How did the ancient Romans turn into Italians ?

[Noman]

Also you are basically taking distances in directions towards other sources. When you add all these outside forces up you always get basically neutrality unless the migration was unbalanced.

So the population genetics doesn't mean anything, in general. That is you can't make any statement with it based on the data alone. You could make a statement like "this group migrated here" because of similarities but even then it's just impossible to say whether it moved there or the other guys moved without more contexted than that. you can only say there is some relation, not what it is, and even that is sketchy. It could well be a different group is inside the groups you are comparing and neither one ever had contact with each other.

And if your "markers" for example are something to do with cold resistance then you could mistakenly find poles are 100% neanderthal as happened in some other study.

 

[Sile]

But Julius Caesar was actually etruscan and therefore so was Octavian, and they were the ones who made rome what it was. And they weren't the only ones. They had red hair, how much like a modern roman is that?


We pretty much know that etruscans were neolithic farmers and we pretty much know that G haplogroup was neolithic farmers, and we have a fully G tribe that claims they were etruscans who got separated from their fellows. So that's about as wrapped up as it can be given the time.


Ah population genetics. Long story short they are basically saying that the people there today are like themselves and not like other people who are elsewhere, but if there's something which was lost it won't measure that, and that's the only thing that matters. And problem is, simply looking at haplogroups in italy says a completely different story. Or knowing enough history for that matter.

http://italydna.blogspot.com/2007/01/r1b-in-italy.html

Spot the normans, spot the goths, spot the jews, spot the arabs. None of those groups were part of original rome.



So the invaders who had similar haplogroup to most of the invadees didn't completely change their makeup? And the invaders who'd been invaded by the invadees and vice versa for 3k years or so had similar autosomal dna? That's not a big shock.

However like I said, and is the case in monarchies and empires we know about, it was a small minority running things and that minority has never been a big percentage of the whole.

Furthermore the whole of mediterranean has undoubtedly crept in its sutosomal genetics. Especially towards darker hair and skin to protect from the sun.

your confusion on modern nationalistic boundaries is confusing you between the ralph and coop paper and your 2007 paper. basically IF italy never formed that data is 100% accurate.....so the basis is that the different people in Italy have always been who they are......

makes you think if Italy ever needed to be formed.

 

[Noman]

If you could say it ever did form. Like european union all it seemed to do was piss people off and ruin many of the local economies which did just fine til then.

 

[Angela]

But Julius Caesar was actually etruscan and therefore so was Octavian, and they were the ones who made rome what it was. And they weren't the only ones. They had red hair, how much like a modern roman is that?


We pretty much know that etruscans were neolithic farmers and we pretty much know that G haplogroup was neolithic farmers, and we have a fully G tribe that claims they were etruscans who got separated from their fellows. So that's about as wrapped up as it can be given the time.


Ah population genetics. Long story short they are basically saying that the people there today are like themselves and not like other people who are elsewhere, but if there's something which was lost it won't measure that, and that's the only thing that matters. And problem is, simply looking at haplogroups in italy says a completely different story. Or knowing enough history for that matter.

http://italydna.blogspot.com/2007/01/r1b-in-italy.html

Spot the normans, spot the goths, spot the jews, spot the arabs. None of those groups were part of original rome.



So the invaders who had similar haplogroup to most of the invadees didn't completely change their makeup? And the invaders who'd been invaded by the invadees and vice versa for 3k years or so had similar autosomal dna? That's not a big shock.

However like I said, and is the case in monarchies and empires we know about, it was a small minority running things and that minority has never been a big percentage of the whole.

Furthermore the whole of mediterranean has undoubtedly crept in its sutosomal genetics. Especially towards darker hair and skin to protect from the sun.

The gens Julii were not Etruscan...repeating it over and over again won't make it so. Perhaps you are confusing Caesar with Cicero, who did indeed claim some partial Etruscan ancestry. Of course, by Caesar's time, there had been a lot of mingling between Romans and Etruscans, and a strictly Etruscan culture had disappeared...only a few priests still spoke or could read Etruscan. Btw, if anything, thanks to the machinations of Livia Augusta in terms of their marriages, the ruling family were mostly of the ancient gens of the Claudii.

As to the paper you cited, it has to do with y dna, not autosomal dna, and, in addition, it is wildly out of date. In general, in terms of y dna, I'm afraid that you vastly overestimate the importance of y dna haplotypes for "identity" purposes in a modern context. Your y dna line is only one of many lines that form part of your ancestry. Yes, certain y lines have certain distinctive distributions, but you cannot go from that to identifying someone "ethnically" by their y dna, or mt dna signature, for that matter. That's vastly too simplistic, in my opinion, in terms of modern populations, and I think it's even simplistic in terms of pre-historical populations.

Just as an example, while a lot of British men carry y dna "R1b" signatures, you also have British men who are E-V13, or J2a, or J1 or R1a, or any number of others, including the Yorkshire man with the ancient African haplotype that made the news. That man is no less British than someone carrying U-106. The specific autosomal make-up of a small group of men moving into a region could disappear very quickly from the autosomal make-up of their male descendants, even while the y signature is passed on.

In terms of Italian genetics, you could do a dna test on a U-152 man from Brescia, and one from Sicily, and even if the subclades are the same, their autosomal make-up will be slightly different, and each man will almost certainly better match other people from his area. Likewise, if you take an L-21 man from Bologna, and an E-M81 man from the same area, who perhaps descends from some stray North African legionnaire who retired to Bologna 2,000 years ago, they will be very similar in terms of general genetic make-up.

That's not to say that uniparental markers don't have their uses, in cases, for example, where someone is trying to track down a birth father by using y STR's, or for help in understanding the peopling of Europe. In the latter case, however, we have a long way to go in terms of applying specific haplotypes to specific "tribes", if you will. It may be fun to speculate wildly about these things, but it shouldn't be taken too seriously, in my opinion.

@Sile,
I'm afraid that might be overstating it a bit. They're not saying that the people from the various regions of Italy have all been in place since time immemorial. For one thing, the current state of the science means they can't go back reliably much further than the Bronze Age. For another, it's clear from their graphics that they found evidence of gene flow into Italy in the period 2300 to about 1500 B.C. It's just that there wasn't as much into certain parts of Europe as others. If you go to Figure 5 in the main body of the study, you'll see what I mean. They also aren't saying that there hasn't been gene flow between neighboring regions in Italy. It just hasn't been enough to change the pattern that was already in place by around 300 or so B.C. before the actual period of the Empire. This is in stark contrast to what happened in central and northern Europe, where there was a lot of migration and gene flow because of the Germanic and later the Slavic migrations. Even the Balkans haven't maintianed their specific genetic character the way that Italy has done.

Also, nothing in their study contradicts the fact that the break in the cline at the Alps exists...someone from Brescia or Verona is going to cluster with Italians autosomally, not with the Swiss or Slovenes. You can even see that the people of the Ticino plot in Italy. The results on a dodecad analysis like K=12b of a person from Friuli are recognizably Italian; it's just that it is also clear that the person isn't a Tuscan or a Calabrian/Sicilian. One of the main points of the paper from an Italian genetics point of view is that there is more sub-structure in Italy than in other European countries, and that there is a definite north/south, or perhaps northwest/southeast cline. Not, of course, that substructure doesn't exist in other countries. For example, Ralph and Coop specifically state that they found noteworthy substructure in France. They didn't see the same level of substructure in Spain. It's all a question of degree.

 

[Nobody1]

Charles Loring Brace - The Races of the Old World (1863)
The common Roman type, still seen among the peasantry, according to Dr. Wiseman, is a large, flat head, a low wide forehead, a face broad and square, short thick neck, and a short broad figure, such as is found in many of the antique representations of the Roman soldier.


person of Latium (Central Italy) - Alpinoid - [Rassengeschichte der Menschheit]

person of Marche (Central Italy) - Dinaric - [Rassengeschichte der Menschheit]

Augustus and Julius Caesar -typical Brachycephalic Alpinoid/Dinarid (Medit. element) of the Italic Romans

Til this day -
Modern day Italians are Anthropologically of the Caucasoid sub-races - Mediterranid / Alpinoid / Dianrid

J. Deniker - Ibero-Insular = Mediterranean race / sub-Adriatic = Dinaric (+Noric type) / Cevenole = Alpine race

North Italians are more Brachycephalic [Alpinoid/Dinarid]
South Italians are more Dolichocephalic [Mediterranid]

 

[Nobody1]

Modern day Italians are genetically (haplogroups and admixture) diverse from each other;
Not surprising since Italy only exists since 1861
+ Historically based Diverse pre-Roman Italy / Diverse Roman Italy / Diverse post-Roman Italy


DiGaetano et al 2012
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0043759

Figure 2. SNP-Based PC of 1,014 individuals from the Italian dataset.
A. A Scatter Plot of the Italian population of the first two principal components obtained via R software (prcomp).
Individuals included belong to:
Northern Italy: black dots / Central Italy: red dots / Southern Italy: green dots / Sardinian: blue dots.
B. Italian population without the Sardinian-projected scatter plot of the first two principal components obtained via the R software (prcomp)


Nelis et al 2009
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0005472

Italians didnt greatly inter-mix with each other
- over the last 1,500 years (since end of Roman Empire)
manifesting the clear diversity

Coop & Ralph et al 2013
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001555
Spain and Portugal showing very few common ancestors with other populations over the last 2,500 years. However, the rate of IBD sharing within the peninsula is much higher than within Italy—during the last 1,500 years the Iberian peninsula shares fewer than two genetic common ancestors with other populations, compared to roughly 30 per pair within the peninsula; Italians share on average only about eight with each other during this period.

 

[Sile]

.

@Sile,
I'm afraid that might be overstating it a bit. They're not saying that the people from the various regions of Italy have all been in place since time immemorial. For one thing, the current state of the science means they can't go back reliably much further than the Bronze Age. For another, it's clear from their graphics that they found evidence of gene flow into Italy in the period 2300 to about 1500 B.C. It's just that there wasn't as much into certain parts of Europe as others. If you go to Figure 5 in the main body of the study, you'll see what I mean. They also aren't saying that there hasn't been gene flow between neighboring regions in Italy. It just hasn't been enough to change the pattern that was already in place by around 300 or so B.C. before the actual period of the Empire. This is in stark contrast to what happened in central and northern Europe, where there was a lot of migration and gene flow because of the Germanic and later the Slavic migrations. Even the Balkans haven't maintianed their specific genetic character the way that Italy has done.

