Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Italian R1b1 - The Central Italian Refugium

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by F.E.C.
    First of all I make this clear: what I'm going to say isn't meant to refer to anyone participating to this very interesting topic.

    Maybe I'm paranoic but there's something that really really really annoyes me: I've like the feeling that someone's got a problem with R1b1c (or any of its subclade) being aboriginal to Italy. I just don't understand what makes the Italy R1b refugium theory so unlikely!

    Sometimes they say: yes, maybe few R1b's overwintered in some place other than Spain but the alternatives are most often the Balkans or even the Black Sea! What is wrong with Italy?
    I'm just an innocent bystander, ( an I1a, "recently" Norman-Welsh, whose family name appeared in Sicily as a bishop of Palermo in 1180 AD.)
    Much longer ago, nolo contendere, Italy looks warmer than several other possible LGM refugia, attractive to any haplogroup.

    But I have a niggardly objection to some of the timescale concept and terminology in use here .
    "Aboriginal" is a colored term. Where do you call "Origin", when the whole DNA thing is a mutating multimillennial stroll all the way from Africa, to later locations!

    And "overwintering" ? Some winter! How long to bridge that long Glacial Maximium of many millennia around 20,000 years ago? They must have forgotten who they were and where they came from, in a waiting period longer than the age of our entire current Western civilization!

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by cacio
      F.E.C.:

      I hope more research will be done in isolating an Italian refugium and its characteristics. People certainly lived in Italy during the LGM. It may have been the case that the UK was populated from males moving up from Spain, but Italy must have had an autochtonous component, whether they then moved north or not. (in fact, the alps may make it difficult to move north).cacio
      That's correct Cacio, sure the Alps would make it difficult but not impossible; history is full of famous "Alp-crossers"
      Moreover, the Pyrenees, too, separate Iberia from the rest of Europe. I guess you agree with me if I say that the presumed re-population of Europe from the Iberian peninsula occurred by sea (mostly to Britain and French Atlantic coast) only in a relatively small part. Apparently these mountains weren't such an obstacle, though.

      Originally posted by cacio
      As for the Lombard contribution, I agree that they did have some impact. But I would still classify this impact as small in linguistic terms. There are certainly germanic words (bank etc), but these are a minority, most words remained solidly latin. If there had been a significant genetic component from the Lombards and in general from Germanic populations, I would have expected the language to have changed as well. I also believe that the Lombards tended to remain separate from the rest of the population, so that intermarriage was very infrequent. Even taking your numbers on population, that only makes 5% of the overall population.
      Yes, no doubt Italian is the modern language most closely related to ancient Latin. You sure know, though, that it's an "artificial" (although wonderful) language, based on the old Tuscan vulgar language.
      I come from a part of Lombardy whose local dialect has a noteworthy debt towards the Germanics in terms of vocabulary and pronounciation and the same goes for Piedmont and obviously Trentino-Alto Adige. Here, even certain surnames may indicate a Lombard origin.
      Then, as an Umbrian's grandson, I can tell you the Lombards have left a deep mark in the territories once known as Ducato di Spoleto (e.g. Medieval architecture, people and places' names, words from the dialect which have a Germanic origin unknown to the Italian langauge).
      Finally I think 3-500.000 is a big number in an age of disease and famine, where an elite could more easily survive and pass on its genes. BTW, they aren't my numbers. If you're interested on the subject, you can check here my sources: L'Impero Romano by Colin M. Wells, Bologna and the Enciclopedia Rizzoli Larousse.

