The genetic origin of Daunians

I wouldn't use J2 as an argument, because just like H and E1b, it seems to have been common in various early farmer groups, which were otherwise not much more Eastern shifted than the LBK farmers, sometimes even more WHG actually. Because of this, we need to reconstruct J2 and its subclades migrations first, before using it for any sort of argument in favour of an earlier Iranian ancestry spread.
Since you mentioned Minoans: Its so low in those, that even if they would have replaced local, earlier EEF groups completely, it wouldn't suffice. The gap is just too big without the later, Hellenistic and Roman era gene flow. At the same time, however, I think you are right that there was a constant trickling in too. A lot of samples hint at this kind of slow effect, just like the Northern shift in Italy didn't end with the migration period, but continued with slow trickling in from Central Europe directly and indirectly from Northern Italy to Southern Italy.
By the way, I wondered about the Molise sampels and their special case, but I guess some of it can be explained by the Slavic settlement in the region. Its interesting to compre Molise with Marche. There are just 2 samples form Molise, but these have above average Slavic admixture, while the Marche samples have one with higher Slavic, but the rest being more Celto-Germanic shifted in comparison. Quite interesting, but probably the result of:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molise_Croats
Does anyone know results of "full blooded" Molise Slavs? If such even exist up to this point.
Minoans have about 20% Iran_N/CHG, the rest is Anatolian_N. Anatolian_Chl/BA has more.

Combinations of groups like catacomb culture, and Minoans provided good fits for me in the past. We see cultural connections with catacomb culture, and Italy and Greece.

One paper attributed this "near eastern" signal in the south all the back to the Paleolithic.
I don't think it is unreasonable to speculate the south was more CHG/IN admixed from the get go, who later mixes with more steppe-rich populations.

The gap exists because we don't have a comprehensive catalog of good quality samples from appropriate times and places. Instead we have paltry data that merely entertain some theories.
 
"Evidence of Catacomb influence has been discovered far outside of the Pontic steppe. Its burial chambers, metal types and figurines are very similar to those appearing in Italy and the eastern Mediterranean, while the hammer-head pin, a characteristic ornament of the Catacomb culture, has been found in Central Europe and Italy. Based on these similarities, migrations or cultural diffusion from the Catacomb culture to these areas have been suggested.[2] Similarities between the Catacomb culture and Mycenaean Greece are particularly striking. These include types of socketed spear-heads, types of cheekpieces for horses, and the custom of making masks for the dead.[14]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catacomb_culture"
 
I don't see any Mycenaen ...I see

The excess of WHG ancestry, tentatively suggesting a local origin, is somewhat blurred by
the genetic similarity of the two most probable sources - Illyrians (Croatia EIA) and an
autochthonous one (Roman Republicans),

The quote

The excess of WHG ancestry, tentatively suggesting a local origin, is somewhat blurred by
the genetic similarity of the two most probable sources - Illyrians (Croatia EIA) and an
autochthonous one (Roman Republicans)


the above in bold is from the paper ........................yet people love to take a cheap shot at myself, some cannot help it ...................

but, as I said many months ago ...............these Daunian people came via Liburnian areas of modern Croatia ...............I suspect that in the future , we will see that the Liburnians are a far bigger group of people in the late bronze-age to early iron-age period and that as I predict the dalmatians would end up being a sub branch of the original Liburnians



@salento
As I said to you many many months ago

our ydna line arrived in this croatian-slovenia modern lands ( most likely from modern Hungarian lands... ....with your line heading south along the Italian adriatic and my line heading north ...............
 
I gave you these samples, which prove, in any case, the presence of French-German individuals in the Italian Medieval context. This is what the actual paper wrote about these samples, of which many being German shifted:

A radical transformation of the Basilica is recorded in the second quarter of the 11th century CE
following a fire, of which extensive traces have been found. In addition to conspicuous transformations of
a structural nature, the floor of all the sections of the Basilica was raised by about 1 m. In the church,
starting from this date until its destruction, numerous burials were built including several masonry
ossuaries. New changes to the structure of the church were made during the second half of the fifteenth
century. The numismatic artifacts found have allowed us to date, at the beginning of the last quarter of the
fifteenth century, a large mass grave in which hundreds of burials were deposited (SU17, SU30 and
SU471). In the way of organizing the burials it is likely to recognize the effects of a plague epidemic
which we know to have struck the city between 1476 and 1479 CE, a hypothesis that would also be
confirmed by the study of skeletal remains. In 1489 CE the building of the Palazzo della Cancelleria
begins and the church is totally destroyed. The population of this necropolis covers most of the Middle
Ages and is representative of the population of Rome of this period
.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aay6826


As for Swiss, Bavarians or French migrating into Italy the only ones of which I'm aware were into neighboring areas, i.e. far northern, northeastern, and northwestern areas, i.e. EXTREMELY localized, and therefore irrelevant for "Italian" ethnogenesis as a whole. We have papers showing how localized and isolated those groups were if you don't recall.