Also, nothing in their study contradicts the fact that the break in the cline at the Alps exists...someone from Brescia or Verona is going to cluster with Italians autosomally, not with the Swiss or Slovenes. You can even see that the people of the Ticino plot in Italy. The results on a dodecad analysis like K=12b of a person from Friuli are recognizably Italian; it's just that it is also clear that the person isn't a Tuscan or a Calabrian/Sicilian. One of the main points of the paper from an Italian genetics point of view is that there is more sub-structure in Italy than in other European countries, and that there is a definite north/south, or perhaps northwest/southeast cline. Not, of course, that substructure doesn't exist in other countries. For example, Ralph and Coop specifically state that they found noteworthy substructure in France. They didn't see the same level of substructure in Spain. It's all a question of degree.

Below is my dodecad K=12b, they change every 6 months .............it means little at this point in time. maybe after another 50000 additions , it might mean something
Admix Results (sorted):

Population

[TD="align: center"] # [/TD]

[TD="align: right"] Percent [/TD]

[TD="width: 30, align: center"]1[/TD]
[TD="width: 120"]Atlantic_Med[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]35.87[/TD]

[TD="width: 30, align: center"]2[/TD]
[TD="width: 120"]North_European[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]28.04[/TD]

[TD="width: 30, align: center"]3[/TD]
[TD="width: 120"]Caucasus[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]20.98[/TD]

[TD="width: 30, align: center"]4[/TD]
[TD="width: 120"]Gedrosia[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]7.02[/TD]

[TD="width: 30, align: center"]5[/TD]
[TD="width: 120"]Southwest_Asian[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]6.23[/TD]

[TD="width: 30, align: center"]6[/TD]
[TD="width: 120"]Northwest_African[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]1.42[/TD]

[TD="width: 30, align: center"]7[/TD]
[TD="width: 120"]South_Asian[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]0.33[/TD]

[TD="width: 30, align: center"]8[/TD]
[TD="width: 120"]Sub_Saharan[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]0.1[/TD]

Single Population Sharing:

Population (source)

[TD="align: center"] # [/TD]

[TD="align: right"] Distance [/TD]

[TD="width: 40, align: center"]1[/TD]
[TD="width: 220"]N_Italian (Dodecad)[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]6.71[/TD]

[TD="width: 40, align: center"]2[/TD]
[TD="width: 220"]O_Italian (Dodecad)[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]9.26[/TD]

[TD="width: 40, align: center"]3[/TD]
[TD="width: 220"]North_Italian (HGDP)[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]9.88[/TD]

[TD="width: 40, align: center"]4[/TD]
[TD="width: 220"]TSI30 (Metspalu)[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]11.05[/TD]

[TD="width: 40, align: center"]5[/TD]
[TD="width: 220"]Tuscan (HGDP)[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]12.44[/TD]

[TD="width: 40, align: center"]6[/TD]
[TD="width: 220"]C_Italian (Dodecad)[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]14.46[/TD]

[TD="width: 40, align: center"]7[/TD]
[TD="width: 220"]Romanians (Behar)[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]14.96[/TD]

[TD="width: 40, align: center"]8[/TD]
[TD="width: 220"]Baleares (1000Genomes)[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]15.18[/TD]

[TD="width: 40, align: center"]9[/TD]
[TD="width: 220"]Galicia (1000Genomes)[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]15.63[/TD]

[TD="width: 40, align: center"]10[/TD]
[TD="width: 220"]Bulgarians (Yunusbayev)[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]15.66[/TD]

[TD="width: 40, align: center"]11[/TD]
[TD="width: 220"]Bulgarian (Dodecad)[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]15.66[/TD]

[TD="width: 40, align: center"]12[/TD]
[TD="width: 220"]French (HGDP)[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]16.22[/TD]

[TD="width: 40, align: center"]13[/TD]
[TD="width: 220"]French (Dodecad)[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]16.35[/TD]

NOTE: O_Italian means ( info from dodecad), swiss, tyrol, slovenian, croatian, istrian and austrian Italians.

The BGA test via Doug is different in the sense it means more and he stated since I was 100% european and he went back 2200 years ( his max)that my line was already in the alps. In that case, was I from Italic lines, ......the greeks did not even name Italy by then. The issue of nationalizing these terms makes far greater issue than what is justified ( ie trouble)

Note: Even Ftdna -FF and 23andme has me at 100% european

The substructure in Italy clearly indicates the difference........imagine a scenario in Europe where no nations existed. Would that change your perspective of the areas of Europe?

