Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 15 of 23 FirstFirst ... 51314151617 ... LastLast
Results 351 to 375 of 558

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

  1. #351
    Regular Member torzio's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-05-19
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,384

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2 - SK1480
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H95a

    Ethnic group
    North Italian
    Country: Australia



    Quote Originally Posted by torzio View Post
    what is the northern shifted Albanians ? ...........they look more Dardanian with a Paeonia mix and then with a Macedonian mix ...................The Taulanti where a dardanian tribe which moved to northern Albania
    Your northern mix ...is it with later goths or is it with ancient bosnian tribes ?


    The end of the Taulanti
    In 314BC, one of Alexander's successors, Cassander of Macedonia, invaded the land of the Taulanti, subdued the tribe, and added the Greek towns of Apollonia and Epidamnus to his realm, essentially creating a land route from the Aegean Sea to the Adriatic Sea.

    I think people are mixing up Cleitus of Dardania (335-295 BC) with Cleitus of "Illyria" ( actually Cleitus of the Autariatae tribe )

    Cleitus of Dardania is son of
    Bardylis of Dardania
    Birthdate: -448
    Death: -358 (89-90)

    Bardylis was killed in a battle against Philip II of Macedon in 358 BC after Philip rejected his offer of peace based on Bardylis retaining conquered lands.

    his Dardanian realm/kingdom went to another family under the new "king" Grabos

    Log02 and Log04 are also associated with albanians but they came from northern Greece site.............close to ancient Macedon lands
    Fathers mtdna ...... T2b17
    Grandfather mtdna ... T1a1e
    Sons mtdna ...... K1a4p
    Mothers line ..... R1b-S8172
    Grandmother paternal side ... I1-CTS6397
    Wife paternal line ..... R1a-Z282

  2. #352
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-10-16
    Posts
    887


    Country: Albania



    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.)




    Even with Cypriots as a source, Imperial Tuscans don't score 50% East Med. Imperial Tuscans only hit 50% with Imperial Romans, who are more West than Anatolians and Levantines. Can someone run K12b? I know that in K12b I got similar results about Germanic percentages.

    Target: ITA_Etruria_Imperial
    Distance: 3.4598% / 0.03459770
    55.6 ITA_Etruscan
    44.4 Cypriot


    Target: ITA_Etruria_Imperial
    Distance: 3.2179% / 0.03217913
    57.4 ITA_Rome_Imperial
    42.6 ITA_Etruscan


    Target: ITA_Etruria_Imperial
    Distance: 3.5390% / 0.03538998
    64.8 ITA_Etruscan
    35.2 Levant_LBN_Roman

  3. #353
    Moderator Pax Augusta's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-06-14
    Location
    Ara Pacis
    Posts
    1,533


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: Italy



    3 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by ihype02 View Post
    Even with Cypriots as a source, some Imperial Tuscans don't score 50% East Med. Imperial Tuscans only hit 50% with Imperial Romans, who are more West than Anatolians and Levantines. Can someone run K12b? I know that in K12b I got similar results about Germanic percentages.

  4. #354
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-10-16
    Posts
    887


    Country: Albania



    Quote Originally Posted by Pax Augusta View Post
    I don't get it.

  5. #355
    Advisor Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    19,811


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    Quote Originally Posted by Francis Drake View Post
    Spicy, excited to see these non-east med magna grecians, if I wasnt banned I would be taking pictures of anthrogenica nerds faces ; P
    If you mean Iranian Neo enriched ancestry similar to what we might expect to find in Aegean Iron Age or western Anatolia, who here said that it wouldn't be in Magna Graecians?

    I haven't examined any of those samples yet.

    If you have inside information, please share.
    Last edited by Angela; 30-09-21 at 23:45.


    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

  6. #356
    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 Angela View Post
    If you mean Iranian Neo enriched ancestry similar to what we might expect to find in Aegean Iron Age or western Anatolia, who hear said that it wouldn't be in Magna Graecians?

    I haven't examined any of those samples yet.

    If you have inside information, please share.

