on Europe, with Indo-Europeans carrying CHG moving laterally and then south into Europe, and West Asians carrying the almost indistinguishable to CHG Iran Neo along with Anatolian Neolithic moving from a southern latitude. I also remember saying that perhaps in a way Dienekes was right, and the Caucasus was the mother of nations.

Other narratives also have their adherents.

We'll see what the data shows, Jovialis, but certainly, no one can now deny that this ancestry was present on the peninsula by the Iron Age.

Yes, I made those points to Khan in the comments section today, under name "Jo". I would be very surprised if the south of Italy was genetically identical to the north or Central in the Bronze Age. As far as I know, we don't have those samples. Nevertheless, I don't see how Riverman can make an absolutist statement based on no evidence. At the very least there are other authors who share the same sentiment as I do.
 
I don't know how any conclusion can be reached until we have samples from the people inhabiting the southern mainland before the arrival of even the Greeks or the "Daunians", especially since samples like ORD001 and Latin samples like R437 and R850 tell us that this ancestry reached Central Italy long before the period of the Empire. The question is when and to what extent did it reach southern Italy.

I've been saying this for almost ten years now, and also that the Greeks would probably have also brought CHG/Ir. Of course, the latter was devaluated because they were supposed to be identical to Corded Ware, and as for any arriving in the Bronze Age, that was an impossibility. I remember calling it a pincer movement on Europe, with Indo-Europeans carrying CHG moving laterally and then south into Europe, and West Asians carrying the almost indistinguishable to CHG Iran Neo along with Anatolian Neolithic moving from a southern latitude. I also remember saying that perhaps in a way Dienekes was right, and the Caucasus was the mother of nations.

Other narratives also have their adherents.

We'll see what the data shows, Jovialis, but certainly, no one can now deny that this ancestry was present on the peninsula by the Iron Age.
But these Daunians already had substantial CHG and Iran N. So not sure all of it can be speculated on the ancient Greek colonies.
 

This thread has been viewed 42648 times.

Back
Top