Thursday, November 7, 2019
What's the difference between ancient Romans and present-day Italians?
The first paper on the genomics of ancient Romans was finally published today at Science [LINK]. It's behind a paywall, but the supplementary info is freely available here. Below is a quick summary of the results courtesy of the accompanying Ancient Rome Data Explorer.
I'm told that the genotype data from the paper will be online within a day or so at the Pritchard Lab website here. I'll have a lot more to say about ancient Romans and present-day Italians after I get my hands on it.
See also...
Etruscans, Latins, Romans and others
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
300 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 300 of 300The most ancient Protovillanovа mtDNA U5a2b was found only in the northeastern populations:
Russia Siberia, Sosnoviy Ostrov [I5766 / Tomsk10, inventory number 3079, burial 1] 4230-3983 calBCE (5261±33 BP, OxA-33486) F U5a2b1
Copper Pivicha? Ukraine Dereivka I [I5884 / Grave 68] 2890-2696 calBCE (4195±20BP, PSUAMS-2828) M R1b1a1a2a2 U5a2b
Copper Ukraine Klembivka [poz211 / Grave 5, barrow 1] 2898-2761 BC (Poz-70670) M U5a2b
and further Hungary, BBC
The most ancient Latin mtDNA U4a1a was found only in the Yamnaya population, and further in the Straubing population and at post-BBC R1b1a1a2a1a2 in Scotland.
@Gaska "That Etruscan is an outlier, trying to prove an African origin of the Etruscans is absurd. In Spain and Britain we have Bbs with African origin that have been qualified as outliers because they are unique cases in our prehistory and nobody in their right mind can say that BB culture has an African origin"
No, it's not outlier, all the Etruscans have a Moroccan component. To deny the origin of the Etruscans associated with the passage through Carthage is an unscientific absurdity. Non-recognition of this is absurd.
So, according to scientific historical, archaeological and genetic data, which have no alternative now, Etruscan events occur in the following way. The people of Teukroi lived near Troy (from that the name of Etruscany with the protetics E), it was spread over Herodotus to the Ionian Sea even before the Trojan War. Troy was defeated by the Sea Peoples. During the campaigns of the Sea Peoples he participated in the raid on Egypt where their name TJKR remained. Having lost this attack, they settled under Carthage, then went to Etruria (trasna>rasna, trusci>tusci). Their language may not be Indo-European in origin, but had a very strong influence from the Luwian languages in which spoke in Troas: Lydian and Lucian and maybe is a kind of strongly corrupted branch of them - these languages are extremely badly deciphered because contain a huge amount of non-Indo-European vocabulary of unknown origin.
Their name is etymologized from the Indo-European root *teuh- as "people": *teuh-r ~ *teuh-t.
That is exactly what I am trying to tell you, the female markers of the Villanova culture (U5a2b-K1a4) the Latins (H1aj1a-T2c1f-H2a-U4a1a-H11a-H10), and the Etruscans (U5a1-H-Tb32) are absolutely European, they have nothing to do with Africa or the Levant-
U5a2b-K1a4-H1aj1a have been found in BBs burials
H2a is a marker that has only been found in Italy since the Neolithic, however H2a1 is a typical steppe marker
Ripa Bianca di Monterodo, Neolíthic-R18-5.348 BC- Mit-Hap-H2a
Remedello di Sotto, Chalcolithic-RISE487- HapY-I2a1a1- 3.295 BC-Mit-Hap-H2a
Ardea,Iron Age-R851-650 BC- Mit-Hap-H2a
H10 has been found in Croatia and Iberia
H11a has been found in Lithuania (Narva culture), Iberia, (Neolithic), Germany (Unetice), Hungary (Bronze Age)
Etruscan Mit-Haps-
U5a1- Serbia (Iron GAtes), Sweden (Motala), Austria (Brunn-Neolithic), Hungary (Balatonlelle), Latvia (CWC), Iberia (Neolithic and BB culture), Germany (BB culture)
H- very abundant throughout Europe
T2b32- Only been found in Etruscans and Iberia (Andalucia)
That is to say, like the papers that I have previously mentioned the uniparental female markers are typically European even some of them with origin in the steppes, the fact that some outlier can be modeled with Neolithic Morocco, only tells us the personal history of that sample , not the history of the Etruscans or Latins who seem clearly Western both on their paternal and maternal sides.
You already know that researchers are very sensationalists, in this case they try to prove an African or Levantine influence in Italy and use any sample to prove it, but reality tells us a totally different story
Interesting topic of slavery(from Spain,Gaul,German,Slavic regions) and the Roman and Middle Eastern view of slavery might have contributed to the genetic structure. On the other hand Yamnaya no farming or large cities(low EEF) did practice.
@Gaska "not the history of the Etruscans or Latins"
You specifically equate the Etruscans and the Latins, although they are completely different peoples, to put your anti-historical conclusions. Nothing will help you.
"only tells us the personal history of that sample"
It is a deception, it is a history of all Etruscans (see Figs. 2, S9) which you want to reduce only to one sample.
@Archi
If the Etruscans were Trojans who passed through Carthage, Why their uniparental markers are not Anatolian but Western? Only men migrated? What are the Anatolian markers in the Etruscans?
In my opinion the Etruscans derive from the Villanovan culture and this from the Urnfield culture-
@Gaska
J2b2a-L283 marker of any of Indo-Europeans and Villanov's culture naturally cannot be, it is the Middle Eastern marker which has unequivocally arrived from the south.
Women's markers are not important, as evidenced by the history of Rome, when the first Romans stole women from neighboring peoples. The lack of women among the immigrants is described directly in the text and how they are stolen.
