Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 11 of 23 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast
Results 251 to 275 of 558

Thread: The origin and legacy of the Etruscans through a 2000-year archeogenomic time transec

  1. #251
    Moderator Pax Augusta's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-06-14
    Location
    Ara Pacis
    Posts
    1,528


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: Italy



    1 members found this post helpful.

    Question

    Quote Originally Posted by kingjohn View Post
    yes you are correct
    she is from older paper
    just it was in a list of k12b values of samples salento posted
    for lucas to add to vahaduo k12b ancient tool
    it is still cool she clusters with campania

    I do not have elements to support it for this specific case (ETR001) but in Etruria both during the Iron Age and after there were undoubtedly also people from southern Italy, not always there is the need of foreigners' admixture to justify ancient people who plot with modern-day southern Italians. Southern Italy is closer geographically.

    ETR001's mtdna was T1a8a, and was found in a sample of Italians (non Tuscans) but of unknown origins, and also found in a sample found in Egypt from 2000 years ago that suggests it is perhaps arrival into Italy in the Rome imperial age?
    The problem is that many can be simply mixed and it's not easy to always figure out everything about their origin.

    https://www.yfull.com/mtree/T1a8a/

  2. #252
    Advisor Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    19,797


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jovialis View Post
    These medieval samples from Tuscany would not have been considered "Eastern Mediterranean" in the Antonio et al. 2019 paper. Rather, they would have been put in the C6 cluster "Mediterranean".

    This is the same ancestry as R437.

    Antonio et al. 2019 says there was a demographic shift away from the eastern Mediterranean. The resurgence was based on C7, but predominately C6, which was found in IA. Ergo, their idea of local-population resurgence was the increase of these ancestries, and the disappearance and reduction of the other.

    So what gives here?

    Frankly, I am not sure of this paper, or the modeling they used. But it is like they are speaking a different language of what I am familiar with on this subject.
    I've been sounding like a broken record, I'm sure, but that's why I've been asking repeatedly why the authors or someone in the internet hobbyist world isn't modeling with IA Aegean, or Empuries, or with one of what has been labeled our "Greek_Italians", like 437 or 850. Those two samples clearly show that there were people even in the first millennium BC who showed this kind of autosomal signature, so why not use them to do the modeling?

    Even back with the Amorim paper on the Lombards, the paper concluded that the locals were most like modern Southern Italians. Interestingly enough, that was also a Max Planck paper, with Krause on it, and had many of the same Italian contributing authors. The main difference was that the lead was Amorim, and the lead on this paper was Posth.

    I'm not saying I know what this modeling would show, but I think it's worth doing.

    What would Latin/Etruscan main clusters, plus 437 and or 850 like people show? Would they be Imperial Tuscan like, or is that an unrepresentative sample? Would that combination come close to early Medieval Tuscans if a bit of Germanic was added?

    Also, as one of the charts from the paper I've posted shows, the bigger pull north for Tuscans doesn't seem to have occurred in the creation of the early or even Middle Medieval Tuscans, when you would expect to see Lombard and Gothic influence, but later. Your PCA seems to show that as well.

    I'm at a loss as to what it could be, unless it was gradual Northern Italian movement southward. Of course, there would also have been Tuscan movement northward, from my reading on the topic.


    Non si fa il proprio dovere perchè qualcuno ci dica grazie, lo si fa per principio, per se stessi, per la propria dignità. Oriana Fallaci

  3. #253
    Regular Member kingjohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    05-09-16
    Posts
    1,389

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    rare E-FGC7391
    MtDNA haplogroup
    h3ap

    Country: Uruguay



    Quote Originally Posted by Pax Augusta View Post
    I do not have elements to support it for this specific case (ETR001) but in Etruria both during the Iron Age and after there were undoubtedly also people from southern Italy, not always there is the need of foreigners' admixture to justify ancient people who plot with modern-day southern Italians. Southern Italy is closer geographically.

    ETR001's mtdna was T1a8a, and was found in a sample of Italians (non Tuscans) but of unknown origins, and also found in a sample found in Egypt from 2000 years ago that suggests it is perhaps arrival into Italy in the Rome imperial age?
    The problem is that many can be simply mixed and it's not easy to always figure out everything about their origin.

    https://www.yfull.com/mtree/T1a8a/
    maybe jovialis can check her out

    ETR001_Imperial_Rome_Chiusi_Tuscany,8.19,0,2.62,0. 45,33.92,11.31,0,0,12.02,0,31.49,0

    to me she looks like she belonged to c6 cluster
    which is the main cluster in the other etruscans
    she is much more northern than me for example ( who have tendency for c5 cluster or between c5-c6)
    her atlantic -medit is high
    i think she was native to the area

    p.s
    i think she was clearly c6 cluster
    ancestery :
    mostly western jewish here is the overlapp with south europe[U]

  4. #254
    Moderator Pax Augusta's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-06-14
    Location
    Ara Pacis
    Posts
    1,528


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: Italy



    Quote Originally Posted by kingjohn View Post
    maybe jovialis can check her out

    ETR001_Imperial_Rome_Chiusi_Tuscany,8.19,0,2.62,0. 45,33.92,11.31,0,0,12.02,0,31.49,0

    to me she looks like she belonged to c6 cluster
    which is the main cluster in the other etruscans
    she is much more northern than me for example ( who have tendency for c5 cluster or between c5-c6)
    her atlantic -medit is high
    i think she was native to the area

    p.s
    i think she was clearly c6 cluster


    I'm not checking because I'm messed up but the main cluster whom Etruscan samples belong is C7, not C6. It's the the others, later samples that are no more "Etruscan", that end up in cluster C6.

    The 2020 paper that analyzed ETR001 for the first time claims that "ETR001, is younger and represent European genetic ancestry established after major prehistoric migrations".