    I mean manga grecians that plot with Empuries/Myceaneans, not Rome Imperials.

    As for the inside informatioin, I am refering to the PCA posted by Jovialis a few posts up and what ihype has discussed already.

  7. #357
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-10-16
    Posts
    887


    Country: Albania



    I got 34% for Alalakh MLBA, compared to +50% in the study and 23% for Israel.


    Target: ITA_Etruria_Imperial
    Distance: 3.5484% / 0.03548405
    66.0 ITA_Etruscan
    34.0 TUR_Alalakh_MLBA


    Target: ITA_Etruria_Imperial
    Distance: 4.7065% / 0.04706451
    71.6 ITA_Etruscan
    28.4 ARM_LBA

    Target: ITA_Etruria_Imperial
    Distance: 4.6646% / 0.04664600
    77.2 ITA_Etruscan
    22.8 Levant_ISR_C

  8. #358
    Moderator Pax Augusta's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-06-14
    Location
    Ara Pacis
    Posts
    1,533


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: Italy



    3 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by ihype02 View Post
    I don't get it.
    It suggests that compared to Iron Age Etruscans, modern Tuscans have most likely a shift toward Iron Age Anatolia/Iron Age Aegean, not toward the Levant. This potentially involves northern Italians, Albanians, and northern Greeks as well, if their Bronze Age and Iron Age ancestors turned out to be like the Etruscans (and we know that for the Greeks this is not true, because Iran_N has been present in large quantities on their side since much earlier). Then in Italy may have contributed Levant but in this case it does not seem the main reason for the shift. Imperial age samples are too few and do not provide the full picture, so it's pretty pointless to model them.

  9. #359
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-10-16
    Posts
    887


    Country: Albania



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Pax Augusta View Post
    It suggests that compared to Iron Age Etruscans, modern Tuscans have most likely a shift toward Iron Age Anatolia/Iron Age Aegean, not toward the Levant. This potentially involves northern Italians, Albanians, and northern Greeks as well, if their Bronze Age and Iron Age ancestors turned out to be like the Etruscans (and we know that for the Greeks this is not true, because Iran_N has been present in large quantities on their side since much earlier). Then in Italy may have contributed Levant but in this case it does not seem the main reason for the shift. Imperial age samples are too few and do not provide the full picture, so it's pretty pointless to model them.
    Imperial Tuscans score below 30% even with LBA Armenians, something definitely is wrong. Germanic admixture with individual samples fell below 10%, in G25.

  10. #360
    Moderator Pax Augusta's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-06-14
    Location
    Ara Pacis
    Posts
    1,533


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: Italy



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by ihype02 View Post
    Imperial Tuscans score below 30% even with LBA Armenians, something definitely is wrong. Germanic admixture with individual samples fell below 10%, in G25.
    Again. Imperial samples unlilkely give an accurate picture. It's a matter of common sense. If you don't understand that, there's nothing I can do about it.

  11. #361
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-10-16
    Posts
    887


    Country: Albania



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Pax Augusta View Post
    Again. Imperial samples unlilkely give an accurate picture. It's a matter of common sense. If you don't understand that, there's nothing I can do about it.
    I was implying something could be wrong the percentages they gave. I am well aware that a bigger picture is needed as in more samples from different regions in and outside of Tuscany and perhaps a better narrative. I believe some Estrucan-like profiles could've survive in less urban areas. When I modelled individual Medieval Tuscans with Estrucans and Imperial Tuscans I got a better fit than with Nordic samples. In fact using all the three together, Nordic decreases to zero or very close to it. Expect for one outlier, which if I remember well falls from 22% to 14% Nordic.

  12. #362
    Advisor Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    19,811


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    2 members found this post helpful.
    I completely agree that there's something wrong with the modeling.

    The Imperial Tuscan samples, as Pax has pointed out, are few, and from areas of southern Tuscany more adjacent to Rome. They may not be representative.

    The same may be true of the "Early Medieval Samples".

