Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 3 of 23 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 558

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

  1. #51
    Advisor Jovialis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-05-17
    Posts
    6,024

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a1b2a2a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H6a1b7

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    2 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Archetype0ne View Post
    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.
    In my speculation,

    I think we will see that the Southern Italian BA will have individuals who show a pull towards Anatolian_ChL/BA, prior to the arrival of the Greeks of Magna Grecia.

    The Magna Grecia IA individuals will be similar to Mycenaeans, and will be mixed with local pre-Greek Southerners.

    The Italic/Etruscan contribution to the south will probably not be very high, but almost certainly not as much as the aforementioned groups.

    Thus, this pull towards the southeast, will most likely come mostly from within Italy, rather than a massive change from more recent Eastern Mediterranean people (who I assume are from Anatolia, and not the Levant, as was the case in the Balkans pre-print).

    Basically, what I am saying is that this upcoming paper may introduce some elements that will at most, call into question this extent of the Imperial era contributions. Because for me, the demographic shifts mentioned by others in Late Antiquity are viable scenarios; as they are to Stanford, and Harvard.

  2. #52
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-10-16
    Posts
    884


    Country: Albania



    I expected Lucanians to plot like Daunians.

  3. #53
    Banned
    Join Date
    29-08-21
    Posts
    40


    Country: Bulgaria



    Quote Originally Posted by Hawk View Post
    Too much R1b in a supposedly non IE speaking people. Something doesn't sum up.
    This is exactly what it is already known from linguistics and history: R1a and R1b are not the original IE markers.

  4. #54
    Regular Member Archetype0ne's Avatar
    Join Date
    11-06-18
    Posts
    1,030

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    J2b2-L283/FT29003

    Country: Albania



    Quote Originally Posted by Jovialis View Post
    In my speculation,

    I think we will see that the Southern Italian BA will have individuals who show a pull towards Anatolian_ChL/BA, prior to the arrival of the Greeks of Magna Grecia.

    The Magna Grecia IA individuals will be similar to Mycenaeans, and will be mixed with local pre-Greek Southerners.

    The Italic/Etruscan contribution to the south will probably not be very high, but almost certainly not as much as the aforementioned groups.

    Thus, this pull towards the southeast, will most likely come mostly from within Italy, rather than a massive change from more recent Eastern Mediterranean people (who I assume are from Anatolia, and not the Levant, as was the case in the Balkans pre-print).

    Basically, what I am saying is that this upcoming paper may introduce some elements that will at most, call into question this extent of the Imperial era contributions. Because for me, the demographic shifts mentioned by others in Late Antiquity are viable scenarios; as they are to Stanford, and Harvard.
    Very plausible scenario, albeit I find it unlikely that the whole shift originated within Italy itself.

    This made me think, your point, Paxes and Leopoldos.

    What if. And hear me out.

    What if Anatolia of the time had a profile in part similar to BA Levant. Say Anatolia IA was part Anatolia BA, part Levant BA?
    Could this not make both hypotheses of Levant, or Anatolia contribution to Italia not mutually exclusive.
    This would just make so the eastern contribution in Italy would be Anatolia derived, just like the Danubian lines paper was hinting regarding Balkans, but at the same time, this Anatolian derived people would have been a vector for partial Levant admixture?

    This is just my attempt to synthesize contradicting claims and evidence. But I find this scenario not totally impossible.
    “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

  5. #55
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    18-03-17
    Posts
    716


    Ethnic group
    swiss,italian
    Country: Germany



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Vallicanus View Post
    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).
    does the "northern european" have to be germanic? part of it is probably celtic and i could imagine also female mediated especially during and after the conquest of gaul.

  6. #56
    Regular Member Salento's Avatar
    Join Date
    30-05-17
    Posts
    5,156

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2 - SK1480
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H12a

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    2 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jovialis View Post
    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.
    ... some of the 650-800 AD Venosa samples totally match their modern (and us) counterparts, ... 650 AD or 2021 AD doesn't make a difference.


