Gencove

That's a vast over-generalization, and illogical.

To say that there's some structure east/west doesn't mean they're "not all that related."

This is almost "Fire-Haired" type reasoning.

The north was not only subject to some differing migration flows, it was also fragmented politically, with resulting isolation from one another and some drift. The south was, for most of the last 1000 years, ruled as a political entity.
Ok that's cool, I was just surprised at how different the scores were. Those differences threw me off.
 
The east and west doesn't seem all that related, the west has stronger ties to Iberia and the east has stronger ties to Greece/Balkans going by what's in this thread.

relatedness is not determined by admixture analysis but by IBD analysis (segments), the admixture analysis only determines your broad regional ancestry by the given defined clusters; the more detailed the better the insight yet it only goes so far as the overlap; of course north_italy has a lot of overlap with other clusters hence it was not used in GenePlaza K25/K29 but the cool thing by gencove update is here you can now see where and to what extent the overlap was in the previous version and get some insights from that; the way i see it is that as already suspected a lot was overlapped in south_western and partially (previous)north_central;

PS: if you still get a lot of south_western despite a north_it cluster now, than you truly do have some either Iberian or Sardinian type ancestry this in turn i reckon can be filtered out via comparison to other calcs with such defined clusters;
 
relatedness is not determined by admixture analysis but by IBD analysis (segments), the admixture analysis only determines your broad regional ancestry by the given defined clusters; the more detailed the better the insight yet it only goes so far as the overlap; of course north_italy has a lot of overlap with other clusters hence it was not used in GenePlaza K25/K29 but the cool thing by gencove update is here you can now see where and to what extent the overlap was in the previous version and get some insights from that; the way i see it is that as already suspected a lot was overlapped in south_western and partially (previous)north_central;

PS: if you still get a lot of south_western despite a north_it cluster now, than you truly do have some either Iberian or Sardinian ancestry this in turn i reckon can be filtered out via comparison to other calcs with such defined clusters;

Very true! My dad’s 21-27% northern Italian was included into Europe West on Ancestry and into Southwestern on K25/29 and old Gencove.
 
^^That's another unwarranted conclusion. It seems to be the day for it.

I still get quite a bit of Southwestern European despite the fact that I get a lot of North Italian. It has nothing to do with any migration from Sardinia or Iberia.

First of all, there was never, until very recently indeed, any migration from Sardinia to the mainland. It all went the other way.

There is also no migration from Iberia to Liguria or Emilia.

In my own particular case, I can trace my ancestry back to the middle of the 1500s, and on some lines back to the 1100s and 1200s, and there is no such gene flow. In my father's case, in particular, all indications are that they were up in the northern Apennines by around 1000 AD.

Part of it, in the case of Liguria or even nearby areas in Emilia, may be attributable to Gallic migrations of the first millennium BC. There's a reason these people were called Celt-Ligurians. It is clear from Gencove's map that South Western Europe doesn't just include Iberia. It also applies to the southern half of France.

In addition, I would propose that most of northern Italy was once probably "Ligurian like". One of the differences is differential impact of the Lombard invasions. Yes, every hill in my valley is crowned with a Lombard castle. However, they entered through the northeastern corridor of Italy, and the density of settlement is strongest there. Also, the Lombards seem to have incorporated other men and women as they moved, so they may have been different by the time they incorporated some parts of Northwestern Italy.

Drift due to long separation would also have added to the structure.

In this calculator North Italy is centered on Northwestern Italy plus Tuscany.

As for "relatedness", we all know or should have known that Davef meant genetic similarity.
 
Thanks Angela, that is exactly what I meant by relatedness.
 
^^That's another unwarranted conclusion. It seems to be the day for it.

I still get quite a bit of Southwestern European despite the fact that I get a lot of North Italian. It has nothing to do with any migration from Sardinia or Iberia.

First of all, there was never, until very recently indeed, any migration from Sardinia to the mainland. It all went the other way.

There is also no migration from Iberia to Liguria or Emilia.

