Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 12 of 23 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422 ... LastLast
Results 276 to 300 of 558

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

  1. #276
    Advisor Jovialis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-05-17
    Posts
    6,024

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a1b2a2a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H6a1b7

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Antonio et al 2019 said that C6 is a distinguished cluster. The Imperial and medieval Tuscans look like they fall into that category. They are central Mediterranean, not eastern Mediterranean, which is identified as similar to Cyprus, Malta, etc.

  2. #277
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-10-16
    Posts
    884


    Country: Albania



    [/QUOTE]

    The West Med admixture in Ancient Greeks of Italy is overlooked. None of the samples of Campania seem to be East Med beyond the Greek cluster.
    Apparently Ancient Greeks according to some were only interested into assimilating Anatolians and Levantines.

  3. #278
    Advisor Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    19,797


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    2 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Archetype0ne View Post
    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.
    Just researching my own results, and having a good memory for details from the pop gen papers and from history texts has led to a lot of my predictions being accurate, if I say so myself. :)

    For example, as I said, I knew from 23andme that I originally scored about 1-2% East Asian. From other testing services I realized that I had a higher than average ratio of east steppe to west steppe than do, for example, northwestern Europeans. There were papers which showed East Asian like haplos definitely in groups like Maykop Yamnaya, in eastern steppe groups, and even in some Yamnaya samples closer to the west.

    Obviously, after the fall of Rome numerous groups could have brought that ancestry to the Balkans and Italy. However, Scythians could have brought it in the first millennium BCE given that I remembered reading Greek writers talking about the Scythians, and some of the elite among the Greeks even admixing with their elites.

    Coincidentally, when the Scythian samples were published, it turned out that I had matches to the admixed ones. I knew there were admixed Scythians from years before, and discussed the issue here, because a lot of the Scythians had EEF like mtDna. So, my having matches among them was no surprise.

    I didn't need the Antonio et al paper or this paper to tell me that. :)

    My matching some of the Szolad and Collegno samples was also no surprise, because quite a few of the samples were closest to people from Tuscany and Emilia/Romagna, and I have ancestry from both places.

    In the field of population genetics you have to have read widely both the genetics papers and the history of the various areas if you're going to be anywhere near correct in your predictions. You also have to have been at it for more than a hot minute, as they say. I knew, for example, 25 years ago, from reading many papers and books by Cavalli-Sforza that Northern Italians would turn out to be close to Northern Balkanites, and Tuscans pretty close to Albanians. The only difference would basically be was the majority more steppe heavy admixing agent be northwestern or northeastern. Clearly, Balkanites would be more admixed with Northeastern Europeans if speaking about the period after the fall of Rome, and Italians more admixed with Northwestern Europeans. Once again, my own results corroborated that theory.

    You can see what I'm talking about in general terms here. I have a plethora of Balkan matches, and people north of me in Italy are even closer.
    Distance to: Angela
    5.88072274 I3313_Balkans_BronzeAge
    6.32650773 I8475_NE_Iberia_RomP_atypical
    6.32865705 I9123_Bronze_Age_Armenoi_Crete
    6.44030279 R1285_Medieval_Era_Cancelleria
    6.46676117 Szolad43
    6.53661992 R1287_Medieval_Era_Cancelleria
    6.62573015 C.Italy_Early.Medieval_undated:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscan y):ETR010
    6.95926002 C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_10 18-1151CE:TAQ022
    7.03668956 I3499_NWBalkans_PannonianPlain_Vucedol_EN
    7.04472143 I1979_Bronze_Age_Beaker_Northern_Italy
    7.09619616 I2176_Balkans_BronzeAge
    7.14881808 R111_Imperial_Era_Via_Paisiello_Necropolis
    7.44927513 I2175_Balkans_BronzeAge
    7.46848043 C.Italy_Early.Medieval:PoggioPelliccia(Grosseto_Tu scany)_772-960CE:POP001
    7.88178279 Collegno36
    7.98552440 C.Italy_Etruscan:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_750-406BCE:VET001
    8.01499844 C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_ :TAQ006
    8.25132717 scy197_Scythian
    8.36475343 Szolad28
    8.58821285 C.Italy_Imperial:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_89-236CE:TAQ020
    8.77719773 Bul10_Balkans_BronzeAge
    8.79924429 C.Italy_Etruscan:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_790-550BCE:VEU001
    8.92554760 R1016_Iron_Age_Castel_di_Decima
    8.94997207 Bul6_Balkans_BronzeAge
    9.13925599 scy192_Scythian

    The matches are even closer in mytrueancestry.com, which I think is just basically Eurogenes K13.

