The genetic origin of Daunians

[ihype02]

Peloponnesian members of Anthrogenica complained that G25 academic Peloponnesian samples are too southern shifted for them.

If they are academical I guess I pick them.

[Riverman]

If I have to choose between samples submitted by who knows what amateur on the web with who knows what hidden agenda and those chosen by an academician whose identity I at least know and who has a profession to lose I know which I'd choose. You choose whom you want.

The good thing with this much larger corpus of samples is that they can be evaluated against each other. Like obvious outliers, either because they are admixed, from ethnic minorities, or some fringe regions, stick out, the more data you have. So everybody is free to "purify" the data and check which difference it makes. Most of the time, the difference is not that big or significant at all.
For Italians in particular its easy to form various smooth gradients which make perfect sense, so whatever people don't like about it, its a minor issue. Instead, you should consider yourself lucky because Italians being one of the best sampled people of all!
Just for comparison, for German speaking people there are only a few non-definitive regional groupings, a lot of outliers and lack of sampling for many regions and ethnolinguistic units. I would be very happy having as much good data, sort by ethnic groups and provinces, like the Italians got it. But I guess the more one gets, the more nitpicking.
I do understand that the samples and method might be not perfect, but its excellent nevertheless and everybody can prove that to him- or herself by using it against known groups and variation. There is nothing which sticks out as being deliberately manipulated with bad intention.
And if there are no official samples, we should be lucky having at least those gathered by amateurs. If they would be completely off, this would show up. And if there are new scientific samples, they won't be held back because of some sort of conspiracy.

[Pax Augusta]

Well, that's news to me. I was specifically told by someone I consider reputable that the samples in the Vahaduo updated list for Dodecad K12b modern Italian populations were from his collection and that indeed many samples in that list were submitted by internet "amateurs". If any of those samples were submitted by him from among samples of his acquaintances and given that his main purpose in life seems to be turning Italians into Nordics, then they should be removed from any analyses.

Eurogenes was being discussed. Dodecad K12 is a completely different thing.

As for the bolded comment I completely disagree. Cavalli Sforza's choice of where to gather samples has stood the test of time although given when they were selected they're not perfect. I realize you don't like the Tuscan samples and what they show; that doesn't mean they're not representative.

If I have to choose between samples submitted by who knows what amateur on the web with who knows what hidden agenda and those chosen by an academician whose identity I at least know and who has a profession to lose I know which I'd choose. You choose whom you want.

Some academic samples from Northeastern Italy, from Raveane 2019, end up among the Croatians and Hungarians. But of course, academic samples are always very accurate. Are we sure that it is the amateurs who turn some Italians into Nordics? You should avoid to drag the discussion onto a personal level. For me it's not a research about my ancestry or myself, let alone my identity, I'm not blinded by a research about myself unlike many others. Accuracy is all that ever matters to me. Those who really know me know this.

You are free to believe what you want but time has shown that Cavalli Sforza was wrong about many things, and you seem to forget that Alberto Piazza was Cavalli Sforza's main collaborator.

[iluvatar]

Peloponnesian members of Anthrogenica complained that G25 academic Peloponnesian samples are too southern shifted for them.

If they are academical I guess I pick them.

That was regarding the old average, which included only three samples, and understandably didn’t capture the entire variation. The new one is more extensive and from an academic paper as well, though i don’t recall which one exactly. I think it was Sarno et al.

[Pax Augusta]

I would be interested to know how it can be verified precisely which Corsican samples were averaged to get the coordinates on Vahaduo and whether they can be definitively shown to come from the paper(s) on Corsicans. My recollection of the latest paper does not at all support them being French admixed, but my recollection may be faulty.

I can only use the G25 at the moment, so as to take everything with due caution. There are 16 Corsicans in the 2019 study as I remember, in the G25 Davidski included 14 of them. Out of 14, 4 are outliers, but others could also be affected by the same problem though to a much lesser extent. The Corsicans are a very small population, and an island population at that. You don't expect this variation to exist, and certainly not that a Corsican could end up between Trentino-Alto Adige and Northeastern Italy, two representative averages of the Alps.


