Maciamo

Veteran member
Admin
Messages
9,861
Reaction score
3,134
Points
113
Location
Lothier
Ethnic group
Italo-celto-germanic
The Antonio et al. (2019) paper on Ancient Rome was released 2 and a half months ago, so I am coming a bit late for the analysis, but I had been busy before.

Using the Dodecad K12b data provided by Jovialis, I created a table of the 11 Iron Age samples from this study.

IDDateY-DNAGedrosiaSiberiaNW AfricanSE AsiaAtlanticMedNorth
Europe
South AsiaEast
Africa
SW AsiaEast
Asia
CaucasusSSA
R1 (Protovillanovan)Martinsicuro930-839 BCE5.021.781.330,0035.0826.460,000,005.430,0024.500.4
R1015 (Villanovan)Veio Grotta Gramiccia900-800 BCE-1.560.192.850,0047.1521.660,000,005.460,0020.850,00
R1016 (Latin)Castel di Decima900-700 BCER1b3.860.981.530.1947.2320.371.430,003.310,0021.100,00
R1021 (Latin)Boville Ernica700-600 BCER1b2.110,001.960.647.7024.040,000,001.330,0022.260,00
R435 (Latin)Palestrina Colombella600-200 BCER1b4.840.640.650,0047.1228.540.150,004.130,0013.400.53
R437 (Latin)Palestrina Selicata400-200 BCER1b6.450,003.030,0033.1911.940,000,0011.630,0033.740.02
R473 (Etruscan)Civitavecchia700-600 BCE-1,000,000.680.1547.2622.790,000.217.390.2120.170.34
R474 (Etruscan)Civitavecchia700-600 BCEJ2b7.180.172.380,0039.0825.740,000,005.980,0018.840.66
R475 (Etruscan)Civitavecchia700-600 BCE-0,000,0013.010,0038.1212.140.371.9811.260,0022.700.42
R850 (Greek)Ardea800-500 BCET1a7.300,004.521,0021.2610.540,000.4314.770,0040.100,00
R851 (Latin)Ardea800-500 BCER1b1.590,001.390,0049.2824.970,000.141.930,0020.260.45

R437 from Palestrina Selicata appears to be an indigenous Campanian, possibly of (partial) Greek origin, that was assimilated by Latin tribes. Or someone with mixed ancestry. R850 is clearly an Aegean Greek immigrant (very similar to modern Cretans).

Analysing admixtures

What struck me at first is the presence of Mongoloid admixture in most samples (only R437, R475 and R851 lack it). This is mostly Siberian admixture, but there are also traces of East Asian and Southeast Asian. This alludes to a sort of ancient Altaic admixture. It peaks at 1.78% in the Protovillanovan individual, who is the oldest, and would be a relatively new arrival to Italy. Does that mean that the Proto-Italics possessed some kind of Siberian admixture, which spread throughout Italy and faded as they intermingled with locals? Nowadays it's so diluted as to be virtually undetectable among modern Italians (bar a few exceptions).

The second intriguing thing is the presence of Northwest African and Southwest Asian admixture in all samples. The combination of these two admixtures, combined with elevated Caucasus admixture, first made me think of the Carthaginians. Modern and Bronze Age Lebanese have high Southwest Asian and Caucasian admixture with some Gedrosian. But they also possess some Northwest African. This is surely a component that was originally Levantine and brought to Northwest Africa by the Phoenicians/Carthaginians - not actual Northwest African genes that travelled to the Near East. But why would all Iron Age Italians possess Levantine admixture, since the Phoenician did colonise the Italian peninsula (only parts of Sicily and Sardinia)?

I had a look at modern Greeks K12b admixtures. Most Greek have only traces of NW African admixture. But those from Crete (and presumably some other Aegean islands) possess 2.6% of it. They also have higher Southwest Asian admixture (14.5%) than the Greek average (10%). So could it be mixed Greek ancestry in all these samples? The Aegean-looking sample from Ardea (R850) has the most Southwest Asian (14.8%) and Northwest African (4.5%), not far from that of modern Cretans. Other samples, the proportion of Southwest Asian to Northwest African varies a lot though. Some samples have more NW African than SW Asian.

