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

[MOESAN]

To be clear I am not saying that we can say with certainty that precisely zero Italians in Italy today carry any German ancestry. I just don't see it autosomally represented whatsoever. If you want to argue from Y dna then you are arguing for far less than 1% of the Italian genome, from a place of ignorance of what the whole of ancient Italy's Y-dna looked like to begin with. It is a very weak argument and avoiding the autosomal results only really validates my original statement. Our proof of significant German introgression will necessarily be found in the commonality and numerical dominance or absence of of their profiles in the EMA and so far we have absolutely zero outside of 1st to 2nd generation Langobard specific burials.

On the flip side we have the moors who controlled sicily for roughly 300 years and yet sicilians today show total continuity with the Imperial profile with seemingly no north african influence from that era onward. Realistically we're even looking at a scenario in which Roman sicily had its north african punic profile reduced compared to the modern day. The same phenomenon can be said for the Imperial Romans of Gaul and Brittania, who do not appear to have affected the local profiles despite roman domination and their esteemed social status for hundreds of years. Like most people, I think you far overestimate the degree of foreign population intrusion for genetic permanence to take place. Another clear example are the Carthaginians in Sardinia, whose profile remained commonplace well into the Roman era, but today has all but disappeared in favor of more rural local elements that have existed since the neolithic. The urban graveyard effect is a very real and potent phenomenon. The reality is that it is deleterous to intrusive genetic profiles in most cases. There are exceptions of course but they typically necessitate mass migrations. You should perhaps start looking at things from a less dated and simplistic perception where it is assumed conquest equates to a permanent and significant admixture. Reality is much more nuanced and statistically fertility rates are what dominate population genetics over time instead of social status.

I know a conquest and the control of power by a foreign people can leave very few remains or almost nothing. But every conquest and power didn't have the same input, and I never heard Longobards had been expelled of Italy. I know also that dominant foreign elites and the subsequent admixture they bring can be swept off some generations after by differences in demography and also that what we find in sepultures are not always the reflexion of reality. I said it before in other threads. I was not too assertive and I'm ready to accept your arguments. But I should be happy to see more Italian MA anDNA of everywhere. Perhaps have you some new papers at hand?

 

[TetaEglantina]

Urnfields is not reductible only to Lusacian C.
If I rely on the Hawk post in the thread "To burn or not to burn" where he put a map of Balkans from some study, I may say that at least cremation was become the rule in some places of Balkans along Sava and Drava rivers at LBA, the resistance (inhumation) holding ground in the Southwest and South parts of Western Balkans (so closer to the Adriatic), with some places of mixing.
Urnfields were not tightly tied to Y-haplo's everywhere and in its last developments were no more strictly linked to Vatya.

The core of proto Urnfield was Vatya and initially moved to Lusatian region. Urnfield then expanded north/west as we saw with Tollense (Germany, France, North Italy) and south/east (Ukraine, Romania, Macedonia etc) assimilating and recruiting different people in the process - similar to the Romans. The Romans initially settled their base in central Italy before expanding out and assimilating other people under their rule.

Lusatians continued cremating in urns after most of Urnfield had ended in Europe with the emergence of Hallstatt and La Tene.

 

[MOESAN]

BTW do somebody know if a big survey about Terramare anDNA is in the pipes? It would be very interesting if it covers the entire life of this culture even if cremation limits drastically the results in the last periods.

 

[TetaEglantina]

What do you think by "Urnfield ended Tumulus"? Urnfields is kind of a post-Tell (post-Neolithic for some traditions) thing, carrying new believings and I think based on material progress and demographic increase. The progress seems linked to the very open crossroads of Central Europe (Carpathian Bassin, Moravia, Danube river. Sometimes the transmission could have been a female job. This process of "urnfielding" took some time among the Tumuli cultures and have never been complete, and we see sometimes fresh Urnfields groups marching on the traces of Tumuli ones, rather pushing them off than doing friends of them. In South-East I don't know too much...
ATW I don't agree with the simplification: "Urnfields = Celts < Tumuli. Here I don't say it's your theory, don't be afraid.

I was trying to correct that poster by informing him that Tumulus was before Urnfield. Urnfield formed on the eastern border of Tumulus and when it expanded west ended much of Tumulus culture (some of it remained in western Balkans, parts of France etc). Neither of these 2 cultures have anything to do with Celts, proto Celts likely formed later during Hallstatt or La Tene.

 

[Vitruvius]

I know a conquest and the control of power by a foreign people can leave very few remains or almost nothing. But every conquest and power didn't have the same input, and I never heard Longobards had been expelled of Italy. I know also that dominant foreign elites and the subsequent admixture they bring can be swept off some generations after by differences in demography and also that what we find in sepultures are not always the reflexion of reality. I said it before in other threads. I was not too assertive and I'm ready to accept your arguments. But I should be happy to see more Italian MA anDNA of everywhere. Perhaps have you some new papers at hand?

It is true that no conquest is equal to another, including demographically. To your point I do think the Magna Graecian migrations were much more massive than any of the Germanic ones, and today we do see a very strong Aegean input which mirrors the Greek LBA norms in southern Italy.

Regarding the Lombards, however, my main point is that on a genetic level there is no functional difference between a scenario in which the Lombards entered into Italy, occupied and resided in its major cities (sources of tax revenue), mixed with the local urban population, asserted control, were never expelled but yet still were gradually replaced by higher fertility rural Italians who retained an iron age profile vs. the scenario of the Lombards not having entered Italy at all. This is the type of situation I'm seeing emerge with every new study that comes out. We can of course acknowledge their historical place in society for their time period but it's the genetic permanence that I'm simply not seeing here.

I don't know if I would call them "new papers" but I do have Bardonecchia and Torino EMA coordinates and as I mentioned before zero of them look Germanic. Many aren't aware of these as I don't think an official study was ever released on the topic of specifically these samples. At most a couple occupy the southern french/far north Italian overlap, but broadly they strongly show a modern like average for northern Italy - effectively the same types of profiles we see in the Picene study.

 

[MOESAN]

Thanks Vitruvius. Concerning Terramare I wasn't thinking in Germanics, but in the possible past of Latins and akin people. It's a pity that no huge study hasn't been made of this people, study which could maybe put light on the Qw-/P- Italics question.

 

[torzio]

there is Ostrogoths and Lombards from 450AD in Italy

There is Germanic people in Italy since the middle ages, trentino area and the salians of the 3 x Otto kings in North-east Italy

the 7 x bavarian tribes living in Veneto from the middle-ages.......hired lumberjacks by the venetian republic

Italy took south-tyrol for themselves after WW1 there is a mix italian-austrian people there since medieval times

Italy was given Trieste after WW2 even though from 900AD they spoke a Venetian colonial language but where never ever under the republic of Venice 452-1797

 

[torzio]

An Alternative to ‘Celtic from the East’ and ‘Celtic from the West’​

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 April 2020

An Alternative to ‘Celtic from the East’ and ‘Celtic from the West’ | Cambridge Archaeological Journal | Cambridge Core

An Alternative to ‘Celtic from the East’ and ‘Celtic from the West’ - Volume 30 Issue 3

www.cambridge.org

 

[ihype02]

It is true that no conquest is equal to another, including demographically. To your point I do think the Magna Graecian migrations were much more massive than any of the Germanic ones, and today we do see a very strong Aegean input which mirrors the Greek LBA norms in southern Italy.

Regarding the Lombards, however, my main point is that on a genetic level there is no functional difference between a scenario in which the Lombards entered into Italy, occupied and resided in its major cities (sources of tax revenue), mixed with the local urban population, asserted control, were never expelled but yet still were gradually replaced by higher fertility rural Italians who retained an iron age profile vs. the scenario of the Lombards not having entered Italy at all. This is the type of situation I'm seeing emerge with every new study that comes out. We can of course acknowledge their historical place in society for their time period but it's the genetic permanence that I'm simply not seeing here.