It is impossible to raise Etruscan to the Villanovan culture and the Urnfield culture and no one does.
No archi is not the story of all Etruscans, I don't know if you have read these papers
Genetic Evidence Does Not Support an Etruscan Origin-in Anatolia-Francesca Tassi,Silvia Ghirotto, David Caramelli,and Guido Barbujani-"The genetic patterns observed at the mtDNA level in the past and present Tuscany have a higher probability of resulting from an ancient migration process from Anatolia than by a migration occurring just before, and associated
with, the origins of the Etruscan culture.
Origins and Evolution of the Etruscans’ mtDNA-Silvia Ghirotto
"We could estimate that the genetic links between Tuscany and Anatolia date back to at least 5,000 years ago, strongly suggesting that the Etruscan culture developed locally, and not as an immediate consequence of immigration from the Eastern Mediterranean shores
@ Gaska
I don't care, they are wrong, they have no idea what mtDNA was in Anatolia at the time, so their conclusions are completely unscientific - but just unscientific forgery, "probability" is nothing. It's a shame to draw any conclusions with regard to mtDNA.
The Y-haplogroup and autosomes have definitely proved that the Etruscans are aliens.
I have already explained to you what I think about J2b2a-L283, for me it is a marker that somehow joined the Indo-European expansions until reaching Iliria, it has nothing to do with the Levant-And this complicates my idea that the Etruscans are direct descendants of the Bb culture by male line, so I want to wait for more Etruscan results to be published
Your explanations are wrong and your hypotheses were rejected.
Of course, the connoisseur of astral projections certainly knows better: etrusci - eto ruscie))))
Of course, the Etruscans included not only Teukroi, but Τυρσηνοί/Τυρρηνοί, from which the names of the Tyrrhenian Sea and Tuscany (tursci > tusci) actually originate. They are also known as one of the tribes of the Sea Peoples TRS. Apparently, this multi-tribalism and led to the fact that Teukroi and Τυρσηνοί chose as their self-name Etruscan (troas > trasna > rasna).
And in a legend of the basis of Latin-Etruscan Rome it is perfectly described The Rape of the Sabine Women, that is there it is perfectly described as it was based by familyless men that they had no women, and as they had to fight for them.
J2b2a-L283 (with steppe) have been found in southern Etruria (Lazio) and was previously found in Nuragic Sardinians (with no steppe) and in Croatia (with steppe).
Re U5a2b
Archi, you only pick up those samples that suit your case. There are at least the following other U5a2b finds that precede Villanovan samples:
Bernburg/Regional TRB Benzingerode Germany Haak_BENZ14 + BENZ20 U5a2b
BB Hungary Budapest Békásmegyer I2364/GEN10a U5a2b,
BB Poland Kornice I6582 + I6535 U5a2b,
Maros BA Szöreg Hungary RISE371 U5a2b
Moreover,U5a2b and U5a2b1 are different lines:
U5a2b 6,0-10,6 kya
U5a2b1 4,9-9,6 kya
The oldest U5a2 samples are the following:
Samara Mesolithic Sidelkino441 Russia ca 9300 BC U5a2,
Mesolithic hg LesCloseaux3 France ca 9,9 kya U5a2,
Mesolithic hg Les Vignolles France MareuilLesMeaux1 U5a2,
British Early Mesolithic South coast KentCavern_1 I3025 7478-7146 cal. BCE U5a2
These samples give an idea of the area of origin U5a2b.
@Kristiina I wrote Hungary, BBC, but I wrote about the oldest, and Hungary is not the oldest time of CWC/BBC.
The fact that you're the one who's arguing from scratch, just to argue to cheat.
"Archi said...
The most ancient Protovillanovа mtDNA U5a2b was found only in the northeastern populations:
Russia Siberia, Sosnoviy Ostrov [I5766 / Tomsk10, inventory number 3079, burial 1] 4230-3983 calBCE (5261±33 BP, OxA-33486) F U5a2b1
Copper Pivicha? Ukraine Dereivka I [I5884 / Grave 68] 2890-2696 calBCE (4195±20BP, PSUAMS-2828) M R1b1a1a2a2 U5a2b
Copper Ukraine Klembivka [poz211 / Grave 5, barrow 1] 2898-2761 BC (Poz-70670) M U5a2b
and further Hungary, BBC"
November 10, 2019 at 3:39 AM
And it's you who hides the information. Write only the one that is beneficial to you and do not write which is not beneficial to you.
Mesolithic Ukraine Vasilyevka 3 [I1737 / StPet10] 8540-8301 calBCE (9200±35 BP, PSUAMS-2394) F U5a2
Neolithic Azov-Dnepr Ukraine Vovnigi 2 [I1738 / StPet4, inv. 6204/4 ] 5473-5326 calBCE (6420±40 BP, Poz-81153) M I2a2a1b1b [L699] U5a2
@All
I can't find what paper was about Nuragic Sardinians J2b2a-L283?
I have a record
Neolithic Bernburg [regional TRB type] Germany Benzingerode [BENZ 14 and 20] 3104-2919 BC U5a 2 samples
without 2b!
Archi, thank you for adding I1737 from Ukraine (8400 BCE) to the list. It ndeed skipped my attention. However, Ukraine is more or less between Samara Russia and France, so it does not change the picture.
@Kristiina, in the east of Europe, the U5a2b is much older than anywhere else, that is shown by a derivative of the Siberian U5a2b1 4230-3983 calBCE. Western Europe is completely rejected.
