Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 13 of 23 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 325 of 558

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

  1. #301
    Advisor Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    19,801


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    Sorry, duplicate post.


    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

  2. #302
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    22-11-20
    Posts
    32


    Country: Albania



    Quote Originally Posted by Francis Drake View Post
    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.
    What? Don't bring up our linguistic origin by backing them up with very few samples.

  3. #303
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-10-16
    Posts
    884


    Country: Albania



    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.
    Yeah it does not make sense otherwise. If all those people came from one region that region would empty.
    Their average cluster is Cypriot-like coincidentally, they probably were a mixture of Northern African, Levantines, Anatolians and even Balkanites (to a smaller degree).

  4. #304
    Advisor Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    19,801


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    Quote Originally Posted by ihype02 View Post
    Yeah it does not make sense otherwise. If all those people came from one region that region would empty.
    Their average cluster is Cypriot-like coincidentally, they probably were a mixture of Northern African, Levantines, Anatolians and even Balkanites (to a smaller degree).
    They say this, but their own data shows it's not true for Toscana.

    I'm very disappointed in this paper and Krause, whose responsibility it was to supervise it.

  5. #305
    Advisor Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    19,801


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    There is, to my knowledge, no actual proof whatsoever as of yet that E-V13 was a Germanic line. We know the Germanic lines of the Langobards in Italy from the burial site in Italy (Collegno), and the one in Hungary (Szolad).

    Maciamo analyzed all of them when the paper came out...

    "The autosomally Germanic samples belong to:

    - I1-L22 (1 sample)
    - I2a2a-L801 (4 samples including three ZS20)
    - R1a-Z284 (1 sample, L448+)
    - R1b-U106 (including three Z381, two L48>Z9 and one Z16)

    One sample was reported as I1a3, which should be I1-Z63, but the SNP listed was Z79, which belongs to a deep clade of I2a2a-L801. So it isn't clear which it is. Surely a typo.

    There is no surprise, except maybe that the haplogroup composition is so high in I2a2a-L801 and has few I1, but that is probably a sampling bias (too small sample size). All the haplogroups are unambiguously Germanic and even South Scandinavian in their subclades, which is in agreement with the origins of the Lombards in Scania (southern Sweden).

    The samples that were autosomally South European included the following haplogroups:

    - E-V13
    - G2a1a
    - I2a2a-L1229 (also found in Megalithic cultures)
    - R1b-Z2103
    - T1a1a

    One R1b-S116 (P312) samples was fully Germanic, one was fully South European, and the third one was mixed.

    Two samples (CL49 and SZ5) belong to R1b-U152 (L2>Z367 and Z36>Z37), but unfortunately both are about half CEU and half TSI (+IBS for SZ5), so their origins are inconclusive. Alpine Celts would probably have such mixed ancestry though. But the Z36 branch is more likely Italic/Roman.

    The E-V22 and R1b-DF99 and one R1b-Z381 also had mixed ancestry."

    Makes complete sense to me.

    So, the actual Langobard yDna appears to be !1, U-106, some clades of I2a2a and R1a Z284.

    Goths could be assumed to carry some if not all of these and also had, perhaps, picked up some "Slavic" clades.

    Maciamo has already checked these against his extensive collection of yDna for Tuscany, and it comes out in the range of 5-10%.

    Now, if someone can provide proof that autosomally Germanic people brought U-152, then that would be adjusted, but I seriously doubt that would happen.

    I'd also point out that for all of this talk about E-V13 being German, the E-V13 here is 100% Italian or Tuscan like Balkan. No Germanic autosomal dna admixture whatsoever.


    Proceeding to Dushman's point about Albanian yDna and whether or not it correlates with 48% "Slavic" dna, I'm already on record as saying I don't believe it does.

    However, it's extremely difficult to decipher exactly how much "Slavic" yDna the Albanians might have from the academic papers because they aren't broken down to very detailed subclade level.

    For what it's worth, Maciamo shows 9% R1a, and 12% I2a. We're therefore up to 21%. There's also 2% I1, so perhaps some of the "Slavic" incomers had picked that up. That brings us to 23%.

    There is 16% R1b in Albania. Whatever U-106 is present could perhaps be added, since the "Slavic" percentages may in actuality also include "Germanic" ancestry. As for J2b, it is also present in Italy where the Slavs never settled, so unless the J2b is of a very different subclade than the J2b in Italy, I am doubtful that should be counted as "Slavic" yDna. Much much likely that it was picked up by Bronze Age steppe migrants, imo.

    So, it would seem to me that there'd be a maximum of about 25% "Slavic" yDna.

    Now, I find the whole issue of the "Slavic" mtDna rather problematical. The authors of the Danubian Limes paper, when confronted with the low percentage of yDna in the Slavic Kuline settlement, and the high Slavic presence in the X chromosome, just gloss over it by saying this was perhaps just a one off type situation. Perhaps so, and perhaps not. I don't know how to quantify that.