I don't know if I would call them "new papers" but I do have Bardonecchia and Torino EMA coordinates and as I mentioned before zero of them look Germanic. Many aren't aware of these as I don't think an official study was ever released on the topic of specifically these samples. At most a couple occupy the southern french/far north Italian overlap, but broadly they strongly show a modern like average for northern Italy - effectively the same types of profiles we see in the Picene study.

If you add heavy Germanic admixture to an Imperial Roman you get a Northern Italian. Does that mean there were no Northern Italian-types (like Picenes or Illyrians) without any Germanic admixture? NO, but it does not change that was what was happening in 2019 Rome paper. PCA movements can be misleading. So those Picenes had no Germanic admixture but the ones in Imperial Rome did. Because many Goths settled in Rome. You can see the history and the Y-DNA in the Roman samples, I1 was present in those Northern Italian-type Romans.

Vitruvius your posts are extremely misleading. Northern Italians have zero Germanic admixture. South Italians are 80% Ancient Greek transplants. Tuscans are nearly half Ancient Greeks.
I don't know what to say.

 

[Vitruvius]

Thanks Vitruvius. Concerning Terramare I wasn't thinking in Germanics, but in the possible past of Latins and akin people. It's a pity that no huge study hasn't been made of this people, study which could maybe put light on the Qw-/P- Italics question.

Burials in Terramare associated individuals are extremely rare. They are only found in the first 100 or so years in areas where Terramare overlaps the preceeding Polada (meaning that the practice was likely being borrowed from Polada and they themselves may be mixed Polada/Terramare populations). The Terramare phenomenon is marked by the near exclusive use of incineration upon its arrival and then fairly shortly after a proper urnfield funerary adoption. I'd love to see samples from this culture just as much as you, but I doubt we will get much for the simple reason of survivorship bias.

 

[Vitruvius]

If you add heavy Germanic admixture to an Imperial Roman you get a Northern Italian. Does that mean there were no Northern Italian-types (like Picenes or Illyrians) without any Germanic admixture? NO, but it does not change that was what was happening in 2019 Rome paper. PCA movements can be misleading. So those Picenes had no Germanic admixture but the ones in Imperial Rome did. Because many Goths settled in Rome. You can see the history and the Y-DNA in the Roman samples, I1 was present in those Northern Italian-type Romans.

Vitruvius your posts are extremely misleading. Northern Italians have zero Germanic admixture. South Italians are 80% Ancient Greek transplants. Tuscans are nearly half Ancient Greeks.
I don't know what to say.

So many Germanic Goths apparently settled Rome that not a single Germanic profile can be found in all time periods in the entire 2019 Moots study, including late antiquity. All but one of the "northern" late antiquity profiles cluster with the Picenes and modern northern Italians, and supposedly those types are your "Germans", since the existence of a native Italic profile is such a massive inconvenience to the extoic narrative you push in seemingly every post about Italians. German profiles are not found in the EMA Bardonecchia samples on the northern border and they're also not found in EMA Lavazza-Torino or EMA Alto Adige. They're again not found in late antiquity or EMA rome. The only place they have ever been found in Italy is exactly where we knew we would have to find at least some of them, which is the 1st-2nd generation Langobard specifical burial at Collegno, where they yet still remained a minority. For whatever reason you again seem dead set on trying to "prove" a foreign origin of northern Italians against all odds and data. I can only wonder why that might be.

And please don't try to lecture me on "misleading posts" when you peddle nonsense like:

If you add heavy Germanic admixture to an Imperial Roman you get a Northern Italian.

 

[Vallicanus]

If you add heavy Germanic admixture to an Imperial Roman you get a Northern Italian. Does that mean there were no Northern Italian-types (like Picenes or Illyrians) without any Germanic admixture? NO, but it does not change that was what was happening in 2019 Rome paper. PCA movements can be misleading. So those Picenes had no Germanic admixture but the ones in Imperial Rome did. Because many Goths settled in Rome. You can see the history and the Y-DNA in the Roman samples, I1 was present in those Northern Italian-type Romans.

Vitruvius your posts are extremely misleading. Northern Italians have zero Germanic admixture. South Italians are 80% Ancient Greek transplants. Tuscans are nearly half Ancient Greeks.
I don't know what to say.

