Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 2 of 23 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 558

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

  1. #26
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-11-19
    Posts
    129


    Country: Italy



    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.

    Interesting, do you know perhaps when it is coming out?
    Also, this paper hasn't told apart north Levantines from Anatolians, though the paper about the Danubian limes showed it is very easy to do. As I said on another thread, you can theoretically use Anatolians from the imperial age to model Italians. given they are rich in CHG but have virtually no levantine ancestry in excess to what older samples had. Though, that paper also argued that people harbouring that genetic profile died out in the Balkans and in Rome (though it wasn't in the original paper to be honest): it would seem it was wrong for Italy.

  2. #27
    Regular Member Archetype0ne's Avatar
    Join Date
    11-06-18
    Posts
    1,033

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    J2b2-L283/FT29003

    Country: Albania



    Quote Originally Posted by Pax Augusta View Post
    It is really not understandable why they ended up in this study. It's not even an area where there were Etruscans.
    My guess is as a tool. Since from the PCAs, and the coordinates Jov shared, they seem the closest to modern Italians. Hence they are used in the sample to make a point about potential continuity.

    Check the title of the paper. The Etruscan might be a good clickbait, and raise media attention. But the 2000 year part was bound to deal with their legacy, since by the CE we could no longer talk about Etruscan per se.
    “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

  3. #28
    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



    Quote Originally Posted by ihype02 View Post
    Really they are different from native Apulians?
    I’ve seen modern Apulian results (in the hundreds) been used by amateurs as substitutes for Ancient theoretical extinct Balkan and Greek samples that have no modern line or continuity.
    They don’t take into account and disregard that there was a native Apulian population there for at least 20,000 years!

  4. #29
    Regular Member Archetype0ne's Avatar
    Join Date
    11-06-18
    Posts
    1,033

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    J2b2-L283/FT29003

    Country: Albania



    Quote Originally Posted by kingjohn View Post
    48 individuals from 800 to 1 BCE (Iron Age and Roman Republic), 6 individuals from 1 to 500 CE (Imperial period), and 28 individuals from 500 to 1000 CE (12 from central Italy and 16 from southern Italy)

    "The mtDNA diversity does not seem to change substantially before and after year 1 CE (fig. S5A). By contrast, the newly reported central Italian individuals from 800 to 1 BCE show ~75% frequency of the Y-chromosome haplogroup R1b, mostly represented by the R1b-P312 polymorphism and its derived R1b-L2, that diffused across Europe alongside steppe-related ancestry in association with the Bell Beaker complex (16). This suggests that this R1b Y-chromosome lineage spread into the Italian peninsula with steppe-related movements during the Bronze Age. In the first millennium CE, its frequency is reduced to ~40% with higher oc-currence of Near Eastern–associated Y-chromosome lineages such as J (fig. S5. While we cannot rule out substantial female mobility, the marked shift in Y-chromosome haplogroup frequency indicates that male mobility played an important role in the observed genetic turnovers from the Imperial period onward"

    Now we need Magna Grecia paper to come out. Both papers were presented at the same conference if I am not mistaken.

    I also found out the Albanian samples wont be published on a separate/Illyrian study, but along with more regional samples, not sure if just Balkans or even beyond. Meaning the team is international.

  5. #30
    Moderator Pax Augusta's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-06-14
    Location
    Ara Pacis
    Posts
    1,533


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: Italy



    2 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Leopoldo Leone View Post
    Quite strong words when I have just exposed my reasoning, and believe me that I shall sleep at night even if southern Italians came out as 100% Saudi.
    If the Campanians (as the bulk of it) were Italic-like, as I've stated, my conjecture would change.
    By the way, the outcome for southern Italy is roughly the same for that for central and north Italy, though on slightly different levels, and I have "no dog in the race" since I am both southern and northern Italian.
    The paper stated that:
    Do you understand that Posth's explanation is very weak, or not? It is only statistics, the same statistics used for years to make us to believe that Etruscans were not autochthonous and come from Mars. Now the scenario has completely flipped. The work of geneticists has improved since the whole genome of ancient DNA can be analyzed, but the tricks and gambles of geneticists have remained as they always have.

    It is clear that imperial Rome has changed many things and that the genetic profile of the Etruscans does not exist anymore, as the profile of practically all the pre-Roman Iron Ag Italy does not exist. As well as it is clear that the DNA of the eastern Mediterranean arrived during imperial Rome is not all gone and that certainly the Germanic DNA arrived later is not all gone.

    But these proposed are models and that are still based on a few samples. In Italy there is a genetic cline, you cannot make these models on a population without involving all Italians, not to mention that there are not enough uniparental markers that can support the results of these models. The more you increase certain components that shift south, the more you need components that shift north to bring you back to today's position.

    All of these models then rely on the assumption that the needed populations were unadmixed. So much so that the study says that 20% of North European DNA comes from individuals carrying unadmixed northern European genetic ancestry. Eh, but how many were really unadmixed? It's all much more complicated than these models. Too bad that Collegno cemetery was full of people with the most diverse genetic profiles. Only those with unadmixed northern European genetic ancestry mixed with the local population? The only sure thing is that the gene pool of central Italians, but this is true for all Italians, began to form after 1000 AD.


    Quote Originally Posted by Leopoldo Leone View Post
    Which can explain why Razib khan (quite cryptically) stated on twitter when he said that "this paper confirms his podcast", that is that those folks died out to be replaced by locals.
    Razib Khan is the same guy who until just before 2019 wondered where the Etruscans came from. C'mon.

  6. #31
    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 Pax Augusta View Post
    Do you understand that Posth's explanation is very weak, or not? It is only statistics, the same statistics used for years to make us to believe that Etruscans were not autochthonous and come from Mars. Now the scenario has completely flipped.

