Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 1 of 19 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 471

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

  1. #1
    Regular Member Regio X's Avatar
    Join Date
    12-03-14
    Posts
    1,051


    Country: Italy



    6 members found this post helpful.

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

    The origin and legacy of the Etruscans through a 2000-year archeogenomic time transect

    https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abi7673

    Abstract
    The origin, development, and legacy of the enigmatic Etruscan civilization from the central region of the Italian peninsula known as Etruria have been debated for centuries. Here we report a genomic time transect of 82 individuals spanning almost two millennia (800 BCE to 1000 CE) across Etruria and southern Italy. During the Iron Age, we detect a component of Indo-European–associated steppe ancestry and the lack of recent Anatolian-related admixture among the putative non–Indo-European–speaking Etruscans. Despite comprising diverse individuals of central European, northern African, and Near Eastern ancestry, the local gene pool is largely maintained across the first millennium BCE. This drastically changes during the Roman Imperial period where we report an abrupt population-wide shift to ~50% admixture with eastern Mediterranean ancestry. Last, we identify northern European components appearing in central Italy during the Early Middle Ages, which thus formed the genetic landscape of present-day Italian populations.

  2. #2
    Advisor Jovialis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-05-17
    Posts
    5,959

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a1b2a2a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H6a1b7

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Yes! just in time for the weekend!

    VEN is Venosa in Basilicata.

  3. #3
    Advisor Jovialis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-05-17
    Posts
    5,959

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a1b2a2a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H6a1b7

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    1 members found this post helpful.

  4. #4
    Regular Member kingjohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    05-09-16
    Posts
    1,309

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    rare E-FGC7391
    MtDNA haplogroup
    h3ap

    Country: Uruguay



    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)

    ancestery :
    mostly western jewish here is the overlapp with south europe
    phenotype
    :
    gracile- med

  5. #5
    Moderator Pax Augusta's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-06-14
    Location
    Ara Pacis
    Posts
    1,514


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: Italy



    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. This suggests that this R1b Y-chromosome lineage spread into the Italian peninsula with steppe-related movements during the Bronze Age.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    31-08-12
    Posts
    493


    Country: Italy



    if i have understood well the Venosa samples are from the Middle Age, right?

    Inviato dal mio POT-LX1T utilizzando Tapatalk

  7. #7
    Regular Member ihype02's Avatar
    Join Date
    12-10-16
    Posts
    791


    Country: Albania



    So it's out finally!!!!

  8. #8
    Regular Member ihype02's Avatar
    Join Date
    12-10-16
    Posts
    791


    Country: Albania



    The Venosa samples are medieval samples. Makes sense.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    31-08-12
    Posts
    493


    Country: Italy



    Quote Originally Posted by ihype02 View Post
    The Venosa samples are medieval samples. Makes sense.
    I was hoping they were from the 1st millennium BC.

    Inviato dal mio POT-LX1T utilizzando Tapatalk

  10. #10
    Advisor Jovialis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-05-17
    Posts
    5,959

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a1b2a2a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H6a1b7

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    6 members found this post helpful.
    Here are the samples with the archeological IDs for Dodecad K12b format:

    Code:
    C.Italy_Etruscan:CampigliadeiFoci(Siena_Tuscany)_780-540BCE:CAM001,1.38,0.19,1.2,0,47.62,24.58,0,0,6.88,0,17.87,0.27
    C.Italy_Etruscan.Ceu:CampigliadeiFoci(Siena_Tuscany)_770-520BCE:CAM002,4.72,0.03,0,1.59,40.47,34.19,0,0,4.64,0,13.94,0.44
    C.Italy_Etruscan:CampigliadeiFoci(Siena_Tuscany)_770-540BCE:CAM003,0.93,0.04,0.79,0,49.21,23.83,0,0,7,0.18,16.98,1.04
    C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN001,0.74,0,1.6,0.73,46.5,23.83,0,0,7.19,0,19.25,0.16
    C.Italy_Etruscan.Ceu_related:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany)_427-265BCE:CSN002,0,0.36,0,0,41.12,32.35,0,0,0,0,26.17,0
    C.Italy_Etruscan:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany)_380-204BCE:CSN003,0.97,0.01,2,0,49.14,21.97,1.05,0,7.95,0.53,15.93,0.45
    C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN004,1.49,0,2.17,0.71,51.75,19.41,0.13,0,5.2,0,18.21,0.93
    C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN005,1.48,0,4.65,0,39.23,28.19,0.65,0,6.11,0.54,19.16,0
    C.Italy_Etruscan:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany)_533-392BCE:CSN006,3.62,0,0,1.53,45.77,24.02,0.29,0,4.9,0,19.6,0.27
    C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN007,0,0,0,0.5,50.29,20.45,0,0,10.86,0,17.91,0
    C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN008,4.93,0,0,0.4,43.71,27.95,0,0,4.16,0,18.84,0
    C.Italy_Etruscan:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany)_427-265BCE:CSN009,2.52,0,2.03,0,39.86,27.95,0,0,2.52,0.43,23.93,0.75
    C.Italy_Etruscan_related:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany)_380-204BCE:CSN010,4.43,0.27,3.49,0,40.36,31.59,0,0,5.33,1.81,11.48,1.25
    :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012,7.01,0,10.55,0,41.84,29.45,0,0,0,0,11.15,0
    C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN013,4.87,0,0.54,0,45.93,21.96,0.41,0,5.92,0.25,19.55,0.57
    C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)_997-1149CE:ETR003,10.36,0,2.55,0,30.58,19.47,0,0,10.98,0,25.66,0.41
    :Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany):ETR004,17.44,0,0,0,19.59,19.63,0,0,11.7,0,31.64,0
    C.Italy_Etruscan:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)_805-774BCE:ETR005,2,0,0,1.54,45.54,20.52,0.17,0,9.35,1.02,18.73,1.13
    C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)_772-888CE:ETR006,3.87,1.22,0,0,39.39,15.01,0,0,12.67,0,26.45,1.39
    C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)775-945CE:ETR007,5.51,0,2.37,1.28,30.11,25.01,0,0,8.81,0,26.92,0
    C.Italy_Early.Medieval_undated:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany):ETR010,4.58,0.05,1.08,0.22,37.3,17.15,0.08,0,9.4,0,29.53,0.6
    C.Italy_Early.Medieval_undated:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany):ETR012,17.52,1.96,0,0,41.58,12.98,3.45,0.35,5.74,0,16.42,0
    C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)C899-1016CE:ETR013,6.64,0.06,1.86,0,35.44,14.98,0,0,9.51,0,31.24,0.28
    C.Italy_Early.Medieval_ETR014:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)_977-1022CE:ETR014,3.51,0,2.87,0,27.31,14.86,0.51,0,14.53,0,36.4,0
    C.Italy_Etruscan:MaglianoinToscana(Grosseto_Tuscany)_790-550BCE:MAG001,0.84,0,0,0,47.05,24.88,0.37,0.08,3.46,0.47,22.84,0.02
    C.Italy_Etruscan_MAS001:Marsilianad'Albegna(Grosseto_Tuscany)_350-100BCE:MAS001,7.2,0.84,4.18,0,26.73,30.23,1.6,0.6,6.25,1.12,21.08,0.18
    C.Italy_Imperial:Marsilianad'Albegna(Grosseto_Tuscany)_240-380CE:MAS002,6.49,1.52,3.63,0,23.56,7.82,0,0.48,18.33,0.02,38.16,0
    C.Italy_Imperial:Marsilianad'Albegna(Grosseto_Tuscany)_400-530CE:MAS003,2.81,0,8.6,1.47,34.71,11.66,0,1.28,11.86,0,26.84,0.76