Setting aside individual exceptions, where are all these Scandinavian-like Dark Age Germanic types in modern Northern Italy (outside South Tyrol, but pretty rare there too) or even clearly Anatolian-like ones also for that matter?
The anthropologist Renato Biasutti indicated in his "Razze e Popoli della Terra" that blond hair in the Italian alpine region was strongly correlated with a local brachycephalic "Alpine" type, while the people of the Po valley were much darker-haired.

 

[ihype02]

So many Germanic Goths apparently settled Rome that not a single Germanic profile can be found in all time periods in the entire 2019 Moots study, including late antiquity. All but one of the "northern" late antiquity profiles cluster with the Picenes and modern northern Italians, and supposedly those types are your "Germans", since the existence of a native Italic profile is such a massive inconvenience to the extoic narrative you push in seemingly every post about Italians. Germans profiles are not found in the EMA Bardonecchia samples on the northern border and they're also not found in EMA Lavazza-Torino or EMA Alto Adige. They're again not found in late antiquity or EMA rome. The only place they have ever been found in Italy is exactly where we knew we would have to find at least some of them, which is the 1st-2nd generation Longobard specifical burial at Collegno, where they yet still remained a minority. For whatever reason you again seem dead set on trying to "prove" a foreign origin of northern Italians against all odds and data. I can only wonder why that might be.

And please don't try to lecture me on "misleading posts" when you peddle nonsense like:



View attachment 15703

Because they were mixed. There is I1 in Late Antiquity samples. Those that plot like Northern Italians have it, that's the end of discussion. The Germanic admixture gave them a Pseudo-Picene profile. There were some 100,000 Longobards that settled in Italy in Early Middle ages the bulk of them in North. You cannot have 15-20% Germanic Y-DNA and zero autosomal. Do I believe it is that high in Tuscany like it is implied at 20%? No, but it still exists.

I don't believe Imperial Romans + lots of Germanic is what happened in North Italy but in just those particular Roman samples, yes. Those northern samples were not mixed out of existence uniformly yet so there is clear divide from pure South Italians samples and the more northern ones.

I support a 70%-80% Italic continuity in North Italy which is higher majority of Europeans have with their ancient ancestry.
Germans are only half Germanic, Brits are only half British, very few Slavic people are 70% slavic etc.

 

[Vallicanus]

How do you see modern Southern Italians and Imperial Romans genetically?

 

[ihype02]

So what exactly do you claim modern North Italians and Tuscans to be regarding Germanic admixture?

5% in Tuscany and 15% in North Italians.

As for those North Italian-like samples in Rome, I don't believe they were migrants from the north, just native Romans that have elevated Germanic admixture before they got mixed out of existence. You see Lazio plots in between them.

Just like the paper in 2023 or 22 if I recall showed some group Ashkenazi Jews plotting like Mainland Greeks before they got mixed out of existence with Western Jews with zero Slavic.

 

[Vallicanus]

5% in Tuscany and 15% in North Italians.

As for those North Italian-like samples in Rome, I don't believe they were migrants from the north, just native Romans that have elevated Germanic admixture before they got mixed out of existence. You see Lazio plots in between them.

Just like the paper in 2023 or 22 if I recall showed some group Ashkenazi Jews plotting like Mainland Greeks before they got mixed out of existence with Western Jews with zero Slavic.

I'm closest to R33 and you asked me what the Y dna was for this ancient Rome sample. I could not find the answer.

Do you know?

 

[MOESAN]

Burials in Terramare associated individuals are extremely rare. They are only found in the first 100 or so years in areas where Terramare overlaps the preceeding Polada (meaning that the practice was likely being borrowed from Polada and they themselves may be mixed Polada/Terramare populations). The Terramare phenomenon is marked by the near exclusive use of incineration upon its arrival and then fairly shortly after a proper urnfield funerary adoption. I'd love to see samples from this culture just as much as you, but I doubt we will get much for the simple reason of survivorship bias.