There was a debate on Anthrogenica and a nice paper on German communities and migrants in Italy and their local importance. The search function on the boards are not always optimal, but there were several papers on the issue.
 
I gave you these samples, which prove, in any case, the presence of French-German individuals in the Italian Medieval context.

There was a debate on Anthrogenica and a nice paper on German communities and migrants in Italy and their local importance. The search function on the boards are not always optimal, but there were several papers on the issue.

It was known to historians. It is not a discovery. But they are in fact individuals, not large groups of people. If we're talking about foreign language communities on the borders of Italy instead, those are another story and are unlikely relevant for all Italians.
 


thanks
from your link above only ORD009 and ORD010
looks in ok quality:unsure:

DYKlgPb.png



f7OoZR9.png
 
It was known to historians. It is not a discovery. But they are in fact individuals, not large groups of people. If we're talking about foreign language communities on the borders of Italy instead, those are another story and are unlikely relevant for all Italians.

Indeed, there are specific regional influences, like German in the very North, like around Sappada, French in the Aosta valley, Slovenes, Germans and Rhaeto-Romans in the Venetian province and Northern Italy in general, Molise Slavs - well, in Molise, Albanians in Apulia, North Italians, Normans and Greeks in Sicily etc. Every region has its specific history.
I know its just about two samples from Molise in G25, but if ignoring the outlier for Marche, Molise has double time as much Slavic as Marche. Just as an example. I don't know whether this holds up for larger samples from Molise, probably not, but at least on the local level, such kinds of settlements of various people usually had some effect.
And as for the German & French, probably you can provide one of the sources relevant to the issue. In any case, German quarters, merchants, artisans and the like being present in almost every Italian city. Its not big influence, but a constant one which could have an effect too.
 
thanks
from your link above only ORD009 and ORD010
looks in ok quality:unsure:

DYKlgPb.png



f7OoZR9.png
This:
ORD001 was found to be the daughter of ORD009, with a much more Rome_Republican makeup, with an (unsampled) father who was certainly much more Caucasian and Middle Eastern-shifted, given the admixture makeup of the daughter ORD001. So ORD001 represents a very recent inter-ethnic mixing, not an average individual.

Not sure how you get a result close to Romanians according to that.
 
Indeed, there are specific regional influences, like German in the very North, like around Sappada, French in the Aosta valley, Slovenes, Germans and Rhaeto-Romans in the Venetian province and Northern Italy in general, Molise Slavs - well, in Molise, Albanians in Apulia, North Italians, Normans and Greeks in Sicily etc. Every region has its specific history.
I know its just about two samples from Molise in G25, but if ignoring the outlier for Marche, Molise has double time as much Slavic as Marche. Just as an example. I don't know whether this holds up for larger samples from Molise, probably not, but at least on the local level, such kinds of settlements of various people usually had some effect.
And as for the German & French, probably you can provide one of the sources relevant to the issue. In any case, German quarters, merchants, artisans and the like being present in almost every Italian city. Its not big influence, but a constant one which could have an effect too.

Relevant to the issue? What would be the issue? Going to count every foreigner who has passed through Italy?

Sources on the presence of French and Germans in Italy?
I'll have to look into that.
 
ORD009 is the highest quality sample plus it's more Northern (that's why they score Liguria first) than other samples. So Daunians are indeed closer to Central Italians. I am gonna wish for better quality for Messapians. Let's wait how G25 results are.