I found the Nuragic Sardinians, and the exact proof that the J2b2a1 arrived in Sardinia with the Sardana Sea People(SRDN), because before the era of Nuragic in >1200BC no J2b2a1 was there! In the Bronze Age/Copper there are only I2a1b, R1b1b, G2a2b2b1a1. H
ere is one more proof, J2b2a can never be connected with Indo-Europeans and they definitely came from Anatolia or the Greek Islands.
Sardana is not the Indo-Europeans and not from north!
In Haak supplement (http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.693.1569&rep=rep1&type=pdf)
BEN14/I0548 is listed as U5a2b4 (but not indeed as U5a2b)
In the file https://www.biorxiv.org/highwire/filestream/2214/field_highwire_adjunct_files/1/008664-2.xlsx
BENZ14 and BENZ20 are listed as the same haplotype.
I do not disagree that U5a2b may have arisen close to Ukraine.
@Kristiina "I do not disagree that U5a2b may have arisen close to Ukraine."
And you're never right, I found exactly the haplotype you need, and that much earlier derived from it. And your case is dated practically the same time as the Ukraine, and can concern an early display of invasion CWC (or proto-BBC???).
Rob: "How would you propose that Hurro-Urartian offshoots reached Etruria ? What in the data supports this .."
Good question! Acc. to the study, IA Central Italians are differentiated fom CA Central Italians (and apparently also that EBA Remedello sample) in three ways:
1. A substantial steppe-like genetic component, that IMO can be best explained by the Urnfield expansion across the Alps that created the (Proto-)Villanova culture. [Introgression may already have commenced earlier. Some archeologists locate the origin of the Urnfield phenomenon in the Laugen-Melaun culture (S. Tyrol, Trentino, Engadin, from ca. 1300 BC onwards, heavily involved in copper mining)].
2. Subtle but measurable "African" influence, possibly mediated by Phoenicians.
3. A well discernable Anatolia_CA/Armenia_BA signal as per their f3-stats, plus the fact that two of the 9 IA individuals lack discernable Steppe ancestry, but are instead modelled as Anatolian-derived (note in this respect that they refer to CA Anatolia/Armenia, i.e. CHG-rich populations, not ANF offspring that might have entered via the Balkans).
Now, even if Fournet is correct that Tyrrhenian languages are related to HU, they IMO should represent an earlier offspring from that family. By the 14th cBC, Hurrians were already under Mitanni influence, yet Etruscan seems to lack any traces of Indo-Aryan vocabulary (satemisation). Moreover, while Tyrsenian shares one defining feature of HU, namely Suffixaufnahme, other key features such as the antipassive (today in W. Eurasia only found in Basque and NE Caucasian), and complex verbs (aside from HU present in Minoan and Etheocypriot, acc. to P. Shrijver also emulated by N. Celtic) are absent. As such, we IMO should rather look for a putative Near Eastern Tyrsenian homeland in Anatolia, where contact with Anatolian languages had already eroded some typical HU features.
M. Bachvarova
https://www.academia.edu/1203937/Suffixaufnahme_and_genitival_adjectives_as_an_Anatolian_areal_feature_in_Hurrian_Tyrrhenian_and_Anatolian_languages
argues: "the Anatolian genitival adjectives (..) developed as the result of convergence with a target language closely resembling proto-Tyrrhenian, rather than Hurrian, with Suffixaufnahme and genitives in -s and -l."
Of all Anatolian languages investigated by her, Hittite seems to display the latest and least consistent adoption of Suffixaufnahme-like traits. As such, when it comes to the proto-Tyrrhenian homeland, one should rather think about Luvic languages. Hieroglyphic Luvian is also rather inconsistent in this respect, making the Bay of Isekenderun equally unlikely. Bacharova tends towards Lycia(n), but this seems to be based less on linguistic arguments, mostly on ancient Greek sources such as Herodotus. Linguistically, she describes particular parallels between Tyrrhenian and Luvian. I feel Lycia, i.e. Antalya and surrounds, could be the place to go for. The map posted here by Dave a few days ago shows that a few samples from Lycia are under processing - let's wait and see to which period they relate, and how they look..
@romulus
Thanks! Was hoping I had just missed it. Too bad!
So little in terms of context for that sample. Don't really find much regarding Monteretondo. All other Imperial Era samples in set from there are J, iirc. This guy doesn't seem to cluster with them tho'...
@FrankN You wrote everything correctly, and about the similarity of Tyrrhenian with Lycian and Lydian, but there are no grounds to assume that in this place (Troas) of Anatolia once were Hurrian languages, there were there unknown languages of unknown linguistic families, because even for the well attested people of Kaskoi there is no information about theirs language, though they were at war there everywhere.
Correction: Bacharova proposes Lydia, i.e. the Aegean coast, as Proto-Tyrsenian homeland.
And, in fact, there is some toponymic connection between Italy (albeit AFAIK not Tuscany) and Lydia. Toponyms on -*andra such as Salandra (Basilicata), Schlanders and Villanders (S. Tyrol) are generally regarded as pre-IE, and have been connected to Lydian toponyms like the Maiandros (Maeander) river, or the Scamander river near Troy. The Cycladian island of Folegandros may also belong here.
@ Archi
Ukraine is a good guess for the area of origin of U5a2b, as we have two branches in the opposite directions: U5a2b1 in Neolithic Siberia and U5a2b4 in Neolithic Germany. However, Bell Beaker is a much better match with U5a2b than Corded Ware as U5a2b has not been found in Corded Wares contexts.
Instead, U5a2b3 has been found in BB Netherlands (Oostwoud-Tuithoorn North Holland I4073).
@Archi
In figure S9 only R475 has the Moroccan component, the other 2 Civitavecchia samples have none. Where are you seeing that all Etruscans have an African component?
@capra internetensis
"In figure S9 only R475 has the Moroccan component, the other 2 Civitavecchia samples have none. Where are you seeing that all Etruscans have an African component?"
Treat your eyesight or take a magnifying glass
https://ibb.co/8NmypJL
yellow
@Archi
Are you high? R475 has yellow, the other two don't.
@capra internetensis
Consult an ophthalmologist if you are not good at distinguishing colors or see Fig. 2B may be you you'll see.
https://ibb.co/MkhM1tf
@Archi
Why do you link me a picture showing R475 has the Moroccan component? We all know she does. Show me where the other two Etruscans have an African component.
Can any of you explain how Anatolian EEF farmers have such an heterogeneity on their mtDNA lineages: X, H, U, T, HV, V, Z, N, K, R, W etc? Did the original Anatolia dwellers assimilate or integrate other ethnos as they wandered along and expanded their range? Did they practice female exogamy?
@capra internetensis
Stop the trolling, plz. You use a professional troll professional trick.
@Kristiina
You're right U5a2b3 is a marker related to BB culture migrations. If I'm not mistaken it has also been found in Germany- Ausburg, Hugo Eckerner Strasse, BB culture-Hugo169-Sk1-2.336 BC and Iberia Cova del Gegant, Sitges- 1.593 BC and it was not found in the CWC.
Other subclades of U5a2 are also typical of BB culture, in this case related to Iberian migrations to other European regions.
U5a2+16294-Iberia, Cueva de la Guineu, Chalcolithic-I11034-2.950 BC
U5a2+16294- Germany, Irlbach-BB culture-2.250 BC
U5a2+16294- Czech Republik Jinonice, BBc-2.250 BC
U5a2 is a lineage shared by WHG and EHG, and I think it is very difficult to find out their exact origin because of the mobility of these populations
U5a2a-
Serbia, Padina Mesolithic 9.245 BC, Iron Gates, 7.850 BC, Vlasac, 6.500 BC,
Dereivka, Ukraine, 6.871 BC,
Germany Holhlenstein Stadel, Mesolithic-6.743 BC
Iberia, Los Canales (Asturias)- 5,115 BC,
Iberia, Santimamiñe, Vizcaya-5.080 BC
U5a2a1-The Netherlands-Oostwoud, BB culture-2.042 BC
@Archi
I don't understand your reasoning, because if those markers are typically Europeans-WHG or EHG (Russia, Ukraine), How do you think they came to the Etruscans?
If the Etruscans were Trojans who passed through Carthage they would not have to have Turkish / Anatolian / Lebanese / North African markers?
You don't think it's easier to think that they were already in Italy since the Mesolithic (also in Italy there were WHG) or that they arrived with BB migrations or with the Urnfield Culture. It is a matter of common sense
@Archi said-Stop the trolling, plz. You use a professional troll professional trick.
Capra is right in what he is saying,
I guess looking at a graph without dropping a couple tabs of acid first is now a professional trolling trick, lol.
I'm curious to see what Davidski will come up with. I wonder if some of the samples that they pooled together will look different when analyzed separately: like whether R6 (later Grotta Continenza Neolithic sample with R1b-V88) has a different WHG signal than the others, and whether Rinaldone R1014 from the west is different from the Copper Age samples further east.
@Andrei said-Can any of you explain how Anatolian EEF farmers have such an heterogeneity on their mtDNA lineages: X, H, U, T, HV, V, Z, N, K, R, W etc? Did the original Anatolia dwellers assimilate or integrate other ethnos as they wandered along and expanded their range? Did they practice female exogamy?
That is a very good question, some researchers think that the lack of available samples of the paleolithic and mesolithic in mainland Europe has prevented discovering other lineages- That has happened with H and some of its subclades, HV, even J, the rest seem all Anatolians Surely Kriistina can answer better than me
@Gaska " don't understand your reasoning, because if those markers are typically Europeans-WHG or EHG (Russia, Ukraine), How do you think they came to the Etruscans?
You don't think it's easier to think that they were already in Italy since the Mesolithic (also in Italy there were WHG) or that they arrived with BB migrations or with the Urnfield Culture. It is a matter of common sense
This is impossible, J2b2a was not in Europe, it is nowhere to be found, and it is nowhere to be found because L283 in any case occurred in the Middle East, where all its ancestors and parallel lines, not earlier than 3400BC (the oldest in Turkey). It appeared in Sardinia unequivocally only after 1200BC, before that it was not there, and it is without a steppe component.
I wrote it clearly.
"Capra is right in what he is saying," You are cheating.
@Archi
You really should be banned from here. Everyone except you can see perfectly well that 475 has North African admixture, but 473 and 474 don't:
https://ibb.co/xJZkSMr
@Mardi
In your picture you can draw anything you want, there are three samples of Etruscans there are three cases of the Moroccan component in the ADMIXTUREs. These three Moroccan components are visible! They have not made inscriptions on the pictures, which is bad. Even if not all the Etruscans have the Moroccan component, it does not change anything, although it is not shown in any way.
@Archi
The numbering of the samples is given in figure S15. The other two with Moroccan component are R850 from Ardea and R437 from Palestrina Selciata (they are mentioned in the main text along with R475). They modelled these two as mixed with Armenia LBA (tables S17 and S18). They modelled R473 and R474 with C Italy Copper Age + Samara Yamnaya (Table S16).
@Archi
That's not my picture and I didn't draw anything on it. It's from the paper (fig. S15 B, on page 56 of the supplements - you posted a capture of it too above).