    It is clear that imperial Rome has changed many things and that the genetic profile of the Etruscans does not exist anymore, as the profile of practically all the pre-Roman iron Italy does not exist. As well as it is clear that the DNA of the eastern Mediterranean arrived during imperial Rome is not all gone and that certainly the Germanic DNA arrived later is not all gone.

    But these proposed are models and that are still based on a few samples. In Italy there is a genetic cline, you cannot make these models on a population without involving all Italians, not to mention that there are not enough uniparental markers that can support the results of these models. The more you increase certain components that shift south, the more you need components that shift north to bring you back to today's position.

    All of these models then rely on the assumption that the needed populations were unadmixed. So much so that the study says that 20% of North European DNA comes from individuals carrying unadmixed northern European genetic ancestry. Eh, but how many were really unadmixed? It's all much more complicated than these models. Too bad that Collegno cemetery was full of people with the most diverse genetic profiles. Only those with unadmixed northern European genetic ancestry mixed with the local population? The only sure thing is that the gene pool of central Italians, but this is true for all Italians, began to form after 1000 AD.




    Razib Khan is the same guy who until just before 2019 wondered where the Etruscans came from. C'mon.
    I wish I had more upvotes to give!

  7. #32
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-11-19
    Posts
    129


    Country: Italy



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Pax Augusta View Post
    Do you understand that Posth's explanation is very weak, or not? It is only statistics, the same statistics used for years to make us to believe that Etruscans were not autochthonous and come from Mars. Now the scenario has completely flipped.

    It is clear that imperial Rome has changed many things and that the genetic profile of the Etruscans does not exist anymore, as the profile of practically all the pre-Roman iron Italy does not exist. As well as it is clear that the DNA of the eastern Mediterranean arrived during imperial Rome is not all gone and that certainly the Germanic DNA arrived later is not all gone.

    But these proposed are models and that are still based on a few samples. In Italy there is a genetic cline, you cannot make these models on a population without involving all Italians, not to mention that there are not enough uniparental markers that can support the results of these models. The more you increase certain components that shift south, the more you need components that shift north to bring you back to today's position.

    All of these models then rely on the assumption that the needed populations were unadmixed. So much so that the study says that 20% of North European DNA comes from individuals carrying unadmixed northern European genetic ancestry. Eh, but how many were really unadmixed? It's all much more complicated than these models. Too bad that Collegno cemetery was full of people with the most diverse genetic profiles. Only those with unadmixed northern European genetic ancestry mixed with the local population? The only sure thing is that the gene pool of central Italians, but this is true for all Italians, began to form after 1000 AD.




    Razib Khan is the same guy who until just before 2019 wondered where the Etruscans came from. C'mon.
    We agree that the statistical models are weak and the explanation also weak, so I don't get why you disagree with me, that is about what? Contrary to Jovialis, I haven't said a word about an "east (european) med continuum", I waited for more samples.
    My rub is that there is a big gap between the evidence presented by the paper about the Danubian limes and this: it is implausible that the virtually all the near eastern that went to the Balkans were Anatolians while those that went to Italy Levantines, and actually the same C6 cluster in the Antonio 2019 paper seems undefined: was it made up of people like those Anatolians or was it a two way mixture of Levantines and Italics as this paper implies? Not both can be correct.

    We also agree that the genetic profile of Italy changed during the eras, but the scenario proposed (slaves plus barbarians) seems historically unfeasible.
    I expected a bit more from this paper, and it doesn't take into consideration the paper from the danubian limes.

  8. #33
    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



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Duarte View Post
    Jovialis post #10

    Distance to: Duarte
    9.25598725 C.Italy_Etruscan_related:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_ 356-96BCE:TAQ001
    10.20708088 C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio): TAQ016
    10.35823827 :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012
    10.40551777 C.Italy_Etruscan_related:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tusca ny)_380-204BCE:CSN010
    10.82643524 C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tusca ny):CSN013
    10.97969490 C.Italy_Etruscan:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_346-51BCE:TAQ015
    11.01859338 C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio): TAQ013
    11.06370191 C.Italy_Etruscan:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany)_533-392BCE:CSN006
    11.12235587 C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tusca ny):CSN008
    11.19851329 C.Italy_Etruscan:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_356-96BCE:TAQ024
    11.23924375 C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tusca ny):CSN005
    11.48003484 C.Italy_Etruscan:PoggioRenzo(Siena_Tuscany)_772-436BCE:PRZ002
    11.50595498 C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_ :TAQ004
    11.53930674 C.Italy_Etruscan:CampigliadeiFoci(Siena_Tuscany)_7 80-540BCE:CAM001
    11.64089773 C.Italy_Etruscan:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_750-406BCE:VET001
    11.66283842 C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio): TAQ008
    11.81583260 C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tusca ny):CSN001
    11.83354131 C.Italy_Etruscan:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany)_380-204BCE:CSN003
    11.87767233 C.Italy_Etruscan_related:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_ 356-96BCE:TAQ017
    11.93160090 C.Italy_Etruscan:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_358-98BCE:TAQ019
    12.00538629 C.Italy_Etruscan:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_788-545BCE:VET010
    12.08740253 C.Italy_Etruscan:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_800-590BCE:VET003_4
    12.08808091 C.Italy_Etruscan:CampigliadeiFoci(Siena_Tuscany)_7 70-540BCE:CAM003
    12.10366473 C.Italy_Etruscan:Volterra(Pisa_Tuscany)_200-60BCE:VOL001
    12.13397297 C.Italy_Etruscan_related:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_ 346-51BCE:TAQ005

    Target: Duarte
    Distance: 4.9802% / 4.98016616
    30.8 :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012
    25.5 :Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_750-413BCE:VET011
    24.5 C.Italy_Etruscan_related:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tusca ny)_380-204BCE:CSN010
    8.1 C.Italy_Early.Medieval_undated:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscan y):ETR012
    5.1 S.Italy_Venosa_related:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_ 670-775CE:VEN010
    3.2 S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_672-800CE:VEN018
    2.8 S.Italy_Venosa_VEN002:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_6 50-800CE:VEN002

