Italic peoples

from 2017 (New studies contradict some of the Blogger’s opinions)
ITALIAN MENA
A similar argument can be made in the South with the MENA genetics (middle eastern-north african ed.) Concentrated mainly in areas where the population tends to have darker hair.
This genetics, as explained in my old article on southern Italians , is not attributable to the Saracens (as many people commonly think) but is more Middle Eastern than North African (Sicily for example has about 10% of MENA but, of this, less than 1% is North African) and probably arrived in Italy during the late Roman Empire, as Coon had also suggested in its taxonomic analysis


Late Roman Empire? Do we have any evidence to support this? I was under the impression that the South of Italy was more or less "genetically complete" after the Greek migrations of the Magna Graecia era, which probably did little more than reinforce the Iranian-like J2a-led incursions of the EBA

In Sardinia instead haplogroup I2a1 dominates, which is that of the Ancient Mesolithic Hunter-Gatherers, and is found in the measure of 37.5% (where in continental Italy its presence does not go beyond the 1-3%)

I wonder how much of the Sardinian I2a1 is M26 and M423, which is to say Chalcolithic migrations from the Balkans, per the Olalde et al study on Ancient Iberia
 
Was the influx of Iranian-like CHG (caucasian hunter gatherer) across Anatolia into Greece & Southern Italy during the EBA (early bronze age) already admixed with Yamnaya or was it somehow more "pristine" at this stage?

I assume that the CHG would have mixed with whatever else was in Anatolia & Greece en route to Italy?

Also, isn't Iran Neo/CHG thought to be a component of Yamnaya, along with EHG & Ancient North Eurasian?
 
Just started reading this, Salento.

Imo, they're incorrect about some of the details. Perhaps it hasn't been updated recently?

For example, they're incorrect about the relative percentages of Neolithic ancestry in Italy depending on the region.

EEF is actually highest in Northern Italy, then Tuscany, then Central Italy, and then the South. It's because the "Iran Neo/CHG" is highest in the south and that replaced EEF somewhat, and also because of some additional more recent ancestry in places like Sicily, for instance.

As for Sardinia, the latest paper indicates that it wasn't as isolated as used to be believed. The population in the remote mountain plateau from which many of the samples chosen by Cavalli-Sforza originated is a case apart, and, by the way, whether the I2a there came from the Mesolithic inhabitants or a group arriving later in the Neolithic is very much open to question.

Likewise, while it's true that for a long time studies used only the sample from Bergamo for various analyses, researchers now have access to more Northern Italian samples.

Generally speaking, a lot of what they're saying about haplogroups is speculation not yet verified by ancient dna, and I don't find their labels helpful. Calling U-152 Celto-Germanic is anachronistic, for one thing, and certain clades of E1b1b found in Italy definitely arrived after the Neolithic. It's also not helpful relying on old maps that don't show sub-lineages. In the case of E1b1b it's impossible to analyze the arrival of various lineages in Italy without knowing that.

I have the same sort of problems with the autosomal analysis. There aren't "masses" of "Germanic" ancestry anywhere in Sicily. I don't know where that comes from, although that's just one example. In addition, we've come a long way from the Dodecad analyses. By this point, we, in addition to Dienekes, know that those clusters are themselves admixtures, and not the most informative way of analyzing autosomal ancestry. Some of the verbiage also has that old theapricity, forumbiodiversity feeling, filtered through, I would bet, the prism of some of the Northern Italian members who frequented those forums.

It's just wrong in a lot of the particulars, and very outdated, imo.

Sorry, Salento, nothing personal, but that's my opinion.

FWIW, I think the pigmentation map is fine for real "locals"; it's not an accurate description of what you'd see walking around the street anywhere north of Rome. Too bad also that the writer of the article doesn't know the parameters of Emilia versus Romagna, or the location of the Po. If he knew the latter he'd know that the "fairest" areas of Emilia are south of the Po, and the lightest area in that whole region is in the northwestern part of Toscana, just south of the border with Emilia.

Most Yamnaya genomes studied to date exhibit admixedEHG & CHG ancestry with each in robust proportions, oftenwith CHG ancestry higher than 50% (Wang et al. 2018: Figure2c).

https://www.academia.edu/39985565/A..._Language_in_the_Steppes_A_Comment_on_Bomhard