    So, I stick with my opinion that there doesn't seem to be enough Slavic yDna to warrant an admixture figure of 48%, but there certainly is a significant amount, where it's all Slavic or part Germanic as well.



  6. #306
    Moderator Pax Augusta's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-06-14
    Location
    Ara Pacis
    Posts
    1,531


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: Italy



    Quote Originally Posted by ihype02 View Post
    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.

    The Etruscans were most likely one of the most numerous populations of pre-Roman Italy. I'll try to catch up on some references over the next few days.

  7. #307
    Regular Member real expert's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-09-16
    Posts
    408


    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    They say this, but their own data shows it's not true for Toscana.

    I'm very disappointed in this paper and Krause, whose responsibility it was to supervise it.
    It's a bit off-topic, but I have to point out this fact.

    Instead of that, the Max Planck Institute sticks to the science they get political and bend the knee for BLM.



    Anti-Racism Statement
    JULY 28, 2020

    The recent protests against police brutality and racism in the United States of America have galvanised people in anti-racism movements across Germany, Europe and beyond. We at the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History want to make it clear that we stand together with the Black Lives Matter movement that is still tirelessly working for justice for the victims of police brutality, marginalisation, and embedded racist social, cultural, and economic structures.


    https://www.shh.mpg.de/1794162/anti-...tement-mpi-shh

    When scientists behave like political activists, then it becomes a necessity to double-check, vet their conclusions and interpretation of the data. That said, I'm not dismissing the studies from Max Planck Institute as such, I'm rather well aware of the fact, that science doesn't exist in a vacuum.

  8. #308
    Advisor Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    19,801


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    Quote Originally Posted by real expert View Post
    It's a bit off-topic, but I have to point out this fact.

    Instead of that, the Max Planck Institute sticks to the science they get political and bend the knee for BLM.





    https://www.shh.mpg.de/1794162/anti-...tement-mpi-shh

    When scientists behave like political activists, then it becomes a necessity to double-check, vet their conclusions and interpretation of the data. That said, I'm not dismissing the studies from Max Planck Institute as such, I'm rather well aware of the fact, that science doesn't exist in a vacuum.
    Sorry, I don't think this paper is a shining example of the good science they do at Max Planck if you meant to agree with all their conclusions in it.

    As to their surrendering to our modern, western version of China's Cultural Revolution, that quoted statement would indicate that they have.

    David Reich put his foot in the water about it all and those forces almost bit it off, starting with the New York Times. :)

    I doubt he'll try it again any time soon.

    Of course, this is coming from a woman who by European standards would probably be considered far right. :) By American standards I'm what used to be called a RINO or a Republican in name only, i.e. a Northeast liberal in the old fashioned sense suburban Republican. By woke standards now I should probably be sent to a re-education camp. :)

  9. #309
    Regular Member Archetype0ne's Avatar
    Join Date
    11-06-18
    Posts
    1,031

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    J2b2-L283/FT29003

    Country: Albania



    The more I think about it. The more it makes sense.

    If we input some context into the genetic discussion I think it becomes more obvious who contributed what.

    The Hellenic culture spread through Alexanders empire was the spiritual predecessor of the Roman empire. Think Religion, Pantheon of gods being twined, Greek being dual lingua franca to Latin etc. Now if we look at the extent of Alexanders empire, we will see that within a few years of his life he went all the way to India, and with him brought a lot of people, culture, and vice versa brought back a lot of people, culture and goods. So the supply lines, and logistics were in place. By this time it would not be unreasonable to speculate that the Aegean/Anatolian Hellenic world had imported a lot of Levantine, Egyptian (NA), as well as Persian/Caucasian genes. This would be in line with the rumors of Marathon samples plotting Cyprus like. Cyprus was in between these 3 continents, and missed some northern shifts that mainland Greece experienced. Just my guess, during this time already, mainland Greece would have had plenty of Anatolian and Near Eastern genes, through colonies these genes could have spread to Magna Grecia, and through skilled labor, artisans, soldiers, slaves etc later been also employed by the Romans. This IMHO is quite in line with what we see in the Antonia paper. And likely what these new (not-only)Etruscan samples signify as far as legacy. In fact I think it is not coincidental, that after the fall/split of the Roman empire, with the rise of Islam, Crusades, Ottomans, such faucets of eastern shifted genes dry up. Making way for more northern shift in the peninsula, as well as beyond, but also the resurgence of C6 (since we have discussed at length how Roman metropolises were population sinks, unable to maintain their numbers, and constantly needing immigration).



    I feel the discourse over the years, and the fracturing of the fora has lead to these dead end, party like arguments back and forth.
    Since this is stuff we knew all along, even before genetics. Just pick any random 10 Romans/Ancient Greeks of note, and count how many of them had foreign ancestry one way or the other. That is the nature of any empire, funneling resources, humans or other, from the periphery to the center.
    “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

  10. #310
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    26-01-09
    Posts
    718

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b Z36

    Country: UK - Scotland



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    But the Z36 branch is more likely Italic/Roman.
    I thought Z36 was more Celtic. Why do you see it as Italic/Roman?

