The genetic origin of Daunians

torzio said:
and neither was I rude to you
direct yes, rude no
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threa...in-of-Daunians?p=628068&viewfull=1#post628068
Click to expand...

What I am saying here doesn't imply that Greeks had influence on these Daunians. Rather I said the Pre-Italic people before them were possibly C6. I am talking about Puglia in general. The Greek colonists also had influence as well. We still need to see what they were like. You're saying the Romans replaced everyone with foreigners there, which is unsubstantiated. I think these people (Iapygian, Greeks, Pre-Italics, Italics) mixed together when the Romans brought control to the area. I am sure there was some influence from Imperial age Greeks and Eastern Mediterranean people as well (As they probably did in all of Italy, and beyond throughout the Roman empire), but I think this is over blown.
 
Leopoldo Leone said:
What are you referring to with "completely new group of DNA"?
Is there a paper that shows that a region in Italy, Vagnari, was all Greek adn "east med" (by this I understand near east, from the Levant to Anatolia)?
Click to expand...

The Levant is represented by C4.

C5 is more people genetically south of Sicily to Cyprus, such as Greco-Anatolians.
 
Do we have DNA from Apennine Culture, particularly from Southern Italy? I am pretty sure we don't

EfFBkLG.png


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apennine_culture
 
torzio said:
that's what the paper says ............No Greek influence ...........so see my reply to Jovialis above
Click to expand...

This paper shows that the Daunians in north Apulia were as much "south" (in the Italian cline, westward shift in the PCA) as central Italians and north Apulians today, and thought "west" of them (downward shift in the PCA), they are roughly as much west as moderno north Italians are to ancient north Italians, and a few samples as much south as south Italians, which seems to be the case for BA Sicilians, at least from this PCA
Fig_1_new.png


Honestly I do not see why you have brought up this "Greek influence" thing: I do not see any one here arguing that ancient Daunians plotted where they plot because of Greek influence, or that modern south Italians are different from Daunians because of "Greek influence", whatever that means since it is you that are claiming south Italy was utterly resettled by Near Easterners and Greeks: we have no idea how Anatolians looked like in the Iron age (just two sampes from a study, who can a Persian and a Greek settlers), and coeval Levantines would have pulled south Italians, which doesn't appear to be the case, and indeed no genetic analysis up to now showed any Levantine influence in Italians, and I doubt that there was any significant numbers of caucasians brought into Italy. As for Greeks, they too seem now east of ancient Greeks, thus I do not see how Greeks and Near Easterners resettling all south Italy could explain Italian's genetics.
By the way, the extract you posted speaks of a depopulation, but it offers no evidence of a resettlement of the east med peoples.
 
Jovialis said:
8rwL49J.png


Here is a PCA with all of the relevant samples from Antonio et al. 2019, as well as Bulgaria_IA, and Mycenaeans.
Click to expand...

Distance to:Jovialis
8.34441130Bulgarian_IA:Mathieson_et_al_2018:I5769



I am sure I will be around this distance to the closest Daunian, when the samples are released. If Bulgarian_IA is a good proxy for it.
 
I think a lot of the exotic graves found in the Antonio et al. 2019 study were indeed, traders, and people passing through for business, rather than mass immigration. The regions they came from were very wealthy already:

9mviWq2.jpg
 
Modern Apulians are more northern shifted than Sicilians, and Iron Age Apulians are less Western than the Bronze Age Sicilians. Not to mention they are all from the Northern Apulia.

Still some people were expecting IA Apulians to plot as the BA Sicilians but that is not the case. Let's not ignore that.

Nearly complete Greek replacement with minority but substantial Levantine ancestry in Apulia is out of question now. I doubt Greek influence extends 20% in Apulia, even Pontic Greeks hardly push 15% Empuries-type of ancestry compared to modern Lazes with more Greek cities in Pontus and I am taking Armenians out of equation who are more even more Western, they are to Pontians what Albanians are to Peloponnesians genetically (and perphaps historically too).

Old Greeks had like 4 cities, two of which were partly hellenized. This is not rocket science. If anything we should look at the Northern African/Moorish admixture better to explian the shift which makes sense judging by historical data and the PCA position of the Northern Africans. Minor Northern African admixture can archive a greater shift than some 20% Greek impact, and it explains a lot. Given that their presence in the documented historical data was mostly ignored (in antiquity). It would not be "ignored" if they were Levantines, because you need a GREATER number of Levantines.

Also Phoenicans, Moors were predominantly of Northern Africans and undocumented migration is more likely to be from Northern Africa rather than Levant too given the gheography.
 
ihype02 said:
Modern Apulians are more northern shifted than Sicilians, and Iron Age Apulians are less Western than the Bronze Age Sicilians. Not to mention they are all from the Northern Apulia.