    C.Italy_Etruscan:Marsilianad'Albegna(Grosseto_Tuscany)_804-557BCE:MAS004,1.12,0,0.85,0,44.63,29.23,0,0,1.36,1.35,21.46,0
    C.Italy_Early.Medieval:PoggioPelliccia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_772-960CE:POP001,4.72,0.15,0.86,0,35.02,19.76,0,0,8.74,1.36,28.84,0.55
    C.Italy_Etruscan:PoggioRenzo(Siena_Tuscany)_794-543BCE:PRZ001,1.55,0.11,0,0,48.41,23.78,0,0,6.08,0.13,19.22,0.71
    C.Italy_Etruscan:PoggioRenzo(Siena_Tuscany)_772-436BCE:PRZ002,0,0,2.6,0.54,47.1,27.43,0,0,4.06,1.06,17.2,0
    C.Italy_Etruscan_related:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_356-96BCE:TAQ001,2.36,0,4.12,0.57,47.15,23.95,0,0,4.6,0,17.25,0
    C.Italy_Etruscan:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_103BCE-54CE:TAQ002,0,0,1.15,0.26,46.51,23.88,0,0,5.81,0,21.27,1.12
    C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_729-942CE:TAQ003,5.6,0,2.14,1.3,29.31,17.09,0.1,0.93,11.36,0,31.59,0.58
    C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_:TAQ004,1.71,0.66,0.95,0.36,48.5,23.89,0,0,5.59,0,17.87,0.48
    C.Italy_Etruscan_related:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_346-51BCE:TAQ005,1.39,0.44,5.14,0,46.29,17.75,0.22,0.33,8.86,0.41,18.68,0.49
    C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_:TAQ006,1.18,0,3.59,0,42.96,25.05,0.15,0,2.83,0,24.24,0
    C.Italy_Etruscan.Afr:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_391-207BCE:TAQ007,3.25,0.65,8.19,0,33.36,6.55,0.82,0,13.72,0.07,31.87,1.52
    C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio):TAQ008,4.27,1.3,0.28,0.84,49.67,21.5,0,0,3.99,0,17.53,0.63
    C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_899-1021CE:TAQ009,4.13,0.23,2.43,0.82,33.16,19.69,0.14,0,9.54,0,28.81,1.06
    C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio):TAQ010,0,0,1.32,0.05,48.43,24.81,0.71,0,4.04,0,20.41,0.24
    C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_895-1016CE:TAQ011,6.51,0.15,1.38,0.03,33.17,19.02,0,1.09,10.21,0,27.5,0.96
    C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio):TAQ012,3.32,0,1.79,0,51.8,17.96,0.72,0,7.3,0,16.79,0.33
    C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio):TAQ013,2.83,1.64,1.78,0,46.46,21.33,0,0,6.68,0,19.04,0.23
    C.Italy_Etruscan:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_346-51BCE:TAQ015,1.72,0,2.42,0,46.31,21.99,0,0,6.46,0.63,19.66,0.81
    C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio):TAQ016,2.43,0,1.67,0,46.91,24.12,0.84,0,5.34,0,18.06,0.63
    C.Italy_Etruscan_related:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_356-96BCE:TAQ017,4.08,0,1.96,0,48.92,20.11,0,0,5.6,0,19.12,0.21
    C.Italy_Etruscan_related:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_346-51BCE:TAQ018,0,0,0.47,0,48.53,20.84,0.43,0,6.5,1.43,20.91,0.89
    C.Italy_Etruscan:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_358-98BCE:TAQ019,0.49,0,2.18,0,47.66,24.5,0.17,0,5.48,0.04,19.27,0.21
    C.Italy_Imperial:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_89-236CE:TAQ020,9.02,0.66,1.49,0.5,34.13,18.73,0.12,0,7.43,0,27.92,0
    C.Italy_Imperial:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_262-424CE:TAQ021,3.74,0,2.51,0,33.22,11.47,2.01,0,12.62,0,34.44,0
    C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_1018-1151CE:TAQ022,5.66,0,2.84,0,34.54,19.74,2.22,0,6.34,0,28.11,0.54
    C.Italy_Etruscan.Afr:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_396-216BCE:TAQ023,0.11,0,9.86,0,38.6,11.68,0.88,1.34,10.18,0,26.04,1.31
    C.Italy_Etruscan:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_356-96BCE:TAQ024,1.55,0.2,4.01,0.27,46.92,21.83,0,0.36,4.57,0,20.29,0