 

[Sile]

Charles Loring Brace - The Races of the Old World (1863)
The common Roman type, still seen among the peasantry, according to Dr. Wiseman, is a large, flat head, a low wide forehead, a face broad and square, short thick neck, and a short broad figure, such as is found in many of the antique representations of the Roman soldier.


person of Latium (Central Italy) - Alpinoid - [Rassengeschichte der Menschheit]

person of Marche (Central Italy) - Dinaric - [Rassengeschichte der Menschheit]

Augustus and Julius Caesar -typical Brachycephalic Alpinoid/Dinarid (Medit. element) of the Italic Romans

Til this day -
Modern day Italians are Anthropologically of the Caucasoid sub-races - Mediterranid / Alpinoid / Dianrid

J. Deniker - Ibero-Insular = Mediterranean race / sub-Adriatic = Dinaric (+Noric type) / Cevenole = Alpine race

North Italians are more Brachycephalic [Alpinoid/Dinarid]
South Italians are more Dolichocephalic [Mediterranid]

the only one I am nearly identical to is the Augustus type.

Do these tests mean anything?
Would a mixed marriage of Northern italian with South italian or french or spanish etc make any difference in these features?

 

[Nobody1]

the only one I am nearly identical to is the Augustus type.

Do these tests mean anything?
Would a mixed marriage of Northern italian with South italian or french or spanish etc make any difference in these features?

All depends what Caucasoid sub-race mixes with what Caucasoid sub-race;
Thats what matters Anthropologically;

 

[Noman]

The gens Julii were not Etruscan...repeating it over and over again won't make it so. Perhaps you are confusing Caesar with Cicero, who did indeed claim some partial Etruscan ancestry. Of course, by Caesar's time, there had been a lot of mingling between Romans and Etruscans, and a strictly Etruscan culture had disappeared...only a few priests still spoke or could read Etruscan. Btw, if anything, thanks to the machinations of Livia Augusta in terms of their marriages, the ruling family were mostly of the ancient gens of the Claudii.

Well you can say they aren't as well, but considering he said himself he was descended from aenias and that we "know" after the fall of troy that the trojans founded the etruscan kingdom. So is it myth or not? I will take it since he said it himself it's partly true, that's his paternal country if nothing else. Cicero was etruscan in more recent times.

He's got red hair, he's got greek toe. His face shape is exact same as classic greeks. These are neanderthal traits that don't come from anywhere else. Meaning he is related to the classic greeks and trojans not to the commoners of italy. They had all those features, too, and modern etruscans have the seemingly highest level of neanderthal DNA as well.

As to the paper you cited, it has to do with y dna, not autosomal dna, and, in addition, it is wildly out of date.

That's because y-dna actually means something. Autosomal DNA can say whatever you want it to say.

In general, in terms of y dna, I'm afraid that you vastly overestimate the importance of y dna haplotypes for "identity" purposes in a modern context. Your y dna line is only one of many lines that form part of your ancestry.

And yet, that's the same logic that autosomal dna comparison has but there's a huge difference. The Y-DNA shows actual paternity. Very importantly it also shows time of origin, assortively speaking. So you can compare degrees of separation between lines, if not exact dates.

So it is indeed a good marker whereas autosomal means absolutely nothing, and can easily be used to tell some whoppers if you like (or even if you don't). You don't know what source it comes from or when! If you don't even know where or what time it originates how can you say anything about it? It's just like looking at someone, except worse because looks contain all the information in at least some detail while autosomal dna is just picking out a few things that you feel are different in various made up races and then making comparisons. Meaningless.

Like I said, at best it just says there's some relationship, not what it is. That's why when you compare skulls you can get completely unrelated groups with similar skulls. Many skulls look caucasian being a blend of two y-DNA groups that have different types. So putative races have been debunked by looking at the y-dna and realizing they are just blends of of other races.

This is the same exact thing. Y-DNA is a clearly stronger test, the only one that's very strong, really.

Yes, certain y lines have certain distinctive distributions, but you cannot go from that to identifying someone "ethnically" by their y dna, or mt dna signature, for that matter. That's vastly too simplistic, in my opinion, in terms of modern populations, and I think it's even simplistic in terms of pre-historical populations.

Just as an example, while a lot of British men carry y dna "R1b" signatures, you also have British men who are E-V13, or J2a, or J1 or R1a, or any number of others, including the Yorkshire man with the ancient African haplotype that made the news. That man is no less British than someone carrying U-106. The specific autosomal make-up of a small group of men moving into a region could disappear very quickly from the autosomal make-up of their male descendants, even while the y signature is passed on.

And guess what? England has a past as checkered as italy, probably more so. At one point everyone just moved out of most of england and went to brittany and left it to the germans. Yep, france is more english than england, and england is have german, and ireland is about 2/3 english now. Not to mention the normans. First there were people like in the NW or ireland all through whole isles, then people like in wales came. Then the germanics came, then the normans came. And of course minor players like the vikings popped in too.

We know that both from history and from y-DNA. So sorry you actually picked the perfect example of why this kind of thing is utter crap.

In terms of Italian genetics, you could do a dna test on a U-152 man from Brescia, and one from Sicily, and even if the subclades are the same, their autosomal make-up will be slightly different, and each man will almost certainly better match other people from his area. Likewise, if you take an L-21 man from Bologna, and an E-M81 man from the same area, who perhaps descends from some stray North African legionnaire who retired to Bologna 2,000 years ago, they will be very similar in terms of general genetic make-up.