  5. #255
    Regular Member kingjohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    05-09-16
    Posts
    1,389

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    rare E-FGC7391
    MtDNA haplogroup
    h3ap

    Country: Uruguay



    my mistake i thought they were c6
    so etruscans were c7
    if that is the case there was some eastern shift indeed
    that pulled the mediveal etruscans to c6 cluster

  6. #256
    Advisor Jovialis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-05-17
    Posts
    6,027

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a1b2a2a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H6a1b7

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Jovialis View Post
    I have just realized there is literally only 1 sample here that matches up with C5 Eastern Mediterranean.
    What the hell!?
    They are ovewhelmingly C7 and C6
    I don't understand, are these not representative of this?:
    Basically, it seems that both studies are looking at the same results, with two different conclusions.

    One thing is certain l, it seems both areas had central-southern Italian-like people in the middle ages in Tuscany and Rome. I personally believe, results will show this kind of ancestry was present in the Iron Age, which we know is true based on R437 (Also similar to Balkans IA). To me, it seems that C6 is native to Italy, most likely more in the south, which show C6 as well. It became mixed with C7, and eventually became more prevalent in the Imperial era, to the middle ages. Maybe pockets of the original C7 survive in more places than others, idk.

  7. #257
    Moderator Pax Augusta's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-06-14
    Location
    Ara Pacis
    Posts
    1,528


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: Italy



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by kingjohn View Post
    my mistake i thought they were c6
    so etruscans were c7
    if that is the case there was some eastern shift indeed
    that pulled the mediveal etruscans to c6 cluster
    That's what we've been talking about for days. :)

    The number one suspects are imperial age migrations, but there are still few samples to get an accurate picture.

  8. #258
    Regular Member kingjohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    05-09-16
    Posts
    1,389

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    rare E-FGC7391
    MtDNA haplogroup
    h3ap

    Country: Uruguay



    it effected some of them not all
    some are still c7



    Distance to: C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_10 18-1151CE:TAQ022
    5.02372372 C6_Late_Antiquity_Mediterranean:R36_Celio



    Distance to: C.Italy_Imperial:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_262-424CE:TAQ021
    3.65334094 C6_Iron_Age_Mediterranean:R437_(Latin_Prenestini_T ribe)_Palestrina_Selicata



    Distance to: C.Italy_Imperial:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_89-236CE:TAQ020
    4.22571887 C6_Late_Antiquity_Mediterranean:R36_Celio



    Distance to: C.Italy_Etruscan:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_358-98BCE:TAQ019
    3.19007837 C7_Iron_Age_European:R473_(Etruscan)_Civitavecchia



    Distance to: C.Italy_Etruscan_related:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_ 346-51BCE:TAQ018
    3.22772366 C7_Iron_Age_European:R473_(Etruscan)_Civitavecchia



    Distance to: C.Italy_Etruscan_related:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_ 356-96BCE:TAQ017
    3.92517516 C7_Iron_Age_European:R1016_(Latini)_Castel_di_Deci ma



    Distance to: C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio): TAQ016
    3.79457508 C7_Iron_Age_European:R473_(Etruscan)_Civitavecchia



    Distance to: C.Italy_Etruscan:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_346-51BCE:TAQ015
    2.14424812 C7_Iron_Age_European:R1015_(Villanovan)_Veio_Grott a_Gramiccia



    Distance to: C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio): TAQ013
    3.21407841 C7_Iron_Age_European:R1015_(Villanovan)_Veio_Grott a_Gramiccia



    Distance to: C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio): TAQ012
    7.75460508 C7_Iron_Age_European:R1015_(Villanovan)_Veio_Grott a_Gramiccia



    Distance to: C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_89 5-1016CE:TAQ011
    2.43840112 C6_Late_Antiquity_Mediterranean:R120_S_Ercolano_Ne cropolis_Ostia



    Distance to: C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio): TAQ010
    2.88548090 C7_Iron_Age_European:R851_(Latini)_Ardea



    Distance to: C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_89 9-1021CE:TAQ009
    2.77380605 C6_Medieval_Mediterranean:R1283_Cancelleria



    Distance to: C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio): TAQ008
    5.01349180 C7_Iron_Age_European:R1016_(Latini)_Castel_di_Deci ma



    Distance to: C.Italy_Etruscan.Afr:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_391-207BCE:TAQ007
    7.04589242 C5_Imperial_Eastern_Mediterranean:R45_Isola_Sacra_ Necropolis



    Distance to: C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_ :TAQ006
    5.79330648 C7_Iron_Age_European:R1021_(Latini)_Boville_Ernica



    Distance to: C.Italy_Etruscan_related:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_ 346-51BCE:TAQ005
    6.18588716 C7_Iron_Age_European:R1015_(Villanovan)_Veio_Grott a_Gramiccia



    Distance to: C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_ :TAQ004
    3.51907658 C7_Iron_Age_European:R473_(Etruscan)_Civitavecchia



    Distance to: C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_72 9-942CE:TAQ003
    2.66726452 C6_Medieval_Mediterranean:R969_Tivoli_Palazzo_Cian ti



    Distance to: C.Italy_Etruscan:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_103BCE-54CE:TAQ002
    2.71341114 C7_Iron_Age_European:R473_(Etruscan)_Civitavecchia



    Distance to: C.Italy_Etruscan_related:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_ 356-96BCE:TAQ001
    4.61831138 C7_Iron_Age_European:R1015_(Villanovan)_Veio_Grott a_Gramiccia



    Distance to: C.Italy_Etruscan:PoggioRenzo(Siena_Tuscany)_772-436BCE:PRZ002
    5.50763107 C7_Iron_Age_European:R851_(Latini)_Ardea



    Distance to: C.Italy_Etruscan:PoggioRenzo(Siena_Tuscany)_794-543BCE:PRZ001
    2.43057606 C7_Iron_Age_European:R473_(Etruscan)_Civitavecchia



    Distance to: C.Italy_Early.Medieval:PoggioPelliccia(Grosseto_Tu scany)_772-960CE:POP001
    3.37237305 C6_Medieval_Mediterranean:R1283_Cancelleria



    Distance to: C.Italy_Etruscan:Marsilianad'Albegna(Grosseto_Tusc any)_804-557BCE:MAS004
    6.43401896 C7_Iron_Age_European:R1021_(Latini)_Boville_Ernica



