Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 10 of 48 FirstFirst ... 8910111220 ... LastLast
Results 226 to 250 of 1180

Thread: David Reich Southern Arc Paper Abstract

  1. #226
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    1,723


    Country: Austria



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    I have yet to see any factual foundation for your point number one, but that doesn't surprise me. Furthermore, it's nonsensical. By going south they would be going straight into the mouth of the hell which was the Gothic War. Even the preamble was no picnic. Anyone who thinks the Byzantines were good stewards is much mistaken.
    These events predate the Gothic wars. There two lines of evidence we have so far, which is, admittedly, not sufficient, but it makes it worth to be considered:
    - Historical attestation of such movements, evacuations, and its been explicitly stated, that the population moved "to Italia":

    Its a story widely known about the remains of saint Severinus in Southern Germany-Austria.
    He himself states that he was personally present at the exhumation of the body of St Severinus and its transfer to Italy at the time of the evacuation of Noricum in 488. He may have been present at the death of St Severinus in 482, when he would have been in his early twenties.
    https://historum.com/threads/transit...century.70029/

    So the final evacuation of Noricum supposedly happened around 488 AD. Its being said that a large portion of the Romanised provincials was evacuated "to Italia". It was the order of Odoacer in 488 AD.

    - Some of the samples we got from the area look very "Northern Italian like". So they have an interesting profile in comparison to both Germanics and the more South Eastern shifted Italian samples we got. Such a fit doesn't have to mean they were the source, but it means they could have played their role.

    As to number 2, they weren't fleeing any Slavs, because no Slavs made it into Italy. The Langobards were quite good at holding on to their newly conquered territory. Before pontificating on Italian genetics, I think it might be helpful to learn something about Italian history.
    Again we have the written records and archaeological evidence, that what remained of the local population, especially in areas like Eastern Noricum and Western Pannonia did follow the Germanics, like the Langobards, before the Avars and Slavs came into the territory. Like we have the archaeological record with the population going down up to the Langobard rule, and then we almost have a big hiatus in many areas, because the Avars-Slavs came in.
    What could have caused this? Most likely the people fled and the most likely scenario definitely is they went with the Langobards.

    So we had three movements:
    - Steady refugees up to 488 AD
    - At 488 AD, most of the elite and a large portion of the commoners fled to Italia, at the order of Odoacer
    - In a final movement, a large portion of the remaining Romanised commoners fled with the Langobards.

    There were remains of the locals in the Slavic era, but much less. This being also apparent in place names, because in the Slavic zone, very little of the pre-Slavic place names being preserved, which suggests a rather low level influence from the pre-Slavic substrate in Eastern Austria.

  2. #227
    Advisor Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    21,250


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    These events predate the Gothic wars. There two lines of evidence we have so far, which is, admittedly, not sufficient, but it makes it worth to be considered:
    - Historical attestation of such movements, evacuations, and its been explicitly stated, that the population moved "to Italia":

    Its a story widely known about the remains of saint Severinus in Southern Germany-Austria.


    https://historum.com/threads/transit...century.70029/

    So the final evacuation of Noricum supposedly happened around 488 AD. Its being said that a large portion of the Romanised provincials was evacuated "to Italia". It was the order of Odoacer in 488 AD.

    - Some of the samples we got from the area look very "Northern Italian like". So they have an interesting profile in comparison to both Germanics and the more South Eastern shifted Italian samples we got. Such a fit doesn't have to mean they were the source, but it means they could have played their role.



    Again we have the written records and archaeological evidence, that what remained of the local population, especially in areas like Eastern Noricum and Western Pannonia did follow the Germanics, like the Langobards, before the Avars and Slavs came into the territory. Like we have the archaeological record with the population going down up to the Langobard rule, and then we almost have a big hiatus in many areas, because the Avars-Slavs came in.
    What could have caused this? Most likely the people fled and the most likely scenario definitely is they went with the Langobards.

    So we had three movements:
    - Steady refugees up to 488 AD
    - At 488 AD, most of the elite and a large portion of the commoners fled to Italia, at the order of Odoacer
    - In a final movement, a large portion of the remaining Romanised commoners fled with the Langobards.

    There were remains of the locals in the Slavic era, but much less. This being also apparent in place names, because in the Slavic zone, very little of the pre-Slavic place names being preserved, which suggests a rather low level influence from the pre-Slavic substrate in Eastern Austria.
    So, your proof is a few textual references for an unknown number of refugees from Noricum etc. going to unknown places in Italia around 488.

    First off, I guess some of the "Romans" in the provinces didn't get the message, because there were still colonies of them when the Langobards arrived around 588. Remember the Patrick Geary paper on the Langobards?

    Furthermore, the "Romans" in the provinces were as often Southern Italian and Aegean like as they were Northern Italian like, as the same paper showed.

    There is also no indication as to where they might have fled once they arrived in Italia. It's all conjecture.

    As is also almost always the case, numbers are rarely given in ancient documents for any group of people. It's even unclear how many Langobards actually arrived.

    There's also the fact that arriving at your destination when a refugee on the roads during times of mass disorder was a chancy thing at best.

    So, sorry. Not convinced. If anything, some of the returning "Romans", of unknown number, could have brought more southeastern ancestry, not northern, and we have no idea where they settled.


    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

  3. #228
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    1,723


    Country: Austria



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    So, your proof is a few textual references for an unknown number of refugees from Noricum etc. going to unknown places in Italia around 488.