    Distance to: Duarte
    5.71283954 55.60% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012 + 44.40% C.Italy_Etruscan:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)_805-774BCE:ETR005
    6.14483435 55.60% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012 + 44.40% C.Italy_Etruscan_related:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_ 346-51BCE:TAQ005
    6.25573479 69.60% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012 + 30.40% C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)_772-888CE:ETR006
    6.42054177 51.80% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012 + 48.20% C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tusca ny):CSN013
    6.43117110 52.40% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012 + 47.60% C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio): TAQ013
    6.52224720 52.40% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012 + 47.60% C.Italy_Etruscan:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_346-51BCE:TAQ015
    6.56370470 67.00% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012 + 33.00% S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_660-766CE:VEN008
    6.67938654 55.40% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012 + 44.60% C.Italy_Etruscan_related:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_ 356-96BCE:TAQ017
    6.68125709 60.60% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012 + 39.40% C.Italy_Etruscan:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_790-550BCE:VET002
    6.70205573 60.80% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012 + 39.20% C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio): TAQ012
    6.77249138 56.00% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012 + 44.00% C.Italy_Etruscan:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_800-590BCE:VET003_4
    6.77491340 46.00% C.Italy_Etruscan.Afr:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_396-216BCE:TAQ023 + 54.00% C.Italy_Etruscan.Ceu:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_3 60-200BCE:VET005
    6.79509036 44.60% C.Italy_Etruscan:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany)_380-204BCE:CSN003 + 55.40% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012
    6.80827790 61.40% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012 + 38.60% C.Italy_Etruscan_related:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_ 346-51BCE:TAQ018
    6.82035602 62.00% C.Italy_Etruscan_related:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tusca ny)_380-204BCE:CSN010 + 38.00% :Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_750-413BCE:VET011
    6.83632398 54.80% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012 + 45.20% C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio): TAQ008
    6.84279399 35.60% C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tusca ny):CSN007 + 64.40% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012
    6.92103862 49.40% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012 + 50.60% C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio): TAQ016
    6.92468012 39.60% C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tusca ny):CSN004 + 60.40% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012
    6.94008642 60.20% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012 + 39.80% C.Italy_Etruscan:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_806-599BCE:VET007
    6.94447338 47.20% C.Italy_Etruscan:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany)_533-392BCE:CSN006 + 52.80% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012
    7.04884449 75.20% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012 + 24.80% C.Italy_Etruscan.Afr:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_3 72-204BCE:VET008
    7.06419513 43.60% C.Italy_Etruscan:CampigliadeiFoci(Siena_Tuscany)_7 70-540BCE:CAM003 + 56.40% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012
    7.06468641 44.40% C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tusca ny):CSN001 + 55.60% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012
    7.07728941 56.40% C.Italy_Etruscan_related:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tusca ny)_380-204BCE:CSN010 + 43.60% C.Italy_Etruscan_related:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_ 346-51BCE:TAQ005


    we are a long way away from these etruscans

    Distance to: Torziok12b
    7.47945854 C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tusca ny):CSN005
    7.77274083 C.Italy_Etruscan:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany)_427-265BCE:CSN009
    8.85378450 C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tusca ny):CSN008
    9.41315569 C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)775-945CE:ETR007
    9.57447649 C.Italy_Etruscan:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_750-406BCE:VET001
    9.89305312 C.Italy_Etruscan_MAS001:Marsilianad'Albegna(Grosse to_Tuscany)_350-100BCE:MAS001
    10.99554455 C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_ :TAQ006
    11.05177814 C.Italy_Etruscan.Ceu:CampigliadeiFoci(Siena_Tuscan y)_770-520BCE:CAM002
    11.17633214 C.Italy_Etruscan:Volterra(Pisa_Tuscany)_200-60BCE:VOL001
    11.32613350 C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_10 18-1151CE:TAQ022
    11.63097588 C.Italy_Etruscan:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany)_533-392BCE:CSN006
    11.80943267 C.Italy_Etruscan_related:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tusca ny)_380-204BCE:CSN010
    11.86362508 C.Italy_Etruscan:Marsilianad'Albegna(Grosseto_Tusc any)_804-557BCE:MAS004
    11.98595845 C.Italy_Imperial:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_89-236CE:TAQ020
    12.05735460 C.Italy_Early.Medieval:PoggioPelliccia(Grosseto_Tu scany)_772-960CE:POP001
    12.13428201 C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tusca ny):CSN013
    12.20780898 C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_89 5-1016CE:TAQ011
    12.54692393 C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)_997-1149CE:ETR003
    12.64932014 C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_89 9-1021CE:TAQ009
    12.85277402 C.Italy_Etruscan.Ceu_related:Casenovole(Grosseto_T uscany)_427-265BCE:CSN002
    13.01492220 C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio): TAQ016
    13.27414027 C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tusca ny):CSN001
    13.36240248 C.Italy_Etruscan:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_346-51BCE:TAQ015
    13.51870186 C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio): TAQ013
    13.52757184 C.Italy_Etruscan:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_103BCE-54CE:TAQ002
    Fathers mtdna ...... T2b17
    Grandfather mtdna ... T1a1e
    Sons mtdna ...... K1a4p
    Mothers line ..... R1b-S8172
    Grandmother paternal side ... I1-CTS6397
    Wife paternal line ..... R1a-Z282

  9. #34
    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 Leopoldo Leone View Post
    We agree that the statistical models are weak and the explanation also weak, so I don't get why you disagree with me, that is about what? Contrary to Jovialis, I haven't said a word about an "east (european) med continuum", I waited for more samples.
    My rub is that there is a big gap between the evidence presented by the paper about the Danubian limes and this: it is implausible that the virtually all the near eastern that went to the Balkans were Anatolians while those that went to Italy Levantines, and actually the same C6 cluster in the Antonio 2019 paper seems undefined: was it made up of people like those Anatolians or was it a two way mixture of Levantines and Italics as this paper implies? Not both can be correct.