      Originally posted by cacio
      As for Veneto and Trentino, I know little about their history, so you should correct me on this. In pre-Roman times, Veneto spoke a local language unrelated to celtic. Trentino has Rhaetic inscriptions, a language that was probably not indoeuropean and that sounds related instead to Etruscan. Instead, the NW of Italy had celtic inscription (Leponti etc.), which seem to suggest that the celtic presence in NW predates the historical accounts of invasions from Gaul. I am also not aware of any historical account of celtic invasions into the NE, as far as I know, the Celts were in Piedmont, Lombardy and Emilia. (whose dialects are indeed related to each other and not so related to Veneto).

      cacio
      As for Veneto, although inhabited from the Celts in some of its parts (e.g. Verona was built by the Cenomani, a Celtic population), I agree it was the less "celticized" among northern Italian regions (although some think the Veneti in NE Italy were related to the French Gauls named Veneti too).
      Trentino was inhabited by the Rhaetics AND by the Celts (some authors think Trento was built by the former some other think it was built by the latter).
      As for Friuli, it was mostly Celtic. Nowadays, the Alps in that region derive their Italian name from the tribe known as Carni (Alpi Carniche).
      Last edited by F.E.C.; 12 January 2007, 12:13 PM.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by derinos
        But I have a niggardly objection to some of the timescale concept and terminology in use here .
        "Aboriginal" is a colored term. Where do you call "Origin", when the whole DNA thing is a mutating multimillennial stroll all the way from Africa, to later locations!
        Derinos, English isn't my native language so sorry if I've misused some words, although I must say there are Americans and British using these same words (aboriginal and overwintering) with the same meanings I gave them.

        However, this is not the point and anyway I'm sure you've understood what I meant
        Last edited by F.E.C.; 12 January 2007, 12:21 PM.

        Comment


        • #19
          F.E.C.:

          thanks for the info and the sources. I should definitely look at them. I was myself born in Celtic land (Novara, Piedmont), though my parents are from the Ligurian-Apuan area (Massa, which is actually Tuscany). I am still uncertain as to the importance of Germanic languages even to Northern dialects, or regarding the relative importance of the Celtic versus the Germanic component, not so much in the words, but also in things like the pronunciation. (But I don't really speak the local dialect, so I certainly cannot say). What I mean is - there are contributions, but how important are they relative to what one expects them to be given that Italy has been under Germanic domination for half a millennium (Goths, Lombards, Franks, and miscellaneous other invaders).

          There are definitely certain Germanic features. In the Novara province, there are lots of place-names ending in -engo (germanic ing?). Also, personal names during the Middle Age are predominantly Germanic, and these of course have later originated surnames. The names we see in historical documents are usually those of the elites. And it is not clear whether a Germanic name represents Germanic origin, or simply, people used Germanic names because that was the fashion or to assimilate themselves to the elites.

          Anyway, this is clearly an important and open question. I am myself biased because none of my haplogroups (L and U1a) can in any way be attributed to Celts or Germans.

          cacio

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by cacio
            F.E.C.:

            thanks for the info and the sources. I should definitely look at them. I was myself born in Celtic land (Novara, Piedmont), though my parents are from the Ligurian-Apuan area (Massa, which is actually Tuscany). I am still uncertain as to the importance of Germanic languages even to Northern dialects, or regarding the relative importance of the Celtic versus the Germanic component, not so much in the words, but also in things like the pronunciation. (But I don't really speak the local dialect, so I certainly cannot say). What I mean is - there are contributions, but how important are they relative to what one expects them to be given that Italy has been under Germanic domination for half a millennium (Goths, Lombards, Franks, and miscellaneous other invaders).
            Cacio, your situation is similar to mine: I was born in the North. My mom is from the North but my father's family is from central Italy so we've never spoken dialect in family. I know people who speaks dialect, though, and have read something about the local dialect. Probably you're right when you say it's hard to assess the relative importance of the Celtic vs the Germanic component. It would be very interesting to know that.


            Originally posted by cacio
            There are definitely certain Germanic features. In the Novara province, there are lots of place-names ending in -engo (germanic ing?). Also, personal names during the Middle Age are predominantly Germanic, and these of course have later originated surnames. The names we see in historical documents are usually those of the elites. And it is not clear whether a Germanic name represents Germanic origin, or simply, people used Germanic names because that was the fashion or to assimilate themselves to the elites.
            I've read that names of towns that end with "ico", "aco", "ate" have a Celtic origin. In the environs of my hometown then, there are names containing the Lombard word "fara" (a group of families).
            As for the surnames I didn't mean those derived from Medieval personal names, but some particular surnames concentrated in the area of Pavia (such as Oprandi, Aliprandi...), the Lombard capital in northern Italy.

