Prehistoric migrations shaped Corsican Y-chromosome

[Sile]

Prehistoric migrations through the Mediterranean basin shaped Corsican Y-chromosome diversity
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0200641
The rarity of human remains makes it difficult to apprehend the first settlements in Corsica. It is admitted that initial colonization could have occurred during the Mesolithic period when glaciations would have shortened the open water travel distance from the continent. Mesolithic sites in Corsica show relatively short and irregular occupation, and suggest discontinuous settling of very mobile groups probably traveling by boat. Previous genetic studies on Corsican populations showed internal differentiation and a relatively poor genetic relationship with continental populations, despite intense historical contacts, however local Mesolithic-based genetic inheritance has never been properly estimated. The aim of this study was to explore the Corsican genetic profile of Y-chromosomes in order to trace the genetic signatures back to the first migrations to Corsica. This study included 321 samples from men throughout Corsica; samples from Provence and Tuscany were added to the cohort. All samples were typed for 92 Y-SNPs, and Y-STRs were also analyzed. Results revealed highly differentiated haplogroup patterns among Corsican populations. Haplogroup G had the highest frequency in Corsica, mostly displaying a unique Y-STR profile. When compared with Provence and Tuscany, Corsican populations displayed limited genetic proximity. Corsican populations present a remarkable Y-chromosome genetic mixture. Although the Corsican Y-chromosome profile shows similarities with both Provence and to a lesser extent Tuscany, it mainly displays its own specificity.
.
.
.
.
for my haplogroup
12 samples from this study of Haplogroup T1a-M70, was observed in Corsica with an estimated TMRCA of 8854 +/- 1668 years.

 

[kingdavid]

they found 3 e1b1a cases in corsicasurprising
in some of the same areas they found e-v13
as expected e-v13 is the main e1b version in corsica could be brought by ancient greeks
or by cardial neolithic
maybe the e1b1a cases is Carthaginian

 

[Sile]

In fig 1
it states that T1a-M70 is the oldest TMRCA in Corsica of all the haplogroups
.
interesting is that G2a-L497 in corsica is know to have originated in Tyrol Austria ..........as per a 2013 genetic paper

 

[Pax Augusta]

Interesting study but it has some methodological problems already shown in similar papers made above all by Italian geneticists.

Only the Corsicans have been sampled by this study. French, Tuscans and other Italian samples are from previous papers. Comparing the old studies from which the samples were taken with this study, here and there in this study there are minor errors.

Anyway, French (Provence) are from King et al. 2011. Italians are mostly from Boattini 2013. Sardinians are also from Francalacci 2012? The Tuscans labelled as Tuscani Siena are 86 and are from Boattini 2013, where they were labelled as Grosseto/Siena. Also the Murlo sample used in many studies of the past is composed precisely of 86 individuals. It can not be a coincidence. One can really think at this point that even the one used in this study and by Boattini 2013 is actually the sample from Murlo. Similar situation for the sample labelled as Tuscani Pisa that is composed of 113 individuals, a number that corresponds exactly with the sample analysed by Grugni in 2017 labeled as Volterra (Volterra is in the province of Pisa) and extremely similar to that labeled in the past as Volterra and composed of 114 individuals. At this point Tuscani Arezzo is most likely a subset of the sample from Casentino. So the Tuscans in this study are most likely the old samples from Murlo, Volterra and Casentino.

The problem is clear. If you always use the same samples, it is very likely that essentially the same results would be obtained.

 

[kingdavid]

there was m123 cases in the arezzo sample
not in corsica and provence though....
so you say they are actually from casentino good to know

 

[Pax Augusta]

there was m123 cases in the arezzo sample
not in corsica and provence though....
so you say they are actually from casentino good to know

The Y-chromosome tree of this study is full of errors. It's enough to see that 50 out of 113 in the Pisa sample (or better say Volterra) are all R1b1a1a2a. C'mon, that's very unlikely. Of course they are all R1b but they are more diversified than that. As showed in Grugni 2018 where this sample was already analysed.

Anyway M123 at low frequencies is anywhere in Italy, even in Sardinia. As Boattini showed. M123 very likely exists also among Corsicans, at low frequencies.

 

[kingdavid]

thanks
what do you think is the source of e1b1a-v38 cases in Corsica?
Could it be carthegenian ?

 

[Angela]

Interesting study but it has some methodological problems already shown in similar papers made above all by Italian geneticists.

Only the Corsicans have been sampled by this study. French, Tuscans and other Italian samples are from previous papers. Comparing the old studies from which the samples were taken with this study, here and there in this study there are minor errors.

Anyway, French (Provence) are from King et al. 2011. Italians are mostly from Boattini 2013. Sardinians are also from Francalacci 2012? The Tuscans labelled as Tuscani Siena are 86 and are from Boattini 2013, where they were labelled as Grosseto/Siena. Also the Murlo sample used in many studies of the past is composed precisely of 86 individuals. It can not be a coincidence. One can really think at this point that even the one used in this study and by Boattini 2013 is actually the sample from Murlo. Similar situation for the sample labelled as Tuscani Pisa that is composed of 113 individuals, a number that corresponds exactly with the sample analysed by Grugni in 2017 labeled as Volterra (Volterra is in the province of Pisa) and extremely similar to that labeled in the past as Volterra and composed of 114 individuals. At this point Tuscani Arezzo is most likely a subset of the sample from Casentino. So the Tuscans in this study are most likely the old samples from Murlo, Volterra and Casentino.

The problem is clear. If you always use the same samples, it is very likely that essentially the same results would be obtained.

Maybe it's lack of money? However, how expensive can it be just to draw spit from other places in Toscana? The costs of the analysis are the same whether it's an old or a new sample. These samples are all from areas that were important as Etruscan sites because that's whom they were chasing. It's time to spread out a little in terms of samples.

Also, what a lame y dna analysis. In this day and age they can't narrow them down more than this? Of course, the usual players get all excited by some non-E-V13 "E". I don't know when people are going to figure out that on small islands "exotic" uniparental markers can drift to prominence. Hvar, one of the Croatian islands, is like 14% "Q". Central Asians and/or Siberians didn't invade that island. The marker was probably in the interior of the Balkans and just rose to prominence randomly. There's strange mtDna too. People should read the Iceland paper as well, to see what drift can do, but I guess they're too busy obsessing about Jews and Sicilians/Southern Italians.

Oh, I think I remember E-M123 is about 1% in Croatia. I guess the Carthaginians with their exotic North African ancestry or Levantines got up there too!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_studies_on_Croats

Plus, there's a limit to what yDna is going to tell you anyway. What would be interesting would be an autosomal analysis.

I also have no idea why they only compared to Toscana. There's loads of documented migration to Corsica from Liguria, including, for instance, in the case of Napoleon according to some sources.

https://books.google.com/books?id=U...epage&q=Ligurian ancestry of Napoleon&f=false

 

[kingdavid]

Maybe it's lack of money? However, how expensive can it be just to draw spit from other places in Toscana? The costs of the analysis are the same whether it's an old or a new sample. These samples are all from areas that were important as Etruscan sites because that's whom they were chasing. It's time to spread out a little in terms of samples.

Also, what a lame y dna analysis. In this day and age they can't narrow them down more than this? Of course, the usual players get all excited by some non-E-V13 "E". I don't know when people are going to figure out that on small islands "exotic" uniparental markers can drift to prominence. Hvar, one of the Croatian islands, is like 14% "Q". Central Asians and/or Siberians didn't invade that island. The marker was probably in the interior of the Balkans and just rose to prominence randomly. There's strange mtDna too. People should read the Iceland paper as well, to see what drift can do, but I guess they're too busy obsessing about Jews and Sicilians/Southern Italians.

Oh, I think I remember E-M123 is about 1% in Croatia. I guess the Carthaginians with their exotic North African ancestry or Levantines got up there too!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_studies_on_Croats

Plus, there's a limit to what yDna is going to tell you anyway. What would be interesting would be an autosomal analysis.

I also have no idea why they only compared to Toscana. There's loads of documented migration to Corsica from Liguria, including, for instance, in the case of Napoleon according to some sources.

https://books.google.com/books?id=U...epage&q=Ligurian ancestry of Napoleon&f=false

you are confused honey
i am not sikeliot ......
e-m123 wasn't found in this research in corsica and provence but was found in arezzo 6%

dont know what your problem
e1b1a-v38 is damn rare in europe
so to found it on this island was surprising .......