    We also agree that the genetic profile of Italy changed during the eras, but the scenario proposed (slaves plus barbarians) seems historically unfeasible.
    I expected a bit more from this paper, and it doesn't take into consideration the paper from the danubian limes.
    With a paper from the Max Planck Institute, I have to defer to their expertise. Thus I should have more respect towards the position that the Imperial era had a larger impact on the Modern Italians. This paper makes it a viable conclusion, by the virtue of the fact that the Max Planck Institute supports it. So, I have to say this does support what some of the people on Anthrogenica have said. I still have to read it fully, but based on the salient points I have seen, it doesn't support what I have been saying. Nevertheless, I have faith that as more samples come out, such as the ones from Magna Graecia, it may change the story.


    The Venosa samples would have been more interesting if they at least included Iron Age samples from the area, to compare to.

  10. #35
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    10-05-19
    Posts
    1,028

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I2-M223
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H2A3

    Ethnic group
    Italian-Sicily-South
    Country: United States



    1 members found this post helpful.
    My top 25 distances using coordinates provided by Jovialis (post #10)

    Distance to: PalermoTrapani_Combined
    2.38784422 S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_670-775CE:VEN015
    4.04278369 S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_670-775CE:VEN013
    4.24855269 S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_650-763CE:VEN005
    4.61280826 C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_72 9-942CE:TAQ003
    6.12952690 C.Italy_Imperial:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_262-424CE:TAQ021
    6.18293620 S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_650-800CE:VEN001
    6.18618622 S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_650-763CE:VEN006
    6.44542473 C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)C899-1016CE:ETR013
    6.46209718 S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_672-800CE:VEN016
    7.28809303 C.Italy_Early.Medieval_ETR014:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany )_977-1022CE:ETR014
    8.15834542 C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_89 5-1016CE:TAQ011
    8.49709951 C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_89 9-1021CE:TAQ009
    9.17092689 C.Italy_Imperial:Marsilianad'Albegna(Grosseto_Tusc any)_400-530CE:MAS003
    9.23174415 C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)_997-1149CE:ETR003
    9.35309040 C.Italy_Early.Medieval_undated:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscan y):ETR010
    9.52039915 C.Italy_Imperial:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_89-236CE:TAQ020
    9.73570747 C.Italy_Etruscan.Afr:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_391-207BCE:TAQ007
    9.87760092 C.Italy_Early.Medieval:PoggioPelliccia(Grosseto_Tu scany)_772-960CE:POP001
    10.49192547 S.Italy_Venosa_related:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_ 672-800CE:VEN017
    10.62509765 S.Italy_Venosa_related:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_ 660-766CE:VEN009
    10.67940541 C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_10 18-1151CE:TAQ022
    10.73998603 S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_670-775CE:VEN012
    11.58488671 C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)_772-888CE:ETR006
    12.44673049 C.Italy_Etruscan.Afr:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_3 72-204BCE:VET008
    12.70596317 C.Italy_Imperial:Marsilianad'Albegna(Grosseto_Tusc any)_240-380CE:MAS002

    Unrestricted Model

    Target: PalermoTrapani_Combined
    Distance: 0.6841% / 0.68409247 | ADC: 0.25x RC
    82.6 S.Italy_Venosa
    14.2 C.Italy_Early.Medieval
    1.8 C.Italy_Etruscan.Afr
    1.4 S.Italy_Venosa_related

    Restricted to 2 Populatons

    Target: PalermoTrapani_Combined
    Distance: 0.6750% / 0.67500023 | R2P | ADC: 0.25x RC
    85.6 S.Italy_Venosa
    14.4 C.Italy_Early.Medieval
    Last edited by Palermo Trapani; 25-09-21 at 02:36. Reason: additional information

  11. #36
    Regular Member Archetype0ne's Avatar
    Join Date
    11-06-18
    Posts
    1,033

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    J2b2-L283/FT29003

    Country: Albania



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Palermo Trapani View Post
    My top 25 distances using coordinates provided by Jovialis (post #10)

    Distance to: PalermoTrapani_Combined
    2.38784422 S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_670-775CE:VEN015
    4.04278369 S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_670-775CE:VEN013
    4.24855269 S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_650-763CE:VEN005
    4.61280826 C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_72 9-942CE:TAQ003
    6.12952690 C.Italy_Imperial:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_262-424CE:TAQ021
    6.18293620 S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_650-800CE:VEN001
    6.18618622 S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_650-763CE:VEN006
    6.44542473 C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)C899-1016CE:ETR013
    6.46209718 S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_672-800CE:VEN016
    7.28809303 C.Italy_Early.Medieval_ETR014:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany )_977-1022CE:ETR014
    8.15834542 C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_89 5-1016CE:TAQ011
    8.49709951 C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_89 9-1021CE:TAQ009
    9.17092689 C.Italy_Imperial:Marsilianad'Albegna(Grosseto_Tusc any)_400-530CE:MAS003
    9.23174415 C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)_997-1149CE:ETR003
    9.35309040 C.Italy_Early.Medieval_undated:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscan y):ETR010
    9.52039915 C.Italy_Imperial:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_89-236CE:TAQ020
    9.73570747 C.Italy_Etruscan.Afr:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_391-207BCE:TAQ007
    9.87760092 C.Italy_Early.Medieval:PoggioPelliccia(Grosseto_Tu scany)_772-960CE:POP001
    10.49192547 S.Italy_Venosa_related:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_ 672-800CE:VEN017
    10.62509765 S.Italy_Venosa_related:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_ 660-766CE:VEN009
    10.67940541 C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_10 18-1151CE:TAQ022
    10.73998603 S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_670-775CE:VEN012
    11.58488671 C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)_772-888CE:ETR006
    12.44673049 C.Italy_Etruscan.Afr:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_3 72-204BCE:VET008
    12.70596317 C.Italy_Imperial:Marsilianad'Albegna(Grosseto_Tusc any)_240-380CE:MAS002

