K12 Autosomal map : Mediterranean admixture (from Dodecad)

The HGDP samples were chosen by Cavalli-Sforza, and I think he chose to sample in southern Tuscany because he wanted samples from the more heavily "Etruscan" areas.

The rest of the Tuscan samples are confusing in terms of the source because of variable labeling. On K12b Dienekes uses that Tuscans(HGDP) sample, and then a TSI30 sample. He doesn't label the source for TSI as HapMap. He labels the source as Metspalu. I'm much closer in terms of fit to the TSI sample than to the Tuscan sample.

On the dv3 that's the subject of this thread, he uses all four Tuscan samples and labels TSI as Hap Map. Again, I'm closest to that sample. The other three are HGDP, Henn, Zing in that order. They all cluster in one group. The samples are labeled in terms of source, so New Englander should know the order.

I think you're right that really there are only 2 samples: HGDP from southern Tuscany, and TSI Hap Map, which I believe was taken from a village northeast of Firenze. Henn and Zing are just subsets of Hap Map.

I also looked at the population averages for a few of the calculators, and the TSI group is often 2 or 3 points less "Caucasus", for example, than HGDP. The Italian cline is always there, even within an individual province.

Dienekes really knew what he was doing. Too bad he lost interest.
 
As far as the map goes, how do we know things have not been screwed due to migration northwards from the South, as well as depopulation during the North American Migration. Meaning, those "Tuscan" samples might be from further south, just not as far south as Calabria.
 
my fathers as a full slovak is 19.92 % med, but i would expect my dad to have elevated med just based on his appearance, I do think the wallachian influence in slovakia could have elevated this trait.
 
As far as the map goes, how do we know things have not been screwed due to migration northwards from the South, as well as depopulation during the North American Migration. Meaning, those "Tuscan" samples might be from further south, just not as far south as Calabria.

All academic samples are checked to make sure that all four or at least three out of four grandparents are "local". If the sample was collected twenty years ago, for example, and the person was forty years old at the time, and all four grandparents were Tuscan, that takes you back before the time of the migrations north. That's why these results can be trusted, unlike random people who just post results on some site or other, which is what a lot of people used to do on 23andme, for example.

The thing about these "calculator" results is that it only approximates accuracy for those people whose ancestors are from one place for the last couple of hundreds of years. They're not very useful at all for admixed people, in my opinion, or adoptees, for example, who make up a lot of the market for these tests. If a customer doesn't already have a really good handle on their genealogical tree, these calculators are not going to provide the kind of clarity that people want.
 
Thank you for the explanation. I find the members on this forum to be very informative, and kind.

I honestly did not know where any of these samples come from. As far as I know, its just people putting stats together in there free time. If these are peer reviewed, Collegiate studies and data, what programs and what Schools are known for this type of research?
 
The HGDP samples were collected by Luigi Cavalli-Sforza, who I believe could be called the "father of population genetics". He collected them for Stanford University. A lot of really wonderful work is being done at the Broad Institute at Harvard, home of David Reich, Patterson, and Lazaridis. Haak is another respected researcher, and Allentoft, and the people at the Max Plank Institute and the Estonian BioCenter, and on and on.

There are also bloggers, the people who created the calculators people use at gedmatch. They use the statistical programs created by these scientists, and the samples collected by them as well. Dienekes was the first of them and really got the ball rolling. (He actually also collected some samples himself. I'm one of them.)

One general rule of thumb in terms of these calculators is that the more samples they have from your "country", the better your match will be, especially in a country like Italy. Some very interesting calculators have been created by a Kurd, whose work and transparency I respect, but they're pretty useless for half of Italy, because he only has some southern Italian samples. He has me coming out variously as Bulgarian and then Albanian. Pretty useless for some adoptee of Northern Italian ancestry, for example, searching for his ancestry, as I'm sure you can see.
 
All academic samples are checked to make sure that all four or at least three out of four grandparents are "local". If the sample was collected twenty years ago, for example, and the person was forty years old at the time, and all four grandparents were Tuscan, that takes you back before the time of the migrations north. That's why these results can be trusted, unlike random people who just post results on some site or other, which is what a lot of people used to do on 23andme, for example.

The thing about these "calculator" results is that it only approximates accuracy for those people whose ancestors are from one place for the last couple of hundreds of years. They're not very useful at all for admixed people, in my opinion, or adoptees, for example, who make up a lot of the market for these tests. If a customer doesn't already have a really good handle on their genealogical tree, these calculators are not going to provide the kind of clarity that people want.

Do you really think using people with 3/4 grandparents from a certain region, is a very scientific way of collecting data? I already see some quite critical changes in admixture from my father whose four grand parents were all from the same region and myself whose 3 grandparents are from one region. I personally wouldn't trust any study that didn't use samples that has proven all four grandparents were from one region or country.
 
Do you really think using people with 3/4 grandparents from a certain region, is a very scientific way of collecting data? I already see some quite critical changes in admixture from my father whose four grand parents were all from the same region and myself whose 3 grandparents are from one region. I personally wouldn't trust any study that didn't use samples that has proven all four grandparents were from one region or country.

I basically agree. Most academic papers do use the all 4 grandparents from one area rule, however. Academicians like Boattini use a surname filter as well, which is helpful in Italy because some surnames are indeed strongly localized.

In addition, most academicians "prune" their samples. It's sort of what 23andme does, which obviously can't check the assertions of their testees in the real world as to their ancestry when creating their reference samples. You can analyze the samples from a specific area as a group. Any outliers are probably going to stick out. Dienekes did something similar when he created the category "Other Italian". My recollection is that it was supposed to be a group of "Italians" from neighboring countries. (Could someone confirm or correct that?) The problem with it was, as he explained, that one of the samples in it had an unusual North East European score and so it's a questionable grouping which he didn't always use.
 
Does anyone know why Ashkenazi Jews plot so closely to Sicilians and Maltese?

It's true that Sicily had a significant Jewish population up to 1492, but it would only have been about 8% of the population at the most.

We must be talking about something which goes back into pre-history.

Anyone have any theories?

If the program has no sephatic jews, then Sicilians and maltese received many of these jews from 1480 onwards....usually from Valencia and Cadiz ...........or via spanish held Oman

oops meant Oran
 
If the program has no sephatic jews, then Sicilians and maltese received many of these jews from 1480 onwards....usually from Valencia and Cadiz ...........or via spanish held Oman

Could you please provide the academic sources for this?
 
From what I learned on Anthroscape.

Due to pre history Neolithic as well as Roman influence from around the Eastern Med, South Italy averages out to that of a mid point between Parts of the Middle East and Europe.

As far as Jews go, they are a mix of modern (past 2000 years) East Med populations (about 60%), Pre-slav Greeks (about 30%), and Central/Western Europe.

Most of the direct ancestry between Ashkenazim and Italians is from the Neolithic, and not a result of recent mixture. The rest comes from mixing with similar yet, unrelated NW Europeans.

Of course there has been intermarriage between Jews and Italians in the past 1000 years or so, but its not significant enough to mean anything.
 
no thanks

I do not trust you ..............like the fabricated warnings you recently gave me...........I cannot find them

Excuse me?

In terms of trust, when posters refuse to provide cites to support their assertions then we know we can't "trust" the validity of the assertion. We have a lot of readers here, and I think they can be "trusted" to read sources and see if they support the assertions another poster has made.

One more insult and you'll get an infraction, and I'll give you one infraction for every insult you utter. I'm tired of different rules being applied to you because you've been here for so long.

If you can't conduct yourself in a civil, manner, don't post.
 
From what I learned on Anthroscape.

Due to pre history Neolithic as well as Roman influence from around the Eastern Med. South Italy averages out to that of a mid point between Parts of the Middle East and Europe.

As far as Jews go, they are a mix of modern (past 2000 years) East Med populations (about 60%), Pre-slav Greeks (about 30%), and Central/Western Europe.

Most of the direct ancestry between Ashkenazim and Italians are from the Neolithic, and not a result of recent mixture. The rest comes from mixing with similar yet, unrelated NW Europeans.

Of course there has been intermarriage between Jews and Italians in the past 1000 years or so, but its not significant enough to mean anything.

I personally wouldn't put much credence on things posted on anthroscape.

We've had a lot of discussions here on Ashkenazi ethnogenesis. My advice would be to just use the search engine, concentrating on the most recent threads. Bottom line, no one knows precisely what happened, other than that they've been bottlenecked since sometime around 1000 BC.

Southern Italian ethnogenesis is still a bit of a mystery too, in my opinion, and will be until we get lots of ancient dna from there. Even then it might be difficult: how can you tell if the remains are from merchants, slaves who didn't procreate, etc. or from people who actually did contribute to the mix? It has to be interpreted carefully.

My own personal theory is that southern Italians plot differently from mainland Greeks, as one example, because they have about 4% North African in some areas (less in others) which probably arrived during the Muslim domination.
 
Oh, I posted this on another thread, but in case you don't see it there.

This is a spreadsheet for both ancient and modern genomes. The breakdown of the Italian samples is very interesting, especially in comparison, for example, to the mainland Greek and Ashkenazi samples. You can see why the Ashkenazi might plot close to southern Italians, but you can also see the differences in terms of ancient gene flows. Very interesting. There's lots of interesting stuff in there: Remedello, Otzi, the various Neolithic groups, Anatolia Chalcolithic showing CHG had already arrived along with some EHG etc. The Spanish samples are very variable, but generally speaking perhaps one could say the Iran Neolithic and CHG numbers, and the higher North African numbers are offset by their Loschbour numbers.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...VkZnFNb4XUVX7TT_HEZz-IFdk/edit#gid=1880196592
 
Well Its hard to put into words because all the moving pieces and little details. But, I think Jews were originally a Kurdish like population, maybe with a bit more South West Asian opposed to South Asian.

Than they mixed over the span of the first 1000 years with Greeks, Romans, Gauls, and Central European groups until they became a intermediate group between Europe and the MENA. They then became isolated and inbred, possible screwing genetic tests as well as dominant and recessive traits.

Italians on the other hand, were mostly Neolithic farmer (Sardinian like), and took in a large amound of MENA during pre history. They than absorbed a large amount of Celtic Germanic linage over the last 1000 year or so.

This is just my general understanding at the moment.

Something I feel like may have been a large factor in the present populations, is the Black Death. Huge amounts of populations were lost, genetic variability may have been decreased due to re population, and the genetic variables of surviving the plague. Also, Population movements may have effected Haplogroup distributions as well.

I think the Black Death screwed everything we understand about Haplogroups and population in the last 700 years.
 
Italians on the other hand, were mostly Neolithic farmer (Sardinian like), and took in a large amound of MENA during pre history. They than absorbed a large amount of Celtic Germanic linage over the last 1000 year or so.

This is just my general understanding at the moment.

Indo-European migrations to Italy date back to the Bronze Age.
 
There should be some kind of timeline/map. I guess there is the Haplogroup one, but Im talking about Autosomal oriented.

So would it be correct to state:

Italians on the other hand, were mostly Neolithic farmer (Sardinian like), MIXED WITH THE INDO EUROPEAN ITALICS, THAN took in a large amount of MENA during pre history. They than absorbed a large amount of Celtic Germanic linage over the last 1000 year or so mostly in the north.
 
Does anyone know why Ashkenazi Jews plot so closely to Sicilians and Maltese?

It's true that Sicily had a significant Jewish population up to 1492, but it would only have been about 8% of the population at the most.

We must be talking about something which goes back into pre-history.

Anyone have any theories?

maybe you should try this site


http://www.sephardicstudies.org/entrance.html

the law below to remove Sephatic jews from Spain

http://www.sephardicstudies.org/decree.html
 
Indo-European migrations to Italy date back to the Bronze Age.

Indeed. I've taken the position in the past that the Lombard contribution is limited and mostly a factor in northeastern Italy, Lombardia etc. My opinion was in large part based on the low frequency and the distribution of U106 and I1 in Italy as well as the history and archaeology of those regions and time periods.