One odd case is the R475 Etruscan from Civitavecchia, displaying as much as 13% of NW African, with also considerable SW Asian (11%) and Caucasus (22.5%). As Civitavecchia is a coastal city that had trade links with North Africa in Etruscan times, I would think that this individual has mixed Carthaginian and Etruscan ancestry. This individual has also 2.5% of East Africa + Sub-Saharan Africa, and that would be more likely if that person had actual North African roots (Northwest African native mixed with Phoenician) blended with Etruscan.
 
Etruscans vs Italics

I have been thinking about the origins of the Etruscans. Seeing how similar the Etruscans are with the Latins or Villanovans, I imagined the following scenario.

R1b Italic tribes crossed the Alps from Central Europe and spread over the Italian peninsula, mixing with the locals. The new hybrid populations had to choose one of the two languages, either local or Italic. In some areas, presumably where indigenous people were slightly more numerous or better established politically (in fertile agricultural plains), the local Etruscan language remained dominant in the new hybrid population. In other areas, apparently the mountainous and hilly parts of the peninsula better suited to the more nomadic Indo-European lifestyle, Italic tribes became socially dominant and imposed their language on the locals.

In both cases, the new population was a hybrid of Italics and locals (Etruscans or related tribes), but in some region one language was chosen, while in others it was the other language.

Perhaps the merger of the two population was more gradual, with Italic women progressively marrying to neighbouring Etruscan tribes, while Etruscan women married into Italic tribes. That would explain why Latin samples were overwhelmingly R1b, while the only Etruscan Y-DNA so far was J2b.
 
Maciamo, I would not take too literally the results of an old calculator whose components are based on modern samples and has been created before the discovery of the various ancestral components (EEF, WHG, CHG, EHG...). Also the EEF ancient samples from Germany, Austria and Hungary get NW African, SW Asian and Caucasus on K12b, and these components also remain in Bronze Age samples, traces of these components are also found in the Bell Beaker samples from Southern Europe. These components on K12b are not always the sign of recent admixing.


LBK, Stuttgart (Neolithic of Germany)


Gedrosia-
Siberian-
Northwest_African3.82 Pct
Southeast_Asian0.07 Pct
Atlantic_Med54.93 Pct
North_European0.12 Pct
South_Asian-
East_African-
Southwest_Asian10.79 Pct
East_Asian-
Caucasus30.28 Pct
Sub_Saharan-


NE1, Hungary (Neolithic of Hungary)


Gedrosia-
Siberian-
Northwest_African2.79 Pct
Southeast_Asian-
Atlantic_Med49.89 Pct
North_European4.69 Pct
South_Asian-
East_African-
Southwest_Asian12.89 Pct
East_Asian-
Caucasus29.69 Pct
Sub_Saharan-


Also the ANF from Barcin get both NW African and SW Asian and high Caucasus.

I0707 Anatolian Neolithic Barcin 6500-6200 BCE

Gedrosia-
Siberian-
Northwest_African2.27 Pct
Southeast_Asian-
Atlantic_Med48.48 Pct
North_European-
South_Asian-
East_African-
Southwest_Asian12.16 Pct
East_Asian-
Caucasus37.05 Pct
Sub_Saharan-


I0709 Anatolian Neolithic Barcin H2-M282 6500-6200 BCE


Gedrosia-
Siberian-
Northwest_African1.60 Pct
Southeast_Asian-
Atlantic_Med52.11 Pct
North_European-
South_Asian-
East_African-
Southwest_Asian13.31 Pct
East_Asian-
Caucasus32.85 Pct
Sub_Saharan0.13 Pct


The presence of non completely native people between Latins and Etruscans is not so strange. The study itself assumes that they are partly of foreign origin. Also because the study chose to analyze some necropolises, particularly in the Etruscan case, which were located in commercial outposts. The necropolis of Civitavecchia "La Mattonara" is on the sea, it was a commercial outpost in particular with Sardinia. It is through the Phoenician colonies of Sardinia that trade between Etruscans and Phoenicians mainly takes place. Just as we know that the Latins had also their orientalizing phase thanks mainly to contacts with Campania and in Latium vetus there were foreigners. We still do not know if the oldest inscription found in Latium vetus (Osteria dell'Osa) is written in Greek or Latin.