    Unrestricted Model

    Target: PalermoTrapani_Combined
    Distance: 0.6841% / 0.68409247 | ADC: 0.25x RC
    82.6 S.Italy_Venosa
    14.2 C.Italy_Early.Medieval
    1.8 C.Italy_Etruscan.Afr
    1.4 S.Italy_Venosa_related

    Restricted to 2 Populatons

    Target: PalermoTrapani_Combined
    Distance: 0.6750% / 0.67500023 | R2P | ADC: 0.25x RC
    85.6 S.Italy_Venosa
    14.4 C.Italy_Early.Medieval
    Nice results, especially now that we know the context.
    Coca Cola has got nothing on you, your formula has remained original for 1300 year ;)

  12. #37
    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 Leopoldo Leone View Post
    Quite strong words when I have just exposed my reasoning, and believe me that I shall sleep at night even if southern Italians came out as 100% Saudi.
    If the Campanians (as the bulk of it) were Italic-like, as I've stated, my conjecture would change.
    By the way, the outcome for southern Italy is roughly the same for that for central and north Italy, though on slightly different levels, and I have "no dog in the race" since I am both southern and northern Italian.
    The paper stated that:



    Which can explain why Razib khan (quite cryptically) stated on twitter when he said that "this paper confirms his podcast", that is that those folks died out to be replaced by locals.
    We need to see what Southern Italian Greeks were like during the IA.

  13. #38
    Moderator Pax Augusta's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-06-14
    Location
    Ara Pacis
    Posts
    1,533


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: Italy



    2 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Leopoldo Leone View Post
    We agree that the statistical models are weak and the explanation also weak, so I don't get why you disagree with me, that is about what? Contrary to Jovialis, I haven't said a word about an "east (european) med continuum", I waited for more samples.
    My rub is that there is a big gap between the evidence presented by the paper about the Danubian limes and this: it is implausible that the virtually all the near eastern that went to the Balkans were Anatolians while those that went to Italy Levantines, and actually the same C6 cluster in the Antonio 2019 paper seems undefined: was it made up of people like those Anatolians or was it a two way mixture of Levantines and Italics as this paper implies? Not both can be correct.

    We also agree that the genetic profile of Italy changed during the eras, but the scenario proposed (slaves plus barbarians) seems historically unfeasible.
    I expected a bit more from this paper, and it doesn't take into consideration the paper from the danubian limes.
    Geneticists generally follow narratives and tend to defend the work of colleagues with whom they collaborate, even when the conclusions are wrong or not entirely correct. For years two distinct groups of Italian geneticists have been dealing with the question of Etruscan origins, which is very debatable because they began to deal with Etruscans far too soon when prehistoric migrations were not even clear.

    The first group (universities of Turin and Pavia, mainly, and others) has never analyzed the DNA of a single Etruscan or single Lydian, and, siding with the eastern origin from the beginning against what archeology concluded, has only analyzed modern samples. Their working method has always consisted in attributing anything found in modern samples, which could be traced to the eastern Mediterranean, to the eastern origin of the Etruscans, thus producing a series of ridiculous studies that claimed to have proved that Herodotus was right. Wthout proving it as something related to the Etruscans, they left a legacy in the debate that there was something in modern Tuscans' mtDNA attributable to Iron Age Anatolia (which is not even so true, so much so that they have never published new samples for the fear of self-discrediting), also making believe that the Tuscans were a kind of special case in Italy, which has been regularly refuted by other more impartial geneticists who have analyzed all of Italy.

    The second group (universities of Ferrara and Florence, and then also Max Planck, Harvard, Tubingen), which includes the authors of this study released today, instead decided to focus more on ancient DNA, and their conclusions since 2013 were diametrically opposed to the first group and more in line with archaeology. But even this group has distinguished itself by some exaggeration. They never openly criticized the other group, they played along and accepted the narrative about the modern Tuscans created by the other group, and to discredit their work from the beginning this group claimed that there was very little Etruscan DNA left in the modern samples from Etruria (it's clear why they did it, isn't it?). The problem is that they started to support it initially on the basis of only mitochondrial DNA of Etruscans and modern samples. If we see the results of today with mtDNA H which is dominant both in Etruscans and in modern Tuscans it appears they were wrong. But of course today they are using other arguments to support it, and no longer the comparison based on mitochondrial DNA.

    It is clear that the migrations of the imperial age have left traces in modern central Italians. No doubt, but the problem is who were they? They weren't from just one place. An ancestral component does not always tell us exactly the origin of someone at that time. In any case it is highly unlikely they did not leave it in the rest of Italy as well. The problem is that this group has an interest in exaggerating this, especially in the relationship between Etruscans and modern central Italians. We will have a clearer picture only in a few years. As I've already said, in Italy there is a genetic cline, you cannot make these models on a single Italian population without involving all Italians.

  14. #39
    Advisor Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    19,810


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    Quote Originally Posted by ihype02 View Post
    They are pre-Moorish era samples. It seems that the Moorish impact was greater in Iberia than in Southern Italy and Sicily.
    How do those samples fit the scenario?
    The Muslims only ruled Sicily for 200 years. They had footholds in parts of the mainland for a couple of decades here and there, and Frederick II sent his "Saracen" soldiers to Foggia because he didn't trust them in Sicily, but that's it.

    I'm also confused because there isn't enough yDna I1 and U-106 in Toscana to make a huge change in the autosomal composition.