    Distance to: C.Italy_Imperial:Marsilianad'Albegna(Grosseto_Tusc any)_400-530CE:MAS003
    7.72047278 C3_Iron_Age_N_African/Euro-Mix:R475_(Etruscan)_Civitavecchia



    Distance to: C.Italy_Imperial:Marsilianad'Albegna(Grosseto_Tusc any)_240-380CE:MAS002
    2.96464163 C5_Imperial_Eastern_Mediterranean:R81_Viale_Rossin i_Necropolis



    Distance to: C.Italy_Etruscan_MAS001:Marsilianad'Albegna(Grosse to_Tuscany)_350-100BCE:MAS001
    10.57212845 C7_Medieval_European:R55_Villa_Magna



    Distance to: C.Italy_Etruscan:MaglianoinToscana(Grosseto_Tuscan y)_790-550BCE:MAG001
    3.49005731 C7_Iron_Age_European:R1021_(Latini)_Boville_Ernica



    Distance to: C.Italy_Early.Medieval_ETR014:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany )_977-1022CE:ETR014
    3.41493777 C6_Medieval_Mediterranean:R58_Villa_Magna



    Distance to: C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)C899-1016CE:ETR013
    3.06292344 C6_Imperial_Mediterranean:R113_Via_Paisiello_Necro polis



    Distance to: C.Italy_Early.Medieval_undated:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscan y):ETR012
    17.43717580 C7_Iron_Age_European:R474_(Etruscan)_Civitavecchia



    Distance to: C.Italy_Early.Medieval_undated:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscan y):ETR010
    1.86772589 C6_Medieval_Mediterranean:R1285_Cancelleria



    Distance to: C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)775-945CE:ETR007
    6.17036466 C6_Late_Antiquity_Mediterranean:R36_Celio



    Distance to: C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)_772-888CE:ETR006
    5.64591002 C6_Medieval_Mediterranean:R1285_Cancelleria



    Distance to: C.Italy_Etruscan:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)_805-774BCE:ETR005
    4.37476857 C7_Iron_Age_European:R473_(Etruscan)_Civitavecchia



    Distance to: :Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany):ETR004
    12.27070088 C6_Medieval_Mediterranean:R64_Villa_Magna



    Distance to: C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)_997-1149CE:ETR003
    3.75043997 C6_Imperial_Mediterranean:R1549_Monterotondo



    Distance to: C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tusca ny):CSN013
    4.22577803 C7_Iron_Age_European:R1016_(Latini)_Castel_di_Deci ma



    Distance to: :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012
    10.04464036 C7_Medieval_European:R63_Villa_Magna



    Distance to: C.Italy_Etruscan_related:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tusca ny)_380-204BCE:CSN010
    6.08673147 C7_Imperial_European:R116_Via_Paisiello_Necropolis



    Distance to: C.Italy_Etruscan:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany)_427-265BCE:CSN009
    5.65394553 C7_Late_Antiquity_European:R33_Mausole_di_Augusto



    Distance to: C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tusca ny):CSN008
    4.70089353 C7_Late_Antiquity_European:R110_Crypta_Balbi



    Distance to: C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tusca ny):CSN007
    5.79393649 C7_Iron_Age_European:R473_(Etruscan)_Civitavecchia



    Distance to: C.Italy_Etruscan:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany)_533-392BCE:CSN006
    4.42379927 C7_Iron_Age_European:R473_(Etruscan)_Civitavecchia



    Distance to: C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tusca ny):CSN005
    5.78621638 C7_Medieval_European:R61_Villa_Magna



    Distance to: C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tusca ny):CSN004
    5.90316864 C7_Iron_Age_European:R1015_(Villanovan)_Veio_Grott a_Gramiccia



    Distance to: C.Italy_Etruscan:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany)_380-204BCE:CSN003
    5.06993097 C7_Iron_Age_European:R473_(Etruscan)_Civitavecchia



    Distance to: C.Italy_Etruscan.Ceu_related:Casenovole(Grosseto_T uscany)_427-265BCE:CSN002
    10.63977443 C7_Late_Antiquity_European:R33_Mausole_di_Augusto



    Distance to: C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tusca ny):CSN001
    1.96921304 C7_Iron_Age_European:R473_(Etruscan)_Civitavecchia



    Distance to: C.Italy_Etruscan:CampigliadeiFoci(Siena_Tuscany)_7 70-540BCE:CAM003
    3.97761235 C7_Iron_Age_European:R473_(Etruscan)_Civitavecchia



    Distance to: C.Italy_Etruscan.Ceu:CampigliadeiFoci(Siena_Tuscan y)_770-520BCE:CAM002
    5.19538257 C7_Medieval_European:R1224_Cancelleria



    Distance to: C.Italy_Etruscan:CampigliadeiFoci(Siena_Tuscany)_7 80-540BCE:CAM001
    3.06572993 C7_Iron_Age_European:R473_(Etruscan)_Civitavecchia




  9. #259
    Moderator Pax Augusta's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-06-14
    Location
    Ara Pacis
    Posts
    1,528


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: Italy



    Quote Originally Posted by Jovialis View Post
    Basically, it seems that both studies are looking at the same results, with two different conclusions.
    In my opinion for the reasons I explained in post #38.

  10. #260
    Regular Member Archetype0ne's Avatar
    Join Date
    11-06-18
    Posts
    1,030

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    J2b2-L283/FT29003

    Country: Albania



    Why are we acting like C7 and C6 are synonymous though?
    Like C6 is halfway between C4 and C7.


    This paper and Antonio are not even in contradiction.

    In fact, from the PCAs posted by our very own Mods. This is more than obvious.



    Tuscany_Imp and R437 plots right in between Cypriot and Villanova.
    This is the angle Jov provided, and to me it is obvious this PCA is in line with both Antonio and Max Plank papers.

    Maybe it is worth re reading both papers.



    Iron: Majority C7(70%) + minority(C3,C5,C6;10% each) -> Imperial: C5 Majority (50%) + minority (C4,C6;25% each) + super-minority C7(4%) -> Antiquity even split C5,C6,C7 into -> Medieval 4:6 C7:C6 resurgence.