Distance to:ORD009
2.01910871Italian_Liguria
2.79744526Italian_Lombardy
3.22854456Italian_Emilia
3.59342455Italian_Piedmont
4.42649975Italian_Tuscany
4.63920252Italian_Veneto
5.98281811Swiss_Italian
6.84963503Italian_Friuli_VG
7.04014204Italian_Romagna
7.08038841Italian_Trentino
7.46207076French_Corsica
8.95600916Italian_Umbria
9.62911730Italian_Aosta_Valley
10.41710056Italian_Marche
10.45613695Spanish_Baleares
10.56515499Italian_Lazio
11.38797612Portuguese
11.40762903Albanian_Kosovo
11.43364771Spanish_Canarias
11.64887548Macedonian_Vardar
11.78715827Macedonian_South
12.34889874Macedonian_East
12.36776051Spanish_Castilla-Leon
12.91960913Spanish_Valencia
12.94037480Greek_Thessaly

I thought the Ligurian sample only contains ONE individual.:amazed:
 
... out of curiosity :) ... experimental Phasing: ... ORD001_Father

Code:
ORD001_Father_Dod_K12b,4.99,0.55,3.32,0.00,28.67,35.88,0.00,1.47,4.96,0.00,20.16,0.00

idMM33n.gif
 
Relevant to the issue? What would be the issue? Going to count every foreigner who has passed through Italy?

Sources on the presence of French and Germans in Italy?
I'll have to look into that.

Sources on the presence of German artisans, merchants and migrants in general especially in Northern Italy. Like it was noted for cities like Venice (well known), Genua, Florence etc. both quarters and individuals.

An example for Florence:
The opportunities for Germans to find work in Florence were greatest for about a century after 1370, with demand for workers rising during the recovery following the ravages of the Black Death and diminishing in the context of political unrest and economic decline in the late fifteenth century. Even at the height of German immigration, their numbers probably never reached even two percent of the Florentine population.

The second chapter is an attempt to define the scope of immigration from about 1370 to around 1500. A great demand for weavers emerged soon after about 1370, and these seem to have come particularly from the Low Countries and from Northern Germany. Other skills and crafts for which there appears to have been demand include agricultural work and glass blowing, as indicated by various tax relief measures. Florentine officials seem to have been constantly concerned that immigrant workers not marry local women and remove dowry capital from Florence.

Case study, I think the surnames are interesting:
B?ninger discusses in more detail the cases of three families, the Riccardi, the Sizzi, and the Frizzi. The Riccardi, descendents of a Cologne tailor, became wealthy merchants and were completely assimilated within three generations. The Sizzi, also descendants of a tailor, remained artisans in contact with other German immigrants and disappear from the records within three generations. The Frizzi probably descended from a cobbler, and had even less success, disappearing even earlier from the records.

Social organisations:
Chapter 4 deals with the German confraternities. While they were not as significant in Florence as were those in Venice and Rome, they nonetheless played a significant role for a time. They served to provide financial, moral, and legal support for the immigrants, and often assumed quasi-religious functions in the communities. These societies had sometimes difficult relations with the Florentine guilds and officials, though their function in preserving law and order was widely appreciated. The Brotherhood of Saint Catherine appears to have appealed especially to south Germans. Indeed, resolving disputes was often an important function for them. The Brotherhood of Saint Barbara was perhaps the largest and most important one, similar to those founded in other cities. From 1439 there is even evidence for a confraternity of pimps!

Here again he studies the families of three cobblers in some detail from the extant records. In all three cases, connections to the Society lapse after two generations, and the descendants were either fully assimilated or gone from Florence. B?ninger notes that many of the names in the membership roll also occur in other cities and might reflect both a wider network of immigrants and continued wandering from city to city. It is difficult, though, to make absolute identifications from the available records.

The final chapter describes one individual in considerable detail: Arrigho di Federigho "Martello." He appears in the historical record working for the Martelli, one of the most prominent Florentine families, from 1448 to 1496. B?ninger demonstrates that not only did he achieve prominence as a servant in the Martelli household, but he was also the previously unidentified "Arigo" who prepared the first translation of Boccaccio's Decameron into German for the printer Johann Zainer in Augsburg.

https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=14098

Usually, most of such migrations happened under the radar, so if there is sufficient evidence for a good presence, there surely was more. Obviously, a community which was always below 2 percent is not a big scale effect in a short period of time, but it surely had some effect, too, because it was a constant immigration from Germany in the Medieval era.
 
I don't understand why this isn't getting through, unless it's just a refusal to admit one got it wrong. An under 2% population in the handful of large Italian towns, which never were responsible for the bulk of the Italian population, which until the 1950s was made up of rural peasants who never SAW those towns is IRRELEVANT in terms of autosomal change.

When you're in a hole the advice is usually to stop digging.

Anyone who claims to have spent years studying population genetics should have learned by now that autosomal change is brought about by folk migration, not political envoys, pilgrims, some mercenaries, or some merchants/artisans in the large towns of a heavily peasant population. It gets washed out in a generation or two.

In the U.S. one example which comes to mind is the French Huguenots. All that's left of their contribution is some surnames. The French from Canada are a different story, but even with them it's a LOCAL phenomenon, unimportant in the vast majority of the country.

Now I'm done with this silly discussion.

@Torzio,
That the comment was first made in the paper doesn't make it any the less nonsensical.
 
The quote

The excess of WHG ancestry, tentatively suggesting a local origin, is somewhat blurred by
the genetic similarity of the two most probable sources - Illyrians (Croatia EIA) and an
autochthonous one (Roman Republicans)

the above in bold is from the paper ........................yet people love to take a cheap shot at myself, some cannot help it ...................
but, as I said many months ago ...............these Daunian people came via Liburnian areas of modern Croatia ...............I suspect that in the future , we will see that the Liburnians are a far bigger group of people in the late bronze-age to early iron-age period and that as I predict the dalmatians would end up being a sub branch of the original Liburnians

@salento
As I said to you many many months ago
our ydna line arrived in this croatian-slovenia modern lands ( most likely from modern Hungarian lands... ....with your line heading south along the Italian adriatic and my line heading north ...............

… there aren’t y T Daunians, though we are hard to find..

… I never trusted the PCA of this paper, … I still don’t.
 
The quote

The excess of WHG ancestry, tentatively suggesting a local origin, is somewhat blurred by
the genetic similarity of the two most probable sources - Illyrians (Croatia EIA) and an
autochthonous one (Roman Republicans)


the above in bold is from the paper ........................yet people love to take a cheap shot at myself, some cannot help it ...................

but, as I said many months ago ...............these Daunian people came via Liburnian areas of modern Croatia ...............I suspect that in the future , we will see that the Liburnians are a far bigger group of people in the late bronze-age to early iron-age period and that as I predict the dalmatians would end up being a sub branch of the original Liburnians



@salento
As I said to you many many months ago

our ydna line arrived in this croatian-slovenia modern lands ( most likely from modern Hungarian lands... ....with your line heading south along the Italian adriatic and my line heading north ...............


bgGHqFW.png


Take a look at the PCA from the study, ORD001 is west of South Italians (i.e. Mycenaean-like) that is the point of what I was saying about that sample coming out looking wrong in Dodecad K12b probably due to low-coverage. The study does not in any way say it she is modern Croatian-like who are north-east of Northern Italians.
 
This:


Not sure how you get a result close to Romanians according to that.

4.63% coverage will probably tell you some wacky things, I'm sure. I recall from my own personal experience, the V5 23andme only gave me like 25% coverage, which gave me a much different result from my 99% coverage WGS as well as my Superkit, which was almost 99% coverage.
 
Just for comparison, Eurogenes K36 doesn't make ORD001 come out any better:

Using 1 populations approximation
1 100% Macedonian @ 23.740
2 100% Montenegran @ 25.996
3 100% Kosovar @ 26.180
4 100% Greek @ 26.915
5 100% UtahWhite @ 26.968
6 100% GreatBritain @ 27.141
7 100% Hungarians @ 27.698
8 100% Gagauz @ 27.711
9 100% Italian-South @ 28.013
10 100% Croat @ 28.332
 
I am gonna have to wait for the Messapian genomes to be revealed. Even in the official PCA the samples are extremely heterogenous as some sort of a Gothic migration group, this is bizarre for such an isolated and small population. We did not see this in Etruscans. I am very disappointed with this paper.
 
I am gonna have to wait for the Messapian genomes to be revealed. Even in the official PCA the samples are extremely heterogenous as some sort of a Gothic migration group, this is bizarre for such an isolated and small population. We did not see this in Etruscans. I am very disappointed with this paper.

My disappointment with this paper has to due with the fact that they are using very poor quality samples, and very fuzzy historical narratives to explain events. Their medieval sample is not representative, or consistent with samples from the same time and place shown in the Viking paper. Yet they use it as being representative of the area, just to fit their conclusion.

This is like a huge waste of time.
 
My disappointment with this paper has to due with the fact that they are using very poor quality samples, and very fuzzy historical narratives to explain events. Their medieval sample is not representative, or consistent with samples from the same time and place shown in the Viking paper. Yet they use it as being representative of the area, just to fit their conclusion.

This is like a huge waste of time.

Etruscans and Latins were pretty homogenous compared to Daunians, excluding some few outliers. Why would Daunians be more heterogenous than them I don't know.
 

This thread has been viewed 154609 times.

Back
Top