    First off, I guess some of the "Romans" in the provinces didn't get the message, because there were still colonies of them when the Langobards arrived around 588. Remember the Patrick Geary paper on the Langobards?
    That's what I wrote above: A significant decline can be observed, but a local Celto-Roman population remained in place, of which again a significant portion seems to have moved out with the Langobards, because there is an archaeological hiatus and lack of place names in the Slavic zone.

    As is also almost always the case, numbers are rarely given in ancient documents for any group of people. It's even unclear how many Langobards actually arrived.

    There's also the fact that arriving at your destination when a refugee on the roads during times of mass disorder was a chancy thing at best.

    So, sorry. Not convinced. If anything, some of the returning "Romans", of unknown number, could have brought more southeastern ancestry, not northern, and we have no idea where they settled.
    There were a few exotic samples, but most were more Celtic-shifted in comparison. So any influx from the provinces of e.g. Noricum and Pannonia would inevitably have pulled the receiving population North. And we know they were coming to Italia, we just don't know, and that is what I said too, not just you, how many and where exactly they landed.
    It just adds up to the Germanic people migrations though, that much is fix.

    I don't pretend I know the proportion, I just know it has to be significant, because if the Germanic tribals had a significant impact, and we see it in the uniparentals they had (low but signficant!), there is no reason to assume the incoming Roman provincial population was smaller than the Germanic tribes, rather the contrary.
    It might still be a minor factor, who knows at this point, but it was a factor (among others).

    This is a map with Slavic place names in Austria:


    https://wwwg.uni-klu.ac.at/spw/oenf/name1.htm

    Roman place names largely persisted in a more significant manner in the Western, Bavarian core territories. The Romans seem to have, generally, less of a problem with the Germanics, even with the Avars, than with the Slavs. Because the Slavs settled in tribal groups and clans, which didn't allow as much foreign contribution and were harsher with the locals. You can see that in the new paper as well. In the highly Slavic dominated zone was less earlier survival (Romans, Sarmatians, Dacians, Germanics).

    There is some Romance continuity in the Eastern areas, even South East, as well, but the Slavic impact was huge and in many areas that's evident in archaeology too. Like in Western Pannonia, Romance groups survived well into the Avar period, but largely disappeared among Slavs and Magyars. So there was definitely a trend of the Roman provincials to flee with the Germanics, instead of waiting for the Slavs to come in a variety of places.

  4. #229
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    16-09-20
    Posts
    1


    Country: Iraq



    Quote Originally Posted by enter_tain View Post
    I think we might see EV13 in a Yamnaya context here. EV13 is completely absent in Neolithic Europe. Out of hundreds of samples, all we have is 1 parent clade of EV13 in Spain, but not EV13 itself.


    Ultimately it might be part of the "West Asian" component Yamnaya absorbed early on. It's TMRCA is early Bronze Age and matches IE expansions.
    I suspect we might find some samples in Anatolia. I don't really have fancy maps or cultures or stuff since I don't know much about them. But I just think that if we didn't find stone age e-v13 in Europe then the next most likely place would be Asia Minor :)

  5. #230
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    1,723


    Country: Austria



    Quote Originally Posted by Aahmes View Post
    I suspect we might find some samples in Anatolia. I don't really have fancy maps or cultures or stuff since I don't know much about them. But I just think that if we didn't find stone age e-v13 in Europe then the next most likely place would be Asia Minor :)
    We have plenty of samples from the precursor of E-V13 in Europe from Impresso-Cardial early Neolithic, Sopot, Lengyel, Michelsberger and Tripolye-Cucuteni.
    So basically from Croatia, Spain, France, Germany, Hungary and Ukraine.
    Between Lengyel and Tripolye-Cucuteni fits the best and is already in the Carpathians.
    Even if we find early E-V13 eventually, more important is where the founder event around 5.000-4.500 took place because there are no pther survivors and even if there would be some, they would only account for less than 0,001 % of the modern clades which spread in the Bronze Age.

  6. #231
    Advisor Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    21,250


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    I'm not going to go over and over this. Most of the Szolad samples were more "northern", i.e. British or Germanic like. We can trace the level of genetic impact for them because we have the yDna of the males.

    The rest, the more "Southern" ones are listed below with their closest modern population. There's no way they could have made Central Italians more "Northern", when most of them are either modern Tuscan like, or modern Sicilian like. Other analyses in the paper show them as modern Cypriot like, or SEE like.

    See:
    https://imgur.com/a/hslHBQe




  7. #232
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    10-05-19
    Posts
    1,470

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I2-M223
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H2A3

    Ethnic group
    Italian-Sicily-South
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by blevins13 View Post
    At the end of the day the % of steppe has no meaning at all if not linked with language. Where there people that perpetrated in Greece form central Balkans, definitely yes. The whole point is can actual DNA data shed light from where proto-Greeks came from? This is a question worth discussing and has been in discussion form many years. From the abstract it seems that current study provide additional data of low steppe. This goes more on the direction of the arrival of northern steppe heritage – slowly over time.


    Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum
    You are misrepresenting what I said. I clearly stated the study of where the Proto-Indo-European Language Homeland is and the Spread of Steppe ancestry which resulted in the spread of Indo-European language families is an interesting subject. Where I differ from some on this site/forum, and other sites dealing with genetics/archeology/linguistics, is that for certain segments, the Steppe Herder migration and associated language movement is a "Religion with Dogmatic Creeds" although some parties hold to different "Creeds" than the other ones related to the routes as to which IE language spread (i.e. This thread). So again, the Steppe ancestry and language question is again interesting. I am just more interested in the genetics of the ancient civilization. As for % of Steppe having no meaning, the Etruscans and Latins had similar Steppe Ancestry. One (Latins) spoke IE, the other (Etruscans) did not. So If I am reading your post correctly, the Etruscans, who had some Steppe ancestry but did no speak an Indo-European language means there is no meaning to the Etruscan civilization? Not clear on what you mean here. Latin as a language does not appear in written text form to mid 1st Century BC. Yet, the Etruscans were able to trade with Phoenicians, Egyptians and Greeks, the later spoke an Indo-European language, the former 2 did not. The ancient Hittites and Luwians in Anatolia spoke Indo European languages and traded with the Mesopotamians who going back to the Sumerians (Southern Mesopotamia) where the first to put their language into written text. There was trade between the Hittites/Luwians and Mesopotamian civilizations and it was the tablets from the Mesopotamians that the Hittites/Luwians acquired and then used to put their language down in written text form.


    So back to my point, languages can be transmitted through migration yes (i.e. the movement of the Steppe peoples) but also through trade contacts between peoples and small movements of people without significant genetic turnover. And back to my point, 2 peoples can be genetically similar and live right next to each other, the Etruscans (Tuscany) and Latins (Lazio) yet 1 speak a non-Indo European language and 1 speak an Indo-European language. Ancient Rome would obviously be influenced by both Civilizations (and of course Ancient Greece as well).

  8. #233
    Regular Member mount123's Avatar
    Join Date
    30-12-21
    Posts
    607

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    J2b-L283>Y52453

    Country: Kosovo



    Quote Originally Posted by brick View Post
    Rome was the capital of an empire and the most populous city of its time. No evidence "Imperial Romans" were all locals admixed with East Med migrants. Some were indeed foreigners, other migrants were from the rest of Italy including southern Italy. Albanians have a similar genetic profile to central Italians, when would Albanians have mixed with East Med migrants from Anatolia and Levant?





    Greeks for comparison
    It is the same blabbering that has been going on for years in case you have not noticed from older posts. I never really did and still don't get the whole "Levantine" ancestry obsession and its big fan club.

  9. #234
    Regular Member blevins13's Avatar
    Join Date
    14-10-16
    Location
    Tirana
    Age
    46
    Posts
    1,095

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-Z2103>BY611
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H7i1

    Ethnic group
    Albanian
    Country: Albania



    Quote Originally Posted by Palermo Trapani View Post
    You are misrepresenting what I said. I clearly stated the study of where the Proto-Indo-European Language Homeland is and the Spread of Steppe ancestry which resulted in the spread of Indo-European language families is an interesting subject. Where I differ from some on this site/forum, and other sites dealing with genetics/archeology/linguistics, is that for certain segments, the Steppe Herder migration and associated language movement is a "Religion with Dogmatic Creeds" although some parties hold to different "Creeds" than the other ones related to the routes as to which IE language spread (i.e. This thread). So again, the Steppe ancestry and language question is again interesting. I am just more interested in the genetics of the ancient civilization. As for % of Steppe having no meaning, the Etruscans and Latins had similar Steppe Ancestry. One (Latins) spoke IE, the other (Etruscans) did not. So If I am reading your post correctly, the Etruscans, who had some Steppe ancestry but did no speak an Indo-European language means there is no meaning to the Etruscan civilization? Not clear on what you mean here. Latin as a language does not appear in written text form to mid 1st Century BC. Yet, the Etruscans were able to trade with Phoenicians, Egyptians and Greeks, the later spoke an Indo-European language, the former 2 did not. The ancient Hittites and Luwians in Anatolia spoke Indo European languages and traded with the Mesopotamians who going back to the Sumerians (Southern Mesopotamia) where the first to put their language into written text. There was trade between the Hittites/Luwians and Mesopotamian civilizations and it was the tablets from the Mesopotamians that the Hittites/Luwians acquired and then used to put their language down in written text form.


    So back to my point, languages can be transmitted through migration yes (i.e. the movement of the Steppe peoples) but also through trade contacts between peoples and small movements of people without significant genetic turnover. And back to my point, 2 peoples can be genetically similar and live right next to each other, the Etruscans (Tuscany) and Latins (Lazio) yet 1 speak a non-Indo European language and 1 speak an Indo-European language. Ancient Rome would obviously be influenced by both Civilizations (and of course Ancient Greece as well).
    Not sure what I am misrepresenting, mine was a statement of my position for the topic at hand. To clarify my point I am adding the following. If after 3000 years you study the American culture but have no written record, DNA composition itself might not cut it. You will find DNA from every part of Europe and World. So in this situation DNA admixture and steppe % may become misleading if not seen together with language and archeological evidence. I don’t see a difference with Mycenaean culture.

    Per Lazaridis
    One theory attributes the origin of Greek speakers to the Balkans, from which waves of Indo-European speakers flowed into the north of Greece during the Bronze Age. These people came from the Eurasian steppe north of the Black and Caspian seas, and they are referred to as the Proto Indo-Europeans. These migrants, together with the local population they encountered, then combined to form the ancestors of the Mycenaeans and later Greek speakers. One problem with this theory is that the material culture relationship of Bronze Age populations of the Aegean with populations far to the north is very tenuous.


    Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum

  10. #235
    Regular Member torzio's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-05-19
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3,172

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2 - SK1480
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H95a

    Ethnic group
    North Italian
    Country: Australia



    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    These events predate the Gothic wars. There two lines of evidence we have so far, which is, admittedly, not sufficient, but it makes it worth to be considered:
    - Historical attestation of such movements, evacuations, and its been explicitly stated, that the population moved "to Italia":

    Its a story widely known about the remains of saint Severinus in Southern Germany-Austria.


    https://historum.com/threads/transit...century.70029/

    So the final evacuation of Noricum supposedly happened around 488 AD. Its being said that a large portion of the Romanised provincials was evacuated "to Italia". It was the order of Odoacer in 488 AD.

    - Some of the samples we got from the area look very "Northern Italian like". So they have an interesting profile in comparison to both Germanics and the more South Eastern shifted Italian samples we got. Such a fit doesn't have to mean they were the source, but it means they could have played their role.



    Again we have the written records and archaeological evidence, that what remained of the local population, especially in areas like Eastern Noricum and Western Pannonia did follow the Germanics, like the Langobards, before the Avars and Slavs came into the territory. Like we have the archaeological record with the population going down up to the Langobard rule, and then we almost have a big hiatus in many areas, because the Avars-Slavs came in.
    What could have caused this? Most likely the people fled and the most likely scenario definitely is they went with the Langobards.

    So we had three movements:
    - Steady refugees up to 488 AD
    - At 488 AD, most of the elite and a large portion of the commoners fled to Italia, at the order of Odoacer
    - In a final movement, a large portion of the remaining Romanised commoners fled with the Langobards.

    There were remains of the locals in the Slavic era, but much less. This being also apparent in place names, because in the Slavic zone, very little of the pre-Slavic place names being preserved, which suggests a rather low level influence from the pre-Slavic substrate in Eastern Austria.
    "Northern Italian like" !?............can be origins of populace from Northern Illyrian, Noricum and Pannonia tribes .....................we then see the Ostrogoths take the area, rule it for about 80 years with its capital of Ravenna to be only replaced by the invading Longobards .............who mostly settled around modern Pavia
    Fathers mtdna ...... T2b17
    Grandfather paternal mtdna ... T1a1e
    Sons mtdna ...... K1a4p
    Mothers line ..... R1b-S8172
    Grandmother paternal side ... I1-CTS6397
    Wife paternal line ..... R1a-PF6155

    "Fear profits man, nothing"

  11. #236
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    10-05-19
    Posts
    1,470

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I2-M223
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H2A3

    Ethnic group
    Italian-Sicily-South
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by blevins13 View Post
    Not sure what I am misrepresenting, mine was a statement of my position for the topic at hand. To clarify my point I am adding the following. If after 3000 years you study the American culture but have no written record, DNA composition itself might not cut it. You will find DNA from every part of Europe and World. So in this situation DNA admixture and steppe % may become misleading if not seen together with language and archeological evidence. I don’t see a difference with Mycenaean culture.

    Per Lazaridis
    One theory attributes the origin of Greek speakers to the Balkans, from which waves of Indo-European speakers flowed into the north of Greece during the Bronze Age. These people came from the Eurasian steppe north of the Black and Caspian seas, and they are referred to as the Proto Indo-Europeans. These migrants, together with the local population they encountered, then combined to form the ancestors of the Mycenaeans and later Greek speakers. One problem with this theory is that the material culture relationship of Bronze Age populations of the Aegean with populations far to the north is very tenuous.


    Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum
    You have your position on the subject fair enough. I appreciate the clarification. Since you made your position in a post in response to one I made, I was not sure the exact context of your post. So again, thanks for the clarification.

    As I said earlier, the studying of the origin of Proto-Indo European language and speakers is an interesting subject. But different civilizations can be in the same family in terms of Language, but still have different genetics and culture. Alternatively, they can have the same genetics (Etruscans and Latins) but have different Languages and cultures. Starting for Caspian Steppes, as migrations moved Westward and Southward, etc, the Indo-European languages could have been adopted with differences in Steppe admixture. That is a wide range of territory that the IE languages spread across. So whatever the genetic admixture was of the original Proto-Indo European speakers, that does not mean that admixture stayed "Fixed" over time as migrations occurred and Proto-Indo European languages spread and were adopted. So the Proto-Greek speakers in theory could have been for the sake of argument, Early European Farmer (Anatolian Neolithic)+Steppe and over time the Steppe Component becomes smaller (declines) as the peoples spreading Indo European languages move into Southern Europe. My assumption here is that the Original Steppe people (Yamnaya) can be modeled with respect to the "Steppe Component" as roughly 50% EHG plus 50% Caucus HG (Jones et al 2015). They also had about 18% of their ancestry from EEF sources (Wang et al 2019). So to model: 41%EHG+41%CHG+18%EEF. I am using Professor David Anthony's view that the Yamnaya were the people largely responsible for the spread of Proto-Indo European.

    So the reason I don't get to bogged down into the Proto-Indo European homeland and language, etc debate is because those debates many times turn into discussions that I just rather not get. I will note for example the discussions between various peoples from the Balkans (Greeks, Albanians, Kosovans, Croatians, etc) that are pardon the pun like a "Balkans verbal skirmish". Even among Albanians regarding who is the closest to the peoples who brought in Proto-Albanian (note the thread on the origins of the Albanian language), I see Albanians from various regions of using who has more Steppe admixture to suggest who/where the origins of Proto-Albanian originated from. I think that thread is 70 plus pages.