    As Ihype2 has pointed out, a better model for the Imperial Tuscan samples we do have so far might be admixture with the Imperial Romans, and certainly doesn't seem to be 50% Levantine. The authors themselves make a blanket statement that the admixture could be Anatolian or Levantine, and then proceeded to only show it as Levantine. I don't get what that's about at all.

    As I've pointed out in a prior post, the yDna of Toscana does not support a 20% Germanic admixture, so modeling Early Medieval Tuscans in that way makes no sense to me.

    Then there's the fact that the Early Medieval Tuscans, despite what the authors claim about "continuity", don't plot on top of most modern Tuscans if I'm looking at the PCA correctly.

    Instead, there's a distinct shift even further away from the Imperial Tuscan samples and toward the Northern Italians AFTER the Early Middle Ages which can be seen in the PCA provided by the authors. All this while the Iran Neo actually increased. If I'm missing something here, please tell me.

    There's no attempt whatsoever by the authors to explain that, although the PCA is two dimensions, and the chart is based on qpAdm.

    [IMG][/IMG]

    The Germanics wouldn't explain that, given their arrival was hundreds of years before, nor do I think it likely that whole masses of Northern Italians moved south. There's certainly nothing in the history which would imply that.

    When I was majoring in European history at university, before all the revisionism where archaeologists and historians wanted to believe that there were no "invasions" by Germanic tribes, only a "Wandering", and the fall of Rome was only coincidental to their arrival, that nothing was destroyed or lost, the 5th-10th centuries (starting in 476) were called the "Dark Ages". The Middle Ages proper started around 1000 CE. (Thank goodness for Ward-Perkins, who, because he approached the period from an archaeological point of view, stemmed the time of revisionism.)

    I would really love to know what actual medieval and Renaissance Tuscans looked like genetically. Perhaps the continuity was from 1000 CE, not from the "Early Middle Ages" at all, even if those samples are indeed representative. It shouldn't be hard; we have the remains. It's just no one is opening up the coffins testing them, although they did test the remains of a sample thought to be Petracco for yDna. Whoever he was, he was J2a, btw.

  13. #363
    Advisor Jovialis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-05-17
    Posts
    6,036

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a1b2a2a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H6a1b7

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    I completely agree that there's something wrong with the modeling.

    The Imperial Tuscan samples, as Pax has pointed out, are few, and from areas of southern Tuscany more adjacent to Rome. They may not be representative.

    The same may be true of the "Early Medieval Samples".

    As Ihype2 has pointed out, a better model for the Imperial Tuscan samples we do have so far might be admixture with the Imperial Romans, and certainly doesn't seem to be 50% Levantine. The authors themselves make a blanket statement that the admixture could be Anatolian or Levantine, and then proceeded to only show it as Levantine. I don't get what that's about at all.

    As I've pointed out in a prior post, the yDna of Toscana does not support a 20% Germanic admixture, so modeling Early Medieval Tuscans in that way makes no sense to me.

    Then there's the fact that the Early Medieval Tuscans, despite what the authors claim about "continuity", don't plot on top of most modern Tuscans if I'm looking at the PCA correctly.

    Instead, there's a distinct shift even further away from the Imperial Tuscan samples and toward the Northern Italians AFTER the Early Middle Ages which can be seen in the PCA provided by the authors. All this while the Iran Neo actually increased. If I'm missing something here, please tell me.

    There's no attempt whatsoever by the authors to explain that, although the PCA is two dimensions, and the chart is based on qpAdm.

    [IMG][/IMG]

    The Germanics wouldn't explain that, given their arrival was hundreds of years before, nor do I think it likely that whole masses of Northern Italians moved south. There's certainly nothing in the history which would imply that.

    When I was majoring in European history at university, before all the revisionism where archaeologists and historians wanted to believe that there were no "invasions" by Germanic tribes, only a "Wandering", and the fall of Rome was only coincidental to their arrival, that nothing was destroyed or lost, the 5th-10th centuries (starting in 476) were called the "Dark Ages". The Middle Ages proper started around 1000 CE. (Thank goodness for Ward-Perkins, who, because he approached the period from an archaeological point of view, stemmed the time of revisionism.)