    . Central Roman
    590 AD - Genetic Distance: 3.614 - SZ43
    Top
    100 %
    match vs all users



    2. Central Roman
    630 AD - Genetic Distance: 4.508 - CL36
    Top
    100 %
    match vs all users



    3. Ancient Middle Helladic Elati-Logkas Greece
    1861 BC - Genetic Distance: 5.447 - Log02_cap
    Top
    100 %
    match vs all users



    4. Tuscan Medieval Villa Magna Italy
    905 AD - Genetic Distance: 5.964 - R60
    Top
    100 %
    match vs all users



    5. Protovillanovia Martinsicuro
    930 BC - Genetic Distance: 6.241 - R1
    Top
    99 %
    match vs all users



    6. Etruscan Tarquinii Italy
    800 BC - Genetic Distance: 6.39 - TAQ003
    Top
    100 %
    match vs all users



    7. Central Roman
    590 AD - Genetic Distance: 6.771 - SZ36
    Top
    100 %
    match vs all users



    8. Ancient Middle Helladic Elati-Logkas Greece
    1861 BC - Genetic Distance: 7.044 - Log02_wgs
    Top
    99 %
    match vs all users



    9. Ancient Venosa Samnite
    400 BC - Genetic Distance: 7.92 - VEN016
    Top
    100 %
    match vs all users



    10. Roman Outlier Lombard Grave
    590 AD - Genetic Distance: 8.346 - SZ37
    Top
    99 %
    match vs all users


    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

  4. #279
    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 Angela View Post
    Just researching my own results, and having a good memory for details from the pop gen papers and from history texts has led to a lot of my predictions being accurate, if I say so myself. :)

    For example, as I said, I knew from 23andme that I originally scored about 1-2% East Asian. From other testing services I realized that I had a higher than average ratio of east steppe to west steppe than do, for example, northwestern Europeans. There were papers which showed East Asian like haplos definitely in groups like Maykop Yamnaya, in eastern steppe groups, and even in some Yamnaya samples closer to the west.

    Obviously, after the fall of Rome numerous groups could have brought that ancestry to the Balkans and Italy. However, Scythians could have brought it in the first millennium BCE given that I remembered reading Greek writers talking about the Scythians, and some of the elite among the Greeks even admixing with their elites.

    Coincidentally, when the Scythian samples were published, it turned out that I had matches to the admixed ones. I knew there were admixed Scythians from years before, and discussed the issue here, because a lot of the Scythians had EEF like mtDna. So, my having matches among them was no surprise.

    I didn't need the Antonio et al paper or this paper to tell me that. :)

    My matching some of the Szolad and Collegno samples was also no surprise, because quite a few of the samples were closest to people from Tuscany and Emilia/Romagna, and I have ancestry from both places.

    In the field of population genetics you have to have read widely both the genetics papers and the history of the various areas if you're going to be anywhere near correct in your predictions. You also have to have been at it for more than a hot minute, as they say. I knew, for example, 25 years ago, from reading many papers and books by Cavalli-Sforza that Northern Italians would turn out to be close to Northern Balkanites, and Tuscans pretty close to Albanians. The only difference would basically be was the majority more steppe heavy admixing agent be northwestern or northeastern. Clearly, Balkanites would be more admixed with Northeastern Europeans if speaking about the period after the fall of Rome, and Italians more admixed with Northwestern Europeans. Once again, my own results corroborated that theory.

    You can see what I'm talking about in general terms here. I have a plethora of Balkan matches, and people north of me in Italy are even closer.
    Distance to: Angela
    5.88072274 I3313_Balkans_BronzeAge
    6.32650773 I8475_NE_Iberia_RomP_atypical
    6.32865705 I9123_Bronze_Age_Armenoi_Crete
    6.44030279 R1285_Medieval_Era_Cancelleria
    6.46676117 Szolad43
    6.53661992 R1287_Medieval_Era_Cancelleria
    6.62573015 C.Italy_Early.Medieval_undated:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscan y):ETR010
    6.95926002 C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_10 18-1151CE:TAQ022
    7.03668956 I3499_NWBalkans_PannonianPlain_Vucedol_EN
    7.04472143 I1979_Bronze_Age_Beaker_Northern_Italy
    7.09619616 I2176_Balkans_BronzeAge
    7.14881808 R111_Imperial_Era_Via_Paisiello_Necropolis
    7.44927513 I2175_Balkans_BronzeAge
    7.46848043 C.Italy_Early.Medieval:PoggioPelliccia(Grosseto_Tu scany)_772-960CE:POP001
    7.88178279 Collegno36
    7.98552440 C.Italy_Etruscan:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_750-406BCE:VET001
    8.01499844 C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_ :TAQ006
    8.25132717 scy197_Scythian
    8.36475343 Szolad28
    8.58821285 C.Italy_Imperial:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_89-236CE:TAQ020
    8.77719773 Bul10_Balkans_BronzeAge
    8.79924429 C.Italy_Etruscan:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_790-550BCE:VEU001
    8.92554760 R1016_Iron_Age_Castel_di_Decima
    8.94997207 Bul6_Balkans_BronzeAge
    9.13925599 scy192_Scythian

    The matches are even closer in mytrueancestry.com, which I think is just basically Eurogenes K13.

    . Central Roman
    590 AD - Genetic Distance: 3.614 - SZ43
    Top
    100 %
    match vs all users



    2. Central Roman
    630 AD - Genetic Distance: 4.508 - CL36
    Top
    100 %
    match vs all users



    3. Ancient Middle Helladic Elati-Logkas Greece
    1861 BC - Genetic Distance: 5.447 - Log02_cap
    Top
    100 %
    match vs all users



    4. Tuscan Medieval Villa Magna Italy
    905 AD - Genetic Distance: 5.964 - R60
    Top
    100 %
    match vs all users



    5. Protovillanovia Martinsicuro
    930 BC - Genetic Distance: 6.241 - R1
    Top
    99 %
    match vs all users



    6. Etruscan Tarquinii Italy
    800 BC - Genetic Distance: 6.39 - TAQ003
    Top
    100 %
    match vs all users



    7. Central Roman
    590 AD - Genetic Distance: 6.771 - SZ36
    Top
    100 %
    match vs all users



    8. Ancient Middle Helladic Elati-Logkas Greece
    1861 BC - Genetic Distance: 7.044 - Log02_wgs
    Top
    99 %
    match vs all users



    9. Ancient Venosa Samnite
    400 BC - Genetic Distance: 7.92 - VEN016
    Top
    100 %
    match vs all users



    10. Roman Outlier Lombard Grave
    590 AD - Genetic Distance: 8.346 - SZ37
    Top
    99 %
    match vs all users
    Fwiw, these are the closest populations to the Bronze Age North Italian (Parma) Beaker sample to which I get a match of 7.04.
    Distance to: I1979:Olalde_2018
    7.66583981 French_Corsica
    9.15438146 Italian_Lombardy
    9.36782792 Italian_Liguria
    9.72487018 Italian_Emilia
    9.86970618 Italian_Tuscany
    11.69194595 Italian_Romagna
    11.71190420 Italian_Piedmont
    11.90674441 Swiss_Italian
    12.23369118 Italian_Veneto
    13.63891858 Italian_Trentino
    13.84391939 Italian_Marche
    14.74565699 Spanish_Baleares
    14.84070416 Italian_Friuli_VG
    14.90914820 Italian_Lazio
    15.53721661 Italian_Aosta_Valley
    15.71857182 Spanish_Castilla-Leon
    15.83608853 Spanish_Valencia
    16.32088233 Portuguese
    16.58355209 Spanish_Catalonia
    16.77931167 Spanish_Canarias
    17.11851921 Spanish_Andalusia
    17.32825438 Albanian_Kosovo
    17.40040804 Spanish_Aragon
    17.40597886 Albanian
    17.98685909 Spanish_Galicia

    That French Corsica sample, which is at almost the same distance to the Beaker sample as I am, is often my closest modern match on the Vahaduo K12b, and is a French admixed Corsican. Corsicans were admixed with settlers from Liguria and Toscana, areas from which I have ancestry, and Emilia, which constitutes 50% of my ancestry is north of them, so it probably is all pretty legit.