    Lets be honest, in terms of genetics, peoples of the Southern Balkans are genetically quite similar and all are related.

  12. #237
    Regular Member Duarte's Avatar
    Join Date
    08-01-19
    Posts
    2,352

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-DF27/R-Y45921

    Country: Brazil



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Dodecad 12b coordinates

    Code:
    SSA:YRI30,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,100.00
    Natufian:I0861:Lazaridis_2016,0,2,10.53,0,20.29,1.27,0,6.02,44.59,0,15.3,0
    Natufian:I1069:Lazaridis_2016,0,0,17.52,0,13.06,0,5,5.42,49.08,0,9.92,0
    Natufian:I1072:Lazaridis_2016,0,0,26.07,0,9.11,0,0,11,53.82,0,0,0
    Natufian:I1685:Lazaridis_2016,0,0,25.74,0,6.94,0,6.71,5.57,37.14,0.15,17.75,0
    Natufian:I1687:Lazaridis_2016,0,0,19.35,0,20.24,0,0,4.68,42.93,0,12.8,0
    Natufian:I1690:Lazaridis_2016,0,0,19.64,7.76,12.44,0,0,2.12,48.36,0,9.68,0
    Iberomaurusian:TAF009:Loosdrecht_2018,0,3.54,60.38,2.05,0,0,2.48,18.95,8.83,0,0,3.78
    Iberomaurusian:TAF010:Loosdrecht_2018,0,0.55,63.9,3.27,0,0.17,1.39,18.7,5.98,0,0,6.05
    Iberomaurusian:TAF011:Loosdrecht_2018,0,1.28,64.11,2.45,0,0.07,0.7,18.22,5.74,0.18,0,7.24
    Iberomaurusian:TAF012:Loosdrecht_2018,0,1.79,63.81,0.8,0.44,0,3.27,16.18,5.76,0.59,0,7.35
    Iberomaurusian:TAF013:Loosdrecht_2018,0,1.07,61.84,2.72,0,0.02,1.89,18.58,6.99,0,0,6.89
    Iberomaurusian:TAF014:Loosdrecht_2018,0,0.74,62.76,2.95,0,0,2.12,18.14,5.34,0,0,7.95
    Iberomaurusian:TAF015:Loosdrecht_2018,0,0,62.82,1.87,0,0.9,0,15.76,6.67,3.45,0,8.52
    WHG-like_Brunn_am_Gebirge:I6913:Nikitin_2019,0,0,0,0,58.75,41.25,0,0,0,0,0,0
    Anatolian_N:Bar8:Hofmanova_2016,0,0,4.96,0,45.12,0,0,0,13.39,0.45,33.88,2.2
    Anatolian_N:Bar31:Hofmanova_2016,0,0,4.68,0.92,45.75,0,0,0,14.24,0,31.86,2.55
    Yamnaya_Samara:I0231:Mathieson_2015,29.21,3.13,0,0,3.94,57.21,2.44,0,0,0,3.33,0.75
    Yamnaya_Samara:I0357:Mathieson_2015,30.56,1.4,0,0,7.38,54.65,1.41,0,0,0,4.49,0.12
    Yamnaya_Samara:I0370:Mathieson_2015,30.97,3.96,0,0,4.88,57.16,0.12,0,0,0,1.92,0.99
    Yamnaya_Samara:I0429:Mathieson_2015,28.47,1.92,0,0,3.71,62.57,0.96,0.21,0,0,1.45,0.7
    Yamnaya_Samara:I0438:Mathieson_2015,26.82,1.54,0,0.39,0.6,60.83,1.8,0,0,0,7.77,0.25
    Yamnaya_Samara:I0439:Mathieson_2015,24.1,0.47,0,0.94,8.87,55.96,2.12,0,0,0,7.16,0.37
    Yamnaya_Samara:I0441:Mathieson_2015,33.85,2.03,0,0.21,1.48,59.11,2.63,0,0,0,0,0.69
    Yamnaya_Samara:I0443:Mathieson_2015,29.61,2.46,0,0,3.67,58.66,0.07,0,0,0,4.84,0.69
    Yamnaya_Samara:I0444:Mathieson_2015,29.41,1.68,0,0,6.52,59.52,0.6,0.02,0,0,1.07,1.19
    It seems that the model above, that use K12b coordinates as source (all produced by Jovialis) works well to the Portugueses used as modern populations reference in Sardinian paper.