    C.Italy_Etruscan_UDC_P:Chiostraccio(Siena_Tuscany)_174-53BCE:UDC_P,0,0,4.31,0,52.14,29.39,0,0,0.89,0,13.22,0.04
    S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_650-800CE:VEN001,5.14,0,3.87,0.01,28.18,17.6,0,0,11.33,2.38,29.77,1.73
    S.Italy_Venosa_VEN002:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_650-800CE:VEN002,2.79,8.01,0,12.59,16.3,9.93,3.89,0.01,6.34,27.43,12.71,0
    S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_650-763CE:VEN005,6.66,0,4.28,1.53,32.55,10.92,0,0,10.86,0.37,32.83,0
    S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_650-763CE:VEN006,8.51,0.54,5.29,0.22,27.14,16.32,0,0,9.76,1.99,30.08,0.16
    S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_660-766CE:VEN008,4.55,6.58,0,0,36.17,16.54,2.72,0,8.77,0,23.04,1.63
    S.Italy_Venosa_related:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_660-766CE:VEN009,4.96,0,10.9,0.28,29.02,16.26,0,3.03,6.57,0,28.99,0
    S.Italy_Venosa_related:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_670-775CE:VEN010,16.14,0,2.12,1.09,37.1,15.42,0,0.05,13.2,0,14.88,0
    S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_670-775CE:VEN012,2.86,0,1.41,0.17,24.58,14.71,0,1.75,12.7,5.77,36.03,0.03
    S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_670-775CE:VEN013,7.7,0,5.12,0,28.43,14.81,0,0,10.94,1.22,30.32,1.45
    S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_670-775CE:VEN014,12.68,0,5.83,0,33.04,0,0,0.24,17.71,1.35,28.74,0.42
    S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_670-775CE:VEN015,7.16,0,3.85,0.73,28.62,13.96,0.39,0,13.73,0,30.9,0.64
    S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_672-800CE:VEN016,6.56,0,6.02,0,25.63,16.98,0,0,13.65,0.44,30.73,0
    S.Italy_Venosa_related:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_672-800CE:VEN017,1.13,1.55,0,0.12,32.91,17.47,3.75,0,12.37,3.07,27.62,0
    S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_672-800CE:VEN018,9.33,0,3.69,0,27.33,17.18,0,0,19.59,0,20.74,2.14
    S.Italy_Venosa_related:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_672-800CE:VEN021,8.65,0,0.51,3.3,17.54,14.06,0,2.43,21.68,1.47,30.37,0
    S.Italy_Venosa_related:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_672-800CE:VEN022,7.04,0,0,5.28,15.13,25.83,0,0.13,20.82,0,25.77,0
    C.Italy_Etruscan:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_750-406BCE:VET001,1.52,0,2.24,1.15,42.15,23.87,0,1.18,6.3,0,21.57,0
    C.Italy_Etruscan:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_790-550BCE:VET002,0.77,1.24,2.59,0,48.74,18.77,0,0,7.8,0.08,20.03,0
    C.Italy_Etruscan:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_800-590BCE:VET003_4,1.33,0,2.66,0,47.08,21.2,0.25,0.26,7.04,0.15,20.03,0
    C.Italy_Etruscan.Ceu:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_360-200BCE:VET005,7.72,0.55,0,0,43.13,37.83,0,1.41,1.61,0,7.74,0
    C.Italy_Etruscan:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_806-599BCE:VET007,0,0,2.57,0.68,51.02,20.09,0.22,0,6.74,0.42,17.63,0.63
    C.Italy_Etruscan.Afr:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_372-204BCE:VET008,0.41,0,8.27,0,38.29,9.06,0,1.75,12.78,0.04,28.42,0.99
    C.Italy_Etruscan:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_788-545BCE:VET010,0,0,4.61,0.76,48.22,21.92,0.27,0,3.53,0,20.12,0.57
    :Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_750-413BCE:VET011,0,0,6.57,0,51.11,17.17,0,2.72,3.32,0,19.1,0
    C.Italy_Etruscan:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_790-550BCE:VEU001,0,0,1.86,2.69,45.76,22.07,0,0.83,3.79,0,23.01,0
    C.Italy_Etruscan:Volterra(Pisa_Tuscany)_200-60BCE:VOL001,0.94,0,1.77,0,44.5,24.66,0.61,0.03,5.61,0,21.4,0.48