  11. #311
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-10-16
    Posts
    884


    Country: Albania



    I think it's an error done by the academics related to the "average" sample of Medieval Tuscans.
    When I ran the "average" medieval Tuscany as a sample source versus Swedes and Imperial Tuscany. I got 19% Swedish.

    I have 5 samples out of 9.



    Target: Italy_Medieval_Chiusi_East_Med_Profile:ETR014
    Distance: 5.8434% / 0.05843383
    100.0 ITA_Etruria_Imperial


    Target: Italy_Medieval_Chiusi_Central_Italian_Profile:ETR0 13
    Distance: 4.2658% / 0.04265800
    97.8 ITA_Etruria_Imperial
    2.2 SWE_IA


    Target: Italy_Medieval_Chiusi_Central_Italian_Profile:ETR0 10
    Distance: 4.1774% / 0.04177429
    94.0 ITA_Etruria_Imperial
    6.0 SWE_IA


    Target: Italy_Medieval_Chiusi_Central_Italian_Profile:ETR0 07
    Distance: 3.9967% / 0.03996698
    76.6 ITA_Etruria_Imperial
    23.4 SWE_IA



    Target: Italy_Medieval_Chiusi_Central_Italian_Profile:ETR0 03
    Distance: 3.7818% / 0.03781795
    90.4 ITA_Etruria_Imperial
    9.6 SWE_IA


    As we see 1 East-Med Medieval Tuscan cannot be modeled, he comes as fully Imperial Tuscan. It's also obvious on the PCA if you add Germanic the average Imperial it only becomes more distant from that particular sample. The one that plots more northern probably scores 20%, as for those in the Middle vary from 2.2% to 9.6% as seen in G25. I suppose if you remove the 2 outliers you will get a one digit percentage. The fit is not tight though


    (If you use Pre-Roman Etruscan vs Imperial Tuscan vs Iron Age Swede, you loose nearly all the Germanic and get a better fit.)




    Last edited by ihype02; 30-09-21 at 02:50.

  12. #312
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-10-16
    Posts
    884


    Country: Albania



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    There is, to my knowledge, no actual proof whatsoever as of yet that E-V13 was a Germanic line. We know the Germanic lines of the Langobards in Italy from the burial site in Italy (Collegno), and the one in Hungary (Szolad).

    Maciamo analyzed all of them when the paper came out...

    "The autosomally Germanic samples belong to:

    - I1-L22 (1 sample)
    - I2a2a-L801 (4 samples including three ZS20)
    - R1a-Z284 (1 sample, L448+)
    - R1b-U106 (including three Z381, two L48>Z9 and one Z16)

    One sample was reported as I1a3, which should be I1-Z63, but the SNP listed was Z79, which belongs to a deep clade of I2a2a-L801. So it isn't clear which it is. Surely a typo.

    There is no surprise, except maybe that the haplogroup composition is so high in I2a2a-L801 and has few I1, but that is probably a sampling bias (too small sample size). All the haplogroups are unambiguously Germanic and even South Scandinavian in their subclades, which is in agreement with the origins of the Lombards in Scania (southern Sweden).

    The samples that were autosomally South European included the following haplogroups:

    - E-V13
    - G2a1a
    - I2a2a-L1229 (also found in Megalithic cultures)
    - R1b-Z2103
    - T1a1a

    One R1b-S116 (P312) samples was fully Germanic, one was fully South European, and the third one was mixed.

    Two samples (CL49 and SZ5) belong to R1b-U152 (L2>Z367 and Z36>Z37), but unfortunately both are about half CEU and half TSI (+IBS for SZ5), so their origins are inconclusive. Alpine Celts would probably have such mixed ancestry though. But the Z36 branch is more likely Italic/Roman.

    The E-V22 and R1b-DF99 and one R1b-Z381 also had mixed ancestry."

    Makes complete sense to me.

    So, the actual Langobard yDna appears to be !1, U-106, some clades of I2a2a and R1a Z284.

    Goths could be assumed to carry some if not all of these and also had, perhaps, picked up some "Slavic" clades.

    Maciamo has already checked these against his extensive collection of yDna for Tuscany, and it comes out in the range of 5-10%.

    Now, if someone can provide proof that autosomally Germanic people brought U-152, then that would be adjusted, but I seriously doubt that would happen.

    I'd also point out that for all of this talk about E-V13 being German, the E-V13 here is 100% Italian or Tuscan like Balkan. No Germanic autosomal dna admixture whatsoever.


    Proceeding to Dushman's point about Albanian yDna and whether or not it correlates with 48% "Slavic" dna, I'm already on record as saying I don't believe it does.

    However, it's extremely difficult to decipher exactly how much "Slavic" yDna the Albanians might have from the academic papers because they aren't broken down to very detailed subclade level.