    Distance to: S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_650-800CE:VEN001
    4.99756941 Italian_Abruzzo
    5.46375329 Italian_Apulia
    5.71401785 Italian_Lazio

    Distance to: S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_650-763CE:VEN006
    4.45478395 Italian_Abruzzo
    4.99337561 Italian_Apulia
    5.44355582 Italian_Sicily

    Distance to: S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_670-775CE:VEN013
    3.72090043 Italian_Abruzzo
    3.98852103 Italian_Sicily
    5.30699538 Italian_Apulia

    Distance to: S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_672-800CE:VEN016
    4.91174104 Italian_Apulia
    5.21448943 Italian_Sicily
    5.52336854 Moldovan_Jewish

    Distance to: S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_670-775CE:VEN015
    3.40978005 Italian_Sicily
    3.99129052 Italian_Campania
    4.16998801 Italian_Abruzzo

    Distance to: S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_650-763CE:VEN005
    5.49456095 Italian_Campania
    6.34406810 Italian_Sicily
    6.54599114 Italian_Abruzzo

    Distance to: S.Italy_Venosa_related:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_ 660-766CE:VEN009
    10.32048933 Italian_Abruzzo
    10.49089129 Italian_Lazio
    10.52835695 Italian_Sicily

    Edit …
    and me:

    Distance to: Salento
    2.20406443 Italian_Apulia
    3.47764288 Italian_Abruzzo
    🕷️

  7. #57
    Moderator Pax Augusta's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-06-14
    Location
    Ara Pacis
    Posts
    1,528


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: Italy



    Quote Originally Posted by 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 don't know, but there is a lack of samples, even this study that is coming out can't be conclusive.

  8. #58
    Moderator Pax Augusta's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-06-14
    Location
    Ara Pacis
    Posts
    1,528


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: Italy



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Vallicanus View Post
    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).

    Siena/Grosseto is probably the sample of 86 individuals from Murlo which is south of Siena. There was also the Garfagnana study that found 76% were R1b.

    At this point it is clear that R1b in Tuscany and even and Emilia and Liguria, and in particular that under R1b-P312 (R1b-U152 and L2), which in the past was attributed to the Ligurians with the usual circular argument, may be due everywhere also to the Etruscans, including northern Tuscany. Prehistoric archaeology has maintained for years that the Ligurian presence in northern Tuscany is more recent than the Etruscan one and that the border between the two was always unstable, with large population exchanges between the two.

    Chiusi is on the border with Umbria. They have analyzed those samples because they had them in the museum, but it is obvious that many more samples are needed for the last two thousand years. One thing is to analyze the Early Iron Age, when the population is likely smaller, and another is to analyze the Christian and medieval ages, when the population is much larger.

  9. #59
    Advisor Jovialis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-05-17
    Posts
    6,024

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a1b2a2a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H6a1b7

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Archetype0ne View Post
    Very plausible scenario, albeit I find it unlikely that the whole shift originated within Italy itself.

    This made me think, your point, Paxes and Leopoldos.

    What if. And hear me out.

    What if Anatolia of the time had a profile in part similar to BA Levant. Say Anatolia IA was part Anatolia BA, part Levant BA?
    Could this not make both hypotheses of Levant, or Anatolia contribution to Italia not mutually exclusive.
    This would just make so the eastern contribution in Italy would be Anatolia derived, just like the Danubian lines paper was hinting regarding Balkans, but at the same time, this Anatolian derived people would have been a vector for partial Levant admixture?

    This is just my attempt to synthesize contradicting claims and evidence. But I find this scenario not totally impossible.
    It seems the study does acknowledge the arrival Iran-related ancestry in Sicily and Sardinia. But say it didn't happen in Italy. I am not sure how they can say that with confidence, maybe that was the case for Etruria. They cannot say the same for the south. The mixed individual among the Daunians, leads me to believe there certainly were individuals like that. The PCA with the two Greek IA samples seems to verify this.