    These are the closest modern populations to my Imperial Roman match. They weren't all East Med.
    Distance to: Via_Paisiello_Necropolis_Imperial_Rome:R111:Antoni o_2019
    4.37268796 Italian_Romagna
    4.40196547 French_Corsica
    4.52567122 Italian_Tuscany
    5.34800374 Italian_Marche
    6.02374468 Italian_Emilia
    6.60205271 Italian_Lazio
    6.97389418 Italian_Liguria
    9.43665725 Italian_Lombardy
    10.32837354 Italian_Piedmont
    10.64679294 Italian_Abruzzo
    10.91365200 Italian_Veneto
    11.46594523 Albanian
    12.24593810 Greek_Thrace
    12.31293223 Greek_Thessaly
    12.37012530 Albanian_Kosovo
    12.44505524 Greek_Central
    12.52507086 Italian_Campania
    12.85758920 Greek_Athens
    13.07603533 Italian_Friuli_VG
    13.23058956 Italian_Apulia
    13.23207089 Greek_Peloponnese
    13.53561090 Swiss_Italian
    13.62172529 Italian_Sicily
    13.74291454 Greek_Thessaloniki
    13.76111551 Macedonian_South

    For all we know, this could have been a North Italian visitor to Rome who happened to die there.

    Just a general comment about the difficulty both the academics who worked on Antonio et al and this paper, and the internet hobbyists are having in getting good fits for modern Italians or even Medieval Italians and fits that make historical sense as well.

    It's essentially because none of these people seem to accept the to me inescapable fact that Italy, as center of the Empire, and as the seat of the Papacy, was always crawling with traders, business men of all sorts, politicians from the provinces, ambassadors, tourists visiting the Pope, and yes, slaves, the vast majority of whom may never have left a single descendant to contribute to the Italian gene pool. This is what happens when, unlike the situation with the Amorim paper on the Lombards, the authors don't bother to do isotope analysis of the remains.

    This was discussed at some length in the Antonio et al thread, where I concurred with Maciamo that it was clear that some of the Late Antiquity samples were obviously Northern Europeans probably just visiting Rome.

    The same kind of common sense has to be applied to all of the samples from Antonio et al and the subject paper. They can't be treated as blocks of people who lived their lives and left descendants in the areas where their bones were found.

  5. #280
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    25-06-18
    Posts
    1,389

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-M269 (LDNA)
    MtDNA haplogroup
    U5a1b

    Ethnic group
    Thracian
    Country: Greece



    Quote Originally Posted by Dushman View Post
    Sounds too similar to my struggle to pinpoint that a max 10-15% Slavic Y-DNA in Albanians cannot contribute to 38% autosmal input, but most people were fine with that logic.

    Perhaps we don�t have enough ancient/medieval samples from Tuscany and Northern Italy in general to account for the full impact of the earlier Celtic and later Germanic inputs.

    You could for instance be testing the tombs of Roman or North Italian/Tuscan citizens exclusively and completely miss the suburbs or villages that could have had originally Celtic/Germanic populations. Just an example by the way, don�t hang me for the village/city details.

    I say this because the further back in time we go, the more homogeneous populations tended to be.
    Didn't we conclude that the increased autosomal must have been due to females so Y-DNA is not the main driving force.

  6. #281
    Regular Member Salento's Avatar
    Join Date
    30-05-17
    Posts
    5,156

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2 - SK1480
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H12a

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Comparison: Apulia vs Salento (me):
    top samples are all C6.

    … many do not know, but Puglia (Apulia) (Iapygia) is also called “Le Puglie” … plural, … it's complicated :)




  7. #282
    Advisor Jovialis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-05-17
    Posts
    6,024

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a1b2a2a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H6a1b7

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    2 members found this post helpful.
    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".