The 3 Etruscans have the following IDs: R475, R474 and R473. In that image, you can see to the left the IDs of each individual's admixture graph. Indeed R475 (written just as 475) has the brown color that represents North African admixture (as noted by the word "Morocco" with an arrow pointing to it). Below that sample are the other 2 Etruscan samples: 473 and 474. The don't have the brown segment in their admixture graph.
@Mardi, capra internetensis
Why are these three samples with the Moroccan component of Etruscan, because only they have a large Iran component, the rest of Iron&Republic have a small EHG, and the others have a larger one.
All other two samples with the Moroccan component are perfectly visible, and the fact that you have decided that this is not Etruscan is your problem, it is necessary to explain better that you do not see and do not understand.
@capra internetensis
"Show me where the other two Etruscans have an African component." November 10, 2019 at 10:45 AM
I personally think the Etruscan Murals says it all....
@ Gaska
Etruscans aren’t from Africa; dont worry
J2b2 didn’t come from Anatolia or morroco neither
@Gaska
How can I say this?
Because this is precisely what this latest study - the first one to actually test ancient Roman samples - tells us. Inhabitants of Rome, as early as 27 BCE, were mostly East Mediterranean. During the IA, they were West Mediterranean. So something in between happened to dramatically alter the genetic profile of Rome.
Mardi said...
" It's from the paper (fig. S15 B, on page 56 of the supplements - you posted a capture of it too above)."
Yeah, I didn't notice that picture because it duplicates Fig. 2 B, which is where I took the picture from. Thank you for noticing my mistake, but @capra internetensis didn't see the two Moroccan components in the picture at all, so trolled me, without explaining anything. He should simple have just pointed out that he knows or sees, not to troll.
@Archi
I was not trolling you (though you deserve it); I could not tell you were mistaking samples rather than components at first, because you do not ask questions or explain your reasoning, only shout that whatever you think is clear scientific truth and everyone else is wrong. Just discuss things like a normal person instead of trying to beat out Rob as chief obnoxious know-it-all.
@erikl86
The city of Rome had more than one million inhabitants, How many ancient genomes from Rome have these gentlemen analyzed (10? 20? 50? 100?) do you think these data are conclusive?
When you say Eastern Mediterranean you mean Greeks or Levantines (Jews, Arabs, Egyptians etc.),
Do you think that one million people were of Eastern origin and that Latins and other Italic peoples disappeared from Rome?
I sincerely think that this paper is Levantine propaganda
@ Capra
Sorry have I even spoken to you ?’
And unlike Archie or anyone else; i do know it all; and what I don’t i ask
So go be a Beta elsewhere
Iron Latin Italy Ardea [R850] outlier 800 - 500 BCE M T1a1a-L208 T2c1f
It turns out that this sample had a Moroccan component, so it's also an Etruscan. Anyway, it has an increased Iran component and it comes from the Eastern Mediterranean, the presence of the Moroccan component says against that it is Greek.
Neolithic Bulgaria Malak Preslavets [I0700 / MP5] 5800-5400 calBCE M T1a1a T2e
Bronze Middle Bronze Age Armenia Nerquin Getashen [RISE413] 1906-1698 calBCE (3493±34 BP, UBA-28941) M R1b T2c1f
@capra internetensis "I was not trolling you"
This is not true, normal people immediately report information if they know, rather than ask meaningless questions. I told you all the pictures at once, you didn't say anything, even that you don't understand, either because you were just trolling or you didn't know anything.
@Gaska
Then wait for the second paper, you are in for a surprise.
East Mediterranean - I mean mostly Hellenic people, back then it also included Anatolians and some Graeco-Syrians, especially from the third largest city in the Roman Empire, Antioch.
@Rob
Lol, it took you three tries to come up with "beta"? Just own it.
@Archi
You posted images with no explanation and told me to get my eyes checked. You could have actually answered the question and told me which ones you thought were the Etruscans. Or you could have asked me or anyone else which ones we thought were the Etruscans when we said they didn't have the African component. Don't blame me for your own fault.
@ capra internetensis
There are four Etruscans, also R1015 is an Etruscan, a woman of Villanovan period from Veio.
Etruscans are also R473, R474, and R475 who is not fully Etruscan.
@ Capra the internet goat. Is there anything you actually wish to discuss or learn, or are you just happy Pontsing around..
That's not true, there are only 3 recognized Etrusca, not 4.
QUATE "Together these results suggest substantial genetic heterogeneity within the Etruscan (n = 3 individuals)
Villanova's not Etruscan, it's impossible.
Only R850 can be Etruscan.
@capra internetensis "You posted images with no explanation"
It is not true, I have written to you at once what color the Moroccan component is. That's what you asked me.
Archi said...
" @capra internetensis
"In figure S9 only R475 has the Moroccan component, the other 2 Civitavecchia samples have none. Where are you seeing that all Etruscans have an African component?"
https://ibb.co/8NmypJL
yellow
In the picture you can see that the three samples have the Moroccan component, so you made a mistake - not only on S9 in I&R age. I answered you clearly and gave you the color of the three samples.
Blaming only yourself, you just didn't know anything, and sameone who knew it immediately gave me the information I needed. Thank him!
@genh
But according to Archi "it is impossible to raise Etruscan to the Villanovan culture and the Urnfield culture and no one does". ;) But yeah, she looks much like the other ones.
@Rob
You know very well you are the biggest know-it-all on this blog, I wasn't even trying to bait you. Carry on discussing.
@Archi
If you're not able to read an Admixture bar graph correctly then you shouldn't be posting here.