In my own particular case, I can trace my ancestry back to the middle of the 1500s, and on some lines back to the 1100s and 1200s, and there is no such gene flow. In my father's case, in particular, all indications are that they were up in the northern Apennines by around 1000 AD.

Part of it, in the case of Liguria or even nearby areas in Emilia, may be attributable to Gallic migrations of the first millennium BC. There's a reason these people were called Celt-Ligurians. It is clear from Gencove's map that South Western Europe doesn't just include Iberia. It also applies to the southern half of France.

In addition, I would propose that most of northern Italy was once probably "Ligurian like". One of the differences is differential impact of the Lombard invasions. Yes, every hill in my valley is crowned with a Lombard castle. However, they entered through the northeastern corridor of Italy, and the density of settlement is strongest there. Also, the Lombards seem to have incorporated other men and women as they moved, so they may have been different by the time they incorporated some parts of Northwestern Italy.

Drift due to long separation would also have added to the structure.

In this calculator North Italy is centered on Northwestern Italy plus Tuscany.

As for "relatedness", we all know or should have known that Davef meant genetic similarity.

that is for sure, and that is how much missing a word or using a false word distorts (as related meant related to me) #122 should have been 'type ancestry' or 'substrate type' ancestry and not implying a direct migration ancestry (though can never be ruled out either); i think the listed populations that define the clusters are more valuable than the designer graphic displaying the clusters, so going by them south_western is prob between a basque/iberian-type WHG/EEF and a sardinian-type EEF substrate and thus for north_italians (academically based) in specifics it ought to than be more the add sardinian-type EEF substrate rather than the former;
 
^That is incorrect. In order to interpret Italian genetics you have to take into account known facts of Italian history and pre-history.

There has been no significant inflow of genetic material from Sardinia to mainland Italy since the time of the Nuragic trade contacts, which would have left trace amounts if anything and, moreover, would not have affected most of Northwestern Italy. What gene flow there has been would have been the other way, as is also the case with Corsica, but in both cases is mostly quite recent, and in the case of Sardinia, at least, probably didn't penetrate to the isolated interior plateau which is the source of the "Sardinian" samples in academic sources.

The similarity between Sardinians and Northern Italians is because of shared genetic material from the Neolithic.

Since then Sardinia has been isolated not just in terms of inflow but of outflow. I don't know how to say it more clearly.

The genetic influences on Northwestern Italy are, of course, the Neolithic, the "Ligurians", who were most likely an Indo-European speaking group and were held to inhabit broad areas of Northwestern Italy, Southern France, and into Spain, some Greek input from Massalia and smaller emporia, and some Lombard influence.

For the "Ligures"...

"Traditional accounts suggested that the Ligures represented the northern branch of an ethno-linguistic layer older than, and very different to, the proto-Italic peoples. It was widely believed that that a "Ligurian-Sicanian" culture occupied a wide area of southern Europe,[12]stretching from Liguria to Sicily and Iberia. However, while any such area would be broadly similar to that of the paleo-European "Tyrrhenian culture" hypothetised by later modern scholars, there are no known links between the Tyrrenians and Ligurians.In the 19th century, the origins of the Ligures drew renewed attention from scholars. Amédée Thierry, a French historian, linked them to the Iberians,[13] while Karl Müllenhoff, professor of Germanic antiquities at the Universities of Kiel and Berlin, studying the sources of the Ora maritima by Avienus (a Latin poet who lived in the 4th century AD, but who used as a source for his own work a Phoenician Periplumof the 6th century BC),[14] held that the name 'Ligurians' generically referred to various peoples who lived in Western Europe, including the Celts, but thought the "real Ligurians" were a Pre-Indo-European population.[15]"

They were both. With the hindsight provided by ancient dna we can now propose this as likely. This happened all over Europe: Incoming Indo-European speakers admixed with prior Neolithic inhabitants.