    I would really love to know what actual medieval and Renaissance Tuscans looked like genetically. Perhaps the continuity was from 1000 CE, not from the "Early Middle Ages" at all, even if those samples are indeed representative. It shouldn't be hard; we have the remains. It's just no one is opening up the coffins testing them, although they did test the remains of a sample thought to be Petracco for yDna. Whoever he was, he was J2a, btw.
    I find it strange that they choose to model these samples with Morroccan_EN, because that population has a lot of overlap with other components they are testing for.


  14. #364
    Moderator Pax Augusta's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-06-14
    Location
    Ara Pacis
    Posts
    1,533


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: Italy



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    I would really love to know what actual medieval and Renaissance Tuscans looked like genetically. Perhaps the continuity was from 1000 CE, not from the "Early Middle Ages" at all, even if those samples are indeed representative. It shouldn't be hard; we have the remains. It's just no one is opening up the coffins testing them, although they did test the remains of a sample thought to be Petracco for yDna. Whoever he was, he was J2a, btw.
    They tested only Petrarca's mtDNa, and it was J2 (likely they didn't tested a possible subclade). His Y-DNA hasn't been tested yet.

    Btw the remains found in Arquà, Padua, have been assumed to belong to him, but I don't think it's sure, I remember another study came out that claimed the bones were from a woman.


    Quote Originally Posted by ihype02 View Post
    I was implying something could be wrong the percentages they gave.
    Got it, and I agree with you.

  15. #365
    Advisor Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    19,811


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    Quote Originally Posted by Pax Augusta View Post
    They tested only Petrarca's mtDNa, and it was J2 (likely they didn't tested a possible subclade). His Y-DNA hasn't been tested yet.

    Btw the remains found in Arquà, Padua, have been assumed to belong to him, but I don't think it's sure, I remember another study came out that claimed the bones were from a woman.




    Got it, and I agree with you.
    You're right; I misremembered.

  16. #366
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-10-16
    Posts
    887


    Country: Albania



    Quote Originally Posted by Pax Augusta View Post
    They are saying that originally are more similar to Central Italian IA groups.

    All samples are from Campania, including the Villanovan/Etruscans.

    I don't understand why did they name the title "Magna Graecia" when they have only have 2 Ancient Greek samples? There is no Magna Graecia to see there. Plus not to mention that they are both Ionians, I mean if they were Mainland Dorians it would've at least end the northern Doric impact discussion, since 2017 no official study for that matter has shown up. We have pretty much figured it out that it did not happen, just like the Balkan IA cluster was revealed with just one sample. A non drastic northern shift by the late Roman period seem (in IA Balkan cluster) to have taken place which was expected and that was it.


    The Iberian paper had 4 Mycenaean-like samples from 3 historical periods (Roman, Hellenistic and Classical) plus a couple more outliers and it was not called "Ancient Greek colonies of Iberia". Just name it Iron Age Campania.
    Last edited by ihype02; 02-10-21 at 10:11.

  17. #367
    Advisor Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    19,811


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    Quote Originally Posted by Jovialis View Post
    I find it strange that they choose to model these samples with Morroccan_EN, because that population has a lot of overlap with other components they are testing for.

    Using Iberomaurisians presents its own problems, I think, given it has so much Spanish like ancestry? Still, at least those samples have more coverage, though, yes?

  18. #368
    Advisor Jovialis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-05-17
    Posts
    6,036

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a1b2a2a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H6a1b7

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    Using Iberomaurisians presents its own problems, I think, given it has so much Spanish like ancestry? Still, at least those samples have more coverage, though, yes?
    The coverage is pretty standard for aDNA. I know the files are about as big as the others in size, like Yamnaya. However, these Iberomaurisians from Grotte des Pigeons were not found to have European gene flow according to the 2018 study.

    https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aar8380

    There was a 2013 study that did find it among Iberomaurisians they analyzed however.