PCA (Fig. 2B ) indicates that all the Anatolian genome sequences from the Early Bronze Age (~2200 BCE) and Late Bronze Age (~1600 BCE) cluster with a previously sequenced Copper Age (~3900 to 3700 BCE) individual from Northwestern Anatolia and lie between Anatolian Neolithic (Anatolia_N) samples and CHG samples but not between Anatolia_N and EHG samples. A test of the form D(CHG, Mbuti; Anatolia_EBA, Anatolia_N) shows that these individuals share more alleles with CHG than Neolithic Anatolians do (Z = 3.95), and we are not able to reject a two-population qpAdm model in which these groups derive ~60% of their ancestry from Anatolian farmers and ~40% from CHG-related ancestry (P = 0.5). This signal is not driven by Neolithic Iranian ancestry, because the result of a similar test of the form D(Iran_N, Mbuti; Anatolia_EBA, Anatolia_N) does not deviate from zero (Z = 1.02).Taken together with recent findings of CHG ancestry on Crete (58), our results support a widespread CHG-related gene flow, not only into Central Anatolia but also into the areas surrounding the Black Sea and Crete. The latter are not believed to have been influenced by steppe-related migrations and may thus correspond to a shared archaeological horizon of trade and innovation in metallurgy (59).

https://science.sciencemag.org/conte...b-figures-data

Here's something interesting I noticed, Yamnaya is 10% more CHG than even Anatolian Bronze-Age on average. Perhaps that's why the Raveane et al paper suggests that it may be underestimated in Modern European populations.

I believe it was only 40% by previous estimates for Yamnaya, in Haak et al 2015.
 
Here's something interesting I noticed, Yamnaya is 10% more CHG than even Anatolian Bronze-Age on average. Perhaps that's why the Raveane et al paper suggests that it may be underestimated in Modern European populations.

I believe it was only 40% by previous estimates for Yamnaya, in Haak et al 2015.

Hush! Some prominent "bloggers" and "posters" would prefer to bury that. :)

The CHG percentages vary depending on the location on the steppe and the time period, but yes, from my recollection, most of Yamnaya has 40% or more.
 
Hush! Some prominent "bloggers" and "posters" would prefer to bury that. :)

The CHG percentages vary depending on the location on the steppe and the time period, but yes, from my recollection, most of Yamnaya has 40% or more.

Ultimately, math is their true detractor. :)
 
Was the influx of Iranian-like CHG (caucasian hunter gatherer) across Anatolia into Greece & Southern Italy during the EBA (early bronze age) already admixed with Yamnaya or was it somehow more "pristine" at this stage?

I assume that the CHG would have mixed with whatever else was in Anatolia & Greece en route to Italy?

Also, isn't Iran Neo/CHG thought to be a component of Yamnaya, along with EHG & Ancient North Eurasian?

If David Anthony is to be believed, and we know he has worked with the Reich Lab in the past, the first movement onto the steppe from the south of the Caucasus was of CHG as defined perhaps as Kotias like, and they were still hunter/fishers. They carried no Anatolian Neo. I'm not so sure that it was necessarily "CHG" as in the 10,000 year old HG population. We may not have a sample for the precise group which brought this "Iranian like" admixture to the steppe, but I do agree it probably arrived very early on, because some of the researchers even model EHG as having a bit of CHG, and there's that J up around Karelia.

Later, Anthony is of the opinion that cattle and sheep flowed north. Perhaps the CHG or whatever admixing group from the south it was had maintained contact with the groups south of the Caucasus?

From pretty early on there was extensive admixture in the Near East of Levant Neo, Anatolian Neo and Iran Neo. Some have even found some admixture in very early times, despite that paper saying they were three very disparate populations. Certainly, if by Iran Neo people mean the sample in the very south of Iran, close to Mesopotamia, it makes sense it would have some other admixtures perhaps even a bit from India.

Still, Iran Neo and CHG are very similar. Given that fact, and given that both might very well have arrived further west admixed with Anatolian Neo, and would have met EEF people who were mostly Anatolian Neo, I'm a little skeptical that the researchers have the strands totally separated and dated as to arrival time. So, for example, I'm a bit skeptical that Raveane et al have really found a distinct "Iranian Neo" signal in southern Italy.

As for the nature of the "Caucasus" like admixture which arrived in Greece, as well as the steppe admixture, I think it's best to go to Lazaridis' paper on the Mycenaeans and Minoans.

All in all I think it's clear why the researchers talk about "CHG/Iranian like" admixture on the steppe, in the Near East, and in Europe. What is clear is that it, whatever "it" is, and whatever its variations, is a Near Eastern centered "component", as WHG is a European centered component, whether it offends Daviski's white nationalist sentiments or not.
 
My Italian-American Genetic Communities!

GUNQ8JK.jpg


vA1mpCD.jpg


55rqkI5.jpg


NaimTO2.jpg
 
Last edited:
Hi, I'm a Northern (Lombardy)/Central-Southern (mostly Abruzzo with a bit of Umbrian) mix. I suppose I descend from many different Italic peoples.