I'm a bit less sure now. I want to see the yDna of the Lombards not only from the earliest arrival periods in Italy but from the "staging" eras in central-eastern Europe. Could they have already had some U152 L2, for example? I don't know. Hopefully we'll soon see. I also want to see yDna from the Gauls/Celts, and down to the subclade level. Only then will we know what the Gauls carried versus the Italics who arrived so much earlier.

@ New Englander, I don't even know what MENA means in the way that anthrofora people use it. Is Barcin Neolithic MENA? How about CHG? What about any Caucasus people who might have traveled across Anatolia to get to southeastern Europe in the late Neolithic or Copper Age or Bronze Age? Is it only people who arrived in the last 2,000 years? How would we be able to tell without ancient dna to help in the interpretation since all of these groups are just the same old ancestral groups in different combinations? Even today, Near Eastern people from the Caucasus or Turkey or even the Levant have some Barcin, although in lower proportions than southern Europeans, and Kotias in significant numbers(CHG), as well as lots of Iran Neolithic and some Karelia. How do we figure out who brought what and how much and when without ancient dna, ancient dna which we don't yet have from Italy?

Also, why is this issue only discussed with regard to Italians?

Just take a look at these percentages from the spreadsheet to which I linked above:

Southern Italians:
Loschbour-.3
Barcin Anatolian Neolithic - 46.7
Esperstadt Middle Neolithic-15.2
Karelia (EHG) 8.2
Kotias (CHG) 10.8
Mozabite 3.4
Iran Neolithic 13.2

Greek northern mainland (the islands would definitely be different, and perhaps even the Peloponnese if other studies are any guide.)
Loschbour .1
Barcin 29.3
Esperstadt MN 35.5
Karelia 11.9
Kotias 18.7
Mozabite 0
Iran Neolithic 4.4

So, when you balance it all out this Thessaly sample is about 5-6 points less "southern" than the Southern Italians and half of that is attributable to the "Mozabite" number (3.4) I think a very large factor is the fact that Greece was affected by the Slavic invasions, and southern Italy was not.

As to some of these specific clusters, and if we can "date" their arrival in Italy, if you go to the spreadsheet again and look at the Barcin Neolithic data, 10/19 samples already had "Mozabite", from .4 to 6.2. Copper Age Otzi already had 5.6 Kotias, 5.5 Mozabite, 1.3 Iran Neolithic, and 8.9 Natufian. Now, is that a holdover from the Early Neolithic perhaps Cardial migrations, or is it from Copper Age migrations into the Balkans bringing metallurgy and then or at the same time moving into southern Italy? If it's the former, especially, some of that 3.4% Mozabite might just show up because their Barcin number is so high in comparison to what other people get (46.7). Iberian Neolithic also gets some "Mozabite" if you check. On the other hand, some of it is undoubtedly from the Saracens.

Iran Neolithic is another interesting one. I'm not so sure there's not bleed-over between CHG and Iran Neolithic. (Iran Neolithic is often associated with Gedrosia.) Interestingly enough, some Bell-Beaker also had Iran Neolithic (2.7), although it might be better not to put too much faith in these very small percentages. The Otzi figures, however, are legit. Even the dodecad runs found CHG, there labeled "West Asian", and North African, and Natufian, there labeled South West Asian, in Otzi.

Another thing that has to be considered is that the CHG in a lot of southern European populations is in the "wrong" proportion to Karelia or EHG. It should be less, yes? However, it isn't. I think it's true that there was a movement into Europe, affecting southern Europe more than northern Europe, of a CHG heavy population (carrying other cluster as well, of course), but we need ancient dna to make sense of it.

Finally, if we're going to talk about MENA ancestry, or at least Middle Eastern ancestry, Germany is about 56% "Middle Eastern". (That includes about 80% of Eperstadt, plus CHG.) You can perform the same analysis with all the European samples. Of course, if you believe the WHG came into Europe from the Near East, then all of Europe is just a subset of the Near East. It all gets rather ridiculous if you have an objective frame of mind not formed by 19th century racist physical anthropologists.
 

This thread has been viewed 105295 times.

Back
Top