    The 2018 study models them as SSA plus Natufian. However, Lazaridis modeled Natufian as 25% Taforalt plus Dzudzuna. This is consistent with Antonio et al modeling Natufian about 25% taforalt plus Anatolian_N, which is supposed to be very similar to Dzudzuna.

  19. #369
    Moderator Pax Augusta's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-06-14
    Location
    Ara Pacis
    Posts
    1,533


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: Italy



    Quote Originally Posted by ihype02 View Post
    I don't understand why did they name the title "Magna Graecia" when they have only have 2 Ancient Greek samples? There is no Magna Graecia to see there. Plus not to mention that they are both Ionians, I mean if they were Mainland Dorians it would've at least end the northern Doric impact discussion, since 2017 no official study for that matter has shown up. We have pretty much figured it out that it did not happen, just like the Balkan IA cluster was revealed with just one sample. A non drastic northern shift by the late Roman period seem (in IA Balkan cluster) to have taken place which was expected and that was it.
    The Iberian paper had 4 Mycenaean-like samples from 3 historical periods (Roman, Hellenistic and Classical) plus a couple more outliers and it was not called "Ancient Greek colonies of Iberia". Just name it Iron Age Campania.
    I think because Ischia/Pithekoussai is considered the first Greek colony in order of time of "Magna Graecia", and the Greeks who arrived there around 780-770 a.C. is thought were from Eretria and Chalcis in Euboea and so they spoke a Ionic dialect indeed, if I'm not mistaken. Then certainly in Italy arrived also the Ionic/Ionian Greek from Anatolia, but these first in southern Italy should be the original ones from Greece.

    To these early Greeks of Euboea is attributed the spread of the Greek alphabet in Italy, which for this reason is also called Euboian. Which is the alphabet that the Etruscans adopted, and also the Italic populations.

    For the title I agree with your considerations, and I think we all expect too much from geneticists. Very often titles are overpromising. In the end geneticists analyze what they gave them to analyze and it's possible to analyze, and it's not always enough but the studies have to be published anyway.

    In Italian there is an idiomatic expression that I think is perfect for this case, but I do not know how to translate it. Since geneticists don't seem to have always a sufficient number of samples, at least not those we expect, they are often forced "ad arrampicarsi sugli specchi" (to grasp at straws? I don't know if that makes sense and has exactly the same significant as in Italian).



  20. #370
    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



    Many think of Florence as a Medieval or a Renaissance city, but it could have begun as a Roman barracks built by Julius Caesar for his Legionaries.

    … Continuity :)
    I spent over a year in Tuscany, ... Arezzo, Pisa, but most of it in Florence, alla Simoni when it used to be the headquarters of the Rep. Com. RMTE, near S. M. Novella, a few minutes walk from the Duomo, Ponte Vecchio, the Uffizi (but we pronounce it with two Z).

    … though Lecce is called the Florence of the South, we call Firenze the Lecce of the North

  21. #371
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    26-01-09
    Posts
    720

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b Z36

    Country: UK - Scotland



    Quote Originally Posted by Salento View Post
    Many think of Florence as a Medieval or a Renaissance city, but it could have begun as a Roman barracks built by Julius Caesar for his Legionaries.

    … Continuity :)
    I spent over a year in Tuscany, ... Arezzo, Pisa, but most of it in Florence, alla Simoni when it used to be the headquarters of the Rep. Com. RMTE, near S. M. Novella, a few minutes walk from the Duomo, Ponte Vecchio, the Uffizi (but we pronounce it with two Z).

    … though Lecce is called the Florence of the South, we call Firenze the Lecce of the North
    Florence was Caesar's colony Florentia, but nearby Fiesole is of Etruscan origin and much older.

  22. #372
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-10-16
    Posts
    887


    Country: Albania



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    I completely agree that there's something wrong with the modeling.

    The Imperial Tuscan samples, as Pax has pointed out, are few, and from areas of southern Tuscany more adjacent to Rome. They may not be representative.

    The same may be true of the "Early Medieval Samples".