It's curious for me to see this is an "Italy & Greece" sub-forum, I'm not sure what's the link which I undoubtedly see in the Benelux, Ireland & UK, Spain and Portugal sub-forums for example.
 
Hi, I'm a Northern (Lombardy)/Central-Southern (mostly Abruzzo with a bit of Umbrian) mix. I suppose I descend from many different Italic peoples.

It's curious for me to see this is an "Italy & Greece" sub-forum, I'm not sure what's the link which I undoubtedly see in the Benelux, Ireland & UK, Spain and Portugal sub-forums for example.

Umbria and Abruzzo have much more in common with Greece than the countries you mention, and they are part of your genetic connection!to Greece.
 
Umbria and Abruzzo have much more in common with Greece than the countries you mention. That’s your genetic connection!to Greece.
Do you really mean that Umbria and Abruzzo have more in common with Greece than UK has in common with Ireland, Spain with Portugal and Benelux countries have with one another? Sorry but I strongly disagree.

By the way, also in absolute terms I don't see a special connection of Italy to Greece (except maybe in those parts which were Greek colonies 2500 years ago), not in food, not in architecture, not in religion, pretty much in nothing really.

Nothing but respect for Greece and the Greeks but that's reality of everyday life (and being from norther Italy, geography).

Bottom line the "Italy & Greece" subforum strikes me as odd, but no problem with it I really don't care if that's how the site was designed.
 
Do you really mean that Umbria and Abruzzo have more in common with Greece than UK has in common with Ireland, Spain with Portugal and Benelux countries have with one another? Sorry but I strongly disagree.

By the way, also in absolute terms I don't see a special connection of Italy to Greece (except maybe in those parts which were Greek colonies 2500 years ago), not in food, not in architecture, not in religion, pretty much in nothing really.

Nothing but respect for Greece and the Greeks but that's reality of everyday life (and being from norther Italy, geography).

Bottom line the "Italy & Greece" subforum strikes me as odd, but no problem with it I really don't care if that's how the site was designed.

Italy is not confined to your town, ... and you just listed some important Italian connections to Greece, ... and you showed that the main title is not odd, thanks :)
 
Italy is not confined to your town, ... and you just listed some important Italian connections to Greece, ... and you showed that the main title is not odd, thanks :)
Northern Italy is not a town, contrary to what some may think in the US. And no, really, I did not list any "important Italian connections to Greece", quite the opposite in fact. I rest my case that an "Italy & Greece" subforum is curious, at least as much as a "France & Germany" subforum would be. Anyway I drop it as it seems to be a sensitive issue for you.
 
Northern Italy is not a town, contrary to what some may think in the US. And no, really, I did not list any "important Italian connections to Greece", quite the opposite in fact. I rest my case that an "Italy & Greece" subforum is curious, at least as much as a "France & Germany" subforum would be. Anyway I drop it as it seems to be a sensitive issue for you.

You mentioned the Greek Colonies (Magna Grecia), that’s important enough to contradict your case!

... If you reply than I would say you are the sensitive one.

and for the record: la geografia l'ho studiata a Lecce!
 
You listed the Greek Colonies (Magna Grecia), that’s important enough to contradict your case!
Cool. Next time an "Italy & France" subforum then because of the Gauls in both France and Northern Italy, or an "Italy & Croatia" one because of Istria and Dalmazia, or an "Italy & Spain" because of the Aragonese rule in Southern Italy, or an "Italy & Britain" subforum because of the Roman Empire, or... :LOL:

Jokes aside, I'm surprised that an Italian wouldn't consider that Italy "alone" makes sense in a subforum. Have it how you like it anyway, as you seem emotionally attacked to the "Magna Graecia" thingy.
 
Cool. Next time an "Italy & France" subforum then because of the Gauls in both France and Northern Italy, or an "Italy & Croatia" one because of Istria and Dalmazia, or an "Italy & Spain" because of the Aragonese rule in Southern Italy, or an "Italy & Britain" subforum because of the Roman Empire, or... :LOL:

Jokes aside, I'm surprised that an Italian wouldn't consider that Italy "alone" makes sense in a subforum. Have it how you like it anyway, as you seem emotionally attacked to the "Magna Graecia" thingy.

yes, Italy alone would obviously make sense, and we have many threads about Italy. You should browse around the forum and see for yourself.

You were talking about the title of the thread and Italy and Greece have a strong ancient genetic connection especially in some parts of Italy.
 
yes, Italy alone would obviously make sense, and we have many threads about Italy. You should browse around the forum and see for yourself.
So that there are no misunderstandings: I’m not talking about threads (as a matter of fact this is about Italics) I’m talking about this subforum quite randomly (if you ask me unless you are an ancient Greek from Salento) called “Italy & Greece”.
 

This thread has been viewed 79577 times.

Back
Top