Genetic study Until death do us part

Vitruvius said:
The top one clusters most similarly with Balearic islanders and is still very close to Etruscan, modern Spanish and modern Northern Italian populations. It's also very close to the Raetic-like individual but a little bit more west shifted.

View attachment 15612
Click to expand...
Thanks for answering my question!

Again, I am almost like the modern Corsica sample and Vatya too!
 
Vallicanus said:
Thanks for answering my question!

Again, I am almost like the modern Corsica sample and Vatya too!
Click to expand...
1710250813159.jpeg


This one looks nearly identical to the first. The reason you're a bit more similar to him (or her) is because they've a tad bit more Caucasian neolithic ancestry. The smaller amount of steppe is what probably makes them a little closer to Balearic islanders than 3779. This one definitely doesn't look gallic, either.
 
Vitruvius said:
I agree with vallicanus that this is probably just coincidental due to the natrual variation between Vatya and later northern Italics rather than a direct Iberia to Po valley migration scenario.
Click to expand...
I thought so, thank you.

Check the Iron age Paionians and the Bronze/iron age samples from Croatia and Slovenia. They all distinctly overlap Northern Italy. These types of profiles in the balkans were effectively eliminated by slavic admixture which arrived after the fall of the Roman empire. Northern Italy in the context of this theory is mostly or entirely a holdover from these regional types of population genetics in the carpathian basin/northern adriatic.
Click to expand...
Again, very interesting thanks. I wasn't aware of those, although I suppose that in parts of Croatia (basically the Adriatic coast) some overlap with modern northern Italians had to exist until much more recent times.
 
HereToLearn said:
I understand modern northern Italians substantially overlapping with IA/BA northern Adriatic populations and Vatya BA Hungarians, as you maintain the latter is the source of most of modern northern Italians' genetic make-up, if I have correctly followed your theory.

However what is supposed to be the reason for northern Italians' overlap with some eastern Iberian populations? Random "recombination" (for lack of a better word)? I.e. substantially the same ancestral components, from different sources (in terms of ancient cultures) but randomly combined in similar amounts?
Click to expand...


In both cases it is just randomness given by the recombination of ancestral components.
 
Vitruvius said:
The top one clusters most similarly with Balearic islanders and is still very close to Etruscan, modern Spanish and modern Northern Italian populations. It's also very close to the Raetic-like individual but a little bit more west shifted.

View attachment 15612
Click to expand...

If anything the Iberian affinity may be due to two factors, one being a general "West-Med" affinity stretching from parts of ancient Italy, the Western Alps through to Portugal, and the other due to what I'm guessing is actual migration and gene flow from the Western Alpine regions across Southern France, the West Mediterranean isles, and into Iberia, I'd imagine during if not throughout the Bronze Age.

There were also some Southern Gallic tribes involved in the Cisalpine Gallic invasions, like the Arverni, Ambarri, and if I recall, the Salluvi (supposed Celto-Ligurian confedration) so I don't think they could be ruled out, or even older movements. The Y-dna of this sample U152>Z56>BY3548>Z43>Z46>Z48>CTS12976>S4634>Y225624>FT83928 and it's present day distribution would align well enough with this.
Otherwise, this may very well be an example of a Rhaetic/Euganean sample.
 
Stefano said:
Here are 3 other.

3220n.hg19_sorted_CombinedKit.txt

Shared with Jumpshare
jumpshare.com jumpshare.com
CisalpineGaul3220,0.121851,0.147397,0.036243,-0.005468,0.046082,-0.007655,-0.002514,-0.001085,0.022409,0.034359,-0.002603,0.006852,-0.012408,-0.006548,0.00096,0.00044,0.0002,0.000867,0.002222,-0.00329,-0.000971,0.000781,-0.001263,-0.001414,-0.001681

i simulated these two from K13, because when using the other tool they came out really noisy, one with no WHG and 3% east asian, however on k13 they appeared normal. It will be nice if someone run their raw data with k36 and makes another sim to compare.


3298n.hg19_sorted_CombinedKit.txt

Shared with Jumpshare
jumpshare.com jumpshare.com

3206n.hg19_sorted_CombinedKit.txt

Shared with Jumpshare
jumpshare.com jumpshare.com

CisalpineGaul3298k13,0.132672,0.151932,0.057272,0.010298,0.048984,0.003025,-0.002816,0.004718,0.023170,0.029306,-0.003304,0.005860,-0.011525,-0.007824,0.006009,-0.001891,-0.001865,-0.001254,-0.002743,-0.000675,0.001554,-0.001518,-0.000598,-0.001270,0.000460
CisalpineGaul3206k13,0.130691,0.154574,0.056796,0.011439,0.049606,0.004264,-0.002919,0.002524,0.021473,0.029220,-0.004325,0.007630,-0.014948,-0.008556,0.006676,-0.002547,-0.000894,-0.001459,-0.003175,-0.002091,0.001109,-0.002174,-0.000474,-0.002486,0.000645
Click to expand...
Can you post the regular G25 coordinates of the bottom two without the K13 sim? I'd like to take a look at them even if they are noisy.
 