            Originally posted by cacio
            Anyway, this is clearly an important and open question. I am myself biased because none of my haplogroups (L and U1a) can in any way be attributed to Celts or Germans.

            cacio
            Yeah I understand that: they say my y-dna probably comes from a Germanic ancestor, so maybe I'm in the opposite situation, cacio

            Comment


            • #21
              A very recent paper - Y chromosome genetic variation in the Italian peninsula is clinal -[...] by Capelli et al. (forthcoming molecular phylogenetics and evolution) seems to weigh in into our discussion about refugium. The paper provides some more data mostly on Central and south central Italy (about 700 observations).

              A suggestive paragraph though is the following: "The current data set provides a first frame for testing the genetic continuity from the Palaeolithic to the Mesolithic in Italy through the last ice age [... so far] not proposed for humans. [...] This could be due to the lack of resolution in the current markers [..] a possible candidate would be within R1xR1a1. [...] genetic variation [...] in Spain and Italy did not show significant difference. [...] only 28% of haplotypes within haplogroup P are shared between the two populations. This value is well below that estimated when comparing [..] Iberia and the british isles (47%)."

              I am not an expert on R1b, nor have I looked at the data. But how does the above statements relate to the ongoing new results about subgroups of R1b1c and the research some of you have been doing recently? (note the lack of comparison with eastern europe, the switching btw R1b and P, the lack of evidence on I1b, which is also another obvious candidate).

              cacio

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by cacio
                F.E.C.:

                I hope more research will be done in isolating an Italian refugium and its characteristics. People certainly lived in Italy during the LGM. It may have been the case that the UK was populated from males moving up from Spain, but Italy must have had an autochtonous component, whether they then moved north or not. (in fact, the alps may make it difficult to move north).
                Although Italy has been, according to Margherita Mussi, continually inhabited since about 25,000 years ago the population was extremely sparse. The central Appenine region was very cold until about 17,500 years ago and without the shelter of mountain caves (which were largely uninhabitable during the LGM) Italy would not have been a very hospitable place.

                The archaeological evidence suggests that the post-LGM population expansion was largely driven by immigrants from the east (via Puglia) and the west (via Liguria), not by growth of autochtonous Italian people.

                Moreover, the genetic evidence really offers no consolation. Studies of mtDNA and yDNA suggest no real good candidates for the modern survival of any Paleolithic Italian populations in appreciable numbers.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Vince:

                  thanks for the info - quite interesting. So you would explain the statement of Capelli et al (that of low matches with Iberia) with this double migration, that is, the fact that the Italian R1b is a mixture of Iberian and Eastern (Balcanic? Anatolian?) R1b. Which I think is probably the point you made with your graphs.

                  Still, it seems really hard to believe that Italy was empty, or that its mtdna and Y dna have been wiped out by these later arrivals. Was Italy any colder than Iberia and the Balcans? (or Ukraine, where another refugium is possible?). Especially for the mtdna, I feel that there is some more to study. The proofs for an Iberian refugium for mtdna have been H1, H3 and V (I don't remember about U5). That still leaves many haplogroups, various H's, U's and T's.

                  cacio

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by cacio
                    Still, it seems really hard to believe that Italy was empty, or that its mtdna and Y dna have been wiped out by these later arrivals. Was Italy any colder than Iberia and the Balcans? (or Ukraine, where another refugium is possible?). Especially for the mtdna, I feel that there is some more to study. The proofs for an Iberian refugium for mtdna have been H1, H3 and V (I don't remember about U5). That still leaves many haplogroups, various H's, U's and T's.

                    cacio
                    I don't know how much this relates to the question of the population sparseness (or not) of Italy around the time of LGM, but perhaps this might throw some light on it.

                    I am T5, according to FTDNA's classification of my HVR1/HVR2 results. My maternal line is from Basilicata, at least as far back as about 1817. I'm fairly sure it goes back more in time than that.