    I'm missing something, I guess.


    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

  15. #40
    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



    2 members found this post helpful.
    ... from post #10 (credit to Jovialis ... same top sample: Taq003)

    ... although Venosa is not an Apulian town, AncestryDNA include it in the Genetic Community of Puglia.




  16. #41
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    10-05-19
    Posts
    1,028

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I2-M223
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H2A3

    Ethnic group
    Italian-Sicily-South
    Country: United States



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Top 25 Distances to R437 (Circa 300 BC) from Antonio et al 2019, the most Southern Italian Republican Roman Sample from that paper. Very close to VEN005 from Basilicata.

    Distance to: Mediterranean_C6:R437_Iron_Age_Palestrina_Selicata
    2.63738507 S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_650-763CE:VEN005
    3.65334094 C.Italy_Imperial:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_262-424CE:TAQ021
    5.15021359 C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)C899-1016CE:ETR013
    6.29974603 S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_670-775CE:VEN015
    7.11796319 C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_72 9-942CE:TAQ003
    7.24782036 S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_670-775CE:VEN013
    8.21681812 C.Italy_Early.Medieval_ETR014:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany )_977-1022CE:ETR014
    8.62706787 C.Italy_Early.Medieval_undated:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscan y):ETR010
    8.78415619 C.Italy_Etruscan.Afr:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_391-207BCE:TAQ007
    9.16498227 S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_650-800CE:VEN001
    9.29248621 S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_650-763CE:VEN006
    9.79295665 C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_89 5-1016CE:TAQ011
    9.81352638 C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_89 9-1021CE:TAQ009
    9.93343344 C.Italy_Imperial:Marsilianad'Albegna(Grosseto_Tusc any)_400-530CE:MAS003
    10.23923337 S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_672-800CE:VEN016
    10.33045014 C.Italy_Early.Medieval:PoggioPelliccia(Grosseto_Tu scany)_772-960CE:POP001
    10.40081728 C.Italy_Imperial:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_89-236CE:TAQ020
    11.01331921 C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)_772-888CE:ETR006
    11.32265428 C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_10 18-1151CE:TAQ022
    11.48361877 C.Italy_Etruscan.Afr:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_3 72-204BCE:VET008
    11.49127060 S.Italy_Venosa_related:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_ 672-800CE:VEN017
    11.83600017 S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_670-775CE:VEN012
    12.03713006 C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)_997-1149CE:ETR003
    12.55524193 S.Italy_Venosa_related:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_ 660-766CE:VEN009
    13.30567172 C.Italy_Imperial:Marsilianad'Albegna(Grosseto_Tusc any)_240-380CE:MAS002

  17. #42
    Regular Member Hawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    11-11-19
    Location
    Honolulu
    Posts
    735

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-V13

    Country: Albania



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Too much R1b in a supposedly non IE speaking people. Something doesn't sum up.

  18. #43
    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



    2 members found this post helpful.
    So basically,

    Antonio et al. 2019 supports the idea of local-population resurgence in Rome

    Olalde et al. 2021 supports the idea of local-population resurgence in the Balkans, and cites the phenomonon in Rome:

    Conversely, the decline in the geographic scale and number of people involved in transMediterranean movements following the Empire’s decline is reflected in the fact that in laterperiods, Eastern Mediterranean influence largely disappeared in both the city of Rome and inthe large towns of the Balkans. An important topic for future ancient DNA research will be tosystematically characterize populations in cities and towns as well as rural locations across theEmpire, to understand how these patterns differed across geographic locations.

    https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1...08.30.458211v1
    This paper seems to not even explore this possibility and makes the statement that the Imperial era had an impact.


    To me it seems that the Reich Lab and the Max Planck Institute may be in disagreement here.

    Personally, I find the evidence of the two aforementioned papers to be too compelling to accept that there is what, 60% Eastern Mediterranean in Tuscany!? What is 99% in the south? To me this is a bit outrageous.


    They seem to shoehorn the Venosa samples into the study from the middle ages (Like Pax said, I am not sure why these are even in a study about Etruscans), without even comparing to see if IA and Bronze age samples from the region are similar. This paper seems to be drawn on pretty broad conclusions and very limited amounts of data.


    Also, if it were a choice between Levantine and Anatolian source, I think it is clear from the Olalde et al 2021 paper in the Balkans, that it was probably the Anatolian "Near eastern" population (Anatolian_ChL+Iran_N) in the Imperial era, and NOT a Levantine source, for these East Mediterraneans.
    Last edited by Jovialis; 25-09-21 at 16:36.

  19. #44
    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



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jovialis View Post
    So basically,

    Antonio et al. 2019 supports the idea of local-population resurgence in Rome

    Olalde et al. 2021 supports the idea of local-population resurgence in the Balkans, and cites the phenomenon in Rome:



    This paper seems to not even explore this possibility and makes the statement that the Imperial era had an impact.


    To me it seems that the Reich Lab and the Max Planck Institute may be in disagreement here.

    Personally, I find the evidence of the two aforementioned papers to be too compelling to accept that there is what, 60% Eastern Mediterranean in Tuscany!? What is 99% in the south? To me this is a bit outrageous.


    They seem to shoehorn the Venosa samples into the study from the middle ages (Like Pax said, I am not sure why these are even in a study about Etruscans), without even comparing to see if IA and Bronze age samples from the region are similar. This paper seems to be drawn pretty broad conclusions are very limited amounts of data.


    Also, if it were a choice between Levantine and Anatolian source, I think it is clear from the Olalde et al 2021 paper in the Balkans, that it was probably the Anatolian "Near eastern" population (Anatolian_ChL+Iran_N) in the Imperial era, and NOT a Levantine source, for these East Mediterraneans.