  11. #11
    Advisor Jovialis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-05-17
    Posts
    5,959

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a1b2a2a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H6a1b7

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Distance to: Jovialis
    3.64458502 C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_72 9-942CE:TAQ003
    4.09070899 S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_650-763CE:VEN006
    4.15604379 S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_670-775CE:VEN013
    5.08536134 S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_650-800CE:VEN001
    5.39290274 S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_670-775CE:VEN015
    6.16317288 S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_672-800CE:VEN016
    6.78350942 C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_89 5-1016CE:TAQ011
    7.04449430 C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)C899-1016CE:ETR013
    7.08010593 C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_89 9-1021CE:TAQ009
    7.10228836 C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)_997-1149CE:ETR003
    7.24289997 C.Italy_Imperial:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_89-236CE:TAQ020
    7.74268687 S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_650-763CE:VEN005
    8.41327522 C.Italy_Early.Medieval:PoggioPelliccia(Grosseto_Tu scany)_772-960CE:POP001
    8.57403639 C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_10 18-1151CE:TAQ022
    8.62318387 C.Italy_Early.Medieval_ETR014:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany )_977-1022CE:ETR014
    9.44833848 C.Italy_Imperial:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_262-424CE:TAQ021
    9.48255767 C.Italy_Early.Medieval_undated:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscan y):ETR010
    9.76431769 C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)775-945CE:ETR007
    9.92680714 S.Italy_Venosa_related:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_ 660-766CE:VEN009
    11.06943991 S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_670-775CE:VEN012
    11.16845110 S.Italy_Venosa_related:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_ 672-800CE:VEN017
    12.35336796 C.Italy_Imperial:Marsilianad'Albegna(Grosseto_Tusc any)_400-530CE:MAS003
    13.35992515 C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)_772-888CE:ETR006
    13.99985714 :Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany):ETR004
    14.12746262 C.Italy_Etruscan.Afr:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_391-207BCE:TAQ007

  12. #12
    Regular Member kingjohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    05-09-16
    Posts
    1,309

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    rare E-FGC7391
    MtDNA haplogroup
    h3ap

    Country: Uruguay



    Of individuals associated with the first time interval, the vast majority (40 of 48) form a genetic cluster here named “C.Italy_Etruscan” that overlaps with present-day Spanish individuals in a principal components analysis (PCA) built with West Eurasian populations from the Human Origins dataset (Fig. 2A) (21). Across this temporal interval (800 to 1 BCE), three groups of PCA outliers are identified, i.e., four individuals shifted toward northern African populations (C.Italy_Etruscan.Afr), three individuals shifted toward central European populations (C.Italy_Etruscan.Ceu), and one individual shifted toward Near Eastern populations (C.Italy_Etruscan_MAS001) (table S1A). To further inspect the genetic clustering of the central and southern Italian populations studied, we performed unsupervised ADMIXTURE on 71 individuals (Fig. 2, B and C) after the exclusion of genetically related individuals (table S1B and fig. S2). C.Italy_Etruscan individuals harbor the three genetic ancestries associated with Anatolian Neolithic farmers, European hunter-gatherers, and Bronze Age pastoralists from the Pontic-Caspian Steppe. C.Italy_Etruscan.Ceu carries a higher proportion of “steppe-related ancestry,” while C.Italy_MAS001 shows a genetic component maximized in Iranian Neolithic farmers. The latter is also present in C.Italy_Etruscan.Afr individuals alongside an ancestry component identified in an Early Neolithic Moroccan group.


    p.s
    the E-L618 individual VEN008 was found out of the 7 males remains from venosa
    also found in supplemental
    https://i.imgur.com/Biz7MwF.png

  13. #13
    Regular Member Duarte's Avatar
    Join Date
    08-01-19
    Posts
    2,108

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-DF27/R-Y45921

    Country: Brazil



    2 members found this post helpful.
    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


  14. #14
    Regular Member ihype02's Avatar
    Join Date
    12-10-16
    Posts
    791


    Country: Albania



    Quote Originally Posted by ihype02 View Post
    The Venosa samples are medieval samples. Makes sense.
    Yeah unfortunately for some, they are not Levanto-Greek East Med ubermenschen 400-BC-400AD Magna Greacian samples. They are from the Dark Ages.

  15. #15
    Moderator Pax Augusta's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-06-14
    Location
    Ara Pacis
    Posts
    1,514


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: Italy



    Quote Originally Posted by ihype02 View Post
    The Venosa samples are medieval samples. Makes sense.
    It is really not understandable why they ended up in this study. It's not even an area where there were Etruscans.

  16. #16
    Regular Member ihype02's Avatar
    Join Date
    12-10-16
    Posts
    791


    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.
    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?

  17. #17
    Moderator Pax Augusta's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-06-14
    Location
    Ara Pacis
    Posts
    1,514


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: Italy



    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?
    It remains unclear to me what those samples have to do with the Etruscans.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-11-19
    Posts
    129


    Country: Italy



    1 members found this post helpful.
    I want to be a honest broker, so if I must own up I were wrong I'll admit to it, and say that the folks at anthrogenica were right about both a massive (really massive) influx of Levantine and then a substantial Germanic input, yet they too must admit that they were wrong to the extent they greatly underestimated it: even the boldest claim at anthrogenica was around 30% Levant_BA at maximum in deep south Italy, yet it seems it is at around slightly less than 40-50% in Tuscans (if they were 60-50% Levantine, depending on whether Israel or Alalakh is used, then 20% Longobard would mean 48-40% Levantine in central Italians in the middle ages), and as a result even the Germanic input they greatly underestimated.

    Yet, there are a couple of things that raise my brows:
    1) 20% germanic input in Tuscany seems really impossible given all the archeological and historical evidence, it would mean that somehow heavy germanic presence went unrecorded and didn't leave much of a trace on the haplogroups.
    2)This paper and the paper about the Danubian limes are incompatible insomuch this paper shows that apparently all or the vast majority of the Near Easterners were Levantines whereas the other paper shows that all minus one were Levantine. The paradox would be resolved if somehow it can be shown that all Anatolians went to the Balkans but all Levantines went to Italy, yet it sounds so implausible to be rejectable.
    3)The paper claims that the near eastern influx was due to slaves and soldiers, but if it were so then one ought to expect also a big chunk of northern Europeans since many slaves and soldiers (and about soldiers near the empire most were Germanic) came from central-north Europe. The theory that just those that came from the east survived and reproduced seems extremely implausible.
    4) The paper is really sloppy in using just Iran_N as a marker for near east gene flow, since, as the last paper about the Danubian limes showed in accordance with other samples from Anatolia, this region was clearly distinct from the Levant for it virtually lacked the Levant_N ancestry that is present in the Levant (so much that the single outlier that had it was told apart from the main near east cluster thanks to it in the paper about the Danubian limes).
    5) when there are already samples from Italy that have Iran_N or CHG (and the paper about the Daunians shows that it was common outside Latium in south Italy) it becomes an unwarranted assumption to think that all of it came to Tuscany from near eastern "slaves and soldiers", actually it gets really unparsimonious.
    6) The authors of the paper claim their model explains the distribution of southeastern Europeans as "between Europe and the near east" (sic), though in the same PCA format the Balkan_IA cline is already inbetween.
    7) As for the C6 cluster in Antonio et all 2019, it seemed first it was made up of western Anatolians, the Near Easterners from the paper about the Danubian limes, but in this study it seems they are half Etruscan/Latin and half Levantine: the Antonio paper did use Jordanian_BA yet it stated that the fits were low, so it talked about the possibility that actually it was (or partially was) a population yet unsampled, and the paper about the Danubian limes seemed to have found that population.
    8) The authors don't take into account the possibility that there was movements from within Italy, as the paper about the mitogenome of south Italy in the BA suggested.


    Keeping all these points in mind, if south Italy was already more Balkan_IA like, as the paper about the Daunians seemed to suggest, then the interpretation of the results in this paper would be really off the mark. I venture to say that I suspect that some political agenda might induce the authors to reconstruct implausible scenarios, though if wrong future studies will settle the records straight, otherwise I can take on the new evidence to reconstruct the likeliest historical scenario.

  19. #19
    Moderator Pax Augusta's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-06-14
    Location
    Ara Pacis
    Posts
    1,514


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: Italy



    Quote Originally Posted by Leopoldo Leone View Post
    I want to be a honest broker, so if I must own up I were wrong I'll admit to it, and say that the folks at anthrogenica were right about both a massive (really massive) influx of Levantine and then a substantial Germanic input, yet they too must admit that they were wrong to the extent they greatly underestimated it: even the boldest claim at anthrogenica was around 30% Levant_BA at maximum in deep south Italy, yet it seems it is at around slightly less than 40-50% in Tuscans (if they were 60-50% Levantine, depending on whether Israel or Alalakh is used, then 20% Longobard would mean 48-40% Levantine in central Italians in the middle ages), and as a result even the Germanic input they greatly underestimated.