    How is that timeline any different from the one proposed here? Where since the Iron age C3,5,6 are present but a minority to C7. While during Imperial Times C7 almost flatlines, with the increase of C4,5, averaging the C7 component into a C6 (what this paper calls an up to 60% admix of Levantine (C4). Meaning C7 + C4 leading to C6 like people. Then this very paper makes the point for the resurgence of C7, and the melting of any remaining unadmixed eastern C4/5 into C6, through an up to 40% Northern input (Lombards, Germanic etc).

    I really do not see what is so controversial here?
    “Man cannot live without a permanent trust in something indestructible in himself, and at the same time that indestructible something as well as his trust in it may remain permanently concealed from him.”

    Franz Kafka

  11. #261
    Advisor Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    19,797


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    Quote Originally Posted by Archetype0ne View Post
    Yes, Such peoples were my initial thought as well.

    Avars, Alans, Huns, Mongols.

    But then I immediately rejected such hypothesis since we are talking about 700-200BC. Rather this looks more like something Maykop, Yamnaya, Sintashta, Central Asian Steppe BA, Sarmatian related(1st image). Also based on the results, whatever population this was it would have increased Iran_Neo and CHG in the region(2nd image, connected to an unanswered question in this paper we(me and Anglea) discussed earlier).





    I personally have no clue. But there might be something interesting in such analyses.
    It is obvious this affected the Balkans and based on the samples from this paper, also IA Italian peninsula.
    What it could have been? Not sure.
    I don't know either, although as I said, for modern Italians there are those Avar settlements.

    Perhaps the Scythians should be considered, as they were next door in Ukraine by the 8th century BCE.

    Scythian | People, History, & Facts | Britannica

    Who knows, some of the steppe groups who arrived earlier might have harbored a few percent of East Asian. I vaguely recall that East Asian haplos were found in some of the Yamnaya samples.

    I think my gene plaza results for ancient groups showed a higher than expected match for me with those eastern steppe groups, which could explain it.

    It's nothing I really pursued given that it disappeared from the 23andme analyses.

  12. #262
    Advisor Jovialis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-05-17
    Posts
    6,027

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a1b2a2a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H6a1b7

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Archetype0ne View Post
    Why are we acting like C7 and C6 are synonymous though?
    Like C6 is halfway between C4 and C7.

    This paper and Antonio are not even in contradiction.
    In fact, from the PCAs posted by our very own Mods. This is more than obvious.

    Tuscany_Imp and R437 plots right in between Cypriot and Villanova.
    This is the angle Jov provided, and to me it is obvious this PCA is in line with both Antonio and Max Plank papers.
    Maybe it is worth re reading both papers.

    Iron: Majority C7(70%) + minority(C3,C5,C6;10% each) -> Imperial: C5 Majority (50%) + minority (C4,C6;25% each) + super-minority C7(4%) -> Antiquity even split C5,C6,C7 into -> Medieval 4:6 C7:C6 resurgence.
    How is that timeline any different from the one proposed here? Where since the Iron age C3,5,6 are present but a minority to C7. While during Imperial Times C7 almost flatlines, with the increase of C4,5, averaging the C7 component into a C6 (what this paper calls an up to 60% admix of Levantine (C4). Meaning C7 + C4 leading to C6 like people. Then this very paper makes the point for the resurgence of C7, and the melting of any remaining unadmixed eastern C4/5 into C6, through an up to 40% Northern input (Lombards, Germanic etc).
    I really do not see what is so controversial here?
    I don't think C7+C4 equaling C6 makes much sense, when C6 is already a cluster unto itself prior to that from happening. Also, you can't ignore the fact that those types of ancestry disappear, by just saying they mixed together and stuck around. That wouldn't make sense.

  13. #263
    Regular Member Archetype0ne's Avatar
    Join Date
    11-06-18
    Posts
    1,030

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    J2b2-L283/FT29003

    Country: Albania



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    I don't know either, although as I said, for modern Italians there are those Avar settlements.

    Perhaps the Scythians should be considered, as they were next door in Ukraine by the 8th century BCE.

    Scythian | People, History, & Facts | Britannica

    Who knows, some of the steppe groups who arrived earlier might have harbored a few percent of East Asian. I vaguely recall that East Asian haplos were found in some of the Yamnaya samples.

    I think my gene plaza results for ancient groups showed a higher than expected match for me with those eastern steppe groups, which could explain it.

    It's nothing I really pursued given that it disappeared from the 23andme analyses.
    Right now I am thinking similarly. Since even analyzing the Antonio et al PCA, it is evident that go get to the Late Antiquity phase in those ratios, there had to be some C7 like ancestry added, on its own, melting of the Imperial Averages could have only averaged down C7 like component, without some C7 like input that move is impossible.

    Also I have seen some of the Moldovan Scythians plot with modern Italians, Albanians and mainland Greeks.
    Even the non Lombard Szload samples looked C6, while the Lombard likely C7.






    So I have a feeling your years old intuition is likely right. And that vector could have brought some very ancient 1-2% East Asian admix Balkan wide and even reached maybe some parts of the Italian peninsula.

    Edit: Funnily enough Angela, we did not even just discover the wheel. It seems Antonio had this on the paper we just did not pay enough attention. At least that's the case for me.



    Came across this trying to find the averages for the below experiment.

  14. #264
    Regular Member Archetype0ne's Avatar
    Join Date
    11-06-18
    Posts
    1,030

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    J2b2-L283/FT29003

    Country: Albania



    Quote Originally Posted by Jovialis View Post
    I don't think C7+C4 equaling C6 makes much sense, when C6 is already a cluster unto itself prior to that from happening. Also, you can't ignore the fact that those types of ancestry disappear, by just saying they mixed together and stuck around. That wouldn't make sense.
    We can test this if you want?
    I have no idea the result, but take C6 average or individual sample coordinates, and model them as a 2 way, or just use 2 components, namely C7/4. And see the fit?

    Do you want to do it or should I go ahead?


    We would specifically be testing this hypothesis from the paper:

    "As a result, the models that were found to fit the data best are those with a 38 to 59% contribution from Levantine or Anatolian populations into the local/preexisting C.Italy_Etruscan gene pool (Fig. 4B and table S4D)."