    As Ihype2 has pointed out, a better model for the Imperial Tuscan samples we do have so far might be admixture with the Imperial Romans, and certainly doesn't seem to be 50% Levantine. The authors themselves make a blanket statement that the admixture could be Anatolian or Levantine, and then proceeded to only show it as Levantine. I don't get what that's about at all.

    As I've pointed out in a prior post, the yDna of Toscana does not support a 20% Germanic admixture, so modeling Early Medieval Tuscans in that way makes no sense to me.

    Then there's the fact that the Early Medieval Tuscans, despite what the authors claim about "continuity", don't plot on top of most modern Tuscans if I'm looking at the PCA correctly.

    Instead, there's a distinct shift even further away from the Imperial Tuscan samples and toward the Northern Italians AFTER the Early Middle Ages which can be seen in the PCA provided by the authors. All this while the Iran Neo actually increased. If I'm missing something here, please tell me.

    There's no attempt whatsoever by the authors to explain that, although the PCA is two dimensions, and the chart is based on qpAdm.

    [IMG][/IMG]

    The Germanics wouldn't explain that, given their arrival was hundreds of years before, nor do I think it likely that whole masses of Northern Italians moved south. There's certainly nothing in the history which would imply that.

    When I was majoring in European history at university, before all the revisionism where archaeologists and historians wanted to believe that there were no "invasions" by Germanic tribes, only a "Wandering", and the fall of Rome was only coincidental to their arrival, that nothing was destroyed or lost, the 5th-10th centuries (starting in 476) were called the "Dark Ages". The Middle Ages proper started around 1000 CE. (Thank goodness for Ward-Perkins, who, because he approached the period from an archaeological point of view, stemmed the time of revisionism.)

    I would really love to know what actual medieval and Renaissance Tuscans looked like genetically. Perhaps the continuity was from 1000 CE, not from the "Early Middle Ages" at all, even if those samples are indeed representative. It shouldn't be hard; we have the remains. It's just no one is opening up the coffins testing them, although they did test the remains of a sample thought to be Petracco for yDna. Whoever he was, he was J2a, btw.
    From BA Levant to the Roman Lebanon period, the Levantine component in 2-way model scores from 30% to 34%.
    It seems like 33% using Northern Levantines, I bet it falls below 30% using Southern Levantines.
    I used G25 for Slavic paper, the results were nearly identical.

    Target: ITA_Etruria_Imperial
    Distance: 3.7282% / 0.03728237
    67.8 ITA_Etruscan
    32.2 Levant_Beirut_Hellenistic

  23. #373
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-10-16
    Posts
    887


    Country: Albania



    Target: Sicilian_West
    Distance: 2.0083% / 0.02008266
    74.2 Italian_Tuscany
    25.8 Lebanese_Christian
    Target: Sicilian_East
    Distance: 1.6201% / 0.01620098
    67.0 Italian_Tuscany
    33.0 Lebanese_Christian


    Target: Italian_Sicily
    Distance: 3.4670% / 3.46703597
    59.1 Italian_Tuscany
    40.9 Lebanese_Christian


    You can check the PCA of Lazaridis, Sicilians are exactly shifted 25% to 33% towards Lebanese in comparison to 40% given in K12b.

    Target: Sicilian_East
    Distance: 1.6201% / 0.01620098
    67.0 Italian_Tuscany
    33.0 Lebanese_Christian

  24. #374
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-11-19
    Posts
    129


    Country: Italy



    I doubt the Sicilian samples in G25 are even remotely reliable.
    However, by using Etruscan and Levant Beirut Hellenistic on G25 as source populations and I've obtained very similar results to those obtained by ihype02 for Etruria imperial but for Bulgaria IA.


    P.S. I can't insert the image so these are the values: distance: 0.03958062, ITA_etruscan: 70.4, Levant_Beirut_Hellenistic:29.6, Target: BGR_IA.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  25. #375
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-11-19
    Posts
    129


    Country: Italy



    Deleted: slow internet connection, it showed that the editings were successful after a while.

Page 15 of 23 FirstFirst ... 51314151617 ... 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
  •