    This paper pretty much says the Eastern Mediterranean in general augmented the whole of Southeastern Europe. So what are they saying that modern Balkan people too are derived from Imperial age immigrants? This would be a contradiction to the Reich Lab paper:


    "During the first half of the first millennium CE, we observe a marked shift in PCA space of all studied individuals toward the Near Eastern cline (Fig. 4A), distributed across the genetic space occupied by present-day southeastern European populations."


    This is not adding up, and frankly, while I respect the Max Planck Institute, I have to disagree with them on this.

  20. #45
    Regular Member Stuvanè's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-09-16
    Location
    Milan
    Posts
    488

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    J2
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1e

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: Italy



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Jovialis post#10 :)

    Distance to: Dodecadk12bStuvanè
    4.12127407 C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)775-945CE:ETR007
    5.96436920 C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_89 9-1021CE:TAQ009
    6.18798836 C.Italy_Early.Medieval:PoggioPelliccia(Grosseto_Tu scany)_772-960CE:POP001
    6.31981012 C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_89 5-1016CE:TAQ011
    6.68472139 C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_10 18-1151CE:TAQ022
    7.80932776 C.Italy_Imperial:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_89-236CE:TAQ020
    8.33039615 C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)_997-1149CE:ETR003
    9.15716659 C.Italy_Early.Medieval_undated:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscan y):ETR010
    10.23210145 C.Italy_Etruscan:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany)_427-265BCE:CSN009
    10.26249970 S.Italy_Venosa_related:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_ 672-800CE:VEN017
    10.50968601 S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_650-800CE:VEN001
    10.54409788 C.Italy_Etruscan:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_750-406BCE:VET001
    10.71946361 C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tusca ny):CSN005
    10.81554437 C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_72 9-942CE:TAQ003
    11.19209096 C.Italy_Etruscan_MAS001:Marsilianad'Albegna(Grosse to_Tuscany)_350-100BCE:MAS001
    11.35817327 C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)C899-1016CE:ETR013
    11.38123016 S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_660-766CE:VEN008
    11.93949748 C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)_772-888CE:ETR006
    12.07552069 C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_ :TAQ006
    12.56003583 S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_650-763CE:VEN006
    12.81852566 C.Italy_Etruscan:Volterra(Pisa_Tuscany)_200-60BCE:VOL001
    12.93006961 S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_670-775CE:VEN013
    13.61044819 S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_672-800CE:VEN016
    13.78004717 C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tusca ny):CSN008
    13.92520736 S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_670-775CE:VEN015

    Combos

    Target: Dodecadk12bStuvanè
    Distance: 0.9099% / 0.90986668 | R2P
    56.4 C.Italy_Early.Medieval_ETR014
    43.6 C.Italy_Etruscan.Ceu


    Target: Dodecadk12bStuvanè
    Distance: 1.1280% / 1.12802062 | ADC: 0.25x RC
    80.5 C.Italy_Early.Medieval
    19.5 C.Italy_Etruscan_undated



    Target: Dodecadk12bStuvanè
    Distance: 0.4537% / 0.45374920
    28.5 C.Italy_Etruscan.Ceu_related
    24.6 S.Italy_Venosa
    19.8 C.Italy_Early.Medieval_ETR014
    11.2 C.Italy_Etruscan.Ceu
    8.3 C.Italy_Etruscan_undated
    4.8
    2.8 S.Italy_Venosa_related


    Distance to: Dodecadk12bStuvanè
    1.12689404 60.60% C.Italy_Early.Medieval_ETR014:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany )_977-1022CE:ETR014 + 39.40% C.Italy_Etruscan.Ceu:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_3 60-200BCE:VET005
    1.23542618 16.80% C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tusca ny):CSN007 + 83.20% C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)775-945CE:ETR007
    1.30867841 48.80% C.Italy_Etruscan.Ceu:CampigliadeiFoci(Siena_Tuscan y)_770-520BCE:CAM002 + 51.20% C.Italy_Early.Medieval_ETR014:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany )_977-1022CE:ETR014
    1.41108469 80.00% C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)775-945CE:ETR007 + 20.00% C.Italy_Etruscan:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_800-590BCE:VET003_4
    1.41749118 82.00% C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)775-945CE:ETR007 + 18.00% C.Italy_Etruscan:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_790-550BCE:VET002
    1.42406264 17.00% C.Italy_Etruscan:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany)_380-204BCE:CSN003 + 83.00% C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)775-945CE:ETR007
    1.43225538 79.60% C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)775-945CE:ETR007 + 20.40% C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio): TAQ013
    1.43996828 17.40% C.Italy_Etruscan:CampigliadeiFoci(Siena_Tuscany)_7 70-540BCE:CAM003 + 82.60% C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)775-945CE:ETR007
    1.46331618 81.60% C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)775-945CE:ETR007 + 18.40% C.Italy_Etruscan_related:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_ 346-51BCE:TAQ018
    1.47171959 79.40% C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)775-945CE:ETR007 + 20.60% C.Italy_Etruscan:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_346-51BCE:TAQ015
    1.47207765 81.40% C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)775-945CE:ETR007 + 18.60% C.Italy_Etruscan:PoggioRenzo(Siena_Tuscany)_794-543BCE:PRZ001
    1.48008046 19.00% C.Italy_Etruscan:CampigliadeiFoci(Siena_Tuscany)_7 80-540BCE:CAM001 + 81.00% C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)775-945CE:ETR007
    1.50787067 20.40% C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tusca ny):CSN001 + 79.60% C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)775-945CE:ETR007
    1.52675300 84.20% C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)775-945CE:ETR007 + 15.80% C.Italy_Etruscan:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_806-599BCE:VET007
    1.53143403 84.80% C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)775-945CE:ETR007 + 15.20% C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio): TAQ012
    1.55451416 20.60% C.Italy_Etruscan:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)_805-774BCE:ETR005 + 79.40% C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)775-945CE:ETR007
    1.59878732 82.00% C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)775-945CE:ETR007 + 18.00% C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_ :TAQ004
    1.61668215 79.60% C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)775-945CE:ETR007 + 20.40% C.Italy_Etruscan:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_103BCE-54CE:TAQ002
    1.63232723 81.20% C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)775-945CE:ETR007 + 18.80% C.Italy_Etruscan:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_358-98BCE:TAQ019
    1.64022622 82.20% C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)775-945CE:ETR007 + 17.80% C.Italy_Etruscan_related:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_ 356-96BCE:TAQ017
    1.64444785 20.80% C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tusca ny):CSN013 + 79.20% C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)775-945CE:ETR007
    1.65482452 15.40% C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tusca ny):CSN004 + 84.60% C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)775-945CE:ETR007
    1.67534776 77.20% C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)775-945CE:ETR007 + 22.80% C.Italy_Etruscan:Volterra(Pisa_Tuscany)_200-60BCE:VOL001
    1.68043889 80.80% C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)775-945CE:ETR007 + 19.20% C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio): TAQ016
    1.73251567 81.60% C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)775-945CE:ETR007 + 18.40% C.Italy_Etruscan_related:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_ 346-51BCE:TAQ005