    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



    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,



    This is totally not the case.

    Those excerpts text are not from antonio et al, they are from this current paper.

    Again, here is the actual excerpt from the paper, to provide insight about those clusters:


    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).
    They were not just flying by the seat of their pants using G25. They already had information on these clusters based on their genetics, and who they were closest to, and using qpAdm.


    They can already distinguish the fact that people genetically similar to modern Central and Southern Italian ancestry existed in the IA. They we not an amalgamation of C4+C5+C7 or what ever.


    Why is it only C6 does not exist to some people, but all the other just happen to exist to support their theory? Think about that.

    C6 does exist, and it does have a presence in Italy in the IA. So no argument is going to make these people disappear from memory.

  8. #283
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    27-08-20
    Posts
    136


    Country: Albania



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by bigsnake49 View Post
    Didn't we conclude that the increased autosomal must have been due to females so Y-DNA is not the main driving force.
    If you deduct the Slavic and Germanic Y-DNA in Albanians youre left with ~78% pre-migration Y-DNA.

    What youre saying is that out of those 78%, ~50% of the local men married fully Slavic women and produced 50/50 children, 25% of locals married local women, 50% of local women died single, and after some math and hundreds of years of mixing we ended up with an average of 38% Slavic autosomal ancestry.

    Nice! I will so blindly believe this and even start spreading the word around.

    Italy was indeed the center and the beginning of the Roman Empire and all roads lead to Rome, so obviously it needs some additional love from the geneticists before arriving to conclusions. Rome was the United States of Europe, 20 random samples aint gonna cut it to make the genetic map of Italy.

  9. #284
    Advisor Jovialis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-05-17
    Posts
    6,024

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a1b2a2a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H6a1b7

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jovialis View Post
    Those excerpts text are not from antonio et al, they are from this current paper.

    Again, here is the actual excerpt from the paper, to provide insight about those clusters:




    They were not just flying by the seat of their pants using G25. They already had information on these clusters based on their genetics, and who they were closest to, and using qpAdm.


    They can already distinguish the fact that people genetically similar to modern Central and Southern Italian ancestry existed in the IA. They we not an amalgamation of C4+C5+C7 or what ever.


    Why is it only C6 does not exist to some people, but all the other just happen to exist to support their theory? Think about that.

    C6 does exist, and it does have a presence in Italy in the IA. So no argument is going to make these people disappear from memory.
    If C6 doesn't exist, than why is the native genetic profile of the Balkans people, which is right next door to Italy, the same as C6 (Central-Southern Italian), existing in the same time in the Iron Age?

    It is clear that this ancestry not only existed in Italy, but spanned Italy to the Balkans.

  10. #285
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-10-16
    Posts
    884


    Country: Albania



    Quote Originally Posted by bigsnake49 View Post
    Didn't we conclude that the increased autosomal must have been due to females so Y-DNA is not the main driving force.
    There is tons of Slavic y-DNA on par with the results of most models used in that study with some small expections like that of Albanians, which will find out why in some years.
    The Germanic lines of late antiquity Rome were I1, I2a, R1b and E-V13 from 19 overall samples alone. Do you think that Slavs were pure R1a and I2a? And even those 2 push over 30% in northern Greece alone.

  11. #286
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    25-06-18
    Posts
    1,389

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-M269 (LDNA)
    MtDNA haplogroup
    U5a1b

    Ethnic group
    Thracian
    Country: Greece



    Quote Originally Posted by Dushman View Post
    If you deduct the Slavic and Germanic Y-DNA in Albanians you�re left with ~78% pre-migration Y-DNA.

    What you�re saying is that out of those 78%, ~50% of the local men married fully Slavic women and produced 50/50 children, 25% of locals married local women, 50% of local women died single, and after some math and hundreds of years of mixing we ended up with an average of 38% Slavic autosomal ancestry.

    Nice! I will so blindly believe this and even start spreading the word around.

    Italy was indeed the center and the beginning of the Roman Empire and �all roads lead to Rome�, so obviously it needs some additional love from the geneticists before arriving to conclusions. Rome was the United States of Europe, 20 random samples ain�t gonna cut it to make the genetic map of Italy.
    The admix did not certainly happen in one generation.