@ Archi
You're spreading false information. R850 is a mixed Latin, and of course R1015 is an Etruscan of Villanovan period. Veio Grotta Gramiccia is an Etruscan site. There is also evidence of consanguinity particularly strong for R1015 and R473 (another Etruscan).
@ Capra
I don’t understand. Sorry if my faculties to scrutinize and critique offend you. Ill try to be a bit more Vanilla for you
ǵenh said...
" You're spreading false information. R850 is a mixed Latin,"
You're spreading false information. R850 is a full outlier! It have Marrocan component, higher Iran, East Mediterranean Y- and mt- haplogroups.
"of course R1015 is an Etruscan of Villanovan period. Veio Grotta Gramiccia is an Etruscan site."
All of Etruria was on Villanovan's land, but it didn't come from it. Thus you claim that the Steppe component in CWC comes from TRB, because CWC occupies the lands of TRB.
Villanova is Italics!
@ Archi
Villanovan culture is not Italic! Villanovan culture is Etruscan!
@ǵenh
No, Villanova have cremated, and Etruscany have inhumated. These cultures have nothing in common. Etruscan culture did not come from Villanova's culture.
Pliny says so easily that Etruscany seized these lands from the Umbers, capturing their three hundred cities.
http://web.stanford.edu/group/pritchardlab/dataArchive.html
Ancient DNA from Rome. This page provides links to raw and processed data sets from our paper (Margaret Antonio, Ziyue Gao and Hannah Moots) in collaboration with the Coppa and Pinhasi groups on ancient DNA from inhabitants of Rome. Full read data are available on ENA. Link to the paper: [Antonio et al 2019, Science]. Temporary Download Link
@ Archi
You're continuing to spread false information. Villanovan is the early phase of the Etruscan civilization. Villanovans and Etruscans are the same people. Etruscans were both incinerators and inumators. Latins also were both incinerators and inumators, while Oscan-Umbrians were almost exclsusively inumators. Archaeology has shown that what Pliny claimed was incorrect. Umbrians descend from the culture of Terni and were predominantly inumators.
@genh
What do you believe is the proto-Italic culture?
@Gaska "That is a very good question, some researchers think that the lack of available samples of the paleolithic and mesolithic in mainland Europe has prevented discovering other lineages- That has happened with H and some of its subclades, HV, even J, the rest seem all Anatolians Surely Kriistina can answer better than me"
Perhaps it may explain the difference of phenotype between different farmer groups: it seems like LBK shares more mtDNA N, K, U6 and others which are more common today with modern Middle Easterners, whereas GAC and pre-Corded MNE/LNE farmers have increasing ratio of mtDNA H, up from 19% to 40%. Could it be because of an introgression of a more WHG-rich population such as Roessen, or maybe from Baltic HG or Erteboelle merging with LBK/TRB to form GAC? We would never know. I suspect the increasing rate of WHG from MNE onward has something to do with it. Maybe also with phenotype as well.
@ Gabriel
For the Iron Age, the Latins have their own, it is called Latial culture. The Umbrians have their own, it is called the Culture of Terni. There is no consensus among scholars on a single proto-Italic culture of the Bronze Age. The Italics are linguistically divided into two branches: Latin-Faliscan and Osco-Umbrian and some linguists believe that these two branches were already separated before arriving in Italy.
For some scholars at the end of the Bronze Age the candidate for a Proto-Italic culture might be the Proto-Villanovan culture (not to be confused with the Villanovan culture, which is a culture of the Iron Age and is only and exclusively Etruscan). But from the Proto-Villanovan culture also derive the Proto-Veneti (which are not Italic), Proto-Etruscans and so on. Many archaeologists believe that Proto-Villanovan culture was not exclusively Italic.
@Kristiina & @Archi "Ukraine is a good guess for the area of origin of U5a2b, as we have two branches in the opposite directions: U5a2b1 in Neolithic Siberia and U5a2b4 in Neolithic Germany. However, Bell Beaker is a much better match with U5a2b than Corded Ware as U5a2b has not been found in Corded Wares contexts.
Instead, U5a2b3 has been found in BB Netherlands (Oostwoud-Tuithoorn North Holland I4073)."
According to Wikipedia, mtDNA U4, U5 were very common among both Bell Beaker, Corded Ware and Nordic Bronze Age samples:
"Haplogroup U4 is associated with ancient European hunter-gatherers and has been found in 7,200 to 6,000-year-old remains of the Pitted Ware culture in Gotland Sweden and in 4,400 to 3,800-year-old remains from the Damsbo site of the Danish Beaker culture.Remains identified as subclade U4a2 are associated with the Corded Ware culture, which flourished 5200 to 4300 years ago in Eastern and Central Europe and encompassed most of continental northern Europe from the Volga River in the east to the Rhine in the west. Mitochondrial DNA recovered from 3,500 to 3,300-year-old remains at the Bredtoftegård site in Denmark associated with the Nordic Bronze Age include haplogroup U4 with 16179T in its HVR1 indicative of subclade U4c1."
________________________
I personally beg to differ: it is NOT the *European Hunter Gatherers* who are responsible for U4 subclades being common among Indo-Europeanized Corded Ware, Bell Beaker along with Nordic Bronze Age: it is the specifically the *Steppe* marker from female Indo-Europeans who migrated from the PC Steppe into other areas of Eastern and Central Europe. (They were probably of EHG/WHG heritage; Steppe women of CHG genetic heritage were likely responsible for the mtDNA W, in particular W6 now common in Eastern Europe, cresting in Poland).