Clearly only subsequent studies can tell us how common these foreign presences were among Latins and Etruscans.
 
Last edited:
The ancient Icelandic, Anglo-Saxon gladiators, Iron age Irish, Mycenaen, and the WHG/ la Brana sample, etc. score also Subsaharan African, etc. on gedmatch. According to Davidski is not a real admixture but a pseudo-African signal due to post mortem damage of the DNA. So I don‘t really trust the calculatorS like gedmatch or K12b to be accurate when it comes to determining the admixture of ancient people. Besides Neanderthals score on gedmatch around 90% and on K13 around 80% Subsaharan African. Just saying.
 
I have been thinking about the origins of the Etruscans. Seeing how similar the Etruscans are with the Latins or Villanovans, I imagined the following scenario.

R1b Italic tribes crossed the Alps from Central Europe and spread over the Italian peninsula, mixing with the locals. The new hybrid populations had to choose one of the two languages, either local or Italic. In some areas, presumably where indigenous people were slightly more numerous or better established politically (in fertile agricultural plains), the local Etruscan language remained dominant in the new hybrid population. In other areas, apparently the mountainous and hilly parts of the peninsula better suited to the more nomadic Indo-European lifestyle, Italic tribes became socially dominant and imposed their language on the locals.

In both cases, the new population was a hybrid of Italics and locals (Etruscans or related tribes), but in some region one language was chosen, while in others it was the other language.

Perhaps the merger of the two population was more gradual, with Italic women progressively marrying to neighbouring Etruscan tribes, while Etruscan women married into Italic tribes. That would explain why Latin samples were overwhelmingly R1b, while the only Etruscan Y-DNA so far was J2b.


We have to wait for the other paper that also tested Etruscans to get some more insight concerning the Etruscans. According to some leaks some Etruscan samples were R1b and one even I1. None of the Etruscan samples showed North African admixture like the Etruscan outlier in the Moots study.
 
We have to wait for the other paper that also tested Etruscans to get some more insight concerning the Etruscans. According to some leaks some Etruscan samples were R1b and one even I1. None of the Etruscan samples showed North African admixture like the Etruscan outlier in the Moots study.

which other paper?
 
From the paper:

"Although we were able to model eight of the 11 individuals as two-way mixtures of Copper Age central Italians and a Steppe-related population (~24 to 38%) using qpAdm, this model was rejected for the other three individuals (p < 0.001; table S16). Instead, two individuals from Latin sites (R437 and R850) can be modeled as a mixture between local people and an ancient Near Eastern population (best approximated by Bronze Age Armenian or Iron Age Anatolian; tables S17 and S18). An Etruscan individual (R475) carries significant African ancestry identified by f-statistics (|Z-score|>3; fig. S2, 3)."

The R437 sample has some degree of such ancestry, and R850 about half.

It should be kept in mind that these are very early periods, so we are seeing that by the Iron Age Latins were absorbing some "Iran Neo" ancestry, although, `as the study makes clear, there was already some Iran Neo like ancestry already in Italy in the Neolithic.

This is all reflected in the relevant PCAs in the paper.