 

[Cato]

So Corsicans are descendants of old Corsicans, mostly....they have continental italian surnames (contrary to sardinians), probably they just adopted them with no gene flow

Utilizzando Tapatalk

 

[Pax Augusta]

So Corsicans are descendants of old Corsicans, mostly....they have continental italian surnames (contrary to sardinians), probably they just adopted them with no gene flow

Utilizzando Tapatalk

Surnames were clearly adopted due to the Italian cultural influence, but no gene flow from mainland Italy is not possible, autosomally Corsicans are too close to Italy, and are different from Sardinians. But at this point perhaps this proximity is due to a mixture of things, not only to the migrations from Italy, Corsicans have always been close, floating between Sardinia and mainland Italy due to prehistoric migrations as well.

Generally speaking it's not a surprise that many Corsicans are descendants of the previous inhabitants of Corsica, Corsica was not uninhabited before the Italian medieval influence began. But I fear that this study pushes this conclusion a lot, for many reasons that have nothing to do with genetics.

 

[Cato]

Well "no gene flow" is clearly impossible, there were italian colonies there in the Middle age....however it would seem that a Corsican guy named for example Cavalli is not necessarily a descendant of an italian colonist



Utilizzando Tapatalk

 

[Pax Augusta]

Well "no gene flow" is clearly impossible, there were italian colonies there in the Middle age....however it would seem that a Corsican guy named for example Cavalli is not necessarily a descendant of an italian colonist

Agreed, this is obviously true.

 

[Pax Augusta]

thanks
what do you think is the source of e1b1a-v38 cases in Corsica?
Could it be carthegenian ?

Perhaps, but it is really difficult to understand in this way its origin in Corsica. I have many doubts about this methodology adopted in this study, as in other previous Italian and French studies. Making assumptions about the origin of a haplogroup, especially if it's a minor lineage, based on its modern distribution.

Then again, one wonders if the Y-chromosome tree of this study is really accurate. According to this study 90% of the French of Provence (259 individuals) belong to the Haplogroup R, of which the vast majority are R1b. The sample from French Provence comes from a previous study of 2011, and there were analyzed two Provencal samples, one of 51 individuals and the other one of 368 individuals. In the 2011 study they say that R1b of Provence is 58.8% (based on the 51 people sample), much more similar to a French average based on many more studies. R1 is instead a bit higher as expected. Unfortunately I can not find detailed information in the 2011 study on the other sample of 368 individuals from Provence.

The dominant haplogroup of Provence is R1b-M269 at 58.8% (Figure 2). Also found in Provence is haplogroup E-V13 (3.9%) and J2a-DYS445 = 6 (7.8%). All the V13 derived samples are from western Provence along the Rhone, while all the J2a-DYS445 = 6 are from Var in eastern Provence.

So, how can R1 reach 90% in Provence? Moreover, in a much larger sample. It is very unlikely that southern France is 90% R1. See for yourself the averages on Eupedia for France. So either there's a big problem with this study, or there's a big problem with the French sample they used. Or likely both.

e-m123 wasn't found in this research in corsica and provence but was found in arezzo 6%

Most of it is E-M34, but one E-M34 was also found in Provence in the 2011 paper but it disappeared from this study.

The 51 samples from areas near Neolithic sites in Provence had derived alleles for the following markers: V13, M34, Page94, M253, M438, M497, M530, M67, M198 and M269.

In Provence E-M34 was found in the sample of 51 individuals (Neolithic means that was collected near a Neolithic site, but it's a sample of modern-day people).

I would be curious to find the Y-DNA of the other 368 individuals of Provence. This 2018 study analyzes a smaller number (259) than the one examined in 2011 (51 + 368 = 419). Why? Have fewer samples been selected for some particular reason? Missing samples are women or is there another explanation?

Another interesting thing reading the 2011 paper is that it turns out that the Corsicans had already been sampled for that study. But even in this case the number of individuals used in this study is lower than the number of Corsicans analysed in 2011.