  12. #287
    Advisor Jovialis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-05-17
    Posts
    6,024

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a1b2a2a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H6a1b7

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    I find that the person that wrote the article at phys.org also sounds skeptical about the conclusions made by this paper:

    "Although more ancient DNA from across Italy is needed to support the above conclusions, ancestry shifts in Tuscany and northern Lazio similar to those reported for the city of Rome and its surroundings suggests that historical events during the first millennium CE had a major impact on the genetic transformations over much of the Italian peninsula."

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.or...-etruscans.amp

  13. #288
    Regular Member Archetype0ne's Avatar
    Join Date
    11-06-18
    Posts
    1,030

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    J2b2-L283/FT29003

    Country: Albania



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Not sure if you are even disagreeing with me at this point Jov. Since everything you say I agree with. In fact, why would I say C6 does not exist, when I... wait for it... am C6 myself, ba dum tss.

    Also that quote from the Phys.org article. Kind of supplements my points.

    "Although more ancient DNA from across Italy is needed to support the above conclusions, ancestry shifts in Tuscany and northern Lazio similar to those reported for the city of Rome and its surroundings suggests that historical events during the first millennium CE had a major impact on the genetic transformations over much of the Italian peninsula."

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.or...-etruscans.amp
    Thesis, antithesis, synthesis.

    C6 like ancestries are very old. As old as EBA, and MBA. In fact Helladic Log02, Log04 are proof of that.
    They 100% exist, the question is about their genesis. They did not drop like an apple from the sky. In fact was it a Lazaridis paper? The one about Helladic samples? Can not recall. But that paper went over the admixture of the Helladic samples, and what contributet to that profile.
    During that time from what we know, the Italian peninsula was purely C1-2? No?

    “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

  14. #289
    Regular Member Salento's Avatar
    Join Date
    30-05-17
    Posts
    5,156

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2 - SK1480
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H12a

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    1 members found this post helpful.
    … the C classification is based on the DNA segment LENGTHS shared between an Ancient sample and a set of modern populations.

    the longer the segment, the greater the genetic affinity.

    cMs + Statistics = C*

  15. #290
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    25-06-18
    Posts
    1,389

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-M269 (LDNA)
    MtDNA haplogroup
    U5a1b

    Ethnic group
    Thracian
    Country: Greece



    Quote Originally Posted by ihype02 View Post
    There is tons of Slavic y-DNA on par with the results of most models used in that study with some small expections like that of Albanians, which will find out why in some years.
    The Germanic lines of late antiquity Rome were I1, I2a, R1b and E-V13 from 19 overall samples alone. Do you think that Slavs were pure R1a and I2a? And even those 2 push over 30% in northern Greece alone.
    So there is 30% in Northern Greece. Albanians are a bit more endogamic as far as males are concerned but exogamic as far as females are concerned. Greeks were not.

  16. #291
    Advisor Jovialis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-05-17
    Posts
    6,024

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a1b2a2a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H6a1b7

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    2 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Archetype0ne View Post
    Not sure if you are even disagreeing with me at this point Jov. Since everything you say I agree with. In fact, why would I say C6 does not exist, when I... wait for it... am C6 myself, ba dum tss.

    Also that quote from the Phys.org article. Kind of supplements my points.



    Thesis, antithesis, synthesis.

    C6 like ancestries are very old. As old as EBA, and MBA. In fact Helladic Log02, Log04 are proof of that.
    They 100% exist, the question is about their genesis. They did not drop like an apple from the sky. In fact was it a Lazaridis paper? The one about Helladic samples? Can not recall. But that paper went over the admixture of the Helladic samples, and what contributet to that profile.
    During that time from what we know, the Italian peninsula was purely C1-2? No?

