David Reich Southern Arc Paper Abstract

Riverman said:
Yes.



Currently it looks like we can observe a combined effect of:
- Provincials moving South, when the Roman rule began to collapse. This was a real and fairly large movement of people as well.
- Germanics came in, which included not just "pure", but also mixed Germanics and again provincials, of which many fled with them, away from the steppe invaders and Slavs.
- There was resurgance from the local rural Italian population, from areas with lowered Levantine admixture.
- Also there was continuous lower level gene flow from the Frankish (German-French sphere) into Italy from Medieval times onwards.

I think all 4 effects need to be combined for properly explaining the backshift. However, how big each of this effects actually was, because all of them are real, is still up to debate.
Click to expand...

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.

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.

I have seen no actual documentation for all these provincials fleeing south, but that has never stopped you from speculating wildly before, so I doubt it will stop you now.

That lower level gene flow, for which neither you nor anyone else can assign a number, went into the elite strata. They didn't bother with the likes of us. We supported the merchants of the communes, and we gave short shrift to any of these foreign "Lords".
 
Angela said:
I completely agree with everything you just said.

If you'll permit me a suggestion, only listen to what used to be called, the "lawtubers". No politics, no posturing and creating division, no standing on some ethical soapbox, just sober, reasoned, logical, legal analysis by people who actually paid attention to Con Law in law school, and got in on merit.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I checked out the lawtubers, some of those attorneys I have become familiar with on Rekieta Law which was a very good site and on the mark regarding the Kyle Rittenberg trial, where I first became familiar with them. So that seems like a good site to go to only look at the facts of the case based on what the law is, not my personal political views.
 
Palermo Trapani said:
Ok, so if I have your hypothesis correct, the Proto-Greeks you are referring to would be the ones who brought in Indo European languages which the Greek language derived from. Is that correct?
Click to expand...

I have hard time to put proto-Greeks in Carpathian basin together with proto-Italians, while their closest language connection is with Armenian language.



Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum
 
Palermo Trapani said:
Angela: Since your post 227 followed mine in 226, just for transparency, my post 226 should be seen in context 221, which responded with some comments and question in my post 222, and then in response to post 224. I have several times posted the Lazaradis et al 2014 results regarding the 4 Myceneans and it seems to me, the genetic admixture of those 4 samples seems to not be what "Some segments" of the blogsphere and other genetics sites were happy with, that is the 4 Myceneans only harbored 4% to 16% Steppe ancestry.

So just for full transparency, I keep quoting that paper because the results fly in the face of all the nonsense I have listened to now for 50 plus years. I would like someone to just spell out what they think about the 4 Mycenean samples having only 4% to 16% Steppe Admixture and quit dancing around it. For example, do the Steppe dogmatist still hold to the notion that the Myceneans from other sites are going to harbor Steppe admixture similar to what is found in Northern Europeans, or even Central for that matter. Do they think these 4 Myceneans in the Laz et al 2014 paper are outliers?

So I am just looking for some of the Steppe dogmatist to state what they think clearly regarding the Myceneans.

Cheers and yes, I know what you are taking about regarding Constitutional law. I have been on some youtube channels listening to lots of nonsense regarding the SCOTUS decision today.
Click to expand...

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
 
blevins13 said:
I have hard time to put proto-Greeks in Carpathian basin together with proto-Italians, while their closest language connection is with Armenian language.



Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum
Click to expand...

Probably rather around West steppe-Bulgaria than Carpathian basin.
 
Angela said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

https://historum.com/threads/transi...oricum-ripense-in-the-late-5th-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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Riverman said:
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/transi...oricum-ripense-in-the-late-5th-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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Angela said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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:
image004.jpg


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.
 
enter_tain said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 :)
 
Aahmes said:
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 :)
Click to expand...

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.
 
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

hslHBQe


hslHBQe
 
blevins13 said:
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
Click to expand...

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).
 
brick said:
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?


yJTj8Qd.png



Greeks for comparison
Click to expand...

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.
 
Palermo Trapani said:
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).
Click to expand...

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
 
Riverman said:
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/transi...oricum-ripense-in-the-late-5th-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.
Click to expand...

"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
 
blevins13 said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.

TargetDistanceAnatolian_NIberomaurusianNatufianSSAWHG-like_Brunn_am_GebirgeYamnaya_Samara
Portugal:portugal120.89348287•42.54.40.90.035.017.2
Portugal:portugal111.01557753•29.74.07.90.039.419.0
Portugal:portugal21.23382741•42.57.80.60.031.118.0
French_Provence-Provance41091.27023453•34.21.00.40.042.721.7
French_Provence-Provance45091.34354027•32.80.00.00.042.824.4
Portugal:portugal101.36019038•35.34.75.20.038.016.8
Portugal:portugal71.44792228•34.54.15.70.038.816.9
Portugal:portugal31.50341398•41.75.61.90.034.816.0
French_Provence-Provance27081.64619513•50.40.02.00.022.824.8
Portugal:portugal11.80834964•36.06.10.00.043.614.3
French_Provence-Provance25081.83906005•41.80.00.00.032.126.1
N_Italy_HGDP:HGDP011542.23833844•46.60.00.00.030.023.4
Portugal:portugal92.28045923•36.05.41.40.042.614.6
Portugal:portugal132.57799532•39.65.00.00.038.616.8
Portugal:portugal62.60491111•31.97.70.30.046.713.4
N_Italy_HGDP:HGDP011732.93161989•51.30.00.00.031.317.4
Duarte2.93923242•36.96.40.03.240.313.2
Tuscan_HGDP:HGDP011673.10441306•67.00.00.00.07.525.5
N_Italy_HGDP:HGDP011743.30738292•56.30.00.00.026.816.9
N_Italy_HGDP:HGDP011533.34184042•54.60.00.00.031.713.7
N_Italy_HGDP:HGDP011723.42592724•55.90.00.00.025.119.0
N_Italy_HGDP:HGDP011713.63781282•54.20.00.00.030.415.4
Galicia_1000Genomes3.74300055•37.44.90.00.050.17.6
French_Provence-Provance44094.13116750•29.90.00.00.034.635.5
Baleares_1000Genomes4.20189833•43.31.40.00.047.38.0
N_Italy_HGDP:HGDP011524.30641062•54.70.00.00.027.018.3
Tuscan_HGDP:HGDP011634.50106572•66.40.00.00.08.724.9
Tuscan_HGDP:HGDP011644.56102006•65.70.00.00.09.225.1
N_Italy_HGDP:HGDP011564.64473910•57.60.00.00.030.312.1
N_Italy_HGDP:HGDP011554.96247697•58.20.00.00.026.215.6
N_Italy_HGDP:HGDP011575.07634153•52.40.00.00.030.716.9
Portuguese_D5.36279350•34.98.40.00.050.06.7


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
 
Angela said:
I'm not going to go over and over this. Most of the Szolad samples
Click to expand...

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.
 
Riverman said:
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/eaa2021/repository/preview.php?Abstract=2323
Click to expand...

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?
 
A. Papadimitriou said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 205443 times.

Back
Top