Genetic study The Picenes and the Genetic Landscape of Central Adriatic Italy in the Iron Age.

I believe the evidence is now strongly suggesting that Proto-Germanic is directly associated with Corded Ware. The Corded War or proto-Germanic consist heavily of I1 and R1A Haplogroups, correct. How much of those are in Italy today and when did they arrive? Not that many from what I can tell. Maybe a combined 6-8%. So it is there but 20%? Hmmmm, not sure. And again when did I1 and R1a arrive, I would think after the collapse of the Roman Empire in the West circa late 4th/early 5th century.

Some of the R1-M269/L51 that are also lined to Proto-Germanic are through Bell Beaker Intermediaries correct? R1-M269/L51>U106 is the Y Haplogroup among Bell Beakers associated with Germanic. How many of the Iron Age samples from the Antonio et al 2019 (Latins) and Posth et al 2021 (Etruscans) papers have those markers?

From what I gathered only 1 sample from the Posth et al 2021 paper labeled TAQ13 (See Table S1) is positive for the U106 marker. That sample is an Etruscan but the date is not provided (couldn't accurately carbon date I would suspect). None of the Iron Age Romans in the Antonio et al 2019 paper.

And finally, and I am going to word it carefully. Lets say there were indeed there were other R1-M269/L51/U106/S21 markers found in Iron Age Italy, who is to say they did not look like the Late Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XV1) who hailed from Southern Germany (Bavaria). Why assume any Germanic markers from the Iron Age only looked like Germanics from Saxony or what today is Denmark, which is where the Anglo-Saxons come from (DNA evidence supporting that). It could be that those Anglo-Saxon associated phenotypes did not become more prominent until the Germanic invasions starting in the late 4th and continuing till the 5th century as the Western Roman Empire collapsed.
 
From what I gathered only 1 sample from the Posth et al 2021 paper labeled TAQ13 (See Table S1) is positive for the U106 marker. That sample is an Etruscan but the date is not provided (couldn't accurately carbon date I would suspect). None of the Iron Age Romans in the Antonio et al 2019 paper.
One Etruscan was tested U106+? How interesting, thanks for the information.
 
HereToLearn: Yes, I went back and reviewed Table S1 from the Posth et al 2021 paper. Take a look at it and double check, but that is what I observed. There are I think 22 R1B lineages among those samples but as we are aware, they did not speak an Indo-European language even though they had Steppe ancestry admixture at a similar rate as the Latins from the Iron Age in the Antonio et al 2019 paper, which if I remember was about 30% on average.
 
There are I think 22 R1B lineages among those samples but as we are aware, they did not speak an Indo-European language even though they had Steppe ancestry admixture at a similar rate as the Latins from the Iron Age in the Antonio et al 2019 paper, which if I remember was about 30% on average.
Of course, I've learnt that the Etruscans were genetically similar to the other IA Italics and many of them were R1b, I just didn't expect (because of what I've read about this subclade of R1b) that any of them, or any other IA Italic for that matter, would come up as U106+. Cool. :)
 
Of course, I've learnt that the Etruscans were genetically similar to the other IA Italics and many of them were R1b, I just didn't expect (because of what I've read about this subclade of R1b) that any of them, or any other IA Italic for that matter, would come up as U106+. Cool. :)
Here to Learn: I wasn't trying to question your knowledge, just trying to tie the Etruscan (Posth et al 2021) and Latium/Lazio (Antonio et al 2019) papers together. If it came across that way, my apologies.
 
Here to Learn: Grazie Mille
 
thanks pax for the maps

maybe my family "blondness" is via my line prior to 1600 .....................my matches below
 

Attachments

  • h95a map.PNG
    h95a map.PNG
    572.9 KB · Views: 52
back to picenes

we await for the 37 Liburnian samples paper to be completed .....................we can then see where they match ....from Nin croatia to Picene ( martinscuaro and Tronto in Marche to Sipar in Istria and elsewhere ...........................

samples from two ancient Liburnian towns
 
also

New stable isotope data for the Iron Age community of Nadin-Gradina, Croatia​

Iron Age Liburian burials seventh to first century BC from Nadin-Gradina, Croatia. Sixty human samples include 40 teeth and 20 bones. Fifteen individuals with paired tissues (teeth and bone) are used to explore differences between early and later life isotope compositions.
 
One Etruscan was tested U106+? How interesting, thanks for the information.

The funny thing is that TAQ13 is indeed in the Etruscan cluster. Who knows, maybe his ancestor was originally a Northern/Dutch Bell Beaker who got lost and ended up with those who came down to Italy in the Bronze Age. Or his arrival is due to more recent contacts.
 