    If modeling C7+C4; C7+C5, gives a good fit for the Venosa samples, with contributions going from ~40% to 60%. The hypothesis holds.

  15. #265
    Advisor Jovialis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-05-17
    Posts
    6,027

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a1b2a2a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H6a1b7

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Archetype0ne View Post
    We can test this if you want?
    I have no idea the result, but take C6 average or individual sample coordinates, and model them as a 2 way, or just use 2 components, namely C7/4. And see the fit?
    Do you want to do it or should I go ahead?
    We would specifically be testing this hypothesis from the paper:
    "As a result, the models that were found to fit the data best are those with a 38 to 59% contribution from Levantine or Anatolian populations into the local/preexisting C.Italy_Etruscan gene pool (Fig. 4B and table S4D)."
    If modeling C7+C4; C7+C5, gives a good fit for the Venosa samples, with contributions going from ~40% to 60%. The hypothesis holds.
    Even if it fits it doesn't matter. You can do the same with modern populations, nor doesn't it mean it is true. So I fail to see your point. That's just taking an uncontrolled set of samples with no context behind them. If it shows it existed prior to the arrival of that ancestry, than what?

  16. #266
    Advisor Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    19,797


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    Quote Originally Posted by kingjohn View Post
    it effected some of them not all
    some are still c7



    Distance to: C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_10 18-1151CE:TAQ022
    5.02372372 C6_Late_Antiquity_Mediterranean:R36_Celio



    Distance to: C.Italy_Imperial:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_262-424CE:TAQ021
    3.65334094 C6_Iron_Age_Mediterranean:R437_(Latin_Prenestini_T ribe)_Palestrina_Selicata



    Distance to: C.Italy_Imperial:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_89-236CE:TAQ020
    4.22571887 C6_Late_Antiquity_Mediterranean:R36_Celio



    Distance to: C.Italy_Etruscan:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_358-98BCE:TAQ019
    3.19007837 C7_Iron_Age_European:R473_(Etruscan)_Civitavecchia



    Distance to: C.Italy_Etruscan_related:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_ 346-51BCE:TAQ018
    3.22772366 C7_Iron_Age_European:R473_(Etruscan)_Civitavecchia



    Distance to: C.Italy_Etruscan_related:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_ 356-96BCE:TAQ017
    3.92517516 C7_Iron_Age_European:R1016_(Latini)_Castel_di_Deci ma



    Distance to: C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio): TAQ016
    3.79457508 C7_Iron_Age_European:R473_(Etruscan)_Civitavecchia



    Distance to: C.Italy_Etruscan:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_346-51BCE:TAQ015
    2.14424812 C7_Iron_Age_European:R1015_(Villanovan)_Veio_Grott a_Gramiccia



    Distance to: C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio): TAQ013
    3.21407841 C7_Iron_Age_European:R1015_(Villanovan)_Veio_Grott a_Gramiccia



    Distance to: C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio): TAQ012
    7.75460508 C7_Iron_Age_European:R1015_(Villanovan)_Veio_Grott a_Gramiccia



    Distance to: C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_89 5-1016CE:TAQ011
    2.43840112 C6_Late_Antiquity_Mediterranean:R120_S_Ercolano_Ne cropolis_Ostia



    Distance to: C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio): TAQ010
    2.88548090 C7_Iron_Age_European:R851_(Latini)_Ardea



    Distance to: C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_89 9-1021CE:TAQ009
    2.77380605 C6_Medieval_Mediterranean:R1283_Cancelleria



    Distance to: C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio): TAQ008
    5.01349180 C7_Iron_Age_European:R1016_(Latini)_Castel_di_Deci ma



    Distance to: C.Italy_Etruscan.Afr:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_391-207BCE:TAQ007
    7.04589242 C5_Imperial_Eastern_Mediterranean:R45_Isola_Sacra_ Necropolis



    Distance to: C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_ :TAQ006
    5.79330648 C7_Iron_Age_European:R1021_(Latini)_Boville_Ernica



    Distance to: C.Italy_Etruscan_related:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_ 346-51BCE:TAQ005
    6.18588716 C7_Iron_Age_European:R1015_(Villanovan)_Veio_Grott a_Gramiccia



    Distance to: C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_ :TAQ004
    3.51907658 C7_Iron_Age_European:R473_(Etruscan)_Civitavecchia



    Distance to: C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_72 9-942CE:TAQ003
    2.66726452 C6_Medieval_Mediterranean:R969_Tivoli_Palazzo_Cian ti



    Distance to: C.Italy_Etruscan:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_103BCE-54CE:TAQ002
    2.71341114 C7_Iron_Age_European:R473_(Etruscan)_Civitavecchia



    Distance to: C.Italy_Etruscan_related:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_ 356-96BCE:TAQ001
    4.61831138 C7_Iron_Age_European:R1015_(Villanovan)_Veio_Grott a_Gramiccia



    Distance to: C.Italy_Etruscan:PoggioRenzo(Siena_Tuscany)_772-436BCE:PRZ002
    5.50763107 C7_Iron_Age_European:R851_(Latini)_Ardea



    Distance to: C.Italy_Etruscan:PoggioRenzo(Siena_Tuscany)_794-543BCE:PRZ001
    2.43057606 C7_Iron_Age_European:R473_(Etruscan)_Civitavecchia



    Distance to: C.Italy_Early.Medieval:PoggioPelliccia(Grosseto_Tu scany)_772-960CE:POP001
    3.37237305 C6_Medieval_Mediterranean:R1283_Cancelleria



    Distance to: C.Italy_Etruscan:Marsilianad'Albegna(Grosseto_Tusc any)_804-557BCE:MAS004
    6.43401896 C7_Iron_Age_European:R1021_(Latini)_Boville_Ernica



    Distance to: C.Italy_Imperial:Marsilianad'Albegna(Grosseto_Tusc any)_400-530CE:MAS003
    7.72047278 C3_Iron_Age_N_African/Euro-Mix:R475_(Etruscan)_Civitavecchia



    Distance to: C.Italy_Imperial:Marsilianad'Albegna(Grosseto_Tusc any)_240-380CE:MAS002
    2.96464163 C5_Imperial_Eastern_Mediterranean:R81_Viale_Rossin i_Necropolis