    Target Distance Anatolian_N Iberomaurusian Natufian SSA WHG-like_Brunn_am_Gebirge Yamnaya_Samara
    Portugal:Portugal12 0.89348287 42.5 4.4 0.9 0.0 35.0 17.2
    Portugal:Portugal11 1.01557753 29.7 4.0 7.9 0.0 39.4 19.0
    Portugal:Portugal2 1.23382741 42.5 7.8 0.6 0.0 31.1 18.0
    French_Provence-Provance4109 1.27023453 34.2 1.0 0.4 0.0 42.7 21.7
    French_Provence-Provance4509 1.34354027 32.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 42.8 24.4
    Portugal:Portugal10 1.36019038 35.3 4.7 5.2 0.0 38.0 16.8
    Portugal:Portugal7 1.44792228 34.5 4.1 5.7 0.0 38.8 16.9
    Portugal:Portugal3 1.50341398 41.7 5.6 1.9 0.0 34.8 16.0
    French_Provence-Provance2708 1.64619513 50.4 0.0 2.0 0.0 22.8 24.8
    Portugal:Portugal1 1.80834964 36.0 6.1 0.0 0.0 43.6 14.3
    French_Provence-Provance2508 1.83906005 41.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 32.1 26.1
    N_Italy_HGDP:HGDP01154 2.23833844 46.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.0 23.4
    Portugal:Portugal9 2.28045923 36.0 5.4 1.4 0.0 42.6 14.6
    Portugal:Portugal13 2.57799532 39.6 5.0 0.0 0.0 38.6 16.8
    Portugal:Portugal6 2.60491111 31.9 7.7 0.3 0.0 46.7 13.4
    N_Italy_HGDP:HGDP01173 2.93161989 51.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 31.3 17.4
    Duarte 2.93923242 36.9 6.4 0.0 3.2 40.3 13.2
    Tuscan_HGDP:HGDP01167 3.10441306 67.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.5 25.5
    N_Italy_HGDP:HGDP01174 3.30738292 56.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.8 16.9
    N_Italy_HGDP:HGDP01153 3.34184042 54.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 31.7 13.7
    N_Italy_HGDP:HGDP01172 3.42592724 55.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.1 19.0
    N_Italy_HGDP:HGDP01171 3.63781282 54.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.4 15.4
    Galicia_1000Genomes 3.74300055 37.4 4.9 0.0 0.0 50.1 7.6
    French_Provence-Provance4409 4.13116750 29.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 34.6 35.5
    Baleares_1000Genomes 4.20189833 43.3 1.4 0.0 0.0 47.3 8.0
    N_Italy_HGDP:HGDP01152 4.30641062 54.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 27.0 18.3
    Tuscan_HGDP:HGDP01163 4.50106572 66.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.7 24.9
    Tuscan_HGDP:HGDP01164 4.56102006 65.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.2 25.1
    N_Italy_HGDP:HGDP01156 4.64473910 57.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.3 12.1
    N_Italy_HGDP:HGDP01155 4.96247697 58.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.2 15.6
    N_Italy_HGDP:HGDP01157 5.07634153 52.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.7 16.9
    Portuguese_D 5.36279350 34.9 8.4 0.0 0.0 50.0 6.7


    WHG-like_Brunn_am_Gebirge:I6913:Nikitin_2019

    “…Individual 2 (
    I6913) fell closest to WHGs but shifted toward EEFs/ANFs…”

    Source: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-56029-2

  13. #238
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    1,723


    Country: Austria



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    I'm not going to go over and over this. Most of the Szolad samples
    The new samples from Upper Austria and Lower Austria, with the exception of the Southern outlier (North African) look different. Its a small sample though and most of the locals cremated their dead. We need isotopic plus autosomal and uniparental data from Northern Italians from different periods, that's the only way to be sure.

  14. #239
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    17-03-16
    Posts
    581


    Country: Greece



    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    There is an upcoming paper which, in the abstract, clearly stated that "Central European" ancestry arrived in Greece in the Late Bronze Age (for the Aegean about 1.600 BC), which would correspond to the chariot complex and MCA/Catacomb intrusion.

    https://submissions.e-a-a.org/eaa202...?Abstract=2323
    They say 'Central Eastern European'. We will see what they mean exactly. But Catacomb is not there. It will be important if there was an introduction of new Y-DNA lines or not.
    What similarities do you see between Greeks and Catacomb btw? Most can be superficial. What is the chariot complex? Did the Catacomb culture people have real chariots or they had wooden wagons?

  15. #240
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    1,723


    Country: Austria



    Quote Originally Posted by A. Papadimitriou View Post
    They say 'Central Eastern European'. We will see what they mean exactly. But Catacomb is not there. It will be important if there was an introduction of new Y-DNA lines or not.
    What similarities do you see between Greeks and Catacomb btw? Most can be superficial. What is the chariot complex? Did the Catacomb culture people have real chariots or they had wooden wagons?
    There was a massive movement of chariot using steppe groups after Sintashta developed actual, lichter chariots.
    They spread in all directions, which brought up Indo-Iranian expansions, including the Mitanni.
    In the West they crushed into Unetice, which was already under pressure from Tumulus culture in the West. Same for the Pannonian Tell cultures and Wietenberg, which got hit by Noua.
    Noua-Sabatinovka-Coslogeni is the main group for Central and South Eastern Europe and they pushed into the Carpathians and Balkans.

    Shortly after the Mycenaean Greeks come up and presumably the Central Eastern European ancestry in the Aegeans.
    And it is exactly at that time that chariots appear in the Aegean as well, for the first time.
    So Proto-Greeks seem to have been chariot using when coming to the Aegean, like many of the expanding groups around that time.

    You also see the great importance of chariots in the early Mycenaean culture.