As for the "identity" of these samples, there is no question. They were members of local tribes.

bfTsUI7.png


6n7D6tB.png
 
R850 and Ardea, the Rutuli people

Some say he was cretan others cypriot ..............latest a Duanian from Foggia or from Greek Argos .....................no ones knows

from site
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper...t=true&q=rutuli&doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0064


RU´TULI

Eth. RU´TULI (Eth. Ῥούτουλοι), a people of ancient Italy, who, according to a tradition generally received in later times, were settled at a very early period in a part of Latium, adjoining the sea-coast, their capital city being Ardea. The prominent part that they and their king Turnus bear in the legendary history of Aeneas and the Trojan settlement, especially in the form in which this has been worked up by Virgil, has given great celebrity to their name, but they appear to have been, in fact, even according to these very traditions, a small and unimportant people. Their king Turnus himself is represented as dependent on Latinus; and it is certain that in the historical period Ardea was one of the cities of the Latin League (Dionys. A. R. 5.61), while the name of the Rutuli had become merged in that of the Latin people. Not long before this indeed Livy represents the Rutuli as a still existing people, and the arms of Tarquinius Superbus as directed against them when he proceeded to attack Ardea, just before his expulsion. (Liv. 1.56, 57.) According to this narrative Ardea was not taken, but we learn from much better authority (the treaty between Rome and Carthage preserved by Polybius, 3.22) that it had fallen under the power of the Romans before the close of the monarchy, and it is possible that the extinction of the Rutuli as an independent people may date from this period. The only other mention of the Rutuli which can be called historical is that their name is found in the list given by Cato (ap. Priscian. 4.4. p. 629) of the cities that took part in the foundation of the celebrated temple of Diana at Aricia, a list in all probability founded upon some ancient record; and it is remarkable that they here figure as distinct from the Ardeates. There were some obscure traditions in antiquity that represented Ardea as founded by a colony from Argos [ARDEA], and these are regarded by Niebuhr as tending to prove that the Rutuli were a Pelasgic race. (Nieb. vol. i. p. 44, vol. ii. p. 21.) Schwegler, on the other hand considers them as connected with the Etruscans, and probably a relic of the period when that people had extended their dominion throughout Latium and Campania. This theory finds some support in the name of Turnus, which may probably be connected with Tyrrhenus, as well as in the union which the legend represents as subsisting between Turnus and the Etruscan king Mezentius. (Schwegler, Röm. Gesch. vol. i. pp. 330, 331.) But the whole subject is so mixed up with fable and poetical invention, that it is impossible to feel confidence in any such conjectures.



http://real.mtak.hu/44351/1/068.2015.55.1-4.26.pdf
 
R850 and Ardea, the Rutuli people

Some say he was cretan others cypriot ..............latest a Duanian from Foggia or from Greek Argos .....................no ones knows

RU´TULI

Eth. RU´TULI (Eth. Ῥούτουλοι), a people of ancient Italy, who, according to a tradition generally received in later times, were settled at a very early period in a part of Latium, adjoining the sea-coast, their capital city being Ardea. The prominent part that they and their king Turnus bear in the legendary history of Aeneas and the Trojan settlement, especially in the form in which this has been worked up by Virgil, has given great celebrity to their name, but they appear to have been, in fact, even according to these very traditions, a small and unimportant people. Their king Turnus himself is represented as dependent on Latinus; and it is certain that in the historical period Ardea was one of the cities of the Latin League (Dionys. A. R. 5.61), while the name of the Rutuli had become merged in that of the Latin people. Not long before this indeed Livy represents the Rutuli as a still existing people, and the arms of Tarquinius Superbus as directed against them when he proceeded to attack Ardea, just before his expulsion. (Liv. 1.56, 57.) According to this narrative Ardea was not taken, but we learn from much better authority (the treaty between Rome and Carthage preserved by Polybius, 3.22) that it had fallen under the power of the Romans before the close of the monarchy, and it is possible that the extinction of the Rutuli as an independent people may date from this period. The only other mention of the Rutuli which can be called historical is that their name is found in the list given by Cato (ap. Priscian. 4.4. p. 629) of the cities that took part in the foundation of the celebrated temple of Diana at Aricia, a list in all probability founded upon some ancient record; and it is remarkable that they here figure as distinct from the Ardeates. There were some obscure traditions in antiquity that represented Ardea as founded by a colony from Argos [ARDEA], and these are regarded by Niebuhr as tending to prove that the Rutuli were a Pelasgic race. (Nieb. vol. i. p. 44, vol. ii. p. 21.) Schwegler, on the other hand considers them as connected with the Etruscans, and probably a relic of the period when that people had extended their dominion throughout Latium and Campania. This theory finds some support in the name of Turnus, which may probably be connected with Tyrrhenus, as well as in the union which the legend represents as subsisting between Turnus and the Etruscan king Mezentius. (Schwegler, Röm. Gesch. vol. i. pp. 330, 331.) But the whole subject is so mixed up with fable and poetical invention, that it is impossible to feel confidence in any such conjectures.