    Distance to: C.Italy_Etruscan_MAS001:Marsilianad'Albegna(Grosse to_Tuscany)_350-100BCE:MAS001
    10.57212845 C7_Medieval_European:R55_Villa_Magna



    Distance to: C.Italy_Etruscan:MaglianoinToscana(Grosseto_Tuscan y)_790-550BCE:MAG001
    3.49005731 C7_Iron_Age_European:R1021_(Latini)_Boville_Ernica



    Distance to: C.Italy_Early.Medieval_ETR014:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany )_977-1022CE:ETR014
    3.41493777 C6_Medieval_Mediterranean:R58_Villa_Magna



    Distance to: C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)C899-1016CE:ETR013
    3.06292344 C6_Imperial_Mediterranean:R113_Via_Paisiello_Necro polis



    Distance to: C.Italy_Early.Medieval_undated:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscan y):ETR012
    17.43717580 C7_Iron_Age_European:R474_(Etruscan)_Civitavecchia



    Distance to: C.Italy_Early.Medieval_undated:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscan y):ETR010
    1.86772589 C6_Medieval_Mediterranean:R1285_Cancelleria



    Distance to: C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)775-945CE:ETR007
    6.17036466 C6_Late_Antiquity_Mediterranean:R36_Celio



    Distance to: C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)_772-888CE:ETR006
    5.64591002 C6_Medieval_Mediterranean:R1285_Cancelleria



    Distance to: C.Italy_Etruscan:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)_805-774BCE:ETR005
    4.37476857 C7_Iron_Age_European:R473_(Etruscan)_Civitavecchia



    Distance to: :Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany):ETR004
    12.27070088 C6_Medieval_Mediterranean:R64_Villa_Magna



    Distance to: C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)_997-1149CE:ETR003
    3.75043997 C6_Imperial_Mediterranean:R1549_Monterotondo



    Distance to: C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tusca ny):CSN013
    4.22577803 C7_Iron_Age_European:R1016_(Latini)_Castel_di_Deci ma



    Distance to: :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012
    10.04464036 C7_Medieval_European:R63_Villa_Magna



    Distance to: C.Italy_Etruscan_related:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tusca ny)_380-204BCE:CSN010
    6.08673147 C7_Imperial_European:R116_Via_Paisiello_Necropolis



    Distance to: C.Italy_Etruscan:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany)_427-265BCE:CSN009
    5.65394553 C7_Late_Antiquity_European:R33_Mausole_di_Augusto



    Distance to: C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tusca ny):CSN008
    4.70089353 C7_Late_Antiquity_European:R110_Crypta_Balbi



    Distance to: C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tusca ny):CSN007
    5.79393649 C7_Iron_Age_European:R473_(Etruscan)_Civitavecchia



    Distance to: C.Italy_Etruscan:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany)_533-392BCE:CSN006
    4.42379927 C7_Iron_Age_European:R473_(Etruscan)_Civitavecchia



    Distance to: C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tusca ny):CSN005
    5.78621638 C7_Medieval_European:R61_Villa_Magna



    Distance to: C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tusca ny):CSN004
    5.90316864 C7_Iron_Age_European:R1015_(Villanovan)_Veio_Grott a_Gramiccia



    Distance to: C.Italy_Etruscan:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany)_380-204BCE:CSN003
    5.06993097 C7_Iron_Age_European:R473_(Etruscan)_Civitavecchia



    Distance to: C.Italy_Etruscan.Ceu_related:Casenovole(Grosseto_T uscany)_427-265BCE:CSN002
    10.63977443 C7_Late_Antiquity_European:R33_Mausole_di_Augusto



    Distance to: C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tusca ny):CSN001
    1.96921304 C7_Iron_Age_European:R473_(Etruscan)_Civitavecchia



    Distance to: C.Italy_Etruscan:CampigliadeiFoci(Siena_Tuscany)_7 70-540BCE:CAM003
    3.97761235 C7_Iron_Age_European:R473_(Etruscan)_Civitavecchia



    Distance to: C.Italy_Etruscan.Ceu:CampigliadeiFoci(Siena_Tuscan y)_770-520BCE:CAM002
    5.19538257 C7_Medieval_European:R1224_Cancelleria



    Distance to: C.Italy_Etruscan:CampigliadeiFoci(Siena_Tuscany)_7 80-540BCE:CAM001
    3.06572993 C7_Iron_Age_European:R473_(Etruscan)_Civitavecchia



    As I'm sure you know, those are the B.C.E. ones or the undated ones which are probably B.C.E. given that they are undated because they are more deteriorated and thus probably older.

  17. #267
    Regular Member kingjohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    05-09-16
    Posts
    1,389

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    rare E-FGC7391
    MtDNA haplogroup
    h3ap

    Country: Uruguay



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    As I'm sure you know, those are the B.C.E. ones or the undated ones which are probably B.C.E. given that they are undated because they are more deteriorated and thus probably older.

    yes, we see c6 cluster at much later date

  18. #268
    Advisor Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    19,797


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    Quote Originally Posted by ihype02 View Post

    The Germanic Y-DNA .... hmmm seems higher in early medieval time than now, especially in late antiquity probably extends 20%. Perphaps it was a similar case in Tuscany.
    Could it be that medieval and post-medieval era reduced both Germanic and Near Eastern input. Instead increased R1b with Northern Italian-Spanish-French- like input.
    But the sample size is small.
    Sorry, I didn't edit your post. It's just that I inadvertently pressed the edit button.

    I don't know how anything can be figured out using that graphic. Couldn't they have shown percentages?

    Germanic yDna was heavily U-106. That would be in the R1b portion along with the Italic U-152,

    For what it's worth, Tuscany today is more than 55% R1b, but the percentage of U-106 in that is very small.

  19. #269
    Advisor Jovialis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-05-17
    Posts
    6,027

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a1b2a2a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H6a1b7

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Archetype0ne View Post
    We can test this if you want?
    I have no idea the result, but take C6 average or individual sample coordinates, and model them as a 2 way, or just use 2 components, namely C7/4. And see the fit?