But the average makeup is still in proprtion to the Y-dna present and for looking at populations averages are what we want :lol:

It's probably harder to pick out a saxon in england these days (ok not really I can pick it out instantly) or a J (ok again I still can) but the idea is the proprtions of the group are going to be the same as the proportions of the y-dna and mtDNA. As an average.

And not for CURRENT days, but for ancient days when the mix happened. Which is another advantage. We are looking at what's really there, not made up BS from reference populations that are not representative of the past.

Whereas for autosomal if you mix in 8 groups that have black hair then you conclude they are all the same. But you left out the other 250000 individual variations on DNA for each individual. So basically you didn't prove anything, a guy with black hair and light skin could be pierce brosnan or could be yassir arafat.

It's completely pointless to look at autosomal genes that have origins in monkey times to determine anything about modern populations, especially common traits. Only exception is looking for introgressions from ancient sources like neanderthal.

Basically this study may as well have said "everyone from mediterranean looks kinda the same today! And people in different cities in italy look kinda different!". Well, no kidding. We can look out the window to figure that out. What we care about is what they were like back then, and how they changed. We can see from the haplomaps it changed wildly, and any updated version is going to show it changed even more wildly (and the past is what we care about, again, not the future which we can also figure out pretty easily).

That's not to say that uniparental markers don't have their uses, in cases, for example, where someone is trying to track down a birth father by using y STR's, or for help in understanding the peopling of Europe. In the latter case, however, we have a long way to go in terms of applying specific haplotypes to specific "tribes", if you will. It may be fun to speculate wildly about these things, but it shouldn't be taken too seriously, in my opinion.

Sounds like some sort of propaganda being repeated to me. Attack on natural selection is bad enough, now they are trying to make an attack on your ancestral lineage saying anything about your genetics :lol:

 

[Sile]

the only one I am nearly identical to is the Augustus type.

Do these tests mean anything?
Would a mixed marriage of Northern italian with South italian or french or spanish etc make any difference in these features?

data from a year ago.....cannot find link, but what are these types?

Phenotype
Central and Eastern Veneto ( inc. Friuli )
- Type 1 : Intermediate complexion (chestnut or blonde hair, light eyes, ...), leptomorphic, rather narrow face, long and straight high-rooted nose that can get arched, close set eyes, large jaw, pointy chin
~ Dinaromorphic Nordo-Mediterranean

Western Veneto ( with Trento )
- Type 2 : Intermediate complexion, brachymorphic, round face, little and low-rooted nose that can get snub-tipped, wide set eyes
~ Alpinoid

Venetian lagoon area
- Type 3 : Intermediate complexion (from medium dark to blonde hair, blue, green or hazel eyes ...), brachymorphic, little and narrow straight nose, square-box face, broad forehead, rather wide-set eyes
~ Alpinoid/Subnordid

Venetian-Istrano
- Type 4 : Light complexion (blonde hair, green eyes, ...), leptomorphic, arched nose, large jaw, pointy chin, close-set eyes
~ Nordo-Dinarid

Women , either
type that one could label, "Alpino-Med" which is very specific to Veneto : puffy and fleshy features
or
classical North Italian phenotype ( some individuals actually match neighbouring Slovenian variability), it is traditionally accompanied by a darker variant (Dinaro-Mediterranoid) which is the quintessential pan-Italian phenotype.

 

[Nobody1]

data from a year ago.....cannot find link, but what are these types

Those Types are all Caucasoid sub-races and sub-types

the classifications of these people are already given;
Type1 ~ Dinaromorphic Nordo-Mediterranean
Type2 ~ Alpinoid
Type3 ~ Alpinoid/Subnordid
Type4 ~ Nordo-Dinarid [also called Noric]
+ Alpino-Medit. / Dinaro-Medit.

The common Caucasoid sub-races in North Italy:
(acc. to Coon, Banse, Pittard, Eickstedt etc. + Deniker map post#65)
Alpinoid / Dinarid(+Noric) / Mediterranid / minority Nordoid

App. these People (Types) all come from North East Italy;
Sp they perfectly fall within the Caucasoid sub-races of the region (NE Italy - Venetia/Friul)

Venetia - Noric (Dinaric) - [R. Livi - plates]

 

[MOESAN]

That's because y-dna actually means something. Autosomal DNA can say whatever you want it to say.

And yet, that's the same logic that autosomal dna comparison has but there's a huge difference. The Y-DNA shows actual paternity. Very importantly it also shows time of origin, assortively speaking. So you can compare degrees of separation between lines, if not exact dates.

Like I said, at best it just says there's some relationship, not what it is. That's why when you compare skulls you can get completely unrelated groups with similar skulls. Many skulls look caucasian being a blend of two y-DNA groups that have different types. So putative races have been debunked by looking at the y-dna and realizing they are just blends of of other races.

This is the same exact thing. Y-DNA is a clearly stronger test, the only one that's very strong, really.