@ǵenh
"You're continuing to spread false information. Villanovan is the early phase of the Etruscan civilization. Villanovans and Etruscans are the same people. Etruscans were both incinerators and inumators. Latins also were both incinerators and inumators, while Oscan-Umbrians were almost exclsusively inumators. Archaeology has shown that what Pliny claimed was incorrect. Umbrians descend from the culture of Terni and were predominantly inumators."
You're continuing to spread false information. These are your statements, Pliny is believed by everyone, but no one believes your fiction about shown archeology.
Nemirovsky showed that Etruscan culture was very close to Sardinia's Nuragic culture, which was accepted by everyone, and he even expressed the opinion that Etruscany lived in Sardinia before coming to Etruria.
The Protovillanova culture is Italics, the Villanov's culture is probably Osko-Umbra, Terni's culture appeared later, it is similar to Halstat and La Ten, and burials there of the same type, so your construction is erroneous.
@Davidski @All Etruscan is in most of probabilities are Bell Beaker language (like Basque). That explains why Basques, along with Etruscans and Italics, all share R1b-M269 Y-hap markers. I am certain that the difference between Italics and Etruscan lies in a FURTHER layer of Balkan immigrants speakers of an Indo-European language who came shortly after the initial BBC wave. Actually, Etruscan and Proto-Villanovans are classified as "Urmfield-derived" so Etruscan can be dated to later than Bell Beaker Culture per-say.
Cluster C7 (Iron & Republican Romans) is at "English"! It is very far from "S. France". Spain (also Romans) is no closer to it than English (not Romans) and far from "N. Spain". English and ordinary French (not "S. France"/"N. Spain") that southern Europeans) are not southern Europeans. Done.
In Figure A in Cluster C7 has samples from all eras in it you dingbat. There's more Medieval and Modern samples in that cluster than Iron and Republican.
@ǵenh
You're spreading false information. For a long time none of the archaeologists consider Villanova culture to be Etruscan, it is a deep antiquity when the cultures of Italy and Etruscan culture was very poorly known.
The Latia culture is a descendant of the Protovillanova culture as well as the Villanova culture. Therefore, it is impossible for the Villanova culture to be Etruscan, as its descendant Latia is not an Etruscan culture. Many archaeologists deny the division of Protovillanov and Villanov into culture and consider it one culture.
You present your thoughts as the opinion of archaeologists.
@Andrzejewski "along with Etruscans and Italics, all share R1b-M269 Y-hap markers"
This is not a fact.
"Etruscan is in most of probabilities are Bell Beaker language (like Basque)."
It is improbably. Ligurians is not Etruscans.
@ genh
What role for Polada, Terramere , Appenine culture ?
Cetina expansion into east Italy
Ect
Just wondering why a few people here suggested a "west Mediterranean" source for the Italics rather than Central Euro Bell Beaker + local Neo/CHL Italian population? Is there something about their admixture that suggests they arrived from Iberia in their genome? Certainly the R1b-U152-L2 would be at odds with an Iberian or "west Mediterranean" source for Bell Beaker.
The models in this paper are really interesting. The best fit they had for the Copper Age Italians was as a mixture of Neolithic Italians and Neolithic Iberians.
That seems to be a reflection of the early Beaker material expansion out of the Tagus Esutary, and that culture's connection to Remedello.
The Iron age Italians seem to prefer Yamnaya Samara over Beakers as a 2 way admixture with Copper Age Italians.
Also interesting that R850, the Latin belonging to Y-HG T is 76% Anatolian and only 24% Copper Age Italian.
R475 is 50% Moroccan, none of the other Etruscans have Moroccan.
Imperial Romans are a mixture of Iron Age Italians and something that looks like Cypriots or Anatolia_MLBA.
Late Antiquity shows admixture from Swedish Vikings and England_Saxon. Which makes sense as Goths and Vandals were close to those two in their origin.
Medieval Italians pick up admixture from something like 1. Swedish Viking (Norman?)and 2. Hungary Langobard.
This indicates that the resurgence in European like ancestry in Italy was not driven by a resurgence in Italian Iron Age like admixture but in fact Germanic input.
R132 looks part Carthaginian, he has Phoenician mtDNA and is 50% African(Algerian like). G-Z3428 is the Y haplogroup. Sample came from a grave mostly composed of infants with malnutrition. My guess here is Carthaginian slave woman or prostitute's child with a Roman father. Phoenician has to come from the maternal side because of the mtDNA. G-Z3428 apparently found in Sardinia and Iberia today.
What drives the resurgence of WHG ancestry during the Copper Age (=Eneolithic?) and what drives the IA (Iron Age) Iran-like population? By Iran-like, do they actually mean "CHG"? Does that increase in CHG population has anything to do with Steppe ancestry?
The resurgence in WHG in eneolithic surely from the north; associated with the Alpine metallurgical province
The resurgence in WHG more likely came along with the Iberian Neolithic ancestry where WHG was higher, along with I2a1a1 M26
@ Romulus
Sorry but that’s unlikely
1. BB did not originate in Tagus estuary
2. The earliest I2a1a is in Central - Northern Europe
(Bichon; Zvejjieki; Pitted ware )
3. The eneolithic ancestry in Italy is already present in early Remedello (3500 BC); and relates to alpine metallurgical province expanding over northern Italy
In fact; I2a1a starts appearing in Iberia at same time . Same phenomenon= pre-Beaker Copper Age
Furthermore; this is when Oetzi was killed by enemy groups
@ Rob
Which group was responsible for the introduction of Copper into Lower Austria ? Ötzi was G2a..and probably linked to Lengyel as a descendant. So if Austria was full of Ötzi related people from where did the I2a come, Poland or Hungary ?
@ Rob
Or did I2a come from the Western Alps ?