    Do you want to do it or should I go ahead?


    We would specifically be testing this hypothesis from the paper:

    "As a result, the models that were found to fit the data best are those with a 38 to 59% contribution from Levantine or Anatolian populations into the local/preexisting C.Italy_Etruscan gene pool (Fig. 4B and table S4D)."

    If modeling C7+C4; C7+C5, gives a good fit for the Venosa samples, with contributions going from ~40% to 60%. The hypothesis holds.

    Using your same logic, I could take Balkans_IA, and say Tuscans and southern Italians are 100% native Balkans_IA. But we know that isn't true.

  20. #270
    Regular Member Archetype0ne's Avatar
    Join Date
    11-06-18
    Posts
    1,030

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    J2b2-L283/FT29003

    Country: Albania



    Quote Originally Posted by Jovialis View Post
    Using your same logic, I could take Balkans_IA, and say Tuscans and southern Italians are 100% native Balkans_IA. But we know that isn't true.
    Jov there is this thing in science called statistical significance. There is also this thing in science called a test. Then we have stuff like "context".

    C3,4,5 Individuals/or shifted individuals were found in the Italian peninsula both in the Antonio paper as well as the Max Plank Paper(the one we are discussing).

    "To further inspect the genetic clustering of the central and southern Italian populations studied, we performed unsupervised ADMIXTURE on 71 individuals (Fig. 2, B and C) after the exclusion of genetically related individuals (table S1B and fig. S2). C.Italy_Etruscan individuals harbor the three genetic ancestries associated with Anatolian Neolithic farmers, European hunter-gatherers, and Bronze Age pastoralists from the Pontic-Caspian Steppe. C.Italy_Etruscan.Ceu carries a higher proportion of “steppe-related ancestry,” while C.Italy_MAS001 shows a genetic component maximized in Iranian Neolithic farmers. The latter is also present in C.Italy_Etruscan.Afr individuals alongside an ancestry component identified in an Early Neolithic Moroccan group."

    The local population was all within C1/C2 earlier, such as in the Mesolithic / Eneolithic.
    These samples C3 (North African), C4 (Near Eastern), C5 (Eastern Mediterranean) derive their nomenclature based on their ancestry. Despite having specimen before the Imperial Period present on the peninsula.


    *From Antonio et Al

    1.We first grouped 21 dated and genetically unrelated individuals from the C.Italy_Etruscan cluster (Fig. 3A) and modeled them with qpAdm (P > 0.05) as a mixture of steppe-related ancestry, represented by Bronze Age pastoralists from Samara in western Russia (Yamnaya), and Neolithic or Copper Age populations from Italy (table S4B). This analysis demonstrated around 25% ancestry from such a distal steppe-related source, which reached around 50% when comparative populations were reduced to those more proximate in time and space than the Yamnaya, e.g., central European Bell Beakers (Fig. 3B). Moreover, C.Italy_Etruscan can be modeled successfully as having derived its entire ancestry from other European populations such as the earlier Bell Beaker group from northern Italy and Iron Age populations from southern Europe (Iberia, Croatia, and Greece) (table S4A). PCA reveals a complete overlap between Iron Age and Roman Republic individuals from Tuscany and Lazio, including the ancient city of Rome (17), indicating that substantial levels of steppe-related ancestry were widespread and homogenized in the multilingual context known to include both Indo-European (i.e., Italic and Celtic) and non–Indo-European (i.e., Etruscan) speakers across central Italy by the Iron Age.

    ~

    2.During the first half of the first millennium CE, we observe a marked shift in PCA space of all studied individuals toward the Near Eastern cline (Fig. 4A), distributed across the genetic space occupied by present-day southeastern European populations. We grouped nonoutlier individuals dating between 1 and 500 CE into the “C.Italy_Imperial” cluster (table S2A). Formal f4-tests reveal its higher affinity than C.Italy_Etruscan to ancient groups from Iran, Africa, and the Near East (table S2C). We then used qpAdm to quantify this group’s ancestry components, where C.Italy_Imperial was modeled as a mixture of the sources C.Italy_Etruscan and 158 published European and Near Eastern genomes from the Bronze and Iron Ages. As a result, the models that were found to fit the data best are those with a 38 to 59% contribution from Levantine or Anatolian populations into the local/preexisting C.Italy_Etruscan gene pool (Fig. 4B and table S4D).

    ~

    3.The C.Italy_Etruscan_MAS001 individual represents a single exception in our dataset showing a shift in PCA space toward Near Eastern populations ~200 BCE (Fig. 4A). While f-statistics do not significantly reject ancestry continuity with the C.Italy_Etruscan cluster (table S2C), an admixture model between Neolithic- and steppe-related ancestries does not fit the genetic profile of this individual (table S4B). Instead, C.Italy_Etruscan_MAS001 can be modeled as a mixture between the C.Italy_Etruscan cluster and populations from the Caucasus, such as Bronze Age Armenians (Fig. 4B), indicating the sporadic presence of Iranian-related ancestry in Etruria at least by the second century BCE.



    In fact the more I re read the paper the more this all makes sense. All of it pretty much can be also tested with amateur tools, and the tests repeated independently.

    1.



    2.



    3.
    ^Just one way to go at it.
    I am sure more creative people can use these amateur tools more creatively.
    The data speaks for itself.


    So no Jov,

    Even if it fits it doesn't matter. You can do the same with modern populations, nor doesn't it mean it is true. So I fail to see your point. That's just taking an uncontrolled set of samples with no context behind them. If it shows it existed prior to the arrival of that ancestry, than what?
    This is totally not the case.

  21. #271
    Advisor Jovialis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-05-17
    Posts
    6,027

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a1b2a2a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H6a1b7

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Archetype0ne View Post
    Jov there is this thing in science called statistical significance. There is also this thing in science called a test. Then we have stuff like "context".
    Yes I know, but I happen to think you are doing it wrong.

  22. #272
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-10-16
    Posts
    884


    Country: Albania



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    Sorry, I didn't edit your post. It's just that I inadvertently pressed the edit button.