    For what it's worth, Maciamo shows 9% R1a, and 12% I2a. We're therefore up to 21%. There's also 2% I1, so perhaps some of the "Slavic" incomers had picked that up. That brings us to 23%.

    There is 16% R1b in Albania. Whatever U-106 is present could perhaps be added, since the "Slavic" percentages may in actuality also include "Germanic" ancestry. As for J2b, it is also present in Italy where the Slavs never settled, so unless the J2b is of a very different subclade than the J2b in Italy, I am doubtful that should be counted as "Slavic" yDna. Much much likely that it was picked up by Bronze Age steppe migrants, imo.

    So, it would seem to me that there'd be a maximum of about 25% "Slavic" yDna.

    Now, I find the whole issue of the "Slavic" mtDna rather problematical. The authors of the Danubian Limes paper, when confronted with the low percentage of yDna in the Slavic Kuline settlement, and the high Slavic presence in the X chromosome, just gloss over it by saying this was perhaps just a one off type situation. Perhaps so, and perhaps not. I don't know how to quantify that.

    So, I stick with my opinion that there doesn't seem to be enough Slavic yDna to warrant an admixture figure of 48%, but there certainly is a significant amount, where it's all Slavic or part Germanic as well.


    About E-V13 in Italy some subclades might be Germanic, as it only appears after the Germanic tribes overran Rome and I have been told that that particular clade of Rome is more of a modern German-one so possibly it was originally Germanic and not an assimilated person.

    E-V13 is uniformly spread in Italy, 5%-10% in nearly all regions. So I don't think it is essentially Germanic in Italy (only a fraction of it), because otherwise, Lombardy would have more of it than any other Italian region just like they have more Germanic R1b and I, but that is not the case with E-V13.
    Also if it was essentially Germanic it would imply that Germanic people carried more E-V13 than I or R1b which is clearly a contradiction with facts.
    Last edited by ihype02; 30-09-21 at 02:07.

  13. #313
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-11-19
    Posts
    129


    Country: Italy



    Quote Originally Posted by Archetype0ne View Post
    The more I think about it. The more it makes sense.

    If we input some context into the genetic discussion I think it becomes more obvious who contributed what.

    The Hellenic culture spread through Alexanders empire was the spiritual predecessor of the Roman empire. Think Religion, Pantheon of gods being twined, Greek being dual lingua franca to Latin etc. Now if we look at the extent of Alexanders empire, we will see that within a few years of his life he went all the way to India, and with him brought a lot of people, culture, and vice versa brought back a lot of people, culture and goods. So the supply lines, and logistics were in place. By this time it would not be unreasonable to speculate that the Aegean/Anatolian Hellenic world had imported a lot of Levantine, Egyptian (NA), as well as Persian/Caucasian genes. This would be in line with the rumors of Marathon samples plotting Cyprus like. Cyprus was in between these 3 continents, and missed some northern shifts that mainland Greece experienced. Just my guess, during this time already, mainland Greece would have had plenty of Anatolian and Near Eastern genes, through colonies these genes could have spread to Magna Grecia, and through skilled labor, artisans, soldiers, slaves etc later been also employed by the Romans. This IMHO is quite in line with what we see in the Antonia paper. And likely what these new (not-only)Etruscan samples signify as far as legacy. In fact I think it is not coincidental, that after the fall/split of the Roman empire, with the rise of Islam, Crusades, Ottomans, such faucets of eastern shifted genes dry up. Making way for more northern shift in the peninsula, as well as beyond, but also the resurgence of C6 (since we have discussed at length how Roman metropolises were population sinks, unable to maintain their numbers, and constantly needing immigration).



    I feel the discourse over the years, and the fracturing of the fora has lead to these dead end, party like arguments back and forth.
    Since this is stuff we knew all along, even before genetics. Just pick any random 10 Romans/Ancient Greeks of note, and count how many of them had foreign ancestry one way or the other. That is the nature of any empire, funneling resources, humans or other, from the periphery to the center.
    It is not "unreasonable" to speculate but this theory has its flaws:
    1) it might not be a "sensible topic", but ancient Greeks were vehemently xenophobic and racist ("race" meant as any assigned collective of people based on ancestry; Greeks had ideas of ethnicity and the idea of Greekness had a requirement of blood to it; of course this is a generalization, that holds strongest in the classical period and becomes somewhat weaker in the hellenistic times, but I have read that Greeks from Europe saw other Greeks, or hellenophones, from Asia with some mistrust; Romans weren't much different, Juvenal is an example for this attitude), so it seems hard to believe that the average Greek by that time was Cypriot-like. I'd guess that Greeks with that genetic profile existed in the Levant.
    2) It seems we have from the limes paper the first anatolian samples from the roman period and it looks like they were half balkan_IA and half Anatolia_BA ; they could have been Greeks from Anatolia or maybe they were representative of Anatolia at large, in either case, it doesn't look like you can explain the purported east med shift here since it is ashkelon-like(even if interpreted as an average it means you need a much more southern gene flow).
    3) To be exhaustive, the Antonio paper showed that C6 individuals existed also in the imperial period, and after the fall of the empire the C4( and C5 if I recall correctly) tail disappears, and it is possible to explain the C6 as a mixture of C7 and C5 (it doesn't seem possible with C4 for reasons I've expressed earlier), but it doesn't explain why C6 individuals already existed in Italy. Future papers are needed.