    I see, for me I speculate that the ethnogenesis of the C6 ancestry began when the Anatolian/Iran_N-like ancestry entered the Italian and Balkan region in the early Bronze age. The people already there could have already had some extra Iran_N-like DNA from the neolithic era like Greece_N, and C.Italian_N shows, adding to the total. Then of course there were later migrations from Greek, and Balkan people into the area, exchanging similar DNA. The reason why Balkans_IA is similar to C6 in Italy, is because they are from similar source populations. Croatian_IA/BA, Slovenian_IA, are similar to Northern Italians during that era. Likewise the "southern" source is the same and or similar, i.e. Aegean IA/BA. The Balkans are very close to Italy, geographically. I think it is likely that there could have been a homogeneous population that lived there during classical antiquity. Basically, the cline been Northern Balkan/C.Italian-like people, and Aegean_IA-like people. Were there some Cypriot or Maltese-like influences, I sure there were, as were there influences from other exotic sources. But I think that the general-cline making up the majority of ancestry of C6-like people is similar to that of Balkan_IA.

  17. #292
    Advisor Jovialis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-05-17
    Posts
    6,024

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a1b2a2a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H6a1b7

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    2 members found this post helpful.
    Tuscan and Albanians are modeled similarly in Raveane et al. 2018. both of them have been modeled with ABA as a component, where the author suggests there was a early Bronze age migration of this kind of ancestry.

    Olalde et al. 2021 shows that the C6-like ancestry found in the Balkans is native to the region (Slovenian_IA + Aegean_IA).

    Posth et al. 2021 says that the C6-like ancestry found in Tuscany is a result of Etruscan+Eastern Mediterranean (of dubious ancestry) in the Imperial age.

    However, Antonio et al. 2019 found that this C6-like ancestry was found among one of the members of a Latin tribe during the Iron Age.

    Antonio et al. 2019 also found that relative to other farmers in Europe, Central Italian Farmers had an increased amount of Iran_N. To me this indicates that it had been arriving since before the early bronze age, and and like Greece_N, southern Italy had similar ancestry with elevated Iran_N.

    Therefore, I believe the C6 ancestry is indeed native to Italy, and the Balkans. It was during the Imperial era that this ancestry expanded throughout the empire. Which is why you see it in later periods throughout Italy, in places like Lazio, and Tuscany.


  18. #293
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    02-09-21
    Posts
    58

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-V13, E-Z5017
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H

    Ethnic group
    Albanian, South-Gheg
    Country: Albania



    1 members found this post helpful.
    The current linguistic consensus is that Albanian is a thracian or dacian language, and that is definitely has a lot of dacian influence. This combined with the fact that the Iron-Age Moldova samples (scy197,192,305,300) plot extremely close to Albanians means something may be happening there. Those samples on K13 also score similar levels of baltic to modern Albanians on K13.

  19. #294
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    02-09-21
    Posts
    58

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-V13, E-Z5017
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H

    Ethnic group
    Albanian, South-Gheg
    Country: Albania



    Quote Originally Posted by Jovialis View Post
    Tuscan and Albanians are modeled similarly in Raveane et al. 2018. both of them have been modeled with ABA as a component, where the author suggests there was a early Bronze age migration of this kind of ancestry.


    Models come and go like the wind. From Olaide 2021 we know the roman imperial cluster was very distinct to balkans IA.

    For northern Greeks/ South Balkans, it seemed that Iron-Age Greek + Slav worked fine, has anyone does these qpadm runs for Italians? Do they pass? I'm curious, shouldn't seem hard to do since another user on AG had admixtools running himself (I knew Empuries + slav worked before the paper because he posted those runs).

  20. #295
    Regular Member Johane Derite's Avatar
    Join Date
    21-06-17
    Posts
    1,260

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-V13>Z5018>FGC33625
    MtDNA haplogroup
    U1a1a

    Country: Albania



    Quote Originally Posted by Francis Drake View Post
    The current linguistic consensus is that Albanian is a thracian or dacian language,
    I'm not aware of any such consensus.
    "As we have already stressed, the mass evacuation of the Albanians from their triangle is the only effective course we can take. In order to relocate a whole people, the first prerequisite is the creation of a suitable psychosis. This can be done in various ways." - Vaso Cubrilovic

  21. #296
    Regular Member Archetype0ne's Avatar
    Join Date
    11-06-18
    Posts
    1,030

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    J2b2-L283/FT29003

    Country: Albania



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Neither am I aware of such consensus.

