C_Italian_N/ChL to Model Iron Age & Modern Italians

Who cares? This sample is similar to Dauinans, and is probably an Iapagian. It is around the time and place.
Definitely. Given the location, time frame and archaeological context, it is most likely an Iapygian. His paternal line is J2b-L283>>Z615>Z597>Z638>Z1297>Z1295>Y21878>(FTD4825?), so the uniparental connection to the Eastern Adriatic Western Balkans is also attested.
 
I am getting tired of the obsession, which verges on the mental illness, that many hobbyists have about making southern Italians as middle easterners as possible: if the resolution is too low, the PCA can be found on page 65 of the supplementary data of the paper from which the sample under discussion is from, and it's clear that it doesn't plot on a PCA close to Venetians, but to Tuscans. Let's compare it with the available Daunian samples, and it falls in their range; it has been noticed that it is linked to the eastern adriatic coast by his paternal line, so it's safe to say that it is Iapigian-like as far as DNA goes.
As it is patent by the available data, south Italy was initially populated by Sicily_BA-like people and then, by the turn of the 1st millennium BC, it received conspicuous genetic from the Balkans and then Greece- no need to postulate a biblical migration from the near east either from the Levant or anywhere else (at most some Anatolian gene flow, still mediated by Greeks with some Anatolian introgression). The idea that south Italy was north Italian-like before the empire is simply ridiculous.

1697292741902.png

1697292901943.jpeg
 
I agree with Leone post, except for the term Iapigian............50% of the time this is only to refer to Messapics , who they also called Calabri
I am getting tired of the obsession, which verges on the mental illness, that many hobbyists have about making southern Italians as middle easterners as possible: if the resolution is too low, the PCA can be found on page 65 of the supplementary data of the paper from which the sample under discussion is from, and it's clear that it doesn't plot on a PCA close to Venetians, but to Tuscans. Let's compare it with the available Daunian samples, and it falls in their range; it has been noticed that it is linked to the eastern adriatic coast by his paternal line, so it's safe to say that it is Iapigian-like as far as DNA goes.
As it is patent by the available data, south Italy was initially populated by Sicily_BA-like people and then, by the turn of the 1st millennium BC, it received conspicuous genetic from the Balkans and then Greece- no need to postulate a biblical migration from the near east either from the Levant or anywhere else (at most some Anatolian gene flow, still mediated by Greeks with some Anatolian introgression). The idea that south Italy was north Italian-like before the empire is simply ridiculous.

View attachment 14371
View attachment 14372
 
uLM0yp2.png


Here's another model I made for modern Italians.

One of the key differences between the north and the south is that the south cannot be modeled with WHG. For me, this is a key component to the trajectory of the peopling of Italy. Because this indicates to me the excess WHG has remained consistently low/non-existent in the South since the Neolithic. While increasing in the Center and likely the North, particularly in the Copper age, when there was a resurgence.
 

This thread has been viewed 2342 times.

Back
Top