  14. #314
    Regular Member Archetype0ne's Avatar
    Join Date
    11-06-18
    Posts
    1,031

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    J2b2-L283/FT29003

    Country: Albania



    Quote Originally Posted by Leopoldo Leone View Post
    It is not "unreasonable" to speculate but this theory has its flaws:
    1) it might not be a "sensible topic", but ancient Greeks were vehemently xenophobic and racist ("race" meant as any assigned collective of people based on ancestry; Greeks had ideas of ethnicity and the idea of Greekness had a requirement of blood to it; of course this is a generalization, that holds strongest in the classical period and becomes somewhat weaker in the hellenistic times, but I have read that Greeks from Europe saw other Greeks, or hellenophones, from Asia with some mistrust; Romans weren't much different, Juvenal is an example for this attitude), so it seems hard to believe that the average Greek by that time was Cypriot-like. I'd guess that Greeks with that genetic profile existed in the Levant.
    2) It seems we have from the limes paper the first anatolian samples from the roman period and it looks like they were half balkan_IA and half Anatolia_BA ; they could have been Greeks from Anatolia or maybe they were representative of Anatolia at large, in either case, it doesn't look like you can explain the purported east med shift here since it is ashkelon-like(even if interpreted as an average it means you need a much more southern gene flow).
    3) To be exhaustive, the Antonio paper showed that C6 individuals existed also in the imperial period, and after the fall of the empire the C4( and C5 if I recall correctly) tail disappears, and it is possible to explain the C6 as a mixture of C7 and C5 (it doesn't seem possible with C4 for reasons I've expressed earlier), but it doesn't explain why C6 individuals already existed in Italy. Future papers are needed.
    I really do not want to get into this with you Leopoldo. Your heart might be in the right place, but just like all of us you have some biases you might want to work on.

    1) Do not really buy this, ancient people were petty racists. Healthy man sees healthy woman, and you know whats up, not much has changed in 200k years. But even then, you are assuming that these Greeks would be xenophobic to Asian/African Hellenized peoples, such as the Cypriot profile that you mention. But what if these Classical Greeks were a Cypriot profile to begin with, you know who they would be racist too right?

    2) I agree. I suspect two profiles. Anyone knowing me and having read my posts on this forum knows for quite a while I subscribe to the Lazaridis on this topic. One paper stated that Minoans and Myceneans had the largest continuity in Italians, Albanians, Greeks and Cypriots. That's a literal quote. On the other hand we have Helladic peoples Log02, 04, showing the C6 existed in EBA/MBA North Greece.

    3) If C6 existed in North Greece as a mix of "the" two profiles, why are you surprised about Italy. When 60 KM separates the Balkans from the Heel. Nothing surprising.

    I am not sure what is controversial with this version. Why so many Italians would feel offended by this. I am missing something here.

  15. #315
    Regular Member Salento's Avatar
    Join Date
    30-05-17
    Posts
    5,158

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2 - SK1480
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H12a

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    … curiosity, follow the relationships:

    Otzi, C5 Latin R850, C6 Latin plus C6 Imperial from Praeneste R437 and R436, all share a position on my 8 chr

    … though the two C6 from Praeneste, even if they are 400+ years apart, in addition to chr 8, they also shared segments on chr 1 and 20 (stronger signs of continuity in my chromosomes).








  16. #316
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-10-16
    Posts
    884


    Country: Albania



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Archetype0ne View Post
    The more I think about it. The more it makes sense.

    If we input some context into the genetic discussion I think it becomes more obvious who contributed what.

    The Hellenic culture spread through Alexanders empire was the spiritual predecessor of the Roman empire. Think Religion, Pantheon of gods being twined, Greek being dual lingua franca to Latin etc. Now if we look at the extent of Alexanders empire, we will see that within a few years of his life he went all the way to India, and with him brought a lot of people, culture, and vice versa brought back a lot of people, culture and goods. So the supply lines, and logistics were in place. By this time it would not be unreasonable to speculate that the Aegean/Anatolian Hellenic world had imported a lot of Levantine, Egyptian (NA), as well as Persian/Caucasian genes. This would be in line with the rumors of Marathon samples plotting Cyprus like. Cyprus was in between these 3 continents, and missed some northern shifts that mainland Greece experienced. Just my guess, during this time already, mainland Greece would have had plenty of Anatolian and Near Eastern genes, through colonies these genes could have spread to Magna Grecia, and through skilled labor, artisans, soldiers, slaves etc later been also employed by the Romans. This IMHO is quite in line with what we see in the Antonia paper. And likely what these new (not-only)Etruscan samples signify as far as legacy. In fact I think it is not coincidental, that after the fall/split of the Roman empire, with the rise of Islam, Crusades, Ottomans, such faucets of eastern shifted genes dry up. Making way for more northern shift in the peninsula, as well as beyond, but also the resurgence of C6 (since we have discussed at length how Roman metropolises were population sinks, unable to maintain their numbers, and constantly needing immigration).