Still some people were expecting IA Apulians to plot as the BA Sicilians but that is not the case. Let's not ignore that.

Nearly complete Greek replacement with minority but substantial Levantine ancestry in Apulia is out of question now. I doubt Greek influence extends 20% in Apulia, even Pontic Greeks hardly push 15% Empuries-type of ancestry compared to modern Lazes with more Greek cities in Pontus and I am taking Armenians out of equation who are more even more Western, they are to Pontians what Albanians are to Peloponnesians genetically (and perphaps historically too).

Old Greeks had like 4 cities, two of which were partly hellenized. This is not rocket science. If anything we should look at the Northern African/Moorish admixture better to explian the shift which makes sense judging by historical data and the PCA position of the Northern Africans. Minor Northern African admixture can archive a greater shift than some 20% Greek impact, and it explains a lot. Given that their presence in the documented historical data was mostly ignored (in antiquity). It would not be "ignored" if they were Levantines, because you need a GREATER number of Levantines.

Also Phoenicans, Moors were predominantly of Northern Africans and undocumented migration is more likely to be from Northern Africa rather than Levant too given the gheography.
Click to expand...

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]Modern Apulians are pulled in the direction of CHG, which is the opposite direction of North Africa, and the Moors. Also, modern DNA shows that Apulians only have trace amounts at most of North African. The modeling from Raveane et al. 2018 do not even model Apulians with North African.[/FONT]

From the Antonio et al. 2019 samples, we see some CHG/IN in Central Italian Neolithic samples at a relatively higher rate than for example LBK. Puglia has been a starting point for Neolithic migrations in Italy. Thus I believe that Neolithic and Bronze Age samples from the region will reflect higher CHG that was present in later farmers migrating from the East, already found in Greece_N. I think this legacy would have survived in Pre-Italic people. It would not have been in later comers like the Daunians. This is why C6 existed in the IA, among samples like R437.
 
Jovialis said:
Modern Apulians are pulled in the direction of CHG, which is the opposite direction of North Africa, and the Moors. Also, modern DNA shows that Apulians only have trace amounts at most of North African. The modeling from Raveane et al. 2018 do not even model Apulians with North African.

From the Antonio et al. 2019 samples, we see some CHG/IN in Central Italian Neolithic samples at a relatively higher rate than for example LBK. Puglia has been a starting point for Neolithic migrations in Italy. Thus I believe that Neolithic and Bronze Age samples from the region will reflect higher CHG that was present in later farmers migrating from the East, already found in Greece_N. I think this legacy would have survived in Pre-Italic people. It would not have been in later comers like the Daunians. This is why C6 existed in the IA, among samples like R437.
Click to expand...

All I have seen by this paper, the 2 isotope papers and the 2 papers from the 2 italian women is that the daunians came from modern croatians lands .................I have attached part articles of the 2 italian women in earlier posts.
Either all these papers , scholars, archeologists etc are wrong or ................

As for your Bulgarian sample .................north-italians always match bulgarian and provenzal french samples closely..........it goes back at least 6 years

Puglia has very ancient samples ..............but does the neolithic period have a close union with late bronze-age and iron-age periods or is the time gap too great ?

If your C6 covers central italy and the Umbri and their sub-tribes of Sabellic, sabines, Samnites are all in central and south Italy ( not sicily ) and we are told the Umbri came from around central europe into Italy circa 2200BC, then is your C6 purely a central italian marker or should it be a central-northern italian marker ?
 
Leopoldo Leone said:
This paper shows that the Daunians in north Apulia were as much "south" (in the Italian cline, westward shift in the PCA) as central Italians and north Apulians today, and thought "west" of them (downward shift in the PCA), they are roughly as much west as moderno north Italians are to ancient north Italians, and a few samples as much south as south Italians, which seems to be the case for BA Sicilians, at least from this PCA
Fig_1_new.png


Honestly I do not see why you have brought up this "Greek influence" thing: I do not see any one here arguing that ancient Daunians plotted where they plot because of Greek influence, or that modern south Italians are different from Daunians because of "Greek influence", whatever that means since it is you that are claiming south Italy was utterly resettled by Near Easterners and Greeks: we have no idea how Anatolians looked like in the Iron age (just two sampes from a study, who can a Persian and a Greek settlers), and coeval Levantines would have pulled south Italians, which doesn't appear to be the case, and indeed no genetic analysis up to now showed any Levantine influence in Italians, and I doubt that there was any significant numbers of caucasians brought into Italy. As for Greeks, they too seem now east of ancient Greeks, thus I do not see how Greeks and Near Easterners resettling all south Italy could explain Italian's genetics.
By the way, the extract you posted speaks of a depopulation, but it offers no evidence of a resettlement of the east med peoples.
Click to expand...