French_Corsica:corsica03708,
French_Corsica:corsica1308,
French_Corsica:Corsica19508,
French_Corsica:Corsica24508,
French_Corsica:corsica29008,
French_Corsica:Corsica29708,
French_Corsica:CorsicaS03308,
French_Corsica:CorsicaS10208
French_Corsica:CorsicaS13808
French_Corsica:CorsicaS29908
French_Corsica:CorsicaS04208
French_Corsica:CorsicaS00708,
French_Corsica:corsica11908,
French_Corsica:Corsica14708,







It is as if they form two clusters.

[ihype02]

ORD009 in G25. Daunians are like Western Shifted Tuscans, so Corsica should be the the first modern group they show greatest affinity to.

Distance to:	Italy_IA_Messapic_Daunian_Ordona:ORD009
0.03375273	French_Corsica
0.03402973	Italian_Veneto
0.03500182	Italian_Piedmont
0.03527467	Italian_Tuscany
0.03556619	Swiss_Italian
0.03639077	Italian_Bergamo
0.03884339	Italian_Trentino-Alto-Adige
0.04026252	Italian_Umbria
0.04182701	Spanish_Baleares
0.04239967	Italian_Northeast
0.04291958	Spanish_Mallorca
0.04303520	Italian_Lombardy
0.04311957	Italian_Aosta_Valley
0.04322355	Spanish_Menorca
0.04353634	Italian_Marche
0.04476102	Spanish_Eivissa
0.04508314	Albanian
0.04542251	Greek_Thessaly
0.04542500	Greek_Central_Macedonia
0.04567742	French_Provence
0.04579698	Spanish_Peri-Barcelona
0.04627010	Italian_Lazio
0.04644970	Spanish_Girona
0.04647612	Italian_Liguria
0.04702300	Spanish_Murcia

Distance to:	Italy_IA_Messapic_Daunian_Ordona:ORD009
0.02874863	HRV_MBA
0.03606988	HRV_Pop_CA
0.03979688	ITA_Rome_MA
0.04035270	DEU_MA_Alemannic_o2
0.04069774	ITA_Broion_BA
0.04160810	ITA_Etruscan
0.04203421	Bell_Beaker_ITA
0.04261694	DEU_Roman
0.04282862	ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity
0.04285214	ITA_Villanovan
0.04285506	Iberia_Northeast_c.8-12CE
0.04459502	CHE_IA
0.04563672	BGR_EBA
0.04626143	HRV_EBA
0.04762398	HUN_BA
0.04798769	UKR_Cimmerian_o
0.04826724	ITA_Tivoli_Renaissance
0.04907844	ITA_Ardea_Latini_IA
0.04960111	ITA_ReginaMargherita_BA
0.04964653	ITA_Rome_Latini_IA
0.05036041	HUN_MBA_Vatya
0.05122268	HRV_IA
0.05124357	ITA_Etruria_Imperial
0.05186858	VK2020_ITA_Foggia_MA
0.05274986	GRC_Helladic_MBA
0.05344087	ITA_Prenestini_tribe_IA_o
0.05383536	DEU_Lech_MBA
0.05404840	Scythian_MDA
0.05410692	BGR_IA
0.05488058	ITA_Proto-Villanovan
0.05633730	DEU_MA_Alemannic_o1
0.05773184	ITA_Sardinia_IA
0.05902228	ITA_Prenestini_tribe_IA
0.05908047	DEU_Lech_EBA_contam
0.05943041	SRB_Mokrin_EBA
0.05944251	Levant_LBN_MA_o4
0.06017542	TUR_IA_low_res
0.06051290	ITA_Boville_Ernica_IA
0.06057405	TZA_Zanzibar_Euro_outlier
0.06072095	Bell_Beaker_HUN

This one was a bit northern let's wait and see for Messapian genomes to be revealed. I think Iron Age Campania will look like this though.

Distance to:	Italian_Apulia
0.04766329	Iberia_Northeast_Empuries2
0.04995370	GRC_Mycenaean
0.05850706	Italy_IA_Messapic_Daunian_Ordona:ORD009

A 0.033 distance means that it is not clustering with anyone like in official PCA despite being close.

[Riverman]

A 0.033 distance means that it is not clustering with anyone like in official PCA despite being close.

On the other hand 009 looks like a "pure Northern Illyrian", he is fully in the J2b cluster from the British paper also and his distance to 0.02874863 HRV_MBA speaks for itself. That's a good match. HRV CA and EBA is a much worse match, because they received additional Bell Beaker ancestry through the Middle Danubian Tumulus Culture expansion. The superficial similarity to some French and Italians is primarily due to this Bell Beaker : Mediterranean Neolithic mixture.

[ihype02]

On the other hand 009 looks like a "pure Northern Illyrian", he is fully in the J2b cluster from the British paper also and his distance to 0.02874863 HRV_MBA speaks for itself. That's a good match. HRV CA and EBA is a much worse match, because they received additional Bell Beaker ancestry through the Middle Danubian Tumulus Culture expansion. The superficial similarity to some French and Italians is primarily due to this Bell Beaker : Mediterranean Neolithic mixture.

HRV_IA is a pure Northern Illyrian.

[Salento]

nice salento
ORD010 he looks western jewish or greek islander profile
maybe he had recent byzantine ancestery
or muslim ancestery

Admix Results (sorted):

#	Population	Percent
1	East_Med	36.04
2	West_Med	20.38
3	North_Atlantic	15.09
4	West_Asian	12.20
5	Red_Sea	9.29
6	Baltic	5.83

Finished reading population data. 204 populations found.
13 components mode.

--------------------------------

Least-squares method.

Using 1 population approximation:
1 Sephardic_Jewish @ 4.557816
2 Italian_Jewish @ 5.256803
3 Algerian_Jewish @ 5.670169
4 Ashkenazi @ 6.580314
5 South_Italian @ 7.225772
6 East_Sicilian @ 8.048594
7 Tunisian_Jewish @ 8.227295
8 Libyan_Jewish @ 9.225803
9 Central_Greek @ 10.025041
10 West_Sicilian @ 11.006186
11 Italian_Abruzzo @ 12.665685
12 Cyprian @ 13.848021
13 Greek_Thessaly @ 16.500519
14 Lebanese_Muslim @ 17.823469
15 Tuscan @ 18.530861
16 Syrian @ 18.570854
17 Samaritan @ 19.522041
18 Palestinian @ 20.010542
19 Jordanian @ 20.402901
20 Tunisian @ 20.948820

Using 2 populations approximation:
1 50% Samaritan +50% Tuscan @ 2.571835Using 3 populations approximation:
1 50% Samaritan +25% Tuscan +25% Tuscan @ 2.571835


Using 4 populations approximation:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 Ashkenazi + Samaritan + Sephardic_Jewish + Tuscan @ 2.227096

I think that a 1 to 1 comparison on the chromosome level, reveals things that a distance calculator cannot.

Salento me (from Messapia) VS Daunians ORD009 and ORD010 - One-to-One at 60 SNPs (same as MTA).

regardless of autosomal distances, I still get a Generational distance with all the 16 samples, … most samples are low coverage besides ORD009 and ORD010, … so keep that in mind … :)

S vs ORD009 ~517 BC


ORD010 ~1088 AD

[ihype02]

Dienekes and Davidski both have their own biases. But Davidski's biases are still more down to earth compared to Dienekes.

[Vallicanus]

Dienekes and Davidski both have their own biases. But Davidski's biases are still more down to earth compared to Dienekes.

Please explain.

All biases are wrong from the scientific standpoint.

We want to KNOW the truth not FEEL it.

[ihype02]

Please explain.

All biases are wrong from the scientific standpoint.

We want to KNOW the truth not FEEL it.

I am saying that some of Davidski's theories that turned to be wrong or that will be proven to be wrong are still less deranged than those of Dienekes.

[Jovialis]

Dienekes and Davidski both have their own biases. But Davidski's biases are still more down to earth compared to Dienekes.

If you look at his most recent blog entry, he goes against academic consensus.

https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2021/...-has-gone.html

To me, academic consensus is paramount.

One guy with a tool he made, vs dozens of geneticists with multiple professional tools. It is not hard to see who is correct here.

People have a right to believe what they want. Nevertheless, I personally don't about care what some guy on the internet says.

[Jovialis]

The Dodecad updated Italian samples come from the Apricity members, I believe.

[Jovialis]

The good thing with this much larger corpus of samples is that they can be evaluated against each other. Like obvious outliers, either because they are admixed, from ethnic minorities, or some fringe regions, stick out, the more data you have. So everybody is free to "purify" the data and check which difference it makes. Most of the time, the difference is not that big or significant at all.
For Italians in particular its easy to form various smooth gradients which make perfect sense, so whatever people don't like about it, its a minor issue. Instead, you should consider yourself lucky because Italians being one of the best sampled people of all!
Just for comparison, for German speaking people there are only a few non-definitive regional groupings, a lot of outliers and lack of sampling for many regions and ethnolinguistic units. I would be very happy having as much good data, sort by ethnic groups and provinces, like the Italians got it. But I guess the more one gets, the more nitpicking.
I do understand that the samples and method might be not perfect, but its excellent nevertheless and everybody can prove that to him- or herself by using it against known groups and variation. There is nothing which sticks out as being deliberately manipulated with bad intention.
And if there are no official samples, we should be lucky having at least those gathered by amateurs. If they would be completely off, this would show up. And if there are new scientific samples, they won't be held back because of some sort of conspiracy.

I don't think that is true about being the best sampled, certainly not true for aDNA. Maybe Italian-Americans are very well sampled, but they mostly come from Sicily and Naples, or a random combo of different southern regions. From what I've seen British people are the best sampled.

[Jovialis]

The Dodecad updated Italian samples come from the Apricity members, I believe.

The "original" Updated Dodecad comes from the Nordicist guy. All of the subsequent updates, including other ethnicities come from samples collected by Apricity members. I believe they may have even contributed a few aDNA samples at this point.

[Jovialis]

If you look at his most recent blog entry, he goes against academic consensus.

https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2021/...-has-gone.html

To me, academic consensus is paramount.

One guy with a tool he made, vs dozens of geneticists with multiple professional tools. It is not hard to see who is correct here.

People have a right to believe what they want. Nevertheless, I personally don't about care what some guy on the internet says.

Who knows, he could even be right about somethings, perhaps. I could be wrong in my speculation, and disagreements with his analysis. When I am wrong, I will graciously admit that I am wrong. Not blame the world for not accepting my point of view. But until I see the academic community accept it, it is all speculation.

[Hawk]

On the other hand 009 looks like a "pure Northern Illyrian", he is fully in the J2b cluster from the British paper also and his distance to 0.02874863 HRV_MBA speaks for itself. That's a good match. HRV CA and EBA is a much worse match, because they received additional Bell Beaker ancestry through the Middle Danubian Tumulus Culture expansion. The superficial similarity to some French and Italians is primarily due to this Bell Beaker : Mediterranean Neolithic mixture.

Well, i don't know if you are aware but Middle Danubian Tumulus Culture didn't exist on pure form how you propose, the Tumulus/HugelgraberKultur major expansion was in Middle Bronze Age, MBA from Bavaria to Carpathian Mountains initially. From there they expanded on mixed forms, with some Gava elements, with some Encrusted Pottery Culture elements on the west of Carpathians/Middle Danube Valley, and sometimes the three cultures could be found merged into and living among each other in the Danube valley.

Tumulus/Hugelgraberkultur totally post-dates HRVA CA(Assuming it's Chalcolithic) and EBA. So, the chronology you propose is not possible at all. pre MBA Western Balkanites were Yamnaya derived and probably spoke some kind of Yamnaya language, if Illyrian was Yamnaya derived or CWC that's different matter which i have no idea so far.

[ihype02]

If you look at his most recent blog entry, he goes against academic consensus.

https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2021/...-has-gone.html

To me, academic consensus is paramount.

One guy with a tool he made, vs dozens of geneticists with multiple professional tools. It is not hard to see who is correct here.

People have a right to believe what they want. Nevertheless, I personally don't about care what some guy on the internet says.

My point was that Dienekes is no better or at most even worse than him.

About the link:

I wanted to ask him why doesn't he criticise and "correct" the paper in detailed sense so we can see his point. But I don't think it is my place to do that.
I am not a pre-history population genetics follower either way.

[Riverman]

Well, i don't know if you are aware but Middle Danubian Tumulus Culture didn't exist on pure form how you propose, the Tumulus/HugelgraberKultur major expansion was in Middle Bronze Age, MBA from Bavaria to Carpathian Mountains initially. From there they expanded on mixed forms, with some Gava elements, with some Encrusted Pottery Culture elements on the west of Carpathians/Middle Danube Valley, and sometimes the three cultures could be found merged into and living among each other in the Danube valley.

Tumulus/Hugelgraberkultur totally post-dates HRVA CA(Assuming it's Chalcolithic) and EBA. So, the chronology you propose is not possible at all. pre MBA Western Balkanites were Yamnaya derived and probably spoke some kind of Yamnaya language, if Illyrian was Yamnaya derived or CWC that's different matter which i have no idea so far.

I think that's just a misunderstanding, because I don't know what you think I said? I just said that the earlier population was different and indeed more Neolithic and Yamnaya respectively. On top of those came the Tumulus Culture people, which fused with some locals, and replaced most others. The pre-Kyjatice and pre-Gáva people were pushed Eastward, like Füzesabony. They were a Epi-Corded local Neolithic mix, with increased WHG and became concentrated along the Tisza, but especially in the triangle of Romania-Slovakia-Hungary. From there the Channelled Ware and important impulses emerged, when they became half-way integrated into the Tumulus culture horizon. However, they remained people apart!
That's very important: The Illyrian side was completely overwhelmed and largely replaced by TC, but the presumably Daco-Thracian side remained independent with Kyjatice-Gáva. They only adopted some cultural elements from the TC with little admixture if any. That's a major difference and the main reason why they had very different paternal make up most likely.

[torzio]

Daunian_IA:ORD009_517BC_Quality=70.05%,0.121791,0. 156392,0.028284,-0.017765,0.034776,-0.003904,0.00799,-0.014076,0.011862,0.028976,0.000812,0.005845,-0.011893,-0.004542,-0.005293,0.006364,0.024512,-0.003801,-0.000126,-0.003877,0.002995,0.007048,0.002588,0.00482,-0.005029
Daunian_IA:ORD006_633BC_Quality=13.78%,0.125205,0. 155376,0.035449,-0.008075,0.047701,-0.025937,0,-0.001154,0.01084,0.05704,0.00682,0.01079,-0.014271,-0.006744,-0.002443,0.022673,0.023991,-0.00266,-0.003771,0.006253,0.003244,-0.016322,-0.005793,0.012893,-0.011496
Daunian_IA:SAL003_374BC_Quality=12.56%,0.119514,0. 170609,0.002263,-0.047158,0.035083,-0.012271,-0.008695,0.020999,0.027202,0.040456,-0.017863,0.013638,-0.040436,-0.007019,-0.0076,-0.015248,-0.002217,-0.013556,0.005782,-0.014132,0.005989,0.015951,0.008874,0.000602,0.008 502
Daunian_IA:ORD014_525BC_Quality=12.32%,0.134311,0. 151314,0.031301,-0.020672,0.029236,0.019801,0.00282,-0.003692,0.036201,0.041368,0.00747,-0.002847,-0.00996,-0.003028,-0.022122,-0.009679,-0.019427,0.011782,-0.003017,0.014132,-0.006489,0.016569,0.015529,-0.00494,-0.004431
Daunian_IA:SGR002_571BC_Quality=11.42%,0.133173,0. 165531,0.042238,-0.015504,0.034776,-0.008925,0.00987,-0.007384,-0.000409,0.04319,-0.015265,0.014537,-0.013082,-0.012248,-0.002986,0.020817,0.018123,-0.00228,-0.018226,-0.002126,0.008859,0.016446,-0.016762,0.010483,0.006227
Daunian_IA:ORD011_637BC_Quality=10.15%,0.136588,0. 170609,0.017725,-0.026809,0.053856,-0.021196,0.022326,0.005769,0.02168,0.060867,-0.016726,0.027426,-0.017245,-0.01156,-0.029858,0.001458,-0.004824,-0.003801,0.017346,0.015758,-0.007487,-0.007666,0.022554,-0.010363,-0.018441
Daunian_MA:ORD010_1088AD_Quality=66.86%,0.099026,0 .157407,-0.013199,-0.062339,0.016618,-0.026774,-0.0047,-0.015461,0.006954,0.020775,0.004709,-0.007643,-0.004757,-0.004129,-0.015336,-0.002387,0.012126,-0.004941,0.006159,0.002876,0.004742,0.001731,-0.005053,0.011447,-0.003592




Daunian ORD009
EEF.....61.6
CHG....15.2
ANE....12.8
WHG....9
IRAN ....0
Middle east ....1.4

[Angela]

Eurogenes was being discussed. Dodecad K12 is a completely different thing.