http://real.mtak.hu/44351/1/068.2015.55.1-4.26.pdf

Why don't you stick to the archaeology and leave ancient myths out of it, as well as the "some" and "others" from other sites who are doubtless racists just like the Sizzi you seem to like to follow.
 
Why don't you stick to the archaeology and leave ancient myths out of it, as well as the "some" and "others" from other sites who are doubtless racists just like the Sizzi you seem to like to follow.

Why do you follow Sizzi .............I cannot even read or understand what he writes ,only lately I knew about him, how long have you followed him? ............I only follow the spaniard, https://indo-european.eu/ ...........but, you can follow whoever you like be it sizzi, or apricity ( whatever they are called , more racists ) and the others you always mention.....I do not know why you keep mentioning apricity ..............do you also follow Eurogenes ?
 
What struck me at first is the presence of Mongoloid admixture in most samples (only R437, R475 and R851 lack it). This is mostly Siberian admixture, but there are also traces of East Asian and Southeast Asian. This alludes to a sort of ancient Altaic admixture. It peaks at 1.78% in the Protovillanovan individual, who is the oldest, and would be a relatively new arrival to Italy. Does that mean that the Proto-Italics possessed some kind of Siberian admixture, which spread throughout Italy and faded as they intermingled with locals? Nowadays it's so diluted as to be virtually undetectable among modern Italians (bar a few exceptions).

Is there any possibility the admixture might come from mycenaean or cimmerian? I think the mycenaean clearly have altai culture, especially seima turbino.
 
Why do you follow Sizzi .............I cannot even read or understand what he writes ,only lately I knew about him, how long have you followed him? ............I only follow the spaniard, https://indo-european.eu/ ...........but, you can follow whoever you like be it sizzi, or apricity ( whatever they are called , more racists ) and the others you always mention.....I do not know why you keep mentioning apricity ..............do you also follow Eurogenes ?

I've never followed him. I certainly never quoted him.

The only mention I ever made of him is that I heard here on the site that the Dodecad "updated" Italian samples were published by him and that he had a reputation as a racist and perhaps we shouldn't use his samples.

You're the one who quoted him; as you're the only Lega Nord voter here to my knowledge, the party always supported by North Italian racists. So, don't throw stones when you live in a glass house, buddy.

Oh, you're also the self proclaimed expert on Italian issues who can't freaking read Italian and so can't even read archaeological papers by Italian specialists.

Please....
 
I've never followed him. I certainly never quoted him.

The only mention I ever made of him is that I heard here on the site that the Dodecad "updated" Italian samples were published by him and that he had a reputation as a racist and perhaps we shouldn't use his samples.

You're the one who quoted him; as you're the only Lega Nord voter here to my knowledge, the party always supported by North Italian racists. So, don't throw stones when you live in a glass house, buddy.

Oh, you're also the self proclaimed expert on Italian issues who can't freaking read Italian and so can't even read archaeological papers by Italian specialists.

Please....

You need to cease your snide remarks.... as i said, i looked at this sizzi site you mentioned and there is no dodecad stuff on it, so you made another false claim....so what maciano placed on site has nothing to do with sizzi.....but you seemed to not like the results from maciano
 
We have to wait for the other paper that also tested Etruscans to get some more insight concerning the Etruscans. According to some leaks some Etruscan samples were R1b and one even I1. None of the Etruscan samples showed North African admixture like the Etruscan outlier in the Moots study.