    I feel the discourse over the years, and the fracturing of the fora has lead to these dead end, party like arguments back and forth.
    Since this is stuff we knew all along, even before genetics. Just pick any random 10 Romans/Ancient Greeks of note, and count how many of them had foreign ancestry one way or the other. That is the nature of any empire, funneling resources, humans or other, from the periphery to the center.
    More like an Anthrogenica fantasy. Ever wondered why some of them are bothered by this East Med ancestry being significantly a product of slavery? (not that I'm implying) Or why they assume all or the "bulk" of Near Easterners were hellenized ethnically when they clearly were not?

    Some East Med profiles existed in Magna Graecia before the Imperial Rome, but I still think the genetic body remained broadly Mycenaean-like with some East-Med and West-Med outliers.

    Since I can no longer post in there, talk about West Med (from the natives of Italy) admixture in Classical Greeks of Southern Italy, let's see what they have to say.
    I see some intermediate samples between Italics and Greeks in Pax's reported PCA from the regions nearby coast (while the vast majority seem to have preserved their Italic profile after the Great Greek exodus in Campania). Some Greeks probably plotted there and maybe some of those "East Med" shifted Italian outliers might just be West Med shifted Greeks.

  17. #317
    Advisor Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    19,801


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Vallicanus View Post
    I thought Z36 was more Celtic. Why do you see it as Italic/Roman?
    There's a long passage there in quotes because it was written by Maciamo in a thread about the yDna of Szolad and Collegno."

    I'm ambivalent about it, but I think Italics might well have carried it.

  18. #318
    Moderator Pax Augusta's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-06-14
    Location
    Ara Pacis
    Posts
    1,531


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: Italy



    2 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Vallicanus View Post
    I thought Z36 was more Celtic. Why do you see it as Italic/Roman?

    If the Y-Full data are minimally correct, formed 4400 ybp TMRCA 4400 ybp, Z36 predates Iron Age ethnicities by a long way, and could potentially be found among both Latins, Celts, and even others. I didn't check if the study confirmed that it was also found among the Etruscans.

    https://www.yfull.com/tree/r-z36/

  19. #319
    Advisor Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    19,801


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    Quote Originally Posted by ihype02 View Post
    I think it's an error done by the academics related to the "average" sample of Medieval Tuscans.
    When I ran the "average" medieval Tuscany as a sample source versus Swedes and Imperial Tuscany. I got 19% Swedish.

    I have 5 samples out of 9.



    Target: Italy_Medieval_Chiusi_East_Med_Profile:ETR014
    Distance: 5.8434% / 0.05843383
    100.0 ITA_Etruria_Imperial


    Target: Italy_Medieval_Chiusi_Central_Italian_Profile:ETR0 13
    Distance: 4.2658% / 0.04265800
    97.8 ITA_Etruria_Imperial
    2.2 SWE_IA


    Target: Italy_Medieval_Chiusi_Central_Italian_Profile:ETR0 10
    Distance: 4.1774% / 0.04177429
    94.0 ITA_Etruria_Imperial
    6.0 SWE_IA


    Target: Italy_Medieval_Chiusi_Central_Italian_Profile:ETR0 07
    Distance: 3.9967% / 0.03996698
    76.6 ITA_Etruria_Imperial
    23.4 SWE_IA



    Target: Italy_Medieval_Chiusi_Central_Italian_Profile:ETR0 03
    Distance: 3.7818% / 0.03781795
    90.4 ITA_Etruria_Imperial
    9.6 SWE_IA


    As we see 1 East-Med Medieval Tuscan cannot be modeled, he comes as fully Imperial Tuscan. It's also obvious on the PCA if you add Germanic the average Imperial it only becomes more distant from that particular sample. The one that plots more northern probably scores 20%, as for those in the Middle vary from 2.2% to 9.6% as seen in G25. I suppose if you remove the 2 outliers you will get a one digit percentage. The fit is not tight though


    (If you use Pre-Roman Etruscan vs Imperial Tuscan vs Iron Age Swede, you loose nearly all the Germanic and get a better fit.)




    Years ago at university I remember reading accounts of the "Lombards" present in the castles outside of the Veneto and eastern Lombardia, and the number of actual, Lombards was very small. Those notes are long gone so I can't quote them, but that's my recollection.

