Mountain communities in Central Italy: A genetic insight

Almost all Eupedia maps show 30-10% of R1b Starting from central Italy, and into the South. So yes, for these regions, it is typical.

Not really. Tuscany, biggest region in Central Italy, has 50% of R1b with a peak in northern Tuscany of 76%, more than many parts of Northern eastern Italy. Btw this study, that was already discussed more than one year ago, analyses isolated villages between Lazio and Abruzzo, the historical border between Central and Southern Italy. In this study there is even a village in Lazio that has between 24% and 35% of Germanic I1, that is present also in Abruzzo and Molise.

Italy is a very complicated country, even too complicated for some Italian scholars, some of them are really scarce. Let alone for those foreigner scholars who have an agenda, not an excellent knowledge of Italy or both.

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30947-Central-italian-ancient-genetics

Well, considering it's so bad maybe it's a good thing if everyone forgets about it. :)

You did a great job on that paper, Maciamo. Someone should send the authors a copy. They need the constructive criticism.

Indeed. Unfortunately, the older generation of Italian scholars has been replaced by a new generation which is really disappointing.

This is what I found about Jenne, the town with all the U2d.

"1079 circa, Ildemondo dei Conti, comandante di una pattuglia di assediò Jenne ove impose la resa l'invasore, Ildemondo si riappropriò così di Jenne."

There's nothing else of note I could find, except what the paper mentions, which is the ties to Italic tribes. There's nothing about any settlements of medieval tribes from eastern Europe or the Caucasus.


There is very little about these villages, except this book, based on conference proceedings.

"I Longobardi in Valcomino e nel Lazio meridionale".

https://www.ibs.it/longobardi-in-valcomino-nel-lazio-libro-/e/9788897805069
 
Geographical borders in Italy don't necessarily fit perfectly with the genetic clines, especially in what is labeled "Central Italy", which is something which people who haven't studied it in depth rarely understand. Imo, the Abruzzi and the southern part of Lazio, although labelled central Italy, are really southern Italy genetically and even culturally. Even Toscana has its genetic cline, with northwestern Toscana leaning north.

I think the political divisions of the period prior to unification explain part of this.

Nowadays, of course, the common understanding is even looser (and more incorrect genetically). I recently posted a video created by a great guy who considers himself North Italian, a Lombard. However, from what I can tell he is 3/4 Pugliese. That's why if genetics is the focus of certain studies long established pedigrees in an area are important. However, as I said, going to the other extreme and using uniparental results from such drifted communities is also problematical.
 
Not really. Tuscany, biggest region in Central Italy, has 50% of R1b with a peak in northern Tuscany of 76%, more than many parts of Northern eastern Italy. Btw this study, that was already discussed more than one year ago, analyses isolated villages between Lazio and Abruzzo, the historical border between Central and Southern Italy. In this study there is even a village in Lazio that has between 24% and 35% of Germanic I1, that is present also in Abruzzo and Molise.

That is correct, the R1b are later comers into western and western-central Italy and do not reflected the indigenous population of those areas, .............

what needs to be studied is the north and south picenes, umbri , sabines/sabellic and the messapics

IMO, the etruscans are a splinter group from the umbri people and never replaced whoever the indigenous people of tuscany where in 900BC ,( 900BC etruscans oldest recorded period )
 
With a list of values like these perhaps the median, which is 32%, would be better? That would certainly be more in keeping with values on the edge of southern Italy, as is the case here.

Even then, I'm not sure it necessarily follows, Moesan. So much is down to chance. Were all the villages settled at the same time, from the same exact area? Were the people who chose to go into the mountains necessarily representative, in terms of uniparental markers, of that area? Autosomally, they probably were, but uniparental markers can vary widely. Then, so much depends on fertility rates, who dies and when. MtDna U4d is in one village, but there are ten people carrying it. Perhaps that original woman's line got lucky.

Ed. I did try to check into the history of these villages, but even Italian sources don't have much. Except for one village which was taken over by some Norman knights, I couldn't find anything after the Roman era. So, I don't know if the founding populations were from the Neolithic-Italici populations of that time, or whether other groups had moved in and no good land being left, retreated into the mountains.


in meanwhile I red other posts and saw this wurvey was not recent nor very acute, so I give up- my modest remark was just about statistical aspects when some great discrepancies are found in neighbouring micro-regions: somewhat, sometime the global mean reset the original percentages or can come close to.
 
My ydna is from Trevi and I'm E-V13. I'd like to know how this hg got there.
 
My ydna is from Trevi and I'm E-V13. I'd like to know how this hg got there.
If you wish to know, you need to test your y-chromosome deeper, to see which branch of Ev13 you belong to, and then this will allow you to compare within a more recent timeframe to closer cousins.

You can do that with FTDNA
 

This thread has been viewed 15028 times.

Back
Top