@Romulus,
"This indicates that the resurgence in European like ancestry in Italy was not driven by a resurgence in Italian Iron Age like admixture but in fact Germanic input."
I think we'll when the data is analysed in G25 PCA this isn't the case.
@Samuel Andrews "@Romulus,
"This indicates that the resurgence in European like ancestry in Italy was not driven by a resurgence in Italian Iron Age like admixture but in fact Germanic input."
I think we'll when the data is analysed in G25 PCA this isn't the case."
Sam, the authors THEMSELVES linked it explicitly to continuing Germanic or "Central European" input.
@Rob @Ric Hern
"Which group was responsible for the introduction of Copper into Lower Austria ? Ötzi was G2a..and probably linked to Lengyel as a descendant. So if Austria was full of Ötzi related people from where did the I2a come, Poland or Hungary ?"
Are you implying that Oetzi was killed by a group representing a resurgent of WHG ancestry. Was her killed because he was an Anatolian farmer and not a WHG?
There must have been a continent wide phenomenon whereby a pestilence of some other factor was driving farming communities into extinction or at least into population bottlenecks. WHG tribes soon filled in the void and took over Anatolian EEF villages. I surmise that the Globular Amphora Culture emerged when the TRB, itself an amalgam of Southern LBK with Northern Erteboelle was completely hijacked by some forager tribes - either from the west (blatt or Roessen), from the North (Erteboelle, SHG) or from the east (Narva, Baltic HG). I think this whole process contributed to the extinction of LBK mtDNA lineages common with the contemporary West Asia (N, K, T, HV, etc) and led to the exponential growth of mtDNA H, now ubiquitous across the European landscape.
I actually attribute Oetzi to the Baden or Vinca Culture.
@Andre
Vinca was long gone by the time Oetzi lived, and they never spread to his area in any case.
@ Andrzejewski
He was probably a herder so maybe they stole his sheep or goats. They did not take his Knife or Axe...so they were not there for his metal.
@Andre,
"Sam, the authors THEMSELVES linked it explicitly to continuing Germanic or "Central European" input."
And the authors are wrong.
@ Ric
Not sure exactly who, but the important broad pattern is that metallurgy really takes off in central Europe from after 4000 BC, after the Balkan centres collapsed, meaning the monopoly they had held was broken. So it must have generally diffused from Epiengyel groups to west, as you suggest; and generally there was increasing introgression of WHG/ I2a during this porcess.
Whilst I2a by the Mesolithic can be found from Britain to Anatolia, I2a1a has thus far been found in Mesolithic central, northern Europe, Balkans
@ Andrze
Yes tribality & territoriality must have had somethign to do with Oetzi's death; but I dont think it was simply because his lineage was ultimately from Anatolia. Afterall, his ancestros had lived in Europe for 2000 years already.
Ötzi's axe was made from Mitterberg Copper (some 40 km S. of Salzburg), a main mine of the Mondsee Culture (Lengyel-derived). Otherwise, he posessed a Remedello dagger. These two artefacts are the main indicators for linking him to an archeological culture.
There are actually traces of experimental copper mining in Tirol already around 5.000 BC, which are credited to Vinca migrants, but copper metalurgy in earnest only started with Mondsee.
Rob: "The resurgence in WHG in eneolithic surely from the north; associated with the Alpine metallurgical province." Well possible. However, let's not forget that the Alps were only neolithicised during the early 4th mBC, apparently under the influence of Michelsberg and related cultures (e.g. Altheim). They could have served as WHG refugium (and the same may actually apply to parts of the Appenine).
Otherwise, the largest accumulation of Monte Viso Jadeite axes has been found in Carnac, Brittany, indicating a vibrant trade between Piedmont and France across the W. Alps already during the MN. Last but not least, the Sardinian Obsidian trade network reached not only Latium, Tuscany and Liguria, but also the Lower Rhone and Catalonia with its large salt mines. In order to fully understand the population dynamics around 3,500 BC, we need more aDNA for that period (let's see what the Swiss study will come up with).
Ric: Osteological analysis has shown that Ötzi was certainly no herder. The prevailing theory is that he was a Copper ore prospector. He was killed in an area with rich greenstone deposits and quite vibrant manufacture of greenstone implements (especially decorative items such as beads and rings) that were traded as far as the Venice area.
@ Frank
''However, let's not forget that the Alps were only neolithicised during the early 4th mBC, apparently under the influence of Michelsberg and related cultures (e.g. Altheim). They could have served as WHG refugium (and the same may actually apply to parts of the Appenine).''
That nicely dovetails with what I suggested- Munzingen, Altheim, Pfyn appear c. 4000 BC, as metallurgical centres.
Again, Bichon in the Jura region (although not quite the same line as Remedello/ 'Sardinian' M26) is a big hint.
I wouldnt stray too far west into Brittany for Remedello folk, that's I2a1b territory
@ Rob @ Frank
Interesting. Thanks.
Rob: "I wouldnt stray too far west into Brittany for Remedello folk, that's I2a1b territory."
Yeah, those Jadeite axes were most likely not exchanged directly for Brittany's salt (the likely source of their wealth), but rather traded down the line by transhumating pastoralists. Still, the Western Alps and beyond (traditional La Hoguette pastoralists territory, who might have been quite WHG-rich) deserve consideration as well.
That claim about Berbers being 30% North Africa is a big fat lie. Outdated 23andme showed higher European admixture but recent ones don't show higher than 10 %. And that's probably due to IberianMUberian refugees who fled Reconquista and Inquisition. Studies on ancient DNA of IberoMauruscian samples do not show ant European. It shows more subsaharan admixture which died out by antiquity.
Post a Comment