  10. #60
    Regular Member kingjohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    05-09-16
    Posts
    1,387

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    rare E-FGC7391
    MtDNA haplogroup
    h3ap

    Country: Uruguay



    thanks jovialis

    Distance to: adam
    5.13144229 S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_672-800CE:VEN016
    6.05410604 S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_670-775CE:VEN015
    6.56462489 S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_650-763CE:VEN006
    6.61878388 S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_670-775CE:VEN013
    7.52345001 C.Italy_Early.Medieval_ETR014:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany )_977-1022CE:ETR014
    7.93422964 C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_72 9-942CE:TAQ003
    8.38703166 S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_650-800CE:VEN001
    9.54353708 S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_670-775CE:VEN012
    10.20452351 C.Italy_Imperial:Marsilianad'Albegna(Grosseto_Tusc any)_240-380CE:MAS002
    10.32028100 S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_650-763CE:VEN005
    11.63581540 :Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany):ETR004
    11.72975277 C.Italy_Imperial:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_262-424CE:TAQ021
    11.83413284 C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)_997-1149CE:ETR003
    12.40366478 S.Italy_Venosa_related:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_ 672-800CE:VEN021
    12.76552780 S.Italy_Venosa_related:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_ 660-766CE:VEN009
    12.92574563 C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)C899-1016CE:ETR013
    12.97334961 C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_89 5-1016CE:TAQ011
    13.35012734 C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_89 9-1021CE:TAQ009
    13.98837374 C.Italy_Imperial:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_89-236CE:TAQ020
    14.65017406 C.Italy_Etruscan.Afr:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_391-207BCE:TAQ007
    15.05478661 C.Italy_Early.Medieval:PoggioPelliccia(Grosseto_Tu scany)_772-960CE:POP001
    15.05876821 C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)775-945CE:ETR007
    15.08146545 S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_672-800CE:VEN018
    15.27518576 S.Italy_Venosa_related:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_ 672-800CE:VEN017
    15.38769963 C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_10 18-1151CE:TAQ022
    ancestery :
    mostly western jewish here is the overlapp with south europe[U]

  11. #61
    Moderator Pax Augusta's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-06-14
    Location
    Ara Pacis
    Posts
    1,528


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: Italy



    1 members found this post helpful.
    I agree with your entire post, Jovialis.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jovialis View Post
    This paper seems to not even explore this possibility and makes the statement that the Imperial era had an impact.
    Because he is following the typical narrative of this group of geneticists (which is based on Barbujani's studies) to discredit the work (which deserved to be discredited, but mostly for other reasons) of the other group of Italian geneticists (which is based on Alberto Piazza's work). I explained this in a previous post.

  12. #62
    Advisor Jovialis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-05-17
    Posts
    6,024

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a1b2a2a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H6a1b7

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Archetype0ne View Post
    Very plausible scenario, albeit I find it unlikely that the whole shift originated within Italy itself.

    This made me think, your point, Paxes and Leopoldos.

    What if. And hear me out.

    What if Anatolia of the time had a profile in part similar to BA Levant. Say Anatolia IA was part Anatolia BA, part Levant BA?
    Could this not make both hypotheses of Levant, or Anatolia contribution to Italia not mutually exclusive.
    This would just make so the eastern contribution in Italy would be Anatolia derived, just like the Danubian lines paper was hinting regarding Balkans, but at the same time, this Anatolian derived people would have been a vector for partial Levant admixture?

    This is just my attempt to synthesize contradicting claims and evidence. But I find this scenario not totally impossible.
    Seems impossible to tell based on how this paper models the samples in the graphics. I don't see any Natufian components used which would verify if it is Anatolian or Levantine. Levant_BA is bascially 50% Natufian. Anatolia_IA would surely not have that much, Anatolian_BA was only 5% according to Lazaridis et al. 2017.

    Also what I find peculiar is the use of Morocco Neolithic, they should at least have used Paleolithic samples from this area. Which imo help decipher out if it is Anatolian or Levantine. Since Natufian has a noticeable amount of Moroccan Paleolithic-like DNA.

  13. #63
    Regular Member Juan.delajara's Avatar
    Join Date
    09-08-17
    Posts
    23

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    J2-S10971

    Ethnic group
    Southern European-mediterranean
    Country: Chile



    1 members found this post helpful.
    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.

    Thanks for the information, regarding this paper yet to be publish, I think it is relevant to read again the Andrea Finocchio et Al paper from 2018 'A finely resolved phylogeny of Y chromosome Hg J illuminates the processes of Phoenician and Greek colonizations in the Mediterranean''. Some of its statements are interesting and will probably help us to understand some points. For example, regarding J2 L397 , that is considered by scientists as a ''clear sign of Greek colonization of Magna Graecia''. They stated ''This work revealed that signs of Holocenic Hg J radiations are subtle, but nevertheless concentrated mainly in the Bronze Age, a critical period for the establishment of genetic structure in Europe'', They also concluded ''We provided here the strongest temporal and distributional evidence so far for markers which can be attributed to the Greek settlement of Magna Graecia.''
    ''J2a-L397 in Central-Southern Continental Italy accounts for only 13% (24/182) of Hg J. At a face value this can be taken as a bottom figure for the Greek contribution to the gene pool of the region. Though the true value may be higher than this, it is unlikely that the bulk of diversity has a Greek origin. Under these circumstances it is not surprising that unequivocal genetic traces of the Greek colonists in Continental Italy have gone undetected so far''. I think we need to take all this conclusions in consideration when the papar will be out.

  14. #64
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-10-16
    Posts
    884


    Country: Albania



    Early Medieval Tuscans plot with Marche Italians based on my eye and late antiquity Tuscans plot with Abruzzes. Pretty much 8% Germanic impact which is not far off the Y-DNA that Maciamo gave. K12b misses many samples (both ancient and modern) can't use that calculator. Sorry.

    The fit is very tight.

    Target: Italian_Marche
    Distance: 0.9814% / 0.00981370
    92.0 Italian_Abruzzo
    8.0 SWE_Viking_Age_Sigtuna

    Target: Italian_Marche
    Distance: 0.9814% / 0.00981370
    92.0 Italian_Abruzzo
    8.0 SWE_Viking_Age_Sigtuna

  15. #65
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-11-19
    Posts
    129


    Country: Italy



    1 members found this post helpful.
    I have reread the paper, and it is still a piece of historical research, which means it must be subject to the same standards that guide historical scholarship; I am no genetist but I have studied my great deal of historiography, and the consensus here is that the assumptions that ground the statistics are weak if not unattainable, so I have decided to keep "sticking to my guns" and besides the points I've already raisen I add:

    1) the authors didn't communicate with the team that worked on the Danubian limes paper, and that's why they've written the already "debunked" line that "it was thanks to the Roman empire that southeastern Europeans came to occupy the place in the PCA between the rest of Europe and the near east" since the balkan cline already existed.
    2)they didn't use the already published samples from Antonio et al 2019 (especially to integrate their very small dataset of imperial samples, also especially after verifying that Etruria and Latium were very similar both pre and post the imperial period).

    Now some remarks: they have seen another individual modelled with a good chunk of Armenia_BA in Etruria, yet they "dismissed" him as an individual with recent near eastern ancestry, which would have been the most plausible explanation if there were not already two latin outliers that show the same make up and the whole paper about the Daunians: something either from the Balkans or Italy itself is much more parsimonious in this case.
    Most here agree that the weakest part of the paper are the claims about the "legacy" of the Etruscans, and I wonder why they haven't checked some models with even the already published latin outliers just to see how they work, to see if they "hinted at something", or better some models with samples from the paper about the Daunians (better yet if they tried some samples from the Danubian limes paper).
    I have a hunch, and If true it would show dishonesty if not straight manupulation from the authors, that they got their model with half Etruscans and half south Levantines (ashkelon has higher P values than Alalakh) as the best fit because they averaged at least a guy (MAS003 it seems from the graphs) that is partially north african since he overlaps with the etruscan samples that were partially north african, and there is another sample (I don't know if he has Levantine admixture or Anatolian admixture, since I can't tell from the PCA) that is an outlier compared to the other four imperial age samples. I have run some models with G25 and it seems to be the case that MAS003 has north african admixture, but I'll let others verify this.
    Both 20% germanic in Tuscany and a very high Levantine admixture seem very implausible to me.

  16. #66
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-11-19
    Posts
    129


    Country: Italy



    Furthermore, even if the bulk of the Italics turns out to be like the Latin, it doesn't change the fact that individuals with a more "eastern" genetic make up existed well before the imperial period.
    It remains an open question how much they would feature in an explanation for the archeogenetics of Italy though.

  17. #67
    Moderator Pax Augusta's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-06-14
    Location
    Ara Pacis
    Posts
    1,528


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: Italy



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Leopoldo Leone View Post
    Both 20% germanic in Tuscany and a very high Levantine admixture seem very implausible to me.
    Agreed.

    20% northern European rather than Germanic (you know, even Swiss Germans or south Tyroleans are Germanic but they are not northern European). ^

    I explained why this paper proposes this model, and that today we are to the idea that the Etruscans are vanished (starting with the opposite idea a few years ago that they were Middle Eastern).

    This article released in Science shows how everyone can be wrong. For example, the idea that the Etruscans founded Rome is not supported by archaeology studies, and the fact that Michael McCormick, a historian at Harvard is a co-author of this study makes you realize that you really can never completely trust these studies, because no one is infallible.

    https://www.science.org/content/arti...ious-etruscans

  18. #68
    Advisor Jovialis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-05-17
    Posts
    6,024

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a1b2a2a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H6a1b7

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Pax Augusta View Post
    I agree with your entire post, Jovialis.
    Because he is following the typical narrative of this group of geneticists (which is based on Barbujani's studies) to discredit the work (which deserved to be discredited, but mostly for other reasons) of the other group of Italian geneticists (which is based on Alberto Piazza's work). I explained this in a previous post.
    I the think the fact that Antonio et al. 2019, and Olalde et al. 2021 supports the idea of local-population resurgence, maintain this scenario's viability. So basically it is like a 2 to 1 in terms of supports for each idea's viability. I am interested to see what the upcoming papers on the topic will show.

  19. #69
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    18-03-17
    Posts
    716


    Ethnic group
    swiss,italian
    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by Pax Augusta View Post
    Agreed.

    20% northern European rather than Germanic (you know, even Swiss Germans or south Tyroleans are Germanic but they are not northern European). ^

    I explained why this paper proposes this model, and that today we are to the idea that the Etruscans are vanished (starting with the opposite idea a few years ago that they were Middle Eastern).

    This article released in Science shows how everyone can be wrong. For example, the idea that the Etruscans founded Rome is not supported by archaeology studies, and the fact that Michael McCormick, a historian at Harvard is a co-author of this study makes you realize that you really can never completely trust these studies, because no one is infallible.

    https://www.science.org/content/arti...ious-etruscans
    if you take other sources and not germanic the % of new ancestry just increases. it is more probable though that the shift was introduced not only by longobards but also by populations in northern italy or celts from gaul and central europeans. considering this together with the earlier 50% shift towards eastern mediterranean then yes, real etruscan ancestry is probably a small minority component in the total ancestry of modern central italians. which is not surprising at all after all this time. i expect that the same is the case for example for switzerland and the continuity with populations that lived in that region at that time. strong genetic continuity after such a long time period is very unlikely.

  20. #70
    Advisor Jovialis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-05-17
    Posts
    6,024

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a1b2a2a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H6a1b7

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    I imagine like the Balkan_IA, you could say the Italian version would be C.Italian_IA + Aegean_IA.

  21. #71
    Advisor Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    19,797


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    2 members found this post helpful.
    I sort of "kept my powder dry" on this thread because I didn't get a chance to read the whole paper and supplement until this morning. For personal reasons my time for this hobby is much more limited than it used to be. I must say that while there are things in the Limes paper which I think are problematical, especially as regards Albanians, given the disjunct with the yDna and their presence in the CNE cluster rather than the Kuline cluster, that paper looks like a masterpiece compared to this one, I'm sorry to say. The actual authors are second string, but I'm disappointed in Johannes Krause's supervision.

    I think Leopoldo has made some very pertinent points, among which are the two immediately upthread.

    "1) the authors didn't communicate with the team that worked on the Danubian limes paper, and that's why they've written the already "debunked" line that "it was thanks to the Roman empire that southeastern Europeans came to occupy the place in the PCA between the rest of Europe and the near east" since the balkan cline already existed.
    2)they didn't use the already published samples from Antonio et al 2019 (especially to integrate their very small dataset of imperial samples, also especially after verifying that Etruria and Latium were very similar both pre and post the imperial period)."

    The first point, in particular, calls their whole analysis into question.