I would like to know what these leaks are, what paper are you talking about, and when is it coming out?
 
I followed what Maciamo did with the Where do Medieval Romans come from? for the Iron Age. R475 really has no good fits. The closest is Corsica with a Distance of 16. I ran Dodecad12B modern Populations and Jovialis Roman Sample and then used the Roman Sample (Iron) Age as Target. Most of the Iron Age romans are highly correlated with other Iron Age. R437 is close to Campania, Abruzzo, Sicily and Calabria. Maybe Maciamo and do the complete analsyis and post it here. I posted R475's top 25. Nothing under 5, and not even 10.

Distance to:R475__Iron_Age_____Civitavecchia
13.49398147France_Corsica
13.55643021R1287_Medieval_Era_Cancelleria
14.67900882R80___Imperial_Era__Viale_Rossini_Necropolis
15.06058432R120__Late_Antiquity_S_Ercolano_Necropolis_Ostia
15.25677882R118__Late_Antiquity_S_Ercolano_Necropolis_Ostia
15.31375525R1285_Medieval_Era_Cancelleria
15.75102854R1283_Medieval_Era_Cancelleria
15.93669351R52___Medieval_Era_Villa_Magna
16.11976737R36___Late_Antiquity_Celio
16.39674358R111__Imperial_Era__Via_Paisiello_Necropolis
16.43507037Italy_Marche
16.75359066Italy_Romagna
16.82284756R113__Imperial_Era__Via_Paisiello_Necropolis
16.89979681Italy_Liguria
17.08167439R437__Iron_Age_____Palestrina_Selicata
17.09125303Italy_Tuscany
17.17303508Italy_Lazio
17.30316156R45___Imperial_Era__Isola_Sacra_Necropolis
17.37391723R835__Imperial_Era__Civitanova_Marche
17.39525223R35___Late_Antiquity_Celio
17.55145863R47___Imperial_Era__Centocelle_Necropolis
17.59474353R122__Late_Antiquity_S_Ercolano_Necropolis_Ostia
17.67040778Italy_Emilia
17.67228904R107__Late_Antiquity_Crypta_Balbi
17.86512804R1015_Iron_Age_____Veio_Grotta_Gramiccia
 
I would like to know what these leaks are, what paper are you talking about, and when is it coming out?

Lets assume there were some R1 in the Estruscans. There are several potential explanations. Some R1 Men (Latin Speakers) married Estruscan women, etc, etc. So what exactly would this mean. The Kurgan-Steppe Hypothesis if you follow the routes shows an initial 3 prong split, 2 heading straight North and 1 movement of peoples that seem to mover further South then back up into what looks like Modern Hungary, then a group split and headed to what is modern NE Italy and entered Italy. Another group headed further North and then split into 2 other groups. So what peoples did those Pre-Latins run across on there way to Italy. If the Steppe migration from what I have read is modeled as 57% EHG and 45% CHG, is it possible that the further North you go with the Steppe migration, the more EHG you get, whereas to the South, you get a higher amount of CHG. Raveane et al (2019) paper does show a significant CHG component in Italy in most regions. The one Northern Sample the included in the paper (Figure 2) shows almost 70-75% EHG and very little CHG. So again, so what if R1B shows up in some Estruscan samples, that does not change the fact that all of Italy from North to South is characterized by significant Neolithic ancestry from Anatolia.
 
I fail to understand why anyone would imagine that an "Etruscan" person with from, say, 25% to 50% North African (R475), would be particularly close to any modern Italian samples whatsoever. Way too much mental garbage picked up from other sites, perhaps.

Surely it's more fruitful to look at the "typical" Etruscan samples.