    You cannot take a handful of samples, from bones just found scattered on the ground at various sites which have been moldering away in museums for a hundred years, for which you perform no isotope analysis, and which vary quite a bit from one another, average them, and then think you're going to have anything very meaningful to say about genetic change in a population.

    At least for the first millennium BCE samples, they are mostly cohesive autosomally, or you can at least clearly see the admixture sources.

    I'll say it again not that I'm sure they or some of our posters care, but this is not a particularly good paper. The Danubian limes paper, despite the problems with the Albanians, and the current lack of a more proximate in space "Slavic" source, is, imo, a much better paper.

    I hope the upcoming Reich Lab papers on Italy and Crete are better, and they don't fall prey to political correctness and bias. We live in strange times.

  20. #320
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    25-06-18
    Posts
    1,389

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

    Ethnic group
    Thracian
    Country: Greece



    2 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Leopoldo Leone View Post
    It is not "unreasonable" to speculate but this theory has its flaws:
    1) it might not be a "sensible topic", but ancient Greeks were vehemently xenophobic and racist ("race" meant as any assigned collective of people based on ancestry; Greeks had ideas of ethnicity and the idea of Greekness had a requirement of blood to it; of course this is a generalization, that holds strongest in the classical period and becomes somewhat weaker in the hellenistic times, but I have read that Greeks from Europe saw other Greeks, or hellenophones, from Asia with some mistrust; Romans weren't much different, Juvenal is an example for this attitude), so it seems hard to believe that the average Greek by that time was Cypriot-like. I'd guess that Greeks with that genetic profile existed in the Levant.
    2) It seems we have from the limes paper the first anatolian samples from the roman period and it looks like they were half balkan_IA and half Anatolia_BA ; they could have been Greeks from Anatolia or maybe they were representative of Anatolia at large, in either case, it doesn't look like you can explain the purported east med shift here since it is ashkelon-like(even if interpreted as an average it means you need a much more southern gene flow).
    3) To be exhaustive, the Antonio paper showed that C6 individuals existed also in the imperial period, and after the fall of the empire the C4( and C5 if I recall correctly) tail disappears, and it is possible to explain the C6 as a mixture of C7 and C5 (it doesn't seem possible with C4 for reasons I've expressed earlier), but it doesn't explain why C6 individuals already existed in Italy. Future papers are needed.
    So these xenophobic Greeks went far and wide creating colonies among the Xenoi, the foreigners. These xenophobic Athenians also proceeded to import all kinds of artisans from all over the known world. Don't read Demosthenes Phillipiads as anything other than what they are, a fading Athens trying to assert its supremacy by putting down their political rivals, something that you can see in how teenagers behave towards each other.

  21. #321
    Regular Member Ralphie Boy's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-10-16
    Posts
    179

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I2a-Y18331-Y66192

    Country: United States



    The ancient Greek results seem to be trickling in from colonies, and if I interpret right they were Mycenaean-like (except for possible admixture with locals). As we know, the rumor is that classical Greeks were heterogenous, which would not be surprising given their separation into city-states and constant warfare against each other. Wish the rumor-knower would provide some details, but the person seems to be cagey or evasive, when asked.

    The Greek Dark Age holds a lot of significance, to see if there were big population changes, or if the re-emerging Greeks of the Archaic era were more or less the same as their Mycenaean predecessors. Did the Dorians come from central Europe, like some speculate, or were they mostly locals, like the Mycenaeans?

  22. #322
    Regular Member Salento's Avatar
    Join Date
    30-05-17
    Posts
    5,158

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2 - SK1480
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H12a

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    … Take a tour of Washington DC, … Alexander would be proud, (Augustus too)

    The admiration for the Greeks and the Romans is obvious.

  23. #323
    Advisor Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    19,801


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    Quote Originally Posted by ihype02 View Post
    More like an Anthrogenica fantasy. Ever wondered why some of them are bothered by this East Med ancestry being significantly a product of slavery? (not that I'm implying) Or why they assume all or the "bulk" of Near Easterners were hellenized ethnically when they clearly were not?
    Some East Med profiles existed in Magna Graecia before the Imperial Rome, but I still think the genetic body remained broadly Mycenaean-like with some East-Med and West-Med outliers.
    Since I can no longer post in there, talk about West Med (from the natives of Italy) admixture in Classical Greeks of Southern Italy, let's see what they have to say.
    I see some intermediate samples between Italics and Greeks in Pax's reported PCA from the regions nearby coast (while the vast majority seem to have preserved their Italic profile after the Great Greek exodus in Campania). Some Greeks probably plotted there and maybe some of those "East Med" shifted Italian outliers might just be West Med shifted Greeks.
    If any one thinks that Levantines were significantly Hellenized ethnically that person either doesn't know the history of that era, or for some bizarre reason chooses to deny it.