And guess what? England has a past as checkered as italy, probably more so. At one point everyone just moved out of most of england and went to brittany and left it to the germans. Yep, france is more english than england, and england is have german, and ireland is about 2/3 english now. Not to mention the normans. First there were people like in the NW or ireland all through whole isles, then people like in wales came. Then the germanics came, then the normans came. And of course minor players like the vikings popped in too.

We know that both from history and from y-DNA. So sorry you actually picked the perfect example of why this kind of thing is utter crap.


It's probably harder to pick out a saxon in england these days (ok not really I can pick it out instantly) or a J (ok again I still can) but the idea is the proprtions of the group are going to be the same as the proportions of the y-dna and mtDNA. As an average.


Whereas for autosomal if you mix in 8 groups that have black hair then you conclude they are all the same. But you left out the other 250000 individual variations on DNA for each individual. So basically you didn't prove anything, a guy with black hair and light skin could be pierce brosnan or could be yassir arafat.

It's completely pointless to look at autosomal genes that have origins in monkey times to determine anything about modern populations, especially common traits. Only exception is looking for introgressions from ancient sources like neanderthal.

Basically this study may as well have said "everyone from mediterranean looks kinda the same today! And people in different cities in italy look kinda different!". Well, no kidding. We can look out the window to figure that out. What we care about is what they were like back then, and how they changed. We can see from the haplomaps it changed wildly, and any updated version is going to show it changed even more wildly (and the past is what we care about, again, not the future which we can also figure out pretty easily).

for me you mix truth and mistake (no offense, it is only a personal thought)
autosomals DNA is of great importance: the current problem is we are not gone deep enough into the analysis: this tool needs more precision - Y-DNA is interesting, I agree (but i'm not so sure our branchings datations are correct because our evaluations depend on more than a parameter) but surely enough can undergo a far swifter drift than the complete autosomals sketche - concerning external look, the problem was not the method but the lack of parameters taken in account: it is unsufficient but can help nevertheless, again more for distinction than for superficial assimilation
already an analysis of HLA (even if limited) of Madrid inhabitants, Basques an Algerians from Alger agreed apparently with what History says us...

 

[MOESAN]

sorry: I made a mistake: I'm responsible only for the 'italic' written part of the preceding post - sorry again!

 

[Angela]

Below is my dodecad K=12b, they change every 6 months .............it means little at this point in time. maybe after another 50000 additions , it might mean something
Admix Results (sorted):

Population

[TD="align: center"] # [/TD]

[TD="align: right"] Percent [/TD]

[TD="align: center"]1[/TD]
[TD="width: 120"]Atlantic_Med[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]35.87[/TD]

[TD="width: 30, align: center"]2[/TD]
[TD="width: 120"]North_European[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]28.04[/TD]

[TD="width: 30, align: center"]3[/TD]
[TD="width: 120"]Caucasus[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]20.98[/TD]

[TD="width: 30, align: center"]4[/TD]
[TD="width: 120"]Gedrosia[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]7.02[/TD]

[TD="width: 30, align: center"]5[/TD]
[TD="width: 120"]Southwest_Asian[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]6.23[/TD]

[TD="width: 30, align: center"]6[/TD]
[TD="width: 120"]Northwest_African[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]1.42[/TD]

[TD="width: 30, align: center"]7[/TD]
[TD="width: 120"]South_Asian[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]0.33[/TD]

[TD="width: 30, align: center"]8[/TD]
[TD="width: 120"]Sub_Saharan[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]0.1[/TD]

Single Population Sharing:

Population (source)

[TD="align: center"] # [/TD]

[TD="align: right"] Distance [/TD]

[TD="align: center"]1[/TD]
[TD="width: 220"]N_Italian (Dodecad)[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]6.71[/TD]

[TD="width: 40, align: center"]2[/TD]
[TD="width: 220"]O_Italian (Dodecad)[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]9.26[/TD]

[TD="width: 40, align: center"]3[/TD]
[TD="width: 220"]North_Italian (HGDP)[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]9.88[/TD]

[TD="width: 40, align: center"]4[/TD]
[TD="width: 220"]TSI30 (Metspalu)[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]11.05[/TD]

[TD="width: 40, align: center"]5[/TD]
[TD="width: 220"]Tuscan (HGDP)[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]12.44[/TD]

[TD="width: 40, align: center"]6[/TD]
[TD="width: 220"]C_Italian (Dodecad)[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]14.46[/TD]

[TD="width: 40, align: center"]7[/TD]
[TD="width: 220"]Romanians (Behar)[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]14.96[/TD]

[TD="width: 40, align: center"]8[/TD]
[TD="width: 220"]Baleares (1000Genomes)[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]15.18[/TD]

[TD="width: 40, align: center"]9[/TD]
[TD="width: 220"]Galicia (1000Genomes)[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]15.63[/TD]

[TD="width: 40, align: center"]10[/TD]
[TD="width: 220"]Bulgarians (Yunusbayev)[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]15.66[/TD]

[TD="width: 40, align: center"]11[/TD]
[TD="width: 220"]Bulgarian (Dodecad)[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]15.66[/TD]

[TD="width: 40, align: center"]12[/TD]
[TD="width: 220"]French (HGDP)[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]16.22[/TD]

[TD="width: 40, align: center"]13[/TD]
[TD="width: 220"]French (Dodecad)[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, align: right"]16.35[/TD]

NOTE: O_Italian means ( info from dodecad), swiss, tyrol, slovenian, croatian, istrian and austrian Italians.