    I don't know how anything can be figured out using that graphic. Couldn't they have shown percentages?

    Germanic yDna was heavily U-106. That would be in the R1b portion along with the Italic U-152,

    For what it's worth, Tuscany today is more than 55% R1b, but the percentage of U-106 in that is very small.
    I2 and I1 in the "Imperial" section combined seem around 10% to 15%.

  23. #273
    Advisor Jovialis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-05-17
    Posts
    6,027

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a1b2a2a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H6a1b7

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    Although the data show a shift in the ancestry averaged across all Imperial individuals (referred to as “average ancestry” henceforth) toward eastern populations, the PCA results also suggest variation in ancestry within the population. To further characterize this, we assessed haplotype sharing using ChromoPainter (11), a method more sensitive than allele frequency-based approaches such as PCA. Specifically, we measured the genetic affinity between each ancient Italian individual and a set of modern Eurasian and North African populations by the total length of the haplotype segments shared between them (Fig. 4A) (7). We clustered ancient individuals by their relative haplotype sharing with modern populations and then labeled the resulting clusters by proximity to modern populations in PCA (Fig. 4B).

    ChromoPainter analysis reveals diverse ancestries among Imperial individuals (
    n = 48), who fall into five distinct clusters (Fig. 4A). Notably, only 2 out of 48 Imperial-era individuals fall in the European cluster (C7) to which 8 out of 11 Iron Age individuals belong. Instead, two-thirds of Imperial individuals (31 out of 48) belong to two major clusters (C5 and C6) that overlap in PCA with central and eastern Mediterranean populations, such as those from southern and central Italy, Greece, Cyprus, and Malta (Fig. 4B). An additional quarter (13 out of 48) of the sampled Imperial Romans form a cluster (C4) defined by high amounts of haplotype sharing with Levantine and Near Eastern populations, whereas no pre-Imperial individuals appear in this cluster (Fig. 4AC). In PCA, some of the individuals in this cluster also project close to four contemporaneous individuals from Lebanon (240 to 630 CE) (fig. S18) (28). In addition, two individuals (R80 and R132) belong to a cluster featuring high haplotype sharing with North African populations (C4) and can be modeled with 30 to 50% North African ancestry in explicit modeling with qpAdm (table S28).
    From the Antonio et al. 2019 paper, C6 is Central Mediterranean and is similar to central and southern Italy. It is distinguished from the other clusters. End of story.

  24. #274
    Regular Member Archetype0ne's Avatar
    Join Date
    11-06-18
    Posts
    1,030

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    J2b2-L283/FT29003

    Country: Albania



    Quote Originally Posted by Jovialis View Post
    Yes I know, but I happen to think you are doing it wrong.
    Then we wait for the future papers. Since I will respect your right to disagree with the Max Plank institute. It is your right, and it is the point of the scientific method. But you better provide your own hypothesis and models like I did when I was arguing vs the Danubian Limes model. See I do not really make appeals to authority.

    But either way, maybe by the Magna Grecia paper you might get convinced. If not more will come.

    At this point for me the writing is on the wall. One just has to be willing to see it.


  25. #275
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-11-19
    Posts
    129


    Country: Italy



    A few remarks:

    1)We don't know what is the genetic make up of the C5 cluster: when only Antonio 2019 came out, it was everybody's guess if they were the result of massive mixing between various people, though the authors tried to model them and they said the fits were bad, so it was up to future papers to find potential sources. Judging from the relative position of C7 and the position of the near eastern cluster in the limes paper, I am confident they were Anatolians.
    2)The labels themselves were arbitrary and the "C7 cluster" is a joke: for our purposes, let's take the C7 cluster as the "west med" cluster, that is latins, but when one talks of Lombards as being part of the C7 cluster he is using useless terms that refer to nothing, since the genetic distance between C6 437 latin outlier and the normal Latins is way inferiour than the genetic distance between C7 latins and C7 Lombards.
    3)if we assume, as it is likely, that C5 is made up of Anatolians, one can't model them as a two way mixture of C4 near easterners and C7 latin: The same holds for C6, and the reason is that C4, that is Levantines, harbour way more natufian than those Anatolians, indeed it is how the authors of the limes paper easily told apart Anatolians from the single north Levantine outlier, since all samples from the Levant (and thus having way too much natufian, that is Levant_N in terms of a less remote pop) gave worse fits than using samples that weren't from Anatolia.
    4)we don't know how the C6 latin outliers came to be: technically, since they appear to be balkan_IA like, that is they have a bit less steppe, way less WHG and higher caucasus related ancestry (as a sidenote: do not literally interpret Iran_N as Iran_N, since we know that it works as a placeholder for "caucasus related", look at the Daunian paper to check this claim), it can be possible to model them as a mix of Anatolians plus Latins, since the Anatolians were a mix of Balkan_IA and Anatolia_BA, and it is how they were modelled like using Armenian_BA, though a more proximate source from the Balkans is more plausible imo. It can be that the C6 cluster in the imperial period was formed thanks to a panmixia between C7 latin-like people and C5 anatolians, but it is a possible explanation, another is that this ancestry was already present in Italy. Future papers will answere this question.
    5)The two way model of imperial Italians as south levantines and italic people is already empirically unfounded: let's think about it, even if we take the "southern Levantine" as an average of all the populations that came to Italy, we have many samples from Italy and even the Balkans from the imperial era, and the vast majority is made up of Anatolians, a few are Levantines, and to get to south Levantines as an average you'd need a good deal of a much more "southern" population than actual Levantines, like north africans, who were present during the imperial age, but they were a minority compared to the other two. One could think that future studies will find way more north africans or that somehow it was only southern Levantines that mixed with Italics whereas everybody else died out, but both options are ridicolously implausible.
    6)The paper already said that no modern Italian pop is consistent with deriving from an Etruscan medieval-like pop: I have already quoted the extract, and the only comment in the paper was "we can't strongly reject genetic continuity". and then proceeded to use Venosa samples to argue for it, yet they didn't try to model Venosa samples in the same way they've done for medieval Tuscans; it seems to me that they knew it was a bad model and tried somehow to argue for it in a surreptitious way.

Page 11 of 23 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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