Terramare was settled north and south the Pô river. The adoption of cremation in North has been gradual. I think I wrote that in one of my precedent posts. The story is very different between Lombardia-Venetia and Emilia, as if Emilia knew the penetration of a new people, at least a quasi immediate demic increase compared to elsewhere in N-Italy. I see it like that. The changes between proto-Villanovan and plain Villanovan could stay in this? Other IA groups, even if their allover autosomes were close roghly said.

 

[MOESAN]

Because they were mixed. There is I1 in Late Antiquity samples. Those that plot like Northern Italians have it, that's the end of discussion. The Germanic admixture gave them a Pseudo-Picene profile. There were some 100,000 Longobards that settled in Italy in Early Middle ages the bulk of them in North. You cannot have 15-20% Germanic Y-DNA and zero autosomal. Do I believe it is that high in Tuscany like it is implied at 20%? No, but it still exists.

I don't believe Imperial Romans + lots of Germanic is what happened in North Italy but in just those particular Roman samples, yes. Those northern samples were not mixed out of existence uniformly yet so there is clear divide from pure South Italians samples and the more northern ones.

I support a 70%-80% Italic continuity in North Italy which is higher majority of Europeans have with their ancient ancestry.
Germans are only half Germanic, Brits are only half British, very few Slavic people are 70% slavic etc.

Thanks for the remembering of Y-haplos!

 

[MOESAN]

Setting aside individual exceptions, where are all these Scandinavian-like Dark Age Germanic types in modern Northern Italy (outside South Tyrol, but pretty rare there too) or even clearly Anatolian-like ones also for that matter?
The anthropologist Renato Biasutti indicated in his "Razze e Popoli della Terra" that blond hair in the Italian alpine region was strongly correlated with a local brachycephalic "Alpine" type, while the people of the Po valley were much darker-haired.

This analysis of Biasutti is very vague. Others speak of 'Noric' type (common nough in Austria, something described by Coon as a brachycephalized 'nordic', in fact involving some synthesis where played 'nordic', 'borreby' and 'dinaric' so not a so local type for northern Italy of Neolithic rather a Central Europe thing, spite its fuzziness. 'alpine' has been too often employed for everykind of brachycephals at some stage of "science".

 

[Vitruvius]

Because they were mixed. There is I1 in Late Antiquity samples. Those that plot like Northern Italians have it, that's the end of discussion. The Germanic admixture gave them a Pseudo-Picene profile. There were some 100,000 Longobards that settled in Italy in Early Middle ages the bulk of them in North. You cannot have 15-20% Germanic Y-DNA and zero autosomal. Do I believe it is that high in Tuscany like it is implied at 20%? No, but it still exists.

I don't believe Imperial Romans + lots of Germanic is what happened in North Italy but in just those particular Roman samples, yes. Those northern samples were not mixed out of existence uniformly yet so there is clear divide from pure South Italians samples and the more northern ones.

I support a 70%-80% Italic continuity in North Italy which is higher majority of Europeans have with their ancient ancestry.
Germans are only half Germanic, Brits are only half British, very few Slavic people are 70% slavic etc.

No, that is a total cop out and you are only trying to end this discussion because all evidence here proves the exact opposite of your claim. It's amazing to me that you can have such a cognitive bias that you're willing to pretend that a supposed mass German admixture event in Rome just happens to exclude any German autosomal profiles during the precise timeframe that the first generation immigrant Germans entered Italy. You have no idea how much I1 was in northern italy to begin with and you also want us to believe that this cluster of 5 individuals which are specific to the exact PCA location of modern nothern italy and the picenes is just happenstance and that they all just happen to be perfectly identical admixture ratios for Germans and Imperials. Nobody with any common sense is buying this. Actual imperial/german crosses would not even cluster over northern Italy on this PCA and would instead necessitate a cline stretching just east of where England is shown.

You cannot have 15-20% Germanic Y-DNA and zero autosomal. Do I believe it is that high in Tuscany like it is implied at 20%? No, but it still exists.

Wrong. This phenomenon of Y-DNA not reflecting autosomal DNA is actually extremely common, which is precisely why Y-DNA is such a poor proxy for ethnic makeup.