                    There doesn't seem to be much information on T5, but I have found one webpage where there is what seems to be useful information about T in general and T5. This is at http://tinyurl.com/25pnzv - this is a page on the Univ. of Arizona website by a woman who is a psychology professor there.

                    Here are quotes regarding T/T5 from that page:

                    " 'T' refers to what many people (who are Sykes' groupies) refer to as clan mother Tara. Tara is believed to have lived around 17,000 years ago in Nothern Italy, although not everyone agrees with this estimate. Tara's people would have come from the Near East, and her descendents spread all over Europe....

                    "T5 is one of the lineages that descended from T/Tara, and went a separate way from other subdivisions of T. Richards et al. use the criteria of additionally having a mutation from HSV1 at 153 (i.e. mutations at 126, 153, 294) to be classified as T5. According to familytreedna.com, T5 was a woman who would have lived closer to 10,000 years ago, and therefore likely participated in the Neolithic expansion with the arrival of agriculture (Tara descended from hunter/gatherers, like 85% of European ancestors). Note, however, this may be based on the estimate that a mutation occurs on average once every 10,000 years which may be wrong in many situations. Other researchers do not agree with the Richards et al. subdivisions of Haplogroup T. Most agree there is a clear T1 descendent and pattern, but do not agree on all of the others. T2 seems to have emerged as a clear lineage as well. One source of confusion for other lineages of T is over regions 292 and 296. I believe undifferentiated T's are usually labeled as T*, so in some people's notation, my pattern is T*. To add to the confusion, some people who were originally classified as T5 are being reclassified as T2, the latter of which usually have a mutatation in the control region that T5s do not. The reclassification is based on testing the entire mtDNA rather than just the control regions (see below). T5s appear to have many coding region mutations in common with T2. Few T5s have been fully sequenced in the published literature as of yet, leading to possibly false overclassification into T2."

                    So, according to this woman, the original "T" woman lived in northern Italy about 17,000 ybp. I don't know what it says about the population density of Italy at that time, but given that T is found at about a 10% level among Europeans today, perhaps this gives an idea that the population density then was enough to finally thrive after LGM and spread throughout Europe.

                    Mike
                    Last edited by MMaddi; 12 February 2007, 02:42 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by cacio
                      Vince:

                      thanks for the info - quite interesting. So you would explain the statement of Capelli et al (that of low matches with Iberia) with this double migration, that is, the fact that the Italian R1b is a mixture of Iberian and Eastern (Balcanic? Anatolian?) R1b. Which I think is probably the point you made with your graphs.
                      Actually, I think that when Capelli looks more closely at R1b in Italy (as their paper seems to suggest he might) he will find that the bulk of R1b -as it exists today- arrived in Italy after the Paleolithic.

                      If I were to speculate, I'd say that I think that a lot of R1b in southern Italy will be traced back to neolithic migrations from Anatolia, the Balkans, or elsewhere in Eastern Europe. I see very high frequencies of DYS393=12 in southern Italy, which almost certainly has Balkan or Anatolian origins. If it were indigenous to Italy, you would expect it to be distributed more evenly throughout Italy. The Capelli data show few haplotypes are shared between northern Italy and southern Italy, which is a problem if the age of R1bin Italy is 15,000 years or more.

                      I think that much of R1b in northern Italy (which is most of it, actually) will be linked with historical migrations from central and northern Europe. All four Italians that I know who have taken S-series SNP tests have come back positive for S28 or S21, which are essentially central European subclades.

                      I think that the remainder of R1b (which is a small amount) perhaps arrived in Italy from France during the late Upper Paleloithic, but given the pace of SNP discovery and deployment I don't hold out much hope of finding evidence on this front soon.

                      I've mentioned elsewhere that the ASD that Capelli et al. calculated for R1b in Italy is lower than the ASD for J2. Normally, that would mean that R1b is younger than J2 or else arrived in multiple waves. Either way, it is strong evidence that R1b is not autochtonous.