 

[Jovialis]

dont know what your problem

You're so defensive "Kingjohn"...

Also, your IP isn't matching up with your flag. Fix that.

 

[Angela]

you are confused honey
i am not sikeliot ......
e-m123 wasn't found in this research in corsica and provence but was found in arezzo 6%

dont know what your problem
e1b1a-v38 is damn rare in europe
so to found it on this island was surprising .......

I never said you were, necessarily. You're certainly the scout, or emissary, or whatever. Do you think you fool anyone as to your preoccupations and motivations?

Yes, e1b1a-v38 is rare in Europe. An E1b1a was found in Yorkshire, however. So what? Men moved around.

Stop obsessing on Italian genetics, why don't you. Surely you must have at least a few other interests?

Oh, and don't call me honey. It's sexist. Next time you pull something like that you'll get an infraction.

 

[Angela]

When are people going to stop placing so much emphasis on modern distributions of yDna to elucidate ancient migrations and to determine overall similarity between peoples? Doing that led people to believe for years that downstream R1b originated in western Europe, and that the first farmers to reach Europe were J2a.

Just wait for the ancient dna to determine ancient migrations, and for overall similarity do a sophisticated autosomal analysis.

Some other things to consider about Provence in relationship to all of this is the fact that both Corsica and Sardinia may have been settled initially from that area. The other is that Provence was heavily settled by the Romans, hence the name "Provence" or "Our Province". What I'd really like to see is an autosomal comparison of Provencals and the people of western Liguria right over the border. That's one of the reasons, apart from the Ligurian migrations to Corsica, that I don't understand why Ligurians weren't included in the analysis.

 

[Pax Augusta]

Maybe it's lack of money? However, how expensive can it be just to draw spit from other places in Toscana? The costs of the analysis are the same whether it's an old or a new sample. These samples are all from areas that were important as Etruscan sites because that's whom they were chasing. It's time to spread out a little in terms of samples.

Lack of money and other reasons, I suppose. Indeed, these samples are all from areas that were important as Etruscan sites, and were collected for their isolation. It's not a coincidence that in this paper among the authors are also mentioned Di Gaetano and Piazza. Piazza is a very influential geneticist, and, concedimi di essere tranchant, not for the academic authoritativeness but because he has been for a long time the chairman of most powerful Italian private foundation focused on genomic research and established by one of the main Italian banks. Almost all the latest researches on the genome of Italians (Di Gaetano, Fiorito, Sazzini ....) are funded by this foundation. And Piazza as geneticist is one of the proponents of the theory of eastern origin of the Etruscans based on the distribution of mtDNA in modern samples, along with Torroni, Semino and others. This theory based on findings on modern samples for many other scholars does not prove anything. Moreover, Piazza's theory has been several times debunked by the researches of the other group of Italian geneticists led by Barbujani, who, unlike Piazza and his collaborators, really analyzed ancient Etruscan samples. Piazza has all the interest, as long as he is influential, to keep the narrative that their findings are still valid. So I suppose these three samples from Volterra, Murlo and Casentino, will still be long used to represent all the Tuscans. At this point I believe that at least a part of these samples is also used in the researches of Di Gaetano, Fiorito and perhaps even partly in the study of Sazzini. If you read the researches, for example, of Fiorito, or the last of Viola Grugni, one understands perfectly the state of subjection in which young Italian geneticists are forced to work.

It is time to overcome this old and obsolete approach of examining distribution of Y-DNA and mtDNA, as you say, to elucidate ancient migrations. And it's time to focus in the analysis of ancient samples. Only a very large number of Etruscan samples - and this applies to any pre-Roman civilization - will help us to understand who they were and where they came from and what prehistorical layers they were made of.

Just to be more explicit about which types of huge mistakes the observation of Y-DNA and mtDNA in the modern population may provoke. 11 years ago Piazza basically stated that G2*- P15, J2a1b*-M67, E3b1-M78, and K2-M70 (renamed T1a-M70) were signal of recent Middle Eastern ancestry and therefore typical Etruscan haplogroups. Today we know that those haplogroups exist everywhere in Italy and in southern Europe (and also in the rest of Europe), and that they can certainly not be considered as exclusively Etruscan haplogroups, and in most cases arrived with the Neolithic revolution and Chalcolithic migrations.