Best you check for yourself Livy works on the area in question

 
torzio said:
All I have seen by this paper, the 2 isotope papers and the 2 papers from the 2 italian women is that the daunians came from modern croatians lands .................I have attached part articles of the 2 italian women in earlier posts.
Either all these papers , scholars, archeologists etc are wrong or ................
As for your Bulgarian sample .................north-italians always match bulgarian and provenzal french samples closely..........it goes back at least 6 years
Puglia has very ancient samples ..............but does the neolithic period have a close union with late bronze-age and iron-age periods or is the time gap too great ?
If your C6 covers central italy and the Umbri and their sub-tribes of Sabellic, sabines, Samnites are all in central and south Italy ( not sicily ) and we are told the Umbri came from around central europe into Italy circa 2200BC, then is your C6 purely a central italian marker or should it be a central-northern italian marker ?
Click to expand...
The Italics were not C6, they were a C7 group that came to the south. C6 are the pre-Italics in my speculation.
 
torzio said:
All I have seen by this paper, the 2 isotope papers and the 2 papers from the 2 italian women is that the daunians came from modern croatians lands .................I have attached part articles of the 2 italian women in earlier posts.
Either all these papers , scholars, archeologists etc are wrong or ................

As for your Bulgarian sample .................north-italians always match bulgarian and provenzal french samples closely..........it goes back at least 6 years

Puglia has very ancient samples ..............but does the neolithic period have a close union with late bronze-age and iron-age periods or is the time gap too great ?

If your C6 covers central italy and the Umbri and their sub-tribes of Sabellic, sabines, Samnites are all in central and south Italy ( not sicily ) and we are told the Umbri came from around central europe into Italy circa 2200BC, then is your C6 purely a central italian marker or should it be a central-northern italian marker ?
Click to expand...

This is what Dodecad Globe 13 shows comparing Bulgarian_IA to modern populations. The closest are C_Italians, after them, Southern Italians.

Distance to:Mathieson_et_al_2018:I5769
4.35862364C_Italian_D
6.84000000Sicilian_D
7.14573999S_Italian_Sicilian_D
8.34441130Jovialis
8.86282122Tuscan
9.62546622TSI30
9.75733570Greek_D
10.20468520Ashkenazi_D
10.67040768Ashkenazy_Jews
13.56376054O_Italian_D
14.68657891Sephardic_Jews
14.70032653Morocco_Jews
15.69992357North_Italian
17.52265962N_Italian_D
19.60529520Canarias_1KG
21.09306995Murcia_1KG
21.46964369Andalucia_1KG
22.00703524Baleares_1KG
22.84621632Portuguese_D
22.93891017Cypriots
23.00577319Extremadura_1KG
23.43219153Turkish_Aydin_Ho
23.74488577Turkish_Cypriot_D
24.08098005Galicia_1KG
24.21164183Castilla_Y_Leon_1KG

 
Jovialis said:
This is what Dodecad Globe 13 shows comparing Bulgarian_IA to modern populations. The closest are C_Italians, after them, Southern Italians.

Distance to:Mathieson_et_al_2018:I5769
4.35862364C_Italian_D
6.84000000Sicilian_D
7.14573999S_Italian_Sicilian_D
8.86282122Tuscan
9.62546622TSI30
9.75733570Greek_D
10.20468520Ashkenazi_D
10.67040768Ashkenazy_Jews
13.56376054O_Italian_D
14.68657891Sephardic_Jews
14.70032653Morocco_Jews
15.69992357North_Italian
17.52265962N_Italian_D
19.60529520Canarias_1KG
21.09306995Murcia_1KG
21.46964369Andalucia_1KG
22.00703524Baleares_1KG
22.84621632Portuguese_D
22.93891017Cypriots
23.00577319Extremadura_1KG
23.43219153Turkish_Aydin_Ho
23.74488577Turkish_Cypriot_D
24.08098005Galicia_1KG
24.21164183Castilla_Y_Leon_1KG
24.21610208Bulgarians_Y
Click to expand...

I assume this calculator lacks Albanian as a reference? And probably many more reference populations. Am I correct?
 
Archetype0ne said:
I assume this calculator lacks Albanian as a reference? And probably many more reference populations. Am I correct?
Click to expand...

Indeed, this set didn't have Albanians among them. The values were taken from and excel sheet the Dodecad project page.
 