"Those in favor of an Indo-European origin included Henri d'Arbois de Jubainville, a 19th-century French historian, who argued the Ligurians were the earliest Indo-European speakers of the Western Europe. Jubainville's "Celto-Ligurian hypothesis", as it latter became known, was significantly expanded in the second edition of his initial study. It inspired a body of contemporary philological research, as well as some archaeological work. The Celto-Ligurian hypothesis became associated with the Funnelbeaker culture and "expanded to cover much of Central Europe".[19]Julius Pokorny adapted the Celto-Ligurian hypothesis into one linking the Ligures to the Illyrians, citing an array of similar evidence from Eastern Europe. Under this theory the "Ligures-Illyrians" became associated with the prehistoric Urnfield peoples.[20]"


"Little is known of the Old Ligurian language. It is generally believed to have been an Indo-European language with particularly strong Celtic affinities, as well as similarities to Italic languages. Only some proper names have survived, such as the inflectional suffix-asca or -asco"village".[2]"

"The Periplus of Pseudo-Scylax describes the Ligyes (Ligures) as living along the Mediterranean coast from Antion (Antibes) as far as the mouth of the Rhone; then intermingled with the Iberians from the Rhone to Emporion in Spain.[7]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ligures
 
it only looks like 23andme pulls your north italy down to 13% ...ftdna has you higher.
it also looks like the more west you go from Veneto/friuli/trentino towards turin and Genoa the more higher the North Italian % becomes
Possibly SW European also tend to be higher the more west you go in N. Italy. My father is 1/4 MN in ancestry, which maybe help to explain his higher SW.E. % in Gencove.
 
The similarity between Sardinians and Northern Italians is because of shared genetic material from the Neolithic.

Exactly, and it was a gene flow from mainland Italy (north and central Italy) to Sardinia and not vice versa.

And modern-day Sardinians have more variation than the usual HGDP sample show.
 
The similarity between Sardinians and Northern Italians is because of shared genetic material from the Neolithic.

exactly that, and never said otherwise, in fact #37 "with a strong affinity towards modern sardinians which is neolithic based" 20-12-17; yes the ligurians were a very large population and it is known archaeologically since the terremare that the po valley could foster/harbor such large populations, which i see as heavily EEF ?parma_beaker pos being the ligurian type? and modern north_it substrate, but actual aDNA of ligurians is still missing;
 
Possibly SW European also tend to be higher the more west you go in N. Italy. My father is 1/4 MN in ancestry, which maybe help to explain his higher SW.E. % in Gencove.
Yep also with Iberians which is shown in gedmatch. Sardinians and other southern Europeans have a good amount of neolithic which also explains that
 
This is a link to an interview with Joe Pickrell, the scientist behind gencove. It's part of a series that Razib Khan and Spencer Wells are doing at Insitome.

http://insitome.libsyn.com/website/ancestry-deconvoluted

They have a number of them, on the Neolithic, the Indo-Europeans, etc.
 
This is a link to an interview with Joe Pickrell, the scientist behind gencove. It's part of a series that Razib Khan and Spencer Wells are doing at Insitome.

http://insitome.libsyn.com/website/ancestry-deconvoluted

They have a number of them, on the Neolithic, the Indo-Europeans, etc.

I didn’t realize that You posted this already. Can you Please delete the thread that I started about this Topic. I’m not sure how to do it. Sorry. Link:
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/35351-Insitome-Podcast
 
My Gencove results:

48% Northern Italy
18% Americas
15% Northern and Central Europe
5% Middle East
4% Ashkenazi Jew
3% South Western Europe
3% Eastern Africa

FTDNA

South East Europe 32%
British Isles 19%
New World 19%
Iberia 13%
East Europe 9%
Middle East 3%
Trace results (1-2%) Ashkenazi , East African

DNA Land

South/Central Europe 47%
North West Europe 20%
Native American 17%
Arab/Egyptian 5%
South Western Europe 4%
East African 3%
Ashkenazi 2%

I am surprised by the extreme variability of the Iberian component (FTDNA 13%, Eurogenes K36 14% Gencove and DNA land 3-4%)
 

This thread has been viewed 61846 times.

Back
Top