    Yet, there are a couple of things that raise my brows:
    1) 20% germanic input in Tuscany seems really impossible given all the archeological and historical evidence, it would mean that somehow heavy germanic presence went unrecorded and didn't leave much of a trace on the haplogroups.
    2)This paper and the paper about the Danubian limes are incompatible insomuch this paper shows that apparently all or the vast majority of the Near Easterners were Levantines whereas the other paper shows that all minus one were Levantine. The paradox would be resolved if somehow it can be shown that all Anatolians went to the Balkans but all Levantines went to Italy, yet it sounds so implausible to be rejectable.
    3)The paper claims that the near eastern influx was due to slaves and soldiers, but if it were so then one ought to expect also a big chunk of northern Europeans since many slaves and soldiers (and about soldiers near the empire most were Germanic) came from central-north Europe. The theory that just those that came from the east survived and reproduced seems extremely implausible.
    4) The paper is really sloppy in using just Iran_N as a marker for near east gene flow, since, as the last paper about the Danubian limes showed in accordance with other samples from Anatolia, this region was clearly distinct from the Levant for it virtually lacked the Levant_N ancestry that is present in the Levant (so much that the single outlier that had it was told apart from the main near east cluster thanks to it in the paper about the Danubian limes).
    5) when there are already samples from Italy that have Iran_N or CHG (and the paper about the Daunians shows that it was common outside Latium in south Italy) it becomes an unwarranted assumption to think that all of it came to Tuscany from near eastern "slaves and soldiers", actually it gets really unparsimonious.
    6) The authors of the paper claim their model explains the distribution of southeastern Europeans as "between Europe and the near east" (sic), though in the same PCA format the Balkan_IA cline is already inbetween.
    7) As for the C6 cluster in Antonio et all 2019, it seemed first it was made up of western Anatolians, the Near Easterners from the paper about the Danubian limes, but in this study it seems they are half Etruscan/Latin and half Levantine: the Antonio paper did use Jordanian_BA yet it stated that the fits were low, so it talked about the possibility that actually it was (or partially was) a population yet unsampled, and the paper about the Danubian limes seemed to have found that population.
    8) The authors don't take into account the possibility that there was movements from within Italy, as the paper about the mitogenome of south Italy in the BA suggested.


    Keeping all these points in mind, if south Italy was already more Balkan_IA like, as the paper about the Daunians seemed to suggest, then the interpretation of the results in this paper would be really off the mark. I venture to say that I suspect that some political agenda might induce the authors to reconstruct implausible scenarios, though if wrong future studies will settle the records straight, otherwise I can take on the new evidence to reconstruct the likeliest historical scenario.
    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.

  20. #20
    Regular Member ihype02's Avatar
    Join Date
    12-10-16
    Posts
    791


    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 suggests that the Campanian/Italics were like the unmixed Etruscans and Latins. Try the math again now.
    Really they are different from native Apulians?

  21. #21
    Moderator Pax Augusta's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-06-14
    Location
    Ara Pacis
    Posts
    1,514


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: Italy



    Quote Originally Posted by ihype02 View Post
    Really they are different from native Apulians?

    They are saying that originally are more similar to Central Italian IA groups.

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


  22. #22
    Regular Member Archetype0ne's Avatar
    Join Date
    11-06-18
    Posts
    988

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    J2b2-L283/FT29003

    Country: Albania



    Quote Originally Posted by Leopoldo Leone View Post
    I want to be a honest broker, so if I must own up I were wrong I'll admit to it, and say that the folks at anthrogenica were right about both a massive (really massive) influx of Levantine and then a substantial Germanic input, yet they too must admit that they were wrong to the extent they greatly underestimated it: even the boldest claim at anthrogenica was around 30% Levant_BA at maximum in deep south Italy, yet it seems it is at around slightly less than 40-50% in Tuscans (if they were 60-50% Levantine, depending on whether Israel or Alalakh is used, then 20% Longobard would mean 48-40% Levantine in central Italians in the middle ages), and as a result even the Germanic input they greatly underestimated.
    snip*
    Ditto.

    "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. We grouped nonoutlier individuals dating between 1 and 500 CE into the “C.Italy_Imperial” cluster (table S2A). Formal f4-tests reveal its higher affinity than C.Italy_Etruscan to ancient groups from Iran, Africa, and the Near East (table S2C). We then used qpAdm to quantify this group’s ancestry components, where C.Italy_Imperial was modeled as a mixture of the sources C.Italy_Etruscan and 158 published European and Near Eastern genomes from the Bronze and Iron Ages. 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). Substantial gene flow from the eastern Mediterranean was also reported in ancient individuals from Rome dated to the Imperial period (17). Despite our limited number of data points from the first five centuries CE, the new results suggest that the contribution of nonlocal ancestry in Rome was larger than in Etruria (Fig.4A). However, this large-scale genetic impact of incoming groups during the Imperial period was not only limited to the metropolitan area around Rome but also extended into the neighboring and more distant regions considered here"