    Jovialis' point about how it seems odd that the authors just make a blanket statement that there was no Iran Neo in mainland Southern Italy until the Imperial Age when they don't use any ancient samples from that area, ignoring samples which do, in fact, show such admixture is very well taken.

    I also find it odd that the paper says the following: "
    As a result, the models that were found to fit the data best are those with a 38 to 59% contribution from Levantine or Anatolian populations into the local/preexisting C.Italy_Etruscan gene pool (Fig. 4B and table S4D).", yet then proceeds to show a graphic with only ancestry from the southern Levant. Did they, like the authors of the Limes paper, attempt to model the admixture with ancient Anatolian samples? If they did, where is it in the paper or Supplement?

    There also has to be a degree of common sense when one analyzes data like this. Is it at all conceivable, to reword Leopoldo's other point about the conclusions here, that "slaves, soldiers, and mobile citizens" ONLY from the Levant went to the former Etruscan lands and all the Anatolian ones went to the Balkans? It doesn't make any sense. It also flies in the face of contemporary Imperial documents pointing to the large number of Greeks in Etruria. What, did all the Germanic and Gallic slaves get sent to latifundia and galleys and mines and died off, and what we are left with are the more educated people from the east? O.K. I'll buy that, as it fits with what the Limes paper shows, but again, ONLY from the Levant?

    That's not to mention that they're talking about 6 samples for a 500 year sample. Why didn't they at least use the Antonio et al samples if they were going to draw conclusions about all of Italy? They do point out that burial practices might figure into the representativeness of those 6 samples, but then drop it there.

    Speaking of this, where is the archaeological context for these samples, like what was provided in the Limes paper?

    I'm intrigued by Archetypes' point that perhaps the Anatolian samples of the last millennium B.C. leaned more toward the Levant than prior Anatolian samples. Perhaps we'll discover that's true, but enough to make the admixture show almost 50% Southern Levant admixture?

    I am really disappointed that the use of yDna seems to have gone out of fashion with the major genetics labs, to one degree or another. The weakest part of the Limes paper, to me, was the disjunct with the Albanian analysis and the yDna of Albania. How does their yDna support a 48% admixture rate with Slavs? If some E-V13 came with Germanics, ok, but Slavs?

    Likewise here the yDna doesn't fit with the conclusions. To Ailchu's point, where are the Celts in all of this? There's only 5-10% of Germanic yDna in Toscana based on Maciamo's charts and graphic. That seems to fit the historical evidence very well; I mean, we're talking about a total of 60,000 Langobards, people, and a Gothic elite presence. The majority of the Langobard castles were in the northeast, and the strategically placed castles further into the peninsula could not and the records show did not have large numbers of actual Langobards manning them. Then, take into account the paucity of I1 and U-106.

    In the Limes paper they explained this "problem" away by saying that the admixture was mostly female mediated, as also shown by their analysis of the X chromosome. That one leaves me scratching my head. Did the male lines die out because they were doing the fighting? Did the female Slavs, and Langobards in the case of this paper, find the locals irresistible? If the latter it would be a departure from the scenario in all cases of invasion and subjugation in which the arriving males mate with the local females, but their own females are sacrosanct. Typical male behavior, in other words.

    All in all, I'm quite confused by this paper. It makes no difference to me whatsoever if Tuscans, who constitute at least 1/4 of my ancestry, or maybe if you take into account that eastern Liguria may be very like Toscana around Florence, 1/2 of my ancestry, are Anatolian or Levantine or Balkan or whatever. However, it has to make sense.


    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

  22. #72
    Regular Member kingjohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    05-09-16
    Posts
    1,387

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    rare E-FGC7391
    MtDNA haplogroup
    h3ap

