Genetic study The Genetic Legacy of the Roman Imperial Rule in northern Italy

[felipefanfarao]

Lagonbards might been more Celtic than Germanic when migrate, if we consider Lagonbard Boii similarity.

 

[ihype02]

20% Northern European ancestry in Northern Italy is actually OK considering most Longboards and Goths settled there. This contradicts the Etruscan paper, as historically speaking Tuscany was settled in much smaller number compared to northern regions.

 

[ihype02]

I feel the biggest "stone guest" in discussing Italian ethnogenesis and, in particular, its eastmed shift, is the Greek contribution.
The imperial sample from Etruria look, indeed, like Greeks.
That being said, despite a 25% contribution from a near east source in Northern Italy looks a bit too high, considering the uniperental, it still looks more reasonable than the 50% contribution wich was postulated in the etruscan paper.

But the main problem still stands: how much of this east med shift was due to Greeks going up the peninsula rather than near Eastern immigrants? The uniparentals seems to point, mainly, to the first hypothesis.

1/4 West Asian admixture in big Roman cities of Northern Italy is OK but one has to take in consideration that the newly arrived admixture is not uniform, therefore if we have to transform the percentage into an average one than likely it will would fall down to 15%.

Let's just assume 20% instead of 25% supposedly people outside of those cities were less mixed, we have additionally 1/5 of Germanic ancestry coming in during and after the late antiquity which results into 16% East Med ancestry in total.

 

[Francesco]

20% Northern European ancestry in Northern Italy is actually OK considering most Longboards and Goths settled there. This contradicts the Etruscan paper, as historically speaking Tuscany was settled in much smaller number compared to northern regions.

I think 20% is still pretty high, compared both to historiographic sources, who report a small number of invaders, and to uniparentals. Of course, it's possible that there might have been some selection bias which doesn't show up in uniparentals (statistically unlikely but it's still a remote possibility).
But I agree that such a number does however disproves the etruscan paper, wich was pretty flawed in my opinion.

 

[ihype02]

I think 20% is still pretty high, compared both to histroiographic sources, who report a small number of invaders, and to uniparentals. Of course, it's possible that there might have been some selection bias which doesn't show up in uniparentals (statistically unlikely but it's still a remote possibility).
But I agree that such a number does however disproves the etruscan paper, wich was pretty flawed in my opinion.

I am aware that this could have a male-invader bias but I am posting it just in case.

 

[Francesco]

1/4 West Asian admixture in big Roman cities of Northern Italy is OK but one has to take in consideration that the newly arrived admixture is not uniform, therefore if we have to transform the percentage into an average one than likely it will would fall down to 15%.

The just assume 20% instead of 25% supposedly people outside of those cities were less mixed, we have additionally 1/5 of Germanic ancestry coming in during and after the late antiquity which results into 16% East Med ancestry in total.

These numbers for the east med ancestry don't seem too off to me and you are also probably correct when you say that rural areas might have been less affected.
I was just questioning the ultimate source of this ancestry: in my opinion the Aegean area played a pivotal role in this shift to the east, not only in the south, but probably in the north as well (via southerners moving northward after the romanization of cisalpine Gaul).

 

[Pax Augusta]

20% Northern European ancestry in Northern Italy is actually OK considering most Longboards and Goths settled there. This contradicts the Etruscan paper, as historically speaking Tuscany was settled in much smaller number compared to northern regions

This paper is from the same group of geneticists as the Etruria one, so it is plausible that the conclusions are shared by all of them. The results of this paper smack so much of an a priori thesis, precisely to support the conclusions of the one on Etruria regarding the post-Roman Empire period.

Northern Italy (which corresponds to 8 regions today) is also a much larger area than Tuscany alone, that was part of Langobardia Major, which were the Langobard dominions of northern Italy up to, precisely, Tuscany.

The Langobards clearly came from the north, and settled first in some areas of northern Italy (I always read that they entered from the border between Friuli and today's Slovenia) and then settled into the rest of the country as well. I don't think exact numbers are known, but Langobards reached surely many parts of southern Italy as well.

Even assuming that the were more in northern Italy - which is plausible -, they must have had an impact on a much larger area and population than Tuscany. So it is obvious, that even with the same kind of impact (20% Northern European ancestry), there must have been many more of them in northern Italy. With a greater impact there must have been still many more.

 

[Francesco]

In order to extimate the germanic input in northern Italy using already published samples, I ran a model with three groups of samples posted in this thread https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threa...migrations-in-5th–6th-century-pannonia.44451/

C1: Turin Early Medieval: only the samples with a "tuscan-like" profile
C2: Bardonecchia Early Medieval: from a rural context, likely more similar to the Iron Age population (maybe Celto-ligures?)
C3: sampls from the langobard cemetry from Hacs, but only those with a northern eurpean profile

The model seems to support a small germanic input (smaller than I would expect, frankly) in favor of a rural resurgence, at least for modern Piedmont. Of course, it's just a model made from a few samples and with an amateurish tool, so I wouldn't take it too seriously.

 

[Riverman]

As good as it is, G25 is notorious for picking up alternative components instead of the real ones due to a basic similarity. E.g. a person with Swedish ancestry and one Albