E-V13 in Northern Italy

[Riverman]

The amount of E-V13 in the Ligurians in comparison to other areas in Italy as well as in other parts of Europe very much depends on the study used. You can't just pick the one you like best.

I'm probably not aware of all the studies available on the subject and its quite possible that different samples yield different frequencies. However, I found it odd because the region has no real strong Greek colonisation history, Etruscans seem to have largely lacked E-V13 and even the Germanic settlement wasn't stronger there than in some other regions, which have no more E-V13. I look at it as yet another case study and try to understand whats real and how to explain it.

At any rate, even if one uses the Boattini et al study, they have roughly the same amount as the people in the Veneto. The inland areas in between have less, so I don't know how a source in Hallstatt would fit those facts.

Actually that's why I came up with this in the first place, because it fits so well. There were Hallstatt centres, in Veneto even more so and with proven links to Thraco-Cimmerian, Eastern Hallstatt and Basarabi, the main cultural formations I think brought much of the early E-V13 to the more Western parts of Europe. This would fit well with the Sardinian E-V13 clades too, which look both older, but also Hallstatt Iron Age and with links to the West.

If you look at a good Hallstatt map, you can see the Hallstatt-related cultures in Northern Italy:

https://live.staticflickr.com/331/19533839060_e7fd3fb6fa_b.jpg

Also note that the Ligurians are supposed to have been moving more to the South and the coast, because of the Celtic pressure from the North. Which means their original home might have been even closer to Hallstatt related formations.

As for descent from Gauls, that's another discussion altogether. The people of Liguria have been described as "Celt-Ligurians" for a reason, although I think the term "Gallic-Ligurians" might be more appropriate. In any event, I don't think anyone knows how many "Gauls" actually moved into Liguria from the direction of France, or when precisely it happened, or whether they were substantially different genetically from the "Ligurians" already inhabiting the area. If I had to speculate, I would say that the people in both areas were a combination of Paleolithic, Neolithic, and Bronze Age peoples.

Honestly I don't believe in a lot of continuity anywhere. Even Sardinians have newer influences, but with their more Neolithic-Copper Age ancestry in the region they are truly exceptional.

I don’t believe that is at all the conclusion that should be drawn, or that was drawn, for that matter, in the Vitali paper. The researchers are looking at the samples in the context of the material culture and burial customs found at each site to determine how many of the people are *local* versus how many of them are migrants from other areas. In their words, “ In Negringen, no observable changes occurred during the use of the cemetery, while in Monte Bibele new burial customs appear, which point to transalpine contacts. If the Celtic objects were introduced by newcomers, this should be revealed by the strontium isotope analysis.” What they found is that about 20% of the people buried in Monte Bibele were non local.

I think that later Celtic groups moved into Ligurian territory from the North is without doubt, the only question which remains is who and what were the Ligurians before and how much of them did persist. And for the debate in question: Were they rich in E-V13. I'd say based on what I already knew and you added, its a distinct possibility that the Ligurian ethnicity is responsible for a fairly high level of E-V13 in the modern local population. But its mere speculation at this point, without a lot of modern, high resolution terminal clades and ancient DNA at hand.

Also, the researchers found that “In Monte Bibele, two warriors changed their residency during childhood (graves 35 and 107) and three have Srisotope ratios within the local range (graves 42, 59 and 151).Overall, warriors do not seem to be more often of non-local origin than males buried without weaponry."

By the way, I have some concrete evidence of how E-V13 could have spread from Basarabi elite warriors to Eastern Hallstatt to Western Hallstatt and from there as minority element into Celts. Its in any case a proven fact that people, especially elite men and women, did migrate from one of these groups to the next and the normal direction of the migration was always East -> West, rarely in the opposite direction in the Early and Hallstatt Iron Age.

Sometimes it seems as if every time someone puts a spade in the ground in eastern Liguria or northwest Tuscany another one of these monoliths, or parts of it, are discovered. My uncle used to use one of the heads as a doorstop.

Well, that's a very personal contact to prehistory
The stelae somewhat resemble the very early steppe-related influences which made it even down to Italy Jean Manco mentioned in her book. Are they identical, from the same tradition?

 

[Angela]

I'm probably not aware of all the studies available on the subject and its quite possible that different samples yield different frequencies. However, I found it odd because the region has no real strong Greek colonisation history, Etruscans seem to have largely lacked E-V13 and even the Germanic settlement wasn't stronger there than in some other regions, which have no more E-V13. I look at it as yet another case study and try to understand whats real and how to explain it.



Actually that's why I came up with this in the first place, because it fits so well. There were Hallstatt centres, in Veneto even more so and with proven links to Thraco-Cimmerian, Eastern Hallstatt and Basarabi, the main cultural formations I think brought much of the early E-V13 to the more Western parts of Europe. This would fit well with the Sardinian E-V13 clades too, which look both older, but also Hallstatt Iron Age and with links to the West.

If you look at a good Hallstatt map, you can see the Hallstatt-related cultures in Northern Italy:

https://live.staticflickr.com/331/19533839060_e7fd3fb6fa_b.jpg

Also note that the Ligurians are supposed to have been moving more to the South and the coast, because of the Celtic pressure from the North. Which means their original home might have been even closer to Hallstatt related formations.



Honestly I don't believe in a lot of continuity anywhere. Even Sardinians have newer influences, but with their more Neolithic-Copper Age ancestry in the region they are truly exceptional.



I think that later Celtic groups moved into Ligurian territory from the North is without doubt, the only question which remains is who and what were the Ligurians before and how much of them did persist. And for the debate in question: Were they rich in E-V13. I'd say based on what I already knew and you added, its a distinct possibility that the Ligurian ethnicity is responsible for a fairly high level of E-V13 in the modern local population. But its mere speculation at this point, without a lot of modern, high resolution terminal clades and ancient DNA at hand.



By the way, I have some concrete evidence of how E-V13 could have spread from Basarabi elite warriors to Eastern Hallstatt to Western Hallstatt and from there as minority element into Celts. Its in any case a proven fact that people, especially elite men and women, did migrate from one of these groups to the next and the normal direction of the migration was always East -> West, rarely in the opposite direction in the Early and Hallstatt Iron Age.



Well, that's a very personal contact to prehistory
The stelae somewhat resemble the very early steppe-related influences which made it even down to Italy Jean Manco mentioned in her book. Are they identical, from the same tradition?

Correction, it's great-uncle, and he had no idea they were so old and valuable to archaeologists; at most, people connected them to the idols which the priests were still smashing in the 400s.

Yes, I discussed this with Jean back on the old dna forums.
Anyway, there are studies on the anthropomorphic stelae. As always, opinions differ.

Some, like Jean, see their origin on the Ukrainian steppe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurgan_stelae

Others disagree.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...lantic-ocean/804684B0E0275FC5754A04EF72A448D3


Imo the concept is probably older than the steppe people. The first ones, imo, might have been as old as the monoliths at Gobekli Tepe, and the concept might have moved over the Caucasus and into the steppe rather than originating on the steppe, although I don't know how either could be proved.

Gobekli Tepe

Lunigiana:

Sometimes they've just been incorporated into the houses and walls on the street:

The oldest date to the end of the 4th millennium BCE apparently, all the way to the 6th century BCE. They're found in the Alps, as well, dating to the Copper Age.

There are two museums full of them, one in Pontremoli and one in La Speziz.

 

[ELIOV13]

I believe that the main reason is due to the many centuries of commercial relations between Venice, Genoa with Constantinople and the Balkans, so not only the period of Byzantine domination in Italy, I remember that the Genoese lived in a large neighborhood called Pera in Constantinople and that of interchange with the city and the surrounding territories were remarkable.

 

[Angela]

I believe that the main reason is due to the many centuries of commercial relations between Venice, Genoa with Constantinople and the Balkans, so not only the period of Byzantine domination in Italy, I remember that the Genoese lived in a large neighborhood called Pera in Constantinople and that of interchange with the city and the surrounding territories were remarkable.

Probably not the main reason, imo, but probably "a" reason.

 

[Riverman]

Probably not the main reason, imo, but probably "a" reason.

Yes, it could contribute, but can't be the main explanation. Because it needs to be considered which percentage of E-V13 other people got at that time. No small influx can explain something like 10 percent E-V13, because on the lowest level, this would mean, usually, about one quarter of the total paternal population coming from the same source. If that would be the case and its not the LBA-EIA or Hallstatt, there should be other haplogroups accompanying that influx. On the other hand, any early influx from Channelled Ware-South Eastern Urnfield groups, Thraco-Cimmerian, Eastern Hallstatt-Basarabi, could possibly be much smaller, since the E-V13 frequency was much higher in them and multiple founder effects could have taken place especially in the Iron Age. The later the appearance, the bigger the replacement level of the incoming migrants.

That's also why E-V13 in Greeks is so important. If it came early from groups which might have been 70-100 percent E-V13, like Belegis II-Gava and Psenichevo, it doesn't mean that much. But coming from Vlachs, Albanians and Slavs, which all had a much lower frequency, it would mean later near total replacement of the old Greeks. Obviously its not exclusive, but whether the 10-35 % in different Greek regions can be explained at least in part by early migrations makes a huge difference already. And it makes the appearance in Southern Italy in particular easier to explain.

 

[TaktikatEMalet]

Yes, it could contribute, but can't be the main explanation. Because it needs to be considered which percentage of E-V13 other people got at that time. No small influx can explain something like 10 percent E-V13, because on the lowest level, this would mean, usually, about one quarter of the total paternal population coming from the same source. If that would be the case and its not the LBA-EIA or Hallstatt, there should be other haplogroups accompanying that influx. On the other hand, any early influx from Channelled Ware-South Eastern Urnfield groups, Thraco-Cimmerian, Eastern Hallstatt-Basarabi, could possibly be much smaller, since the E-V13 frequency was much higher in them and multiple founder effects could have taken place especially in the Iron Age. The later the appearance, the bigger the replacement level of the incoming migrants.
That's also why E-V13 in Greeks is so important. If it came early from groups which might have been 70-100 percent E-V13, like Belegis II-Gava and Psenichevo, it doesn't mean that much. But coming from Vlachs, Albanians and Slavs, which all had a much lower frequency, it would mean later near total replacement of the old Greeks. Obviously its not exclusive, but whether the 10-35 % in different Greek regions can be explained at least in part by early migrations makes a huge difference already. And it makes the appearance in Southern Italy in particular easier to explain.

This doesnt add up. Basarabi culture affecting ancient greece at such a distance away? Especially considering Romanians have super low v13 today. V13 in greece can only be explained by dorians and illyrians, thracians had very little impact

The dorian invasion precedes ancient greeks moving to south italy by a couple hundred years so that would explain v13 in south italy. Anyway without ancient dna we can only speculate

Basarabi culture was related to the hallstatt culture, they were celtic people which had very little or nothing to do with v13 and everything to do with west european r1b -

"The examined individuals of the Hallstatt culture and La Tène culture displayed genetic continuity with the earlier Bell Beaker culture, and carried about 50% steppe-related ancestry." There is very little bell beaker r1b in south europe, the hallstatt people were wiped out by newcomers or by natives already there when they attempted to expand

 

[Riverman]

Romanians have no super low E-V13, but what's more, it wasn't Basarabi, but rather its predecessor, Belegis II-G?va and later Thracians (Psenichevo) which influenced Greeks.

 

[TaktikatEMalet]

Romanians have no super low E-V13, but what's more, it wasn't Basarabi, but rather its predecessor, Belegis II-G�va and later Thracians (Psenichevo) which influenced Greeks.

From studies ive seen on romanians they always seem to mention below 10% v13 and without deep testing whos to say these arent related to romans since romanians also carry some j2a and r1b.

If thracians descended from hallstatt then they should have high bell beaker r1b and low v13 - ive never read much thracian influence on ancient greece unless the dorians were thracian but regionally that seems unlikely

 

[Riverman]

From studies ive seen on romanians they always seem to mention below 10% v13 and without deep testing whos to say these arent related to romans since romanians also carry some j2a and r1b.
If thracians decended from hallstatt then they should have high bell beaker r1b and low v13 - ive never read much thracian influence on ancient greece unless the dorians were thracian but regionally that seems unlikely

Compare with my recent post here on E-V13 frequencies:
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?25094-E-V13-Frequency-Maps-and-Data

Its work in progress, but you get an impression.

And no, Daco-Thracians didn't descent from Hallstatt, you got that wrong. They influenced Hallstatt, primarily via the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon and Basarabi, which brought Hallstatt, especially Eastern Hallstatt up. You can find a lot of Basarabi in Eastern Hallstatt groups like Fr?g and even down to Italy. So they came on top of Bell Beaker groups in the Danubian-Alpine area, until La Tene Celts turned the tide again. Eastern Hallstatt and Pannonia was a mixed zone through which E-V13 spread to the West.
The centre of Daco-Thracian ethnicity was of course further East, Eastern Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, Transcarpathia, Moldova, Serbia largely, Macedonia in part, Bulgaria etc.
You have to keep in mind that the story didn't end there, but many other people came in and changed the ratios and frequencies later, Slavs in particular.

 

[Johane Derite]

And no, Daco-Thracians didn't descent from Hallstatt, you got that wrong. They influenced Hallstatt, primarily via the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon and Basarabi,

It is contested, but nonetheless it should be kept in mind that serious scholars of Dacian like Georgiev argued that "Daco-Mysian" and Thracian are different branches quite far apart.

In the Iliad, Mysians and Thracians are already two different entities, as different as Phrygians & Thracians.

Georgiev believed the Moesians of the Balkans and the Mysians of Anatolia were genetically related, so this is relevant in reconstructing a phylogeny.


Katicic here summarises some of his arguments, namely that in Thracian there was consonant shift, in "Daco-Mysian" there was not, and that they had differnt toponymy.

He argues that there was at one point a Daco-Mysian invasion of Thracian territories which with time were forgotten, but his argument that Thracian was an older layer is relevant to this discussion.

He also specifies that the boundary that separated these two was not the Danube but the Haemus mountains:

 

[Johane Derite]

It is contested, but nonetheless it should be kept in mind that serious scholars of Dacian like Georgiev argued that "Daco-Mysian" and Thracian are different branches quite far apart.

In the Iliad, Mysians and Thracians are already two different entities, as different as Phrygians & Thracians.

Georgiev believed the Moesians of the Balkans and the Mysians of Anatolia were genetically related, so this is relevant in reconstructing a phylogeny.


Katicic here summarises some of his arguments, namely that in Thracian there was consonant shift, in "Daco-Mysian" there was not, and that they had differnt toponymy.

He argues that there was at one point a Daco-Mysian invasion of Thracian territories which with time were forgotten, but his argument that Thracian was an older layer is relevant to this discussion.

He also specifies that the boundary that separated these two was not the Danube but the Haemus mountains:

If this argument that there was a "Daco-Mysian" invasion of Thrace at some point is accurate, is it possible this is the same period in which Mysians also made it to Anatolia?

 

[Riverman]

If this argument that there was a "Daco-Mysian" invasion of Thrace at some point is accurate, is it possible this is the same period in which Mysians also made it to Anatolia?

Its not exactly the same time, but some groups went quickly to Anatolia. The crucial aspects being:
- Fluted/Channelled Ware horizon and Knobbed Ware in Bulgaria and Anatolia
- Origin of Psenichevo and its close relationship to the (Daco-Mysian) Basarabi.

They being all interconnected and to close, going forth and back, for being completely different people. The invasion was there in any case and I think it brought Thracian language, but if it did not, there was still an invasion of a related people and when else should the ancestors of Psenichevo E-V13 Thracians coming in?

 

[Riverman]

About the Ligurians, I found this to be interesting:

In the early Iron Age, the
probable tomb of the chariot of Rocca delle Fene shows a
typical ritual area Hallstatt (Egg, Pare 1998), but also
widely available starting from VII century BC in
villanovian central Italy, and in Golasecca (Camerin,
1998). The presence of an ?antennas? type sword, clearly
from transalpine area, suggests more of a warrior coming
from Hallstatt area. The tomb is almost contemporary of
the necropolis of Albenga and the most intense period of
the necropolis of Chiavari. This could be explained by the
coming and death in Liguria coming from a warrior chief
from Alpine area, which could be supported by the
presence of depictions of ?antennas? type swords on
some of statue stelae of eastern Liguria, a case that would
not insulated. The reasons for this are, however, came
subject to different interpretations: military expedition,
the contraction of marriage, mercenary.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...OD_GRAVES_OF_THE_LIGURIAN_IRON_AGE_NECROPOLIS

So they had elite warriors, some of which came probably directly from the alpine or transalpine area of Hallstatt. This is quite important because its got clear that the Eastern Hallstatt sphere being heavily influenced by Basarabi, especially the Fr?g and Kalenderberg group, but even beyond, down into Baden-Wuerttemberg, Bavaria and in Italy at strong influences to the Veneti.
Would be interesting to know how common such warrior graves and weapons were in other parts of Northern Italy.

 

[Angela]

I don't know if Hallstadt people went to Liguria, but most scholars see a movement of La Tene people into Liguria in the first century BCE. I already mentioned the changes to the Statue Stele of La Spezia and the Lunigiana.

The daggers are an addition to the statue stele.

This is supposedly a Hallstatt dagger, but archaeologists have talked about a first millennium BC movement into Liguria of Celtic tribes, hence the term Celt-Ligurian for the Iron Age people.

 

[Riverman]

I don't know if Hallstadt people went to Liguria, but most scholars see a movement of La Tene people into Liguria in the first century BCE. I already mentioned the changes to the Statue Stele of La Spezia and the Lunigiana.

The daggers are an addition to the statue stele.

This is supposedly a Hallstatt dagger, but archaeologists have talked about a first millennium BC movement into Liguria of Celtic tribes, hence the term Celt-Ligurian for the Iron Age people.

The linked article and some other evidence makes quite clear to me that before La Tene, people from Hallstatt, especially elite warriors came into Liguria. Whether they were already Celts or other people is unknown and the genetic impact of this can't be even estimated from these individuals here and there. Could have been more or just exceptional.

 

[ihype02]

I support a Northern Italian origin for the plurality of E-V13 in modern Italy.
E-V13 became a minor line (~5%) with Northern Italian migration in central Italy during and after the Middle Ages.

 

[Riverman]

Also related to the Ligurians, the Genuese, as well as the Phocaens (Doric background), all possibly related to higher E-V13 frequencies, is Corsica, especially the area around Al?ria, which shows the highest E-V13 frequency in this region of the island:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6070208/bin/pone.0200641.g001.jpg

In the associated paper, they speculate about:

Haplogroup E, mainly represented by E1b1b1a1b1a-V13, displayed intermediate frequencies in Corsica compared to Tuscany and Provence. E1b1b1a1b1a-V13 was thought to have initiated a pan-Mediterranean expansion 7,000 years ago starting from the Balkans [52] and its dispersal to the northern shore of the Mediterranean basin is consistent with the Greek Anatolian expansion to the western Mediterranean [22], characteristic of the region surrounding Alaria, and consistent with the TMRCA estimated in Corsica for this haplogroup. A few E1b1a-V38 chromosomes are also observed in the same regions as V13.

But this is kind of outdated. Like they also associate Germanic R-U106 with:

Differential distribution of R1b-U152 and R1b-U106 haplogroups and their respective TMRCA seem to coincide with the two groups of Menhir-statue mostly erected during the Bronze Age. The northern Menhir-statue group has slim figures and prominent ears, whereas in the larger Menhir-statue group, located south of the Ajaccio-Solenzara line, they are rougher and display warrior attributes [4,5,61].

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6070208/

But beside these three options:
Ligurians, Phocaeans or Genuese settlement (like in Sardinia), are there any other options to explain that clear pattern of a concentration in and around Al?ria. Looking at the map, the closest correlation haplogroup is definitely R-U106, which would suggest a migration with Germanics:

Corsica remained under Roman rule until its conquest by the Vandals in 430 CE. It was recovered by the Byzantine Empire in 534, adding a late-ancient Greek influence.

The Lombards, who had made themselves masters of the war- and famine-shattered Italian Peninsula, conquered the island in c. 725. The Lombard supremacy on the island was short lived. In 774, the Frankish king Charlemagne conquered Corsica as he moved to subdue the Lombards and restore the Western Empire.

Corsica successively was part of the Republic of Genoa for five centuries. Despite take-overs by Aragon between 1296?1434 and France between 1553 and 1559, Corsica would remain under Genoese control until the Corsican Republic of 1755 and under partial control until its purchase by France in 1768.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Corsica

Any other suggesions welcomed.

 

[Pax Augusta]

Also related to the Ligurians, the Genuese, as well as the Phocaens (Doric background), all possibly related to higher E-V13 frequencies, is Corsica, especially the area around Al�ria, which shows the highest E-V13 frequency in this region of the island:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6070208/bin/pone.0200641.g001.jpg

In the associated paper, they speculate about:


But this is kind of outdated. Like they also associate Germanic R-U106 with:


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6070208/

But beside these three options:
Ligurians, Phocaeans or Genuese settlement (like in Sardinia), are there any other options to explain that clear pattern of a concentration in and around Al�ria. Looking at the map, the closest correlation haplogroup is definitely R-U106, which would suggest a migration with Germanics:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Corsica

Any other suggesions welcomed.

Di Cristofaro's is a rather disappointing paper.

The problem with these percentages of uniparental markers is what geographic areas they come from, whether all individuals, take the case of E-V13 in Liguria, come from the same place, or come from different areas of Liguria that all keeps significative rates of E-V13. Liguria has a particular territory (and this is also true for Corsica), with a lot of isolated villages with you can assume a lot of inbreeding in the past. Because it is clear that in some cases today's rates may be due to founder effects, and not reflecting past rates. So as usual, then trying to attribute today's E-V13 to ethnic groups of the past risks becoming the usual game for its own sake. I don't know if I have been clear.

 

[Riverman]

Di Cristofaro's is a rather disappointing paper.

The problem with these percentages of uniparental markers is what geographic areas they come from, whether all individuals, take the case of E-V13 in Liguria, come from the same place, or come from different areas of Liguria that all keeps significative rates of E-V13. Liguria has a particular territory (and this is also true for Corsica), with a lot of isolated villages with you can assume a lot of inbreeding in the past. Because it is clear that in some cases today's rates may be due to founder effects, and not reflecting past rates. So as usual, then trying to attribute today's E-V13 to ethnic groups of the past risks becoming the usual game for its own sake. I don't know if I have been clear.

Perfectly clear. The only thing I would add is that if you take samples from a lot of those villages and areas, it will even out and unlikely being just a recent founder effect. But with small sample sizes, we never know.

 

[Pax Augusta]

Perfectly clear. The only thing I would add is that if you take samples from a lot of those villages and areas, it will even out and unlikely being just a recent founder effect. But with small sample sizes, we never know.

I really don't know where the samples came from, that's why I was also asking myself. Even near Genoa there are valleys with villages that have been isolated for centuries. Maybe Angela knows.