    And to be honest I think we will never know. I trust Johane is the most knowledgable person on such issues in this forum.

    In my opinion, its a question akin to is English a Germanic or Latin language? And in my opinion, any answer given to such question is wrong. I think whether Albanian is of Thracian or Illyrian descent is even more problematic, since we lack writen sources for both languages, both those languages could have been related to begin with, it could have descended from a third group of speakers in the Balkans, or like the case of English, be of dual nature.

    Anyone claiming proof of otherwise, is either a liar or missinformed.

  22. #297
    Advisor Jovialis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-05-17
    Posts
    6,024

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a1b2a2a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H6a1b7

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Francis Drake View Post
    Models come and go like the wind. From Olaide 2021 we know the roman imperial cluster was very distinct to balkans IA.

    For northern Greeks/ South Balkans, it seemed that Iron-Age Greek + Slav worked fine, has anyone does these qpadm runs for Italians? Do they pass? I'm curious, shouldn't seem hard to do since another user on AG had admixtools running himself (I knew Empuries + slav worked before the paper because he posted those runs).
    "Roman Imperial Cluster" is not an ethnic monolithic group, which I have already pointed out that Antonio et al 2019 demonstrated. Rather they are different meta-ethnic groups, organized into different cohorts by genetic affinity.

  23. #298
    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
    Those excerpts text are not from antonio et al, they are from this current paper.

    Again, here is the actual excerpt from the paper, to provide insight about those clusters:




    They were not just flying by the seat of their pants using G25. They already had information on these clusters based on their genetics, and who they were closest to, and using qpAdm.


    They can already distinguish the fact that people genetically similar to modern Central and Southern Italian ancestry existed in the IA. They we not an amalgamation of C4+C5+C7 or what ever.


    Why is it only C6 does not exist to some people, but all the other just happen to exist to support their theory? Think about that.

    C6 does exist, and it does have a presence in Italy in the IA. So no argument is going to make these people disappear from memory.
    Excellent summary, Jovialis. C6 people did exist, and R437 is in C6. Since that First Millennium BCE sample was analyzed in depth, we can make an educated logical deduction as to how C6 people were created, i.e. what admixtures went into creating them.

    The authors called C5 East Mediterranean Anatolian Iron Age like, or perhaps Aegean Iron Age like might be a better description, encompassing also Western Anatolia? They're not from the Levant, whether or not all of them contributed to the modern Italian gene pool.

    C4, the smallest group, which they describe as Near Eastern, is actually from the Levant, and disappeared in subsequent periods. Did SOME contribute SOME ancestry to the Italian gene pool? Perhaps some did, but they disappeared as well because Rome ceased to be the center of the Empire economically and politically.

    I don't see what is so difficult to understand.

    We found out recently that there were Levantine like slaves working in tanning factories on the outskirts of Rome. Do people really think that those people were all manumitted and admixed into society? The only slaves who became manumitted would have been slaves who could perform high level functions, not tanners or miners or galley slaves or slaves worked to death in latifundia. Perhaps that's why we don't find Gallic or Germanic remains in the Imperial period. Perhaps that's why there was admixture with some C5 people.

  24. #299
    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
    "Roman Imperial Cluster" is not an ethnic monolithic group, which I have already pointed out that Antonio et al 2019 demonstrated. Rather they are different meta-ethnic groups, organized into different cohorts by genetic affinity.
    How many times do you think you're going to have to repeat that, and refer people to the graphic.

    How many times do you think it has to be pointed out which Imperial Age cluster is similar to the Balkan Iron Age Cluster.

    Good grief!

    It's as if people don't read the papers or they don't understand what they read.

  25. #300
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-10-16
    Posts
    884


    Country: Albania



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Using Pre Rome Imperial Etruscan the Nordic impact will lose 3% to 5% from the overall percentage. But still it does not add up. I just checked the population of Sicily, it is estimated that 600,000 people lived in the island during the imperial period. So I suppose 300,000 people lived in Tuscany minimally. You would need 60,000 Germanic people all to settle down to Tuscany to make percentage and that is the number of total Germanic that entered Italy. It is mathematically impossible.

    Something is missing, for sure.

Page 12 of 23 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422 ... 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
  •