Robotnick said:
If anything the Iberian affinity may be due to two factors, one being a general "West-Med" affinity stretching from parts of ancient Italy, the Western Alps through to Portugal, and the other due to what I'm guessing is actual migration and gene flow from the Western Alpine regions across Southern France, the West Mediterranean isles, and into Iberia, I'd imagine during if not throughout the Bronze Age.

There were also some Southern Gallic tribes involved in the Cisalpine Gallic invasions, like the Arverni, Ambarri, and if I recall, the Salluvi (supposed Celto-Ligurian confedration) so I don't think they could be ruled out, or even older movements. The Y-dna of this sample U152>Z56>BY3548>Z43>Z46>Z48>CTS12976>S4634>Y225624>FT83928 and it's present day distribution would align well enough with this.
Otherwise, this may very well be an example of a Rhaetic/Euganean sample.
Click to expand...
So, from my perspective the closeness to modern Iberian populations is somewhat happenstance and I will explain why. Iberia in the Iron age from what we know was much heavier in WHG ancestry than it is today. Iron age Iberian samples also do not cluster closely to the prior 3 ancient samples from Verona specifically because Iberia's WHG is so high. Keeping this in mind the copper aged Remedello culture in northern Italy which geographically overlaps Verona already averaged an even higher 17% of WHG, prior to any bronze age steppe migrations. To me this means that every major admixture event that occurred from the Remedello culture to the Seminario_Vescoville samples was dropping WHG which indicates broadly an east to west flow of change. In addition the fact that Southern Etruscans and IA latins have a higher amount of WHG relative to these Verona samples despite being more geographically seperated from Iberia reinforces this idea that a lot of this WHG was retained as a neolithic holdover.


1710299551483.jpeg
1710299803718.png
1710300646492.jpeg
1710300758840.jpeg
1710301682416.png
 
Vitruvius said:
So, from my perspective the closeness to modern Iberian populations is somewhat happenstance and I will explain why. Iberia in the Iron age from what we know was much heavier in WHG ancestry than it is today. Iron age Iberian samples also do not cluster closely to the prior 3 ancient samples from Verona specifically because Iberia's WHG is so high. Keeping this in mind the copper aged Remedello culture in northern Italy which geographically overlaps Verona already averaged an even higher 17% of WHG, prior to any bronze age steppe migrations. To me this means that every major admixture event that occurred from the Remedello culture to the Seminario_Vescoville samples was dropping WHG which indicates broadly an east to west flow of change. In addition the fact that Southern Etruscans and IA latins have a higher amount of WHG relative to these Verona samples despite being more geographically seperated from Iberia reinforces this idea that a lot of this WHG was retained as a neolithic holdover.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't say that Verona is geographically closer to Iberia compared to Etruria (not in a way to represent a significant factor anyway), but in general I see your point and it makes a lot of sense.

What's true, although not relevant to this discussion, is that modern and ancient Iberia seems quite homogeneous for being so huge (to stay on topic Barcelona is indeed geographically closer to Genoa than Coruna).
 
Last edited:
HereToLearn said:
I wouldn't say that Verona is geographically closer to Iberia compared to Etruria (not in a way to represent a significant factor anyway), but in general I see your point and it makes a lot of sense.

What's true, although not relevant to this discussion, is that modern and ancient Iberia seems quite homogeneous for being so huge (to stay on topic Barcelona is indeed geographically closer to Genoa than Coruna).
Click to expand...

Archaeologically, it is the Etruscans who moved as far as southern France and Catalonia. The Etruscans participated in the founding of Genoa and moved further west from there. Proving that it is not true that Etruria is geographically farther from Iberia than Verona is. The Seminario site by the way has a very recent date (III-I B.C.), that is, after the Gallic invasions of the 6th century B.C. in the Second Iron Age. I guess they are considered Cenomanian because of the material culture. Of course this does not guarantee that they were 100% so, some could be indeed, some could be local, some could be mixed. Uniparental markers should be checked. The greater similarity with Iberia or the Balkans or the Iron Austria I repeat again that it may just be randomness due to recombination of ancestral components. It only takes very few WHG points to move further west or east in a PCA.
 
Pax Augusta said:
Archaeologically, it is the Etruscans who moved as far as southern France and Catalonia. The Etruscans participated in the founding of Genoa and moved further west from there. Proving that it is not true that Etruria is geographically farther from Iberia than Verona is. The Seminario site by the way has a very recent date (III-I B.C.), that is, after the Gallic invasions of the 6th century B.C. in the Second Iron Age. I guess they are considered Cenomanian because of the material culture. Of course this does not guarantee that they were 100% so, some could be indeed, some could be local, some could be mixed. Uniparental markers should be checked. The greater similarity with Iberia or the Balkans or the Iron Austria I repeat again that it may just be randomness due to recombination of ancestral components. It only takes very few WHG points to move further west or east in a PCA.
Click to expand...

The Gallic invasions are dated the 4th century B.C, not the 6th century B.C. as I wrote.
 