    Country: Uruguay



    source: apricity


    780-540 BCE C.Italy_Etruscan R1b1a1b1a1a2 P312

    770-520 BCE C.Italy_Etruscan.Ceu G2a2b2a1 L140/S316
    770-540 BCE C.Italy_Etruscan G2a2b2a1a1b L497/S317
    - C.Italy_Etruscan_undated - -
    427-265 BCE C.Italy_Etruscan.Ceu_related - -
    380-204 BCE C.Italy_Etruscan R1b1a1b1a1a2d1a Z2247
    - C.Italy_Etruscan_undated J2b2a1 L283
    - C.Italy_Etruscan_undated R1b1a1b1a1a2 P312
    533-392 BCE C.Italy_Etruscan R1b1a1b1a1a2b1 L2/S139
    - C.Italy_Etruscan_undated - -
    - C.Italy_Etruscan_undated - -
    427-265 BCE C.Italy_Etruscan R1b1a1b1a1a2 P312
    380-204 BCE C.Italy_Etruscan_related R1b1a1b1a1a2d1a Z2247
    - - n/a n/a
    - C.Italy_Etruscan_undated - -
    139-326 CE C.Italy_Imperial - -
    997-1149 CE C.Italy_Early.Medieval R1b1a1b1a L51
    - - n/a n/a
    805-774 BCE C.Italy_Etruscan - -
    772-888 CE C.Italy_Early.Medieval - -
    775-945 CE C.Italy_Early.Medieval - -
    - C.Italy_Early.Medieval_undated - -
    - C.Italy_Early.Medieval_undated n/a n/a
    899-1016 CE C.Italy_Early.Medieval - -
    977-1022 CE C.Italy_Early.Medieval_ETR014 J1a2a1a2 P58/Page8/PF4698
    40-190 CE - n/a n/a
    407-534 CE C.Italy_Imperial I1 -
    790-550 BCE C.Italy_Etruscan R1b1a1b1a1a L151
    350-100 BCE C.Italy_Etruscan_MAS001 G2a2b2a1a1c1a1 CTS5990/Z1903
    240-380 CE C.Italy_Imperial R1b1a1b1b Z2103
    400-530 CE C.Italy_Imperial R1b1a1b M269/PF6517
    804-557 BCE C.Italy_Etruscan R1b1a1b1a1 P310
    772-960 CE C.Italy_Early.Medieval R1b1a1b1a1a2b1 L2

    794-543 BCE C.Italy_Etruscan - -
    772-436 BCE C.Italy_Etruscan R1b1a1b1a1a2b1 L2
    356-96 BCE C.Italy_Etruscan_related - -
    103 BCE-54 CE C.Italy_Etruscan R1b1a1b1a1a2 P312
    729-942 CE C.Italy_Early.Medieval - -
    - C.Italy_Etruscan_undated R1b1a1b1a1a2b U152
    346-51 BCE C.Italy_Etruscan_related R1b1a1b1a1a2b1 L2
    - C.Italy_Etruscan_undated G2a2b2a1a1b1 CTS9737/Z1815

    391-207 BCE C.Italy_Etruscan.Afr - -
    - C.Italy_Etruscan_undated - -
    899-1021 CE C.Italy_Early.Medieval I1a2a1a1a1a S1954/YSC0000261
    - C.Italy_Etruscan_undated R1b1a1b1a1a2 P312

    895-1016 CE C.Italy_Early.Medieval - -
    - C.Italy_Etruscan_undated - -
    - C.Italy_Etruscan_undated R1b1a1b1a1a1 M405/U106/S21
    346-51 BCE C.Italy_Etruscan - -
    - C.Italy_Etruscan_undated - -
    356-96 BCE C.Italy_Etruscan_related R1b1a1b1a L51
    346-51 BCE C.Italy_Etruscan_related R1b1a1b1a1a2b1 L2

    358-98 BCE C.Italy_Etruscan - -
    89-236 CE C.Italy_Imperial J2a1a1a2 Z2229
    262-424 CE C.Italy_Imperial J2a1a1a2b1b M319

    1018-1151 CE C.Italy_Early.Medieval - -
    396-216 BCE C.Italy_Etruscan.Afr G2a2b2a1a1c1a1 CTS5990/Z1903
    356-96 BCE C.Italy_Etruscan R1b1a1b1a2 PF7589/Z2118
    174-53 BCE C.Italy_Etruscan_UDC_P R1b1a1b1a1a2 P312
    650-800 CE S.Italy_Venosa J2a1a1a2b2a2b3a L210

    650-800 CE S.Italy_Venosa_VEN002 - -
    650-763 CE S.Italy_Venosa - -
    650-763 CE S.Italy_Venosa J2b2a1 L283
    660-766 CE S.Italy_Venosa E1b1b1a1b1 L618