Following Jovialis Post #274, my results are 100% consistent with what he is showing in that post. I am sitting between the South_Italian_Sicilian combined sample averages and the Tuscan sample averages relative to Bulgarian_I5769.

Distance to:I5769:Mathieson_et_al_2018
4.35862364C_Italian_D
6.84000000Sicilian_D
7.14573999S_Italian_Sicilian_D
7.61975721PalermoTrapani_Combined
8.86282122Tuscan
9.62546622TSI30
9.75733570Greek_D
10.20468520Ashkenazi_D
10.67040768Ashkenazy_Jews
13.56376054O_Italian_D
14.68657891Sephardic_Jews
14.70032653Morocco_Jews
15.69992357North_Italian
17.52265962N_Italian_D
19.60529520Canarias_1KG
21.09306995Murcia_1KG
21.46964369Andalucia_1KG
22.00703524Baleares_1KG
22.84621632Portuguese_D
22.93891017Cypriots
23.00577319Extremadura_1KG
23.43219153Turkish_Aydin_Ho
23.74488577Turkish_Cypriot_D
24.08098005Galicia_1KG
24.21164183Castilla_Y_Leon_1KG

 
ArchetypeOne: Here is the same analysis that Jovialis did in post #274 and what I did in post #277 using Eurogenes K13 updated Modern Populations which has 3 reference populations from Albania with Eurogenes K13 Ancient Coordinates for Bulgarian I5769.

Distance to:I5769_Bulgaria_IA_2600_ybp
7.91786587French_Corsica
9.16833136PalermoTrapani_Combined
9.27951507Italian_Lazio
9.87052177Italian_Marche
10.09024281Italian_Umbria
11.16326117Italian_Tuscan
11.26628599Italian_Romagna
11.74729756Italian_Abruzzo
11.75408440Italian
11.93531734Italian_Molise
12.28392038Italian_Sicily
12.29196486Italian_Apulia
12.41296902Italian_Basilicata
13.26128953Greek_Western-Thrace
13.31609552Italian_Campania
13.43489486Italian_Emilia
13.95051970Italian_Liguria
14.37559738Malta
14.56942346Greek_Cyclades
14.56986616Moroccan_Jew
14.84789547Italian_Calabria
15.40336002Greek_Athens
15.53956241Italian_Lombardy
16.22616714Greek_Ionia
16.25672476Albanian_Tosk

 
Palermo Trapani said:
ArchetypeOne: Here is the same analysis that Jovialis did in post #274 and what I did in post #277 using Eurogenes K13 updated Modern Populations which has 3 reference populations from Albania with Eurogenes K13 Ancient Coordinates for Bulgarian I5769.

Distance to:I5769_Bulgaria_IA_2600_ybp
7.91786587French_Corsica
9.16833136PalermoTrapani_Combined
9.27951507Italian_Lazio
9.87052177Italian_Marche
10.09024281Italian_Umbria
11.16326117Italian_Tuscan
11.26628599Italian_Romagna
11.74729756Italian_Abruzzo
11.75408440Italian
11.93531734Italian_Molise
12.28392038Italian_Sicily
12.29196486Italian_Apulia
12.41296902Italian_Basilicata
13.26128953Greek_Western-Thrace
13.31609552Italian_Campania
13.43489486Italian_Emilia
13.95051970Italian_Liguria
14.37559738Malta
14.56942346Greek_Cyclades
14.56986616Moroccan_Jew
14.84789547Italian_Calabria
15.40336002Greek_Athens
15.53956241Italian_Lombardy
16.22616714Greek_Ionia
16.25672476Albanian_Tosk
Click to expand...

Thank you Palermo. As usual your posts I find highly valuable.

Also, interesting thing. You are in my eyes the biggest proof there is continuity between certain ancient peoples of the Italian peninsula and modern ones. It might not be the case on an average basis. But when these discussions have been mentioned, you have popped in my mind, and I have amended my opinions when I would think different.

Edit: When the Pugliese I-M223 samples BAM file comes out I have a feeling you will find an ancient cousin.
 
Jovialis said:
I personally would like to see the actual samples first hand.

At any rate, I think it is interesting to point out that Bulgarian_IA plots close to the so-called outlier Daunians:

rdJYYh5.png
Click to expand...

so other italians ( O_Italian ) sit between tuscans and north-italians ................do you have many O_Italian sample .......the only one I recall is from south Ukraine as per dodecad call in 2012 .........bu I was told it was also italians who left istria, dalmatia, tyrol austria, swiss italians and provenzal italians when Nice and part of the french riviera was under Italy ...IIRC about 1861
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 146721 times.

Back
Top