To me it is not crystal clear who they might really be. 3217 looks a lot like the transalpine Celts found among the Etruscans, and this looks like the definitely Celtic one. The others are a little less clear whether they might be Cenomani, local, or a mix of the two.


wSEAedT.png


7PlOCcy.png


Fk45OUD.png
 
HereToLearn said:
I wouldn't say that Verona is geographically closer to Iberia compared to Etruria (not in a way to represent a significant factor anyway), but in general I see your point and it makes a lot of sense.

What's true, although not relevant to this discussion, is that modern and ancient Iberia seems quite homogeneous for being so huge (to stay on topic Barcelona is indeed geographically closer to Genoa than Coruna).
Click to expand...
Pax Augusta said:
Archaeologically, it is the Etruscans who moved as far as southern France and Catalonia. The Etruscans participated in the founding of Genoa and moved further west from there. Proving that it is not true that Etruria is geographically farther from Iberia than Verona is. The Seminario site by the way has a very recent date (III-I B.C.), that is, after the Gallic invasions of the 6th century B.C. in the Second Iron Age. I guess they are considered Cenomanian because of the material culture. Of course this does not guarantee that they were 100% so, some could be indeed, some could be local, some could be mixed. Uniparental markers should be checked. The greater similarity with Iberia or the Balkans or the Iron Austria I repeat again that it may just be randomness due to recombination of ancestral components. It only takes very few WHG points to move further west or east in a PCA.
Click to expand...

Thanks for understanding and I'm glad this makes sense. It seems only Southern Italy had lower amounts of WHG during these Neolithic and copper aged periods and even then it definitely wasn't absent.

The distance to Iberia topic isn't that important of a point but keep in mind that I specified southern etruscans and latins, (which are the only ones we have access to) - not the entirety of the po valley region as when it was controlled by the Etruscans or Genoa from which we have no samples to draw from. Either way by comparison IA Iberians have only a few percentage points less WHG than Remedello in the admixture runs I did, but the Verona samples seemingly show a drop from 17% in the copper age to 6.8% by 300BC.

I do agree with pax that based off the few results seen so far there is a good possibility we are dealing with a mixed bag of Cenomanian and Raetic/Euganean individuals in this case. We'll probably need more samples from other parts of Northern Italy to contextualize how common these northern shifted profiles were. Hopefully the Imperial Northern Italian study can help with this since they seem to imply that they have Iron age Northern Etruscan samples as well.
 
Vitruvius said:
I do agree with pax that based off the few results seen so far there is a good possibility we are dealing with a mixed bag of Cenomanian and Raetic/Euganean individuals in this case. We'll probably need more samples from other parts of Northern Italy to contextualize how common these northern shifted profiles were. Hopefully the Imperial Northern Italian study can help with this since they seem to imply that they have Iron age Northern Etruscan samples as well.
Click to expand...

There were also Veneti in that area. Although I would not be surprised if they had been genetically similar to the Raeti/Etruscans.
 
Pax Augusta said:
There were also Veneti in that area. Although I would not be surprised if they had been genetically similar to the Raeti/Etruscans.
Click to expand...
Pliny specifies Verona being mixed Raetic/Eguanean and we know the Euganeans originally inhabited the Veneto area before moving westward. Material culture in Verona as I've mentioned before has shown its strongest association with the Este culture in the 10th century BC so yes, there are definitely links to Veneto that shouldn't be overlooked. I also agree that it's unlikely the Raeti will show any major differences from the Veneti.
 
Vitruvius said:
Pliny specifies Verona being mixed Raetic/Eguanean and we know the Euganeans originally inhabited the Veneto area before moving westward. Material culture in Verona as I've mentioned before has shown its strongest association with the Este culture in the 10th century BC so yes, there are definitely links to Veneto that shouldn't be overlooked. I also agree that it's unlikely the Raeti will show any major differences from the Veneti.
Click to expand...

What ancient authors claim should always be read critically in light of the findings of most recent archaeology and other disciplines. it is a fact that in the Verona area there are necropolises attributed to the Veneti as well. That is an area that was populated at one point by several different populations, although, indeed, I would not be surprised to find that there were no significant genetic differences.
 
HereToLearn said:
I wouldn't say that Verona is geographically closer to Iberia compared to Etruria (not in a way to represent a significant factor anyway), but in general I see your point and it makes a lot of sense.

What's true, although not relevant to this discussion, is that modern and ancient Iberia seems quite homogeneous for being so huge (to stay on topic Barcelona is indeed geographically closer to Genoa than Coruna).
Click to expand...
If you refer to ancient Iberia , that is the area of the Catalans and Navarra, then yes Verona and the NE Italy is closer to them....................if you refer to the full iberian peninsula of Spain and Portugal, then no , there is no closeness
 
torzio said:
If you refer to ancient Iberia , that is the area of the Catalans and Navarra, then yes Verona and the NE Italy is closer to them.
Click to expand...
They're in the same ball park with historical Etruria and central Italy by land (+/- 100km)... On a straight line any part of Iberia's probably closer to the latter, not by much anyway.

So, in any case, we're not dealing with any noteworthy geographical closeness.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top