Cremation was not a foreign concept in Balkans during Late Chalcolithic or Early Bronze Age (Armenochori, Bubanj Hum III), if you follow cremation was a crucial burial rite of Hittites in Anatolia even, they cremated their death on a pyre, the difference is that the Urnfield added the tradition of putting the ashes on urns and several other material culture concepts, in some cases like in Caka Culture and similar they created the tradition of cremation on pyre on top of a tumulus mixing with the Hugelgraber traditions. The core Urnfielder tradition originated along the Carpathian Mountains but it formed in a cultural complex when Tumulus/Hugelgraber shepherd warriors from Bavaria crossed the Alps toward Carpathian-Pannonian basin and started triggering the whole chaos caused during late MBA and peaking in LBA(depending how you classify ~1500 b.c), Vatya Culture was one of the cultures affected by this chaos and eventually destroyed.

Tumulus people were highly effective due to their Naue I innovative swords and this peaking during Urnfielder time with the even more deadlier Naue II.

So, yeah, i expect several different Y-DNA's in the complex, since it was a complex and not a culture in ethnical sense. But R1b-L51/G2a, I2a in the middle and north and E-V13 in the east/south-east should have been the ones more common among this cultural complex.
I agree. So I said not tied everywhere in the last periods, what in French syntax doesn't exclude it could be tied in some cases. But even with a dominant, these times saw, I think, the end of the Y-haplo's monopoles (opposite to the previous clans cultures semi-nomadic by heritage).
 
The funny thing is that TAQ13 is indeed in the Etruscan cluster. Who knows, maybe his ancestor was originally a Northern/Dutch Bell Beaker who got lost and ended up with those who came down to Italy in the Bronze Age. Or his arrival is due to more recent contacts.
A few U106 samples were found among ancient Gauls from what I recall. There may have been low proportions of U106 in previous "Italo-Celtic" populations stemming from Unetice or Tumulus that made their way into Italy later on. Oldest U106 was found in Bohemia after all.
 
the Single Grave Culture of the Netherlands N-W Germany (1880/1600 BC: Elp & Sögel-Wohlde C.) has been seen by Dutch scholars as a possible Northwest Block IE speaking culture. Todate I know only 1 Y-Haplo, R1b-U106. It 'seems their long swords models came from Moravia/Hungary. I bet the geographic pass would have been in the Saale/N-Thuringen region, future strongholds of the "Rich Tumuli Culture"? (distinct in my mind of the other Tumuli of Baviera E-France)
The period is a bit old for Urnfields moves, I think. This SGC put an end to the BB presence in extreme North. They push even father North into Denmark. ATW I think since a long time that the part of Germanic language which show ties with the Celtic but EVEN MORE with pan-Italic (an old dialectal form being the Northwest-Block language) has been inherited by people staying more or less around the southern part of ancient East Germany (DDR). I think they were U106 for the most, this haplo is not a typical CWC marker at all (it's a cousin of P312 by the fact). To go farther on the guesses, I think CWC spoke rather a partly Satem language.
 
To get again closer to the period of this topic, some more suppositions about the North-West Block maybe pan-Italic.

From Bernard Sergent in its compilation:

Belgae : among Celtic names : Remi ? Bellovaci, Atrebates, Trevires, Morini…

among Germanic names:Nervii, Aduatuci, Condrusi..

among maybe North-West Block names : Peamani, Menapi, Sunuci…

Kuhn (50/60’s) thought that the IE speaking tribes which occupied the region between Aisne River and Weser river (Belgica to N-W Germany) maintened the PIE *P- found today in some Platt-Deutsch (North-German dialects) when Celtic has already dropped this ancient *P-. This *P- would be still found in floewers names, tribes names and gods names with ‘-apa-’ (water), not found in Celtic. On top of this tehy had suffixes like -ci, -st which presents more affinities to southern languages. Even some tribes names evoke other regions: Paemani cf ‘poimēn, Cauci cf Kaukones (Greece); toponyms: Emmerich cf Ambrakia (Epire). Some medieval Northern Germany like Albuc, Asic, Udic recall latin names like Albicus, Asicius, Udicasius…

According to B. Sergent the word Germani would be created in this North-West Block dialect.

&: personal remark: I 'd give less weight to the personal names of MA N-Germany. But as a whole I find all that very interesting.
 
Two things :
1/ Not my argument ... I just said that the argument of your pal is "very bad", that's all.
2/ No, blondess is not purely Germanic, I said it right at the beginning.

Your friends think that because there is not a massive scandinavians population in modern North Italy it means that there haven't been Germanic-tribe DNA injection some 1500 years ago.
All I said is that such consideration is absurd, and in fact shows a total confusion about how works DNA and admixtures (in particular for recessive traits that concerns the most typical phenotypipal traits associated to "scandinavians").
I just illustrated with numbers that you can inject significant foreign DNA, without expecting to find massive population of "foreign" phenotypes in the merged population (which was the argument of your friend).