    Most Jews of the time, in particular, hated and vehemently opposed Hellenization in all its forms, even culturally. Does no one know who the Maccabees were and why they rebelled? Philo was, it was true, influenced by Hellenic ideas, but his brand of Jewish thought died out, as did the influence of the Sadducees who wanted to at least try to accommodate the Greeks and Romans. It was the Pharisees who won out, people, and formed the Judaism of the future.

    As for intermarriage, I think it's unlikely that there was much of it as far as Jews were concerned. In the Alexandria of that time, the Jews and Greeks wouldn't even live in the same part of the city, and neither of them wanted to live with the Egyptians. They were all indeed racist, and despised each other. The city was in a constant uproar because of continuous riots between the different groups, each of whom lived in a separate part of the city. The Romans despaired of ever being able to keep order among them. It was like gang warfare in "West Side Story", or like the Jerusalem of today with the Palestinians vs the Jews.

    In my own university days, a close friend of mine married outside the religion, and the family sat shiva, i.e. held a mourning ritual as for one dead. The only way to make it ok is for the gentile partner to convert, and even in the present day, it has to be under the supervision of an Orthodox rabbi, not a Conservative or Reformed one, or you can forget about being given the "Right of Return" in Israel. You're just not a "real" Jew. It was no different then. If it was a man, he had to be circumcised as an adult, which would have horrified Greeks, who would have considered it a mutilation of the body. With Gentile women it would have been easier, However, once Christianity became the official religion, Jews were forbidden to marry Christians under pain of death, and they were likewise forbidden to proselytize, again under penalty of death.

    I also can't believe that people, even people from the Balkans, know so little about ancient Greek history. Athenians couldn't even legally marry Greeks from other city states, much less non-Greeks, at least in early periods, if my memory serves. Any children of such unions could not become citizens of the polis. Anyone NOT Greek was by definition a "Barbarian" with a capital B. Do people not know that there was opposition to Alexander marrying non-Greeks, although, given his proclivities, I always wondered why they made such a fuss over it. Had he not died, he might have had real problems. Certainly, the Macedonians/Greeks who ruled the various parts of the Empire didn't go around marrying locals. The Ptolemies married only each other. Nothing like keeping it in the family. Cleopatra, indeed, was the first member of her family to even bother learning how to speak Egyptian. Now, were there such unions? Yes, there were, doubtless, but if anyone thinks that all the "Syrians" of the Levant, which is what they would have been called, the people of the Decapolis, for example, were heavily Greek admixed they haven't been looking at samples like the "Near Eastern" samples of Antonio et al. They're Levantine pure and simple.

    May the Marathon mainland Greek be a bit more Levantine shifted than, say, Empuries? Perhaps so. Perhaps Anatolian Iron Age is a bit more Levantine shifted than Anatolian Bronze Age, and so the Greeks of the eastern Aegean and western Anatolia were a bit more Levant shifted. We'll have to wait and see. Perhaps there was some variation in the Classical Greeks, depending on the polis and the time period. The paper on Campania may shed some light on the matter, as would getting more samples from the Classical period of Greece from both the mainland and the islands.

    All of this is a far cry from the fairy tales they spin on anthrogenica. Do some of our members not know how abysmally wrong they've been about so many things?

    Honestly, I expected better from people here who have had the data pointed out and explained to them.

  24. #324
    Moderator Pax Augusta's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-06-14
    Location
    Ara Pacis
    Posts
    1,531


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: Italy



    Quote Originally Posted by Salento View Post
    … Take a tour of Washington DC, … Alexander would be proud, (Augustus too)

    The admiration for the Greeks and the Romans is obvious.
    I sometimes get the feeling it's more of an obsession than a simple admiration that of the Americans, and even the British, for the Greek and Roman worlds.

  25. #325
    Regular Member Archetype0ne's Avatar
    Join Date
    11-06-18
    Posts
    1,031

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    J2b2-L283/FT29003

    Country: Albania



    I really do think some people will be very outraged when new samples come out. I mean the rumors are leaving publicly on fora at this point, one just has to follow the right leads. Since to many it will not make sense. To others it will be just a footnote.

    Also I wonder, both in the Hellenic Polis as well as Roman cities, what was the ratio of citizens to non citizens, serfs and slaves? Surely even if the elite, I am assuming super minority, the cream of the crop if you will, would not be allowed to marry... the rest would be having an orgy if they wanted. I mean if they weren't too tired from toiling all day. Certainly some mixing was going on.

    I can barely wait to use AC-BC calcs between me and the L283 North Albania sample, to see what pull happened. Also curious what subclade it is. But I am leaning towards some Hoti clan type clade, upstream of course. Depending on the age, I would be delighted if it is mine. But who knows what surprises can arise. But yeah, even comparing the plots of the 3 Balkan BA L283 would be interesting. See what variations etc.

    I am sure fellow fora members feel the same, about the Magna Grecia and other upcoming papers.

    I feel like these papers are long overdue. But judging by how even Max Plank, Reich etc are recieved by whomever gets blindsided... no wonder they drag on forever before publishing.

Page 13 of 23 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... 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
  •