  16. #241
    Elite member
    Join Date
    10-12-15
    Posts
    904


    Country: Canada



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    There was a massive movement of chariot using steppe groups after Sintashta developed actual, lichter chariots.
    They spread in all directions, which brought up Indo-Iranian expansions, including the Mitanni.
    In the West they crushed into Unetice, which was already under pressure from Tumulus culture in the West. Same for the Pannonian Tell cultures and Wietenberg, which got hit by Noua.
    Noua-Sabatinovka-Coslogeni is the main group for Central and South Eastern Europe and they pushed into the Carpathians and Balkans.
    Shortly after the Mycenaean Greeks come up and presumably the Central Eastern European ancestry in the Aegeans.
    And it is exactly at that time that chariots appear in the Aegean as well, for the first time.
    So Proto-Greeks seem to have been chariot using when coming to the Aegean, like many of the expanding groups around that time.
    You also see the great importance of chariots in the early Mycenaean culture.
    Who are they? I think they are related with seima turbino expansion:
    https://www.researchgate.net/profile...adiocarbon.png

    unetice culture:


    similar type of dagger in seima turbino:
    https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/i...5E2sQ&usqp=CAU

    Età del bronzo arcaica, pugnali, 2200-1600 ac ca:



    brooches of Seima turbino Borodino site around black sea:
    https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...kQMygAegQIARAf

    same brooch in circle A


    Enlage picture in the link below and see one triskele mark on SEIMA TURBINO dagger:
    http://nav.shm.ru/upload/iblock/c19/...04b45ebc65.png


  17. #242
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    23-04-22
    Posts
    141


    Country: India



    A new study: Assessing temporal and geographic contacts across the Adriatic Sea through the analysis of genome-wide data from Southern Italy


    Highlights

    • Complex interactions between the two sides of the Adriatic Sea unveiled from the genomes of present-day Southern Europeans

    • Uneven affinity between Neolithic Greeks and Southern Italians confirms the importance of post-Iron Age demographic events.

    Shared Iran Neolithic-related ancestry suggests gene flows along the Mediterranean Sea shores that started in the Bronze Age.

    • Putatively adaptive signals in Northern and Southern Italians associated with alcohol metabolism and immunological traits.


    Recently, the availability of ancient Southern European genomes helped in disentangling the dynamics of the early stages of the Pontic Steppe populations diffusion that occurred in the Bronze Age period [14,15]. Differently from the rest of Europe, Greece and Southern Italy appear to have been less impacted by this demic dispersal, being characterised by an additional Iranian-related ancestry.

  18. #243
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    17-03-16
    Posts
    581


    Country: Greece



    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    There was a massive movement of chariot using steppe groups after Sintashta developed actual, lichter chariots.
    They spread in all directions, which brought up Indo-Iranian expansions, including the Mitanni.
    In the West they crushed into Unetice, which was already under pressure from Tumulus culture in the West. Same for the Pannonian Tell cultures and Wietenberg, which got hit by Noua.
    Noua-Sabatinovka-Coslogeni is the main group for Central and South Eastern Europe and they pushed into the Carpathians and Balkans.
    Shortly after the Mycenaean Greeks come up and presumably the Central Eastern European ancestry in the Aegeans.
    And it is exactly at that time that chariots appear in the Aegean as well, for the first time.
    So Proto-Greeks seem to have been chariot using when coming to the Aegean, like many of the expanding groups around that time.
    You also see the great importance of chariots in the early Mycenaean culture.
    Maybe. But what has Catacomb culture have to do with it? Did they have chariots or wooden wagons? Do their wagon model has any parallels in Greece or the Balkans?

    The increase of 'Central Eastern European' ancestry can be important if there was an introduction of new Y-DNA lines.

    The chariot reached Egypt too with the Hyksos. (I personally say that the Retjenu Hyksos seem Aegean like but today the mainstream view is they were speaking a Semetic language, so we would have chariots and horse spreading with Semetic speakers too, or not?)

  19. #244
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    1,723


    Country: Austria



    Seima-Turbino just started in a similar way, because it spread the chariots and with the chariots too.

    Quote Originally Posted by A. Papadimitriou View Post
    Maybe. But what has Catacomb culture have to do with it? Did they have chariots or wooden wagons? Do their wagon model has any parallels in Greece or the Balkans?

    The increase of 'Central Eastern European' ancestry can be important if there was an introduction of new Y-DNA lines.
    The indication is that the mixed Balkan group was dominated by R-Z2103 and J2a. This is also what brings Catacomb/MCW into play, because it looks like this group had a stronger presence of R-Z2103 from their Yamnaya ancestors, unlike the later Cimmerians and Scythians, among which Sintashta related R1a began to drastically rise in frequency. Therefore, if they would descend from a Cimmerian or Iranian related group, we would expect way more R1a in Greeks and Armenians, but their main marker, in both people, is definitely R-Z2103.

    And we also know that MCW expanded in the direction of the Balkans/Greece, which brought them in the ideal position to spread this kind of "Central Eastern European" ancestry.

    The chariot reached Egypt too with the Hyksos. (I personally say that the Retjenu Hyksos seem Aegean like but today the mainstream view is they were speaking a Semetic language, so we would have chariots and horse spreading with Semetic speakers too, or not?)
    The Hyksos seem to have been a multi-ethnic alliance, which clearly got influenced by the chariot complex groups which entered from various directions the Near East, especially the Mitanni Iranians. Once the chariot appeared, it quickly spread and could be taken up by different people, so the first impact is the biggest one usually.
    In the case of the Proto-Greeks I'd say they definitely brought it to the Aegean, probably with earlier contacts and coming under pressure from Noua-Sabatinovka-Coslogeni themselves.

    Just like the LBA collapse scenario, we're dealing with a chain event of one group pushing the other.

    So to put it simple, I expect the pre-Greek Aegeans to have little R-Z2103, but it should have rosen to higher levels (not that high though!) in the MBA-LBA transition, together with the more Northern/steppe shift and the introduction of chariots.