Now my only argument is about "diverse" Y-DNA connecting Italy to Germanic tribes some ~2000-1500 years ago.
Which in fact attest of a population movement. We have everything, the Y-DNA connection and the decoupling time at the right moment (in fact you even have two injections, one around Roman times and one around Longobard migration)
What can be debated is the exact amplitude of the movement, discussing the existence movement itself is, at best, totally absurd.
After, if you want to deny a population movement for which we have DNA tracers and historical documentation, it is up to you ... but sounds weird, and definitely not motivated by scientific motives.
If your only argument is concerning Y-DNA then that is also a bad argument and I've already explained why. Not only do we lack sufficient Y-dna in Roman era northern Italy to even perform a comparison to the EMA, but Y-DNA itself cannot be used to quantify ancestry. This is an undeniable fact which seems to be consistantly avoided for reasons I can only imagine.

Nobody here is denying the existance of Germanic population movements into Italy, including myself. It seems like you have also misunderstood my argument. What we are debating is what kind of an effect these movements had on the broad population genetics of Italy after the fact. Some are speculating between 15-20% of Italians were replaced by germanic migrations which is absolute rubbish. The figure realistically is far lower just based off the numerous autosomal studies we've seen which totally lack German/Northern European individuals. Anyone who is more interested in Y-DNA speculation than the real deal profiles recovered from this migratory time period of late antiquity to the early middle ages is in my opinion, more concerned with their own theories and agenda than the truth of the matter.
 
Last edited:
Even the term "germanic y-dna" is kinda non sense in the broad generalistic manner that is always used(it could hardly be diferent), when you keep in mind gauls for example had I1 among then while germanics thenselves had a good percentage of R1b-L2, G2,E1b and J2 from their hallstatt and other southern ancentries.
Which is yet another reason why autosomal signals are more useful for a qualification of individuals of foreign extraction (such as Germanic speakers). There is nothing saying that we won't find I1 in Iron age Italy prior to any German migrations. Do I expect we will find it in huge quantities? Probably not, but it is not any sort of exclusive ethnic qualifier.
 
You will never demonstrates that with PCAs ... a PCA can't demonstrates continuity.
What can demonstrates continuity is a segment based analysis (what is in a very noisy way the Y-DNA).

If you receives genetic inputs from surrounding regions, as Europe is mainly an "autosomal DNA continuum" in PCA space, it will average out.
That's why for exemple, in my region, despite a lot of successive small movements since ~4000 years, we still have roughly the same profile than the Bell-Beaker that used to be there ... but that's not a proof of strict continuity. Just that the oter components added on the way averaged to the same global "PCA location".

European sub-regions lack sufficient peculiar DNA drift in PCA space, because since the build-up of the European populations, not enough time have ellapsed.
Therefore, in PCA space you have a statistically "degenerated" situation, that makes PCA not suitable for blindly inverting intra-European admixtures. At best you can use PCA as a validation to look if a mixture model is dooable.
But trying to deconvolves a PCA for intra-European population ... is loughable, this is not even working for modern high resolution samples.

PS: fun fact, in France some regions are making a G25 distance of ~3% with Solutreans ... lucky we are, we have no one who tries to claim continuity since the LGM !!! But maybe we will have some too :ROFLMAO: .

PCAs and autosomal ancestry most definitely do demonstrate continuity (or lack thereof) when looking at a chronological timelapse. They are far more complete sources of ethnological information than Y haplogroups and there is no "averaging out" to be had here. As I've said multiple times, if the scenario of a German-Imperial average were true then we should be seeing a broad spectrum between German and Imperial Roman profiles from 450AD to 700AD all over the northern half of the country. There is precisely only one burial site where see this in and it is unsurprisingly attributed to Langobard material culture. The numerous other sites in North, Central and Southern Italy do not reflect this. We see the incoming of Northern Italic newcomers reflected by the IA Picene profile in late antiquity and EMA Lazio, but that's really about it. Venosa remains Imperial like, Bardonecchia remains Picene-like, and Torino remains a mix of the two with a majority of Picene like admixture. You could say EMA Burgusio, which lies on the border of the German speaking Alto-Adige and Switzerland showed an Italo-Celtic cline during the EMA, but that's about it. Still no Germans to be had even in the most northerly border locations. Existing evidence so far continues to point towards the opposite conclusion of widespread Germanic introgression in favor of local population movements within Italy, itself.

Honestly the ignoring of autosomal dna at any point is simply unscientific at its core. It is the most complete genetic info you will get about any person's ethnological association and it is particularly useful for Italians due to how divergent the Aegean heavy Roman era Imperials were from Northern Europe.
 

This thread has been viewed 16994 times.

Back
Top