 

[Angela]

Lack of money and other reasons, I suppose. Indeed, these samples are all from areas that were important as Etruscan sites, and were collected for their isolation. It's not a coincidence that in this paper among the authors are also mentioned Di Gaetano and Piazza. Piazza is a very influential geneticist, and, concedimi di essere tranchant, not for the academic authoritativeness but because he has been for a long time the chairman of most powerful Italian private foundation focused on genomic research and established by one of the main Italian banks. Almost all the latest researches on the genome of Italians (Di Gaetano, Fiorito, Sazzini ....) are funded by this foundation. And Piazza as geneticist is one of the proponents of the theory of eastern origin of the Etruscans based on the distribution of mtDNA in modern samples, along with Torroni, Semino and others. This theory based on findings on modern samples for many other scholars does not prove anything. Moreover, Piazza's theory has been several times debunked by the researches of the other group of Italian geneticists led by Barbujani, who, unlike Piazza and his collaborators, really analyzed ancient Etruscan samples. Piazza has all the interest, as long as he is influential, to keep the narrative that their findings are still valid. So I suppose these three samples from Volterra, Murlo and Casentino, will still be long used to represent all the Tuscans. At this point I believe that at least a part of these samples is also used in the researches of Di Gaetano, Fiorito and perhaps even partly in the study of Sazzini. If you read the researches, for example, of Fiorito, or the last of Viola Grugni, one understands perfectly the state of subjection in which young Italian geneticists are forced to work.

It is time to overcome this old and obsolete approach of examining distribution of Y-DNA and mtDNA, as you say, to elucidate ancient migrations. And it's time to focus in the analysis of ancient samples. Only a very large number of Etruscan samples - and this applies to any pre-Roman civilization - will help us to understand who they were and where they came from and what prehistorical layers they were made of.

Just to be more explicit about which types of huge mistakes the observation of Y-DNA and mtDNA in the modern population may provoke. 11 years ago Piazza basically stated that G2*- P15, J2a1b*-M67, E3b1-M78, and K2-M70 (renamed T1a-M70) were signal of recent Middle Eastern ancestry and therefore typical Etruscan haplogroups. Today we know that those haplogroups exist everywhere in Italy and in southern Europe (and also in the rest of Europe), and that they can certainly not be considered as exclusively Etruscan haplogroups, and in most cases arrived with the Neolithic revolution and Chalcolithic migrations.

Excellent example, Pax. With the benefit of hindsight, those conclusions are almost laughable. It would be very ironic indeed if the Etruscans do carry G2a dna, but it's the kind that came from Central Europe or conversely the kind that's been in Europe since the Neolithic. That's why I hope that the Reich Lab take a really wide spread number of samples for their paper on Italy, both geographically and chronologically.

Given how wrong he was, you would think he would have learned his lesson, but apparently not.

Honestly, I don't even know if I'll continue reading this paper. In this day and age this ridiculously low level of resolution on the y makes any conclusions extremely suspect.

I hasten to add I have absolutely no problem with there having been a migration from Asia Minor to Central Italy in the first millennium BC. If it happened, it's basically the same ancestry as would have come in the Bronze Age, so ultimately it doesn't matter.

It's important to get our facts straight, however, and in this case that requires lots of dna from the Etruscans and early Romans in comparison to prior populations.

I'm also beyond tired of pointing out that whatever gene flow occurred hit all of southeastern Europe as well as Italy, and all the way to Spain and Portugal, even if it's possible it occurred at slightly different times.

 

[APO276]

Concerning Corsica, the thing that I find interesting in ancient sources is that Pausanias calls Corsicans 'Libyans'.

I have thought the possibility of a copying mistake. If, for example, where we find Λίβυες (Libues = Libyans) originally there was a Λίγυες (Ligues = Ligurians).
That would have been more consistent with modern ideas concerning the Corsi, but I don't think a mistake like that is very likely.

So, I leave open two possibilities. That the original inhabitants of Corsica were Libyans and also that the Ligurians could have been related to Libyans, too. The idea that Ligurians were 'Indo-European' is relatively popular today, but there is not much to support it.

I haven't read the study yet.