Some academic samples from Northeastern Italy, from Raveane 2019, end up among the Croatians and Hungarians. But of course, academic samples are always very accurate. Are we sure that it is the amateurs who turn some Italians into Nordics? You should avoid to drag the discussion onto a personal level. For me it's not a research about my ancestry or myself, let alone my identity, I'm not blinded by a research about myself unlike many others. Accuracy is all that ever matters to me. Those who really know me know this.

You are free to believe what you want but time has shown that Cavalli Sforza was wrong about many things, and you seem to forget that Alberto Piazza was Cavalli Sforza's main collaborator.

Yes, well, some Northeastern Italians have a lot of Croatian admixture, just like some Italians from the far northern parts of the Veneto and Lombardia have some Germanic in them.

That's what happens when you take some random samples from an area and don't pre-screen them to show the results you THINK they should show.

Alberto Piazza is Alberto Piazza and Cavalli Sforza is Cavalli Sforza. Let's let each man answer for his own individual work and not conflate it with work they did together decades ago.

[Hawk]

I think that's just a misunderstanding, because I don't know what you think I said? I just said that the earlier population was different and indeed more Neolithic and Yamnaya respectively. On top of those came the Tumulus Culture people, which fused with some locals, and replaced most others. The pre-Kyjatice and pre-G�va people were pushed Eastward, like F�zesabony. They were a Epi-Corded local Neolithic mix, with increased WHG and became concentrated along the Tisza, but especially in the triangle of Romania-Slovakia-Hungary. From there the Channelled Ware and important impulses emerged, when they became half-way integrated into the Tumulus culture horizon. However, they remained people apart!
That's very important: The Illyrian side was completely overwhelmed and largely replaced by TC, but the presumably Daco-Thracian side remained independent with Kyjatice-G�va. They only adopted some cultural elements from the TC with little admixture if any. That's a major difference and the main reason why they had very different paternal make up most likely.

HRV CA and EBA is a much worse match, because they received additional Bell Beaker ancestry through the Middle Danubian Tumulus Culture expansion.

Well, i tend to disagree here, because Tumulus expansion happened in MBA and strictly initially in Carpathian mountains and surroundings while the HRC CA and EBA predate Tumulus.

[Pax Augusta]

Yes, well, some Northeastern Italians have a lot of Croatian admixture, just like some Italians from the far northern parts of the Veneto and Lombardia have some Germanic in them.

Only recent Slavic or Germanic admixture can move them to that position. If they have recent Croatian or Slovenian admixture they can't be more considered fully Northern Italian.

Completely different thing is Germanic or Slavic medieval admixture.

Just a couple of examples

[Angela]

Please explain.

All biases are wrong from the scientific standpoint.

We want to KNOW the truth not FEEL it.

I've never yet heard from an Albanian who didn't think Dienekes was biased, and the reason is that they hate his analyses of Balkan genetics, particularly Greek and Albanian genetics.

Meanwhile, I, who have no stake in the matter and doesn't give a damn about Balkan genetics, can't think of one major thing about which he was wrong, and I followed him from his first posts, and was part of his sample set.

Eurogenes, on the other hand, has been wrong so many times that as I've often said I could fill the phone book of a small city with his incorrect predictions. The only times he's right is when his buddy tells him about the contents of upcoming papers. Anyone interested can find his exchanges with me on this site and see for yourselves how he can't even read a paper properly and relate what it shows or doesn't show; he just jumps to his pre-determined conclusions.

As for "calculators", for people who haven't been around long enough, Dienekes "invented" them. Eurogenes is like a line engineer using someone else's algorithms and programs without, of course, acknowledging his debt.

That's not to mention that Eurogenes is an out and out racist propagandist convicted out of his own mouth and someone captured on discussions with his Russian buddy trying to figure out how to manipulate the sample selection to get the desired result. For crying out loud, on PCAs he used to routinely include close relatives of "his" samples.

OK, I remember something Dienekes was wrong about: some y dna predictions, like for Oetzi. I was wrong too.