  21. #46
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    26-01-09
    Posts
    720

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b Z36

    Country: UK - Scotland



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    The Muslims only ruled Sicily for 200 years. They had footholds in parts of the mainland for a couple of decades here and there, and Frederick II sent his "Saracen" soldiers to Foggia because he didn't trust them in Sicily, but that's it.

    I'm also confused because there isn't enough yDna I1 and U-106 in Toscana to make a huge change in the autosomal composition.

    I'm missing something, I guess.
    Thinking back to Maciamo's neat summary of the Boattini Y dna figures for northern Tuscany (and a bit of Liguria), provinces of La Spezia/Massa and Pistoia, R1b still comes in at 60-70pc, and little of it is Germanic.

    Central and southern Tuscany (Siena/Grosseto) has under 50pc R1b, and some of it is Germanic.

    The new Etruscan study mentions no Imperial Age or Medieval samples north of Chiusi (Clusium).

  22. #47
    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



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salento View Post
    ... from post #10 (credit to Jovialis ... same top sample: Taq003)

    ... although Venosa is not an Apulian town, AncestryDNA include it in the Genetic Community of Puglia.




    Middle Ages[edit]

    After the fall of the Western Roman Empire, Venusia was sacked by the Heruls, and in 493 AD it was turned into the administrative centre of the area in the Ostrogothic kingdom of Italy, although later this role was moved to Acerenza.

    The Lombards made it a gastaldate in 570/590.


    In 842 Venosa was sacked by the Saracens, who were later ousted by Emperor Louis II.

    Next rulers in the 9th century were the Byzantines, who lost control of it after their defeat in 1041 by the Normans. Under the latter, Venosa was assigned to Drogo of Hauteville. In 1133 the town was sacked and set on fire by Roger II of Sicily.


    His later successor Frederick II had a castle built here where a Lombard outpost existed before, which was to house the Treasury (Ministry of Finances) of the Kingdom of Sicily.


    Frederick's son, Manfred of Sicily, was perhaps born here in 1232. After the latter's fall, the Hohenstaufens were replaced by the Angevines; King Charles of Anjou assigned Venosa as a county to his son Robert.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venosa
    This town was sacked many times, imho, much of the genetic continuity of modern Southern Italians in this region begins in the 1200s AD. Like in the case of my father's town, which was re-settled in the 1200s after 300 years of abandonment. These Venosa samples are from the 700s, from before the Saracen sacking.

  23. #48
    Regular Member Archetype0ne's Avatar
    Join Date
    11-06-18
    Posts
    1,033

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    J2b2-L283/FT29003

    Country: Albania



    Quote Originally Posted by Pax Augusta View Post
    You're doing it all wrong. Because you're too obsessed with what the outcome might be for Southern Italy.

    The paper on Campania is coming out, and it concludes that the Campanian/Italics were like Etruscans and Latins. Try the math again now.
    That sounds interesting. I must have skimmed past it on my first readthrough of the thread.

    So if Campagna was similar to Italics/Etruscans. What could account for where modern Capagnans fall on PCAs?
    Does that not make parts of this very paper inescapable, especially the legacy parts?

  24. #49
    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



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Archetype0ne View Post
    That sounds interesting. I must have skimmed past it on my first readthrough of the thread.

    So if Campagna was similar to Italics/Etruscans. What could account for where modern Capagnans fall on PCAs?
    Does that not make parts of this very paper inescapable, especially the legacy parts?
    I think we all expected Italics, even those that went to the south to be similar to Etruscans. But what about these IA Greeks?


    They land in the range of modern Southern Italy.


    But also, what about the people that lived in the south before the arrival of Italics, and Greeks? If they're similar to the proceeding ones, it doesn't make the paper very viable imo, and could disrupt their conclusions.


  25. #50
    Regular Member Archetype0ne's Avatar
    Join Date
    11-06-18
    Posts
    1,033

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    J2b2-L283/FT29003

    Country: Albania



    I can really not make up the squares in that graphic. Either I am very blind or they are few and far between.

    But assuming that is correct, Lazaridis Minoan paper should be what we base our discussion at the moment. In expectation of the Magna Grecia paper (where I assume this graphic is from) and the Marathon paper.

    I really suspect, that Minoan/Mycenean sources were pulled further east, before the IA when they had an impact on the Italian colonies. Anatolian connection in my mind is a given, the question for me is really the Levant connection. But again I do not know a lot of details, so could be wrong.

    Edit: Made up the squares. Guess I am blind after all. It is the cline, two squares I guess. They seem to plot on one end of the spectrum of some Italics. Neat.

Page 2 of 23 FirstFirst 123412 ... 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
  •