The BGA test via Doug is different in the sense it means more and he stated since I was 100% european and he went back 2200 years ( his max)that my line was already in the alps. In that case, was I from Italic lines, ......the greeks did not even name Italy by then. The issue of nationalizing these terms makes far greater issue than what is justified ( ie trouble)

Note: Even Ftdna -FF and 23andme has me at 100% european

The substructure in Italy clearly indicates the difference........imagine a scenario in Europe where no nations existed. Would that change your perspective of the areas of Europe?

I'm not sure that I understand. I'm 100% European at 23andme as well, and I'm half Emilian and half eastern Ligurian/northwest Tuscan. All the Tuscans I know on there show up as 100% European, and the full Ligurians, and a Roman, and someone who is half Sicilian and half southern Italian, and someone who is half Calabrian and half Neapolitan, and one full Sicilian from Palermo. These are just from the results of people with whom I share. Yes, there are some southern Italians who show 93 or 94% "European", with some minor "Middle Eastern" ancestry, which as 23andme defines it is Turkey (Anatolia) and Persia. From the results I've seen, if they show any SSA at all, they show it at levels of about .4-.8, which is about what the "Other Italians" show.

As for your k=12b results, they seem well within the range for a northern Italian; definitely Mediterranean, but not French or Iberian. All you need to do is look at the two results for northern Italians in the spreadsheet below. When you look at enough of those calculator results, you really don't even need the algorithm to tell you what the predicted first population will be. (Your North Euro is a little elevated, but not by much. The North Italian Dodecad group has an average of 24 for that component, after all. The rest of the scores are clearly in the Italian range. )
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...EY4Y3lTUVBaaFp0bC1zZlBDcTZEYlE&hl=en_US#gid=0

For a comparison, these are the results for the French: (Were more samples available, I think there would be substructure)
Atlantic/Med: 44.4
N.Europe: 36.5
Caucasus: 8.4
Gedrosia: 7.9
S.W.Asian: 2.5
N.W.African: .2
S.Asian: 0
SSA: 0

Their results always seem to be somewhat higher in Atlantic Med and North Europe. The big difference, however, is in the Caucasus numbers and the S.W.Asian numbers.

Then look at the numbers for the Spanish D population. If you see results with really high Atlantic Med, relatively low North Euro, low Caucasus, relatively high North African and trace SSA, it's someone from Iberia.

Atlantic Med: 52.5
North Euro: 22.7
Caucasus: 8
Gedrosia: 6.5
S.W.Asian: 4
N.W.African: 5.1
S.Asian: .2
SSA: .4

I'm surprised by the composition of the "Other Italian" group from Dodecad that you mentioned. I always just assumed there were southerners in that group, or perhaps people of mixed northern Italian/southern Italian ancestry. Those numbers are closer to Tuscan levels than to Northern Italian levels, and sometimes even veer into southern Italian territory.

Here are the results for all three groups from that same calculator: N.Italian/Tuscan/Other Italian
Atlantic Med: 44/37.9/33.5
North Euro: 22/18.7/21.8
Caucasus: 22.9/30.5/ 28.5
Gedrosia: 4.5/4.8/ 6.2
S.W.Asian: 5.8/7.2/ 7.8
N.W.African: .7/.5/1.1
S.Asian: 0/0/0
SSA: 0/0/.8

The academic North Italian sample has 41.2 for Atlantic Med, and 23.7 as an average for North Euro. This Other Italian group has SSA, which the Northern Italians and the Tuscans do not on this analysis; they have more NW African than the other two groups, and more S.W.Asian, and almost as much Caucasus as the Tuscans. They also have .2 East African, which the others do not. So, either there are people in the group with recent ancestry from the south, or the Tyrol and these regions are really harboring ancient more southern and south eastern signals than regular North Italians. Perhaps those ancient stories of the Etruscans fleeing to the mountains to get out of the path of the Celts have some truth to them, or perhaps those areas are harboring even more ancient Neolithic signals (Oetzi had some East African and S.W. Asian, and a lot of Caucasus ), which have been preserved due to isolation.

As to your comment about the unification of Italy, we northwesterners rather feel as if we made Italy, and we're rather fond of it. The pictures my father had on his wall were of Mazzini and Garibaldi, not the Pope, and no foreign emperor either.

As to the greater geopolitical aspect, it's like how I feel about unilateral disarmament. It doesn't make any sense to me. If everyone else doesn't do it, you're...well, at a disadvantage let's say. And even if everyone claims they're going to do it, be suspicious, and really verify! I suppose I'm of the realpolitik school.

The inability or the unwillingness during the Middle Ages and the Renaissance of the Italian city-states to unify ultimately led to all of them suffering at the hands of northern European, French and Spanish marauders. It was utter stupidity...and cupidity as well. Even Venice was forced into a long decline.

I don't believe that people have changed, or that the world has changed. People... and nation states or ethnic groups... act in their own self-interest. I think it's as well to remember it.