    660-766 CE S.Italy_Venosa_related - -
    670-775 CE S.Italy_Venosa_related J2b M12
    670-775 CE S.Italy_Venosa G2a2b2a1 L140/S316
    670-775 CE S.Italy_Venosa J2b2a1 L283

    670-775 CE S.Italy_Venosa - -
    670-775 CE S.Italy_Venosa - -
    672-800 CE S.Italy_Venosa - -
    672-800 CE S.Italy_Venosa_related n/a n/a
    672-800 CE S.Italy_Venosa - -
    672-800 CE S.Italy_Venosa_related - -
    672-800 CE S.Italy_Venosa_related G2a2b2a P303/Page108/PF3340/S135/Z765
    750-406 BCE C.Italy_Etruscan - -
    790-550 BCE C.Italy_Etruscan G2a2b2b1a1a PF3378
    800-590 BCE C.Italy_Etruscan - -
    360-200 BCE C.Italy_Etruscan.Ceu - -
    359-199 BCE C.Italy_Etruscan.Afr_VET006.9 - -
    806-599 BCE C.Italy_Etruscan - -
    372-204 BCE C.Italy_Etruscan.Afr - -
    788-545 BCE C.Italy_Etruscan - -
    750-413 BCE - n/a n/a
    790-550 BCE C.Italy_Etruscan R1b1a1b1a1a2b1 L2
    200-60 BCE C.Italy_Etruscan R1b1a1b1a1a2b1 L2


    p.s
    ben affleck branch in imperial central italy
    262-424 CE C.Italy_Imperial J2a1a1a2b1b M319
    Last edited by kingjohn; 25-09-21 at 18:32.

  23. #73
    Moderator Pax Augusta's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-06-14
    Location
    Ara Pacis
    Posts
    1,528


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: Italy



    Quote Originally Posted by Jovialis View Post
    I the think the fact that Antonio et al. 2019, and Olalde et al. 2021 supports the idea of local-population resurgence, maintain this scenario's viability. So basically it is like a 2 to 1 in terms of supports for each idea's viability. I am interested to see what the upcoming papers on the topic will show.
    They will follow narratives. In the end, only the ancient DNA samples will make the real difference. But for everything that has happened in the last 2000 years you need a lot of samples, much more than you have now. Not to mention that there were factors such as the Black Death in the Middle Ages that drastically reduced the population.

  24. #74
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-10-16
    Posts
    884


    Country: Albania



    I am gonna do the math now.
    If there was a 39% East Med/Near Eastern contribution onto Tuscany during the Antiquity and later in Late Antiquity and the Dark Ages there was 20% Northern European contribution, for modern Tuscans it would make them 27% Near Eastern, 20% Northern European and 53% Italo-Etruscan. I now believe a good chunk of E-V13 is actually of Germanic origin. But the 20% AUTOSOMAL impact still doesn't make sense to me, unless the Goths were mixed which is not the case as seen in the study itself. And the J2 in modern Tuscans is around 13% including both J2b and J2a. Some subclades of which are probably Italic. And J1 with (non E-V13) E subclades are like 4%.

    Greeks are extremely easy to model, with both historical data and Y-DNA. When I used port-Bronze Age Anatolian vs Levantine in Cretans, it showed zero or very close to zero Levantine and over 30% Anatolian which makes sense by both a historical and Y-DNA data.

    Using Slavic, Anatolian and Ancient Greco-Thracians for Greeks works just fine. Italy is soooo strange.

  25. #75
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    18-03-17
    Posts
    716


    Ethnic group
    swiss,italian
    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by Jovialis View Post
    I the think the fact that Antonio et al. 2019, and Olalde et al. 2021 supports the idea of local-population resurgence, maintain this scenario's viability. So basically it is like a 2 to 1 in terms of supports for each idea's viability. I am interested to see what the upcoming papers on the topic will show.
    the imperial samples in this study all clustering together despite beeing seperated in space and time implies that this was a rather homogenous ethnicity. if this just existed in the cities? unlikely imo.

Page 3 of 23 FirstFirst 1234513 ... 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
  •