                      But for all that, I'll be the first to admit that there is much we don't know. And I'm far from an expert on Italy. Italy is the most genetically diverse country in Europe - and possibly one of the most frequently invaded/settled - and even the best studies done to date are not nearly detailed enough to answer all the questions we have.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by cacio
                        Vince:

                        thanks for the info - quite interesting.
                        I'm still researching a lot of these questions myself, and I think that Mussi's book in an excellent English-language resource on Paleolithic Italy.
                        http://worldcat.org/isbn/0306464632
                        http://www.amazon.com/Earliest-Italy...e=UTF8&s=books


                        I also just found this PDF, which I have not yet read but looks fascinating.

                        http://clima.casaccia.enea.it/staff/...rticoli/31.pdf

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Vince:

                          you are making a strong argument. I browsed, in the article you cite, the two small contributions about humans. Actually, they don't say much, other than there are very few known and studied sites in Italy for the LGM. But then this may be for lack of research. Plus, at least for N Italy, most of it would be now submerged in the Po plain, or underwater in the Adriatic. So direct evidence for people in Italy during the LGM is scarce. (The link has a lot of contributions regarding the fauna and flora of Italy in the period, which may be useful in determining the landscape, temperature and aridity).

                          Given you hypothesis about Anatolia, I also rebrowsed Cinnioglu's article. I now notice that they make your point, that is, that R1b shows repeopling of Europe from two refugia, in Iberia and in Asia Minor. They also say that G2 also expanded at about the same time from Asia Minor. (They have STRs, but don't know how they base their assertion).

                          Anyway, it seems everybody is making the case that Italy was essentially empty during the LGM. The case for the Y chromosome appears relatively strong then. I'd like later on to compare the relative freq of the various haplogroups in Anatolia and Central/Southern Italy. I think R1b is much more frequent in Italy than Anatolia. In the previous interpretation, this may be due to more recent J admixture in Anatolia, and northern/hiberian R1b in Central Southern Italy.

                          Now, again, it remains to see what the mtdna says. As usual, there could have been a substitution of the Y chromosome, but it is unlikely that the mtdna was as well if people were living in Italy.

                          Mmaddi:
                          good point about T. Now, if the source for its origin is Sykes, this doesn't say much. Sykes placed the various "Eves" randomly in Europe (with a preference for touristically attractive locations like Tuscany and Veneto), while we now know that they didn't originate in Europe to start with. However, I have not seen anything about the possible origin for the various T lineages. Italy has a fair number of T's, so I think it is still an open question of where they come from, ie if they were in Italy during the LGM.

                          cacio

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            One thing I've noticed in mt haplogroup T is a different geographical pattern among some of its subclades, please correct me if I'm wrong.

                            It seems to me that T2 and T5 are rather common in both Eastern (here especially T2) and Western Europe, while they are very uncommon in the Middle East. Maybe does this reflect a more western origin for them?
                            T* and T1, on the other hand, can be found in Asia Minor and farther East in Asia as well, I think.

                            Another thing I've noticed is the quite different "weight" that haplogroup T has in the Italy project, compared to the Sicily project. Does it mean anything?
                            Last edited by F.E.C.; 13 February 2007, 05:21 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              From Sicily haplogroup K

                              I have received the results of my maternal dna through the genographic project, my results 16224C,16311C,16519C are all rapresenting a lineage found in Ashkenazi jews. I was born and raised in Sicily-comiso in the province of Ragusa, my father will test next. I have seen that there are two individuals on Family tree with the exact same sequence as mine but I do not know how to reach them. Any suggestion is welcome,
                              Lina Forti

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                sicily:

                                your mutations are very common in Europe (not just Ashkenazi). mitosearch.org lists more than 100 matches (!). You should upload your results to mitosearch.org (there should be a button in your FTDNA page), and from there you can contact people if you find some that are from your area. But remember that a HVR1 match doesn't say much - it means several thousand years ago on average (possibly even 10,000 years or so). So usually no recent relation.

                                There is also a mtdna K group in FTDNA, though I don't know the details, someone else will tell you.

                                cacio

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X