Just my two cents, to steal a phrase,

 

[Ike]

the only one I am nearly identical to is the Augustus type.

Augustus is 100% Dinaric type.

 

[Noman]

for me you mix truth and mistake (no offense, it is only a personal thought)
autosomals DNA is of great importance: the current problem is we are not gone deep enough into the analysis: this tool needs more precision - Y-DNA is interesting, I agree (but i'm not so sure our branchings datations are correct because our evaluations depend on more than a parameter) but surely enough can undergo a far swifter drift than the complete autosomals sketche - concerning external look, the problem was not the method but the lack of parameters taken in account: it is unsufficient but can help nevertheless, again more for distinction than for superficial assimilation
already an analysis of HLA (even if limited) of Madrid inhabitants, Basques an Algerians from Alger agreed apparently with what History says us...

I don't mean to say it's of no use, it's just not useful for what it's being applied to (and really it's just not something comparitive population genetics can answer anyway), and the ridiculous conclusion is proof enough for that. As maciamo says rome basically scattered to the winds, about 999/1000 inhabitants slowly melted away, all over med. Before that lots of colonies spreading out. So it's not that rome has any continuity at all, it's that it imprinted itself on the whole med.

You really can't make any claims at all from that data in regards to ancient populations. When you look at only current day populations it's more politics than science.

You don't need to worry about drift with y-dna in large populations, if anything the drift would favor the eradication of the minority lines not the amplification of them (meaning we have at least as much contribution of other dna from these y-dna lines as the lines themselves, on average). You might have to worry about selection but that is also an issue for autosomal dna.

 

[Sile]

Augustus is 100% Dinaric type.

Fine I have no issue with this, but I thought I was Noric, which is a sub of Dinaric

 

[Sile]

As for your k=12b results, they seem well within the range for a northern Italian; definitely Mediterranean, but not French or Iberian. All you need to do is look at the two results for northern Italians in the spreadsheet below. When you look at enough of those calculator results, you really don't even need the algorithm to tell you what the predicted first population will be. (Your North Euro is a little elevated, but not by much. The North Italian Dodecad group has an average of 24 for that component, after all. The rest of the scores are clearly in the Italian range. )
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...EY4Y3lTUVBaaFp0bC1zZlBDcTZEYlE&hl=en_US#gid=0

For a comparison, these are the results for the French: (Were more samples available, I think there would be substructure)
Atlantic/Med: 44.4
N.Europe: 36.5
Caucasus: 8.4
Gedrosia: 7.9
S.W.Asian: 2.5
N.W.African: .2
S.Asian: 0
SSA: 0

Their results always seem to be somewhat higher in Atlantic Med and North Europe. The big difference, however, is in the Caucasus numbers and the S.W.Asian numbers.

Then look at the numbers for the Spanish D population. If you see results with really high Atlantic Med, relatively low North Euro, low Caucasus, relatively high North African and trace SSA, it's someone from Iberia.

Atlantic Med: 52.5
North Euro: 22.7
Caucasus: 8
Gedrosia: 6.5
S.W.Asian: 4
N.W.African: 5.1
S.Asian: .2
SSA: .4

I'm surprised by the composition of the "Other Italian" group from Dodecad that you mentioned. I always just assumed there were southerners in that group, or perhaps people of mixed northern Italian/southern Italian ancestry. Those numbers are closer to Tuscan levels than to Northern Italian levels, and sometimes even veer into southern Italian territory.

Here are the results for all three groups from that same calculator: N.Italian/Tuscan/Other Italian
Atlantic Med: 44/37.9/33.5
North Euro: 22/18.7/21.8
Caucasus: 22.9/30.5/ 28.5
Gedrosia: 4.5/4.8/ 6.2
S.W.Asian: 5.8/7.2/ 7.8
N.W.African: .7/.5/1.1
S.Asian: 0/0/0
SSA: 0/0/.8

The academic North Italian sample has 41.2 for Atlantic Med, and 23.7 as an average for North Euro. This Other Italian group has SSA, which the Northern Italians and the Tuscans do not on this analysis; they have more NW African than the other two groups, and more S.W.Asian, and almost as much Caucasus as the Tuscans. They also have .2 East African, which the others do not. So, either there are people in the group with recent ancestry from the south, or the Tyrol and these regions are really harboring ancient more southern and south eastern signals than regular North Italians. Perhaps those ancient stories of the Etruscans fleeing to the mountains to get out of the path of the Celts have some truth to them, or perhaps those areas are harboring even more ancient Neolithic signals (Oetzi had some East African and S.W. Asian, and a lot of Caucasus ), which have been preserved due to isolation.

Thanks, I will look at it later.
Which are the 2 north italian individuals

The numbers for Gedrosian do not match maciano map for O_italian ( if you think its from south Italy and not from neighbours of Italy up North

 

[Noman]

They are not dinaric, they are melonheads, boskopoid man. The veneti and alpinid and dinaric are all a lot different. The head has a lot of width towards the top and the face is extra small in comparison to the brain, with a jutting chin. See also otto von hapburg, hitler, nelson mandela, einstein, abraham lincoln, ellen degeneres.