Distance to:R473__Iron_Age_____Civitavecchia
5.78160877North_Italian
8.38279786N_Italian
8.87318996Baleares
11.14162017Galicia
12.35530251Murcia
12.82465984Extremadura
13.07071153Spaniards
13.12059831TSI30
13.36231642Andalucia
13.40997763Castilla_Y_Leon
13.81376849Portuguese
14.40643953Cataluna
14.67480494Spanish
15.05738689Tuscan
15.22069315Cantabria
15.23212067Castilla_La_Mancha
15.39107858Valencia
16.25906824Aragon
16.36995724Canarias
16.94150229O_Italian
18.67250920C_Italian
20.18145931French
20.79388853French
26.21925819Greek
26.97901777Sicilian

Distance to:R474__Iron_Age_____Civitavecchia
5.40006481N_Italian
8.09843195North_Italian
12.08194107Baleares
12.08642627O_Italian
12.12151393TSI30
12.76096000Galicia
13.43684859Extremadura
14.08415422Portuguese
14.15437388Tuscan
15.65916026Murcia
16.08680515Castilla_Y_Leon
16.41527642Cataluna
16.49286816French
16.51572887Spaniards
16.75588255French
16.81038964C_Italian
17.02408000Canarias
17.06224194Andalucia
17.42449138Spanish
18.93191221Castilla_La_Mancha
19.04844613Cantabria
19.33954239Valencia
20.46880309Aragon
20.79103894Romanians
21.47814936Bulgarians

sRwtJOC.png


That wasn't so hard. Not rocket science after all.

Or how about the only upper class Latin tribal samples:

rkB8gNB.png


Distance to:R1016_Iron_Age_____Castel_di_Decima
5.15760603North_Italian
7.87889586N_Italian
8.24389471Baleares
11.32371847Andalucia
11.42629424Galicia
11.95574339Murcia
12.07648128Extremadura
12.25715301TSI30
12.59229129Spaniards
12.99406788Castilla_Y_Leon
13.45805707Portuguese
14.10107088Tuscan
14.26729827Cataluna
14.36500609Spanish
14.53080865Valencia
14.78261817Castilla_La_Mancha
14.93880183Canarias
14.97183356Cantabria
15.63196725Aragon
16.57335814O_Italian
17.87135417C_Italian
21.26400715French
21.89108266French
26.17368526Greek
26.26928054Sicilian

Or, to go back to R437:

Distance to:R437__Iron_Age_____Palestrina_Selicata
4.59913035S_Italian_Sicilian
4.83577295Sicilian
6.62618291C_Italian
10.16248001Ashkenazi
10.49031935Tuscan
10.64005169Ashkenazy_Jews
11.26179382Greek
11.40172794Sephardic_Jews
11.72748055TSI30
11.99572424O_Italian
12.92229856Morocco_Jews
19.05535620N_Italian
19.48090090North_Italian
22.31406731Cypriots
25.38137112Turkish
25.88563308Bulgarian
25.93160234Bulgarians
27.15757721Romanians
27.42830655Lebanese
28.16090197Turks
28.45628226Baleares
29.54386569Canarias
29.68206361Syrians
30.21483080Murcia
30.27705732Galicia


To reiterate, this sample is from a Latin Tribe.
PseIjdX.png


The fact that it picked up some Anatolia Bronze or Copper Age ancestry, perhaps filtering up from Southern Italy, doesn't make the sample less Latin or Roman. These ancient people were infinitely less "racist" than some moderns, it appears.
 
A little experiment. The fits are not exceptional, but not ridiculous either - particularly the Prenestini's.

recXulR.png
 
Add in some Mycenaean, and the Etruscan fits improve perceptibly. Levant Bronze has very little impact.
Boville slightly impacted. Prenestini and Ardea not affected.


qcUcHS8.png
 
Add in some Mycenaean, and the Etruscan fits improve perceptibly. Levant Bronze has very little impact.
Boville slightly impacted. Prenestini and Ardea not affected.
qcUcHS8.png


These models with ancient populations that are not ancestral components do not make much sense. Improving the fit does not imply that the model is accurate. The average GRC_Mycenaean is still very EEF (68.6%) and this greatly influences the result.

i7KaCLf.png


oTgw6ay.png



G46zWmZ.png
 

This thread has been viewed 59265 times.

Back
Top