    "Regarding the last temporal interval of our ancient genomic transect (500 to 1000 CE), we observe that individuals grouped in the “C.Italy_Early.Medieval” cluster are generally shifted toward central European groups compared to C.Italy_Imperial and largely overlap with present-day populations from central Italy (TSI.SG) (Fig. 5A) (30). Using f4-tests, we can show that this transition is confirmed by a reduced affinity of C.Italy_Early.Medieval toward eastern Mediterranean populations compared to C.Italy_Imperial (table S2D). Moreover, the C.Italy_Early.Medieval cluster can be modeled successfully in qpAdm as a mixture between the preceding C.Italy_Imperial group and Late Antique or Medieval groups from northern and eastern Europe (among the 59 populations tested) in estimated proportions of 60 to 90% and 10 to 40%, respectively (table S4E). Notably, among the best supported models are those that feature individuals associated with Longobard cemeteries from Hungary and northern Italy (31). If we specifically restrict the analyses to those Longobard-related individuals carrying unadmixed northern European genetic ancestry (Piedmont_N.Longobard), then we obtain a ~20% contribution to the C.Italy_Early.Medieval cluster (Fig. 5. This finding is consistent with a genetic input of northern European ancestry in central Italy during the Longobard period. However, the influence of other Germanic tribes in Italy like the Ostrogoths could also have enhanced the observed genomic shift."

    Even I who try/am a contrarian most of the time, would have never even on a blasphemous streak thought up those numbers. Although, this scenario made a lot of sense given the Roman crossroads paper. How C6->C4/5 (+C7)-> C6.

    Edit: Yep... just the next paragraph.

    "Since modern-day central Italians largely overlap in PCA space with C.Italy_Early.Medieval individuals (Fig.5A), we tested the consistency of the former group deriving from the latter. To enhance resolution, qpAdm was implemented with present-day worldwide populations in the reference set. No present-day Italian populations are consistent with deriving from the C.Italy_Early.Medieval cluster (P values below 0.05), although high-coverage genomes from Tus-cany (Tuscan.DG) (32) yielded no grounds for strong rejection of genetic continuity (P =0.02) (Fig.5C and tables S2E and S4G). This suggests that the genetic makeup of present-day central Italian pop-ulations was largely formed at least by 1000 CE. To investigate whether an analogous picture is observed in contemporaneous individuals from southern Italy, data from the Early Medievalarcheological site of Venosa in Basilicata were similarly analyzed. With the exception of VEN002, all Venosa individuals (S.Italy_Ve-nosa) broadly overlap modern-day southern Italian populations in PC space and can be jointly modeled in qpAdm as deriving from the same stream of ancestry (P =0.42) (Fig.5,AandC). In PCA space, most Medieval and Early Modern individuals from Rome fall in an intermediate position between Early Medieval groups from Tuscany and Basilicata (Fig.5A). This distribution is thus consistent with the current north-south genetic cline that mirrors geography (33,34) (fig. S4), with Italy bridging the genetic gap between Europe and the eastern Mediterranean. "
    “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

  23. #23
    Regular Member Archetype0ne's Avatar
    Join Date
    11-06-18
    Posts
    988

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    J2b2-L283/FT29003

    Country: Albania



    As Leopoldo Leone said in the part I sniped^, this paper and the Danubian limes could not be any more different.
    This paper uses qpADM, and fstats, in conjuction with keeping in line historic and known events, in sofar their models do not become anachronistic, and neither implausible as far as comparative populations. Furthermore this all is done, so the statistical modeling, historical veracity and limited 2D PCAs agree with each other.

    I felt the Danubian Limes was a 2 min read, this I am on the 3d read through, and I still find interesting bits I might have missed on the earlier reads.

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


    Country: Italy



    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.
    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:

    No present-day Italian populations are consistent with deriving from the C.Italy_Early.Medieval cluster (P values below 0.05), although high-coverage genomes from Tuscany (Tuscan.DG) yielded no grounds for strong rejection of genetic continuity (P = 0.02)
    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.

  25. #25
    Regular Member ihype02's Avatar
    Join Date
    12-10-16
    Posts
    791


    Country: Albania




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

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

    Another Mycenaean-like Classical Greek.

Page 1 of 19 12311 ... 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
  •