  20. #245
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    14-06-17
    Posts
    243


    Country: United Kingdom



    Quote Originally Posted by A. Papadimitriou View Post
    I personally say that the Retjenu Hyksos seem Aegean like
    Why do you think that? It would fit nicely with Greek mythology, Danaus etc.

  21. #246
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    14-06-17
    Posts
    243


    Country: United Kingdom



    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    So to put it simple, I expect the pre-Greek Aegeans to have little R-Z2103, but it should have rosen to higher levels (not that high though!) in the MBA-LBA transition, together with the more Northern/steppe shift and the introduction of chariots.
    There was already an influx of steppe ancestry around 2000 BC:

    "Middle Bronze Age individuals of northern Greece differ from Early Bronze Age populations in showing ∼50% Pontic-Caspian Steppe-related ancestry, dated at ca. 2,600-2,000 BCE. ... The timing of such gene flow into the ancestors of the Helladic-Middle Bronze Age ought to have occurred by ∼1,900 BCE.

    - Clemente et al. 2021

  22. #247
    Advisor Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    21,250


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    1 members found this post helpful.
    For the record, we've been saying on this site for years, or at least I have, that the Mycenaeans were probably R-Z103.

    I also found any relationship between the Proto-Greeks and Corded Ware somewhat unlikely, positing that they most likely stemmed from Catacomb Culture and thus ultimately Yamnaya.

    We'll see what the Reich paper shows.

  23. #248
    Advisor Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    21,250


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    1 members found this post helpful.
    The 50% figure is only if you limit it to two groups.

    Also from Clemente et al:

    "The primary feature distinguishing the Helladic-Logkas-MBA from the contemporary Minoan-Lasithi-MBA, as well as from the EBA populations, is the higher proportion of “European HG-like” ancestry. For instance, in ADMIXTURE, the “European HG-like” component accounts for 26%–34% of the overall Logkas ancestry, more than four times greater than the 2%–6% found in the Aegean EBA individuals (Figure 3). Similarly, in qpWave/qpAdm, a Helladic-Logkas-MBA individual (Log04) was consistent with a 3-way admixture model, deriving ∼58% of her ancestry from Aegean Neolithic populations; the remaining ancestry can be attributed to CHG-like and EHG-like sources (accounting for ∼16% and ∼27%, respectively)—that is, having a much greater contribution from EHG as compared to the EBA Aegeans (Table 3). Because EHG and CHG are the major components of Steppe-related populations (e.g., Steppe_EMBA with 66% EHG-like and 34% IranN/CHG-like0 (Figure 3), consistent with previous results (de Barros Damgaard et al., 2018), this supports the hypothesis that populations from the Pontic-Caspian Steppe contributed to the ancestry of the Helladic-Logkas-MBA individuals. This combined ancestry has been observed in central, western, and northern BA Europeans and interpreted as the result of a “massive” Steppe migration (Allentoft et al., 2015; Haak et al., 2015; Jones et al., 2015; Mathieson et al., 2018; Olalde et al., 2019). Our ADMIXTURE estimates are consistent with an increase of EHG components in the Late Neolithic and EBA in most regions of Europe, including in the Balkans (Figure 3; Document S1). Yet, in Anatolia, such an increase in EHG-like ancestry is residual, and in the Aegean, it is only seen later in the MBA (Helladic-Logkas-MBA) and LBA (Mycenaean) individuals, suggesting a later arrival of Steppe-related ancestry in the Aegean."



  24. #249
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    1,723


    Country: Austria



    Quote Originally Posted by Philjames100 View Post
    There was already an influx of steppe ancestry around 2000 BC:

    "Middle Bronze Age individuals of northern Greece differ from Early Bronze Age populations in showing ∼50% Pontic-Caspian Steppe-related ancestry, dated at ca. 2,600-2,000 BCE. ... The timing of such gene flow into the ancestors of the Helladic-Middle Bronze Age ought to have occurred by ∼1,900 BCE.

    - Clemente et al. 2021
    The earliest IE which moved through might have been the Anatolians though and related to the Cernavoda complex which entered the region of Troy as well. This is of course a major issue for the PIE debate, which makes the sites around Troy and Cernavoda key cultural formations without which any sort of debate about the Proto-Anatolians is a failure.

    Interestingly, those came with Corded decorated Western groups, which might not have been dominated by R-Z2103 like the steppe ancestors of Greco-Armenian. What hg's they had, well, R1a likely, but we don't really know. Usatovo and Corded Ware, both part of the Corded decorated ceramic groups of the Western steppe, had R1a, and Sredny Stog will also have it.

  25. #250
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    1,723


    Country: Austria



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    Yet, in Anatolia, such an increase in EHG-like ancestry is residual, and in the Aegean, it is only seen later in the MBA (Helladic-Logkas-MBA) and LBA (Mycenaean) individuals, suggesting a later arrival of Steppe-related ancestry in the Aegean."
    That's key. It seems to have been like the Sea Peoples in Egypt: The Aegeans bought/fought them off and they moved on to Anatolia (Cernavoda-related early groups). Some Sea Peoples groups also moved around some heavily fortified or difficult to take areas, just to pop up much more to the South-South East. Same here.

    The key transition for the Aegean happened later, in the MBA-LBA transition, when these chariot riding R-Z2103 carrying Catacomb/MCW related groups came in and kind of broke the resistence, fused with the locals.

Page 10 of 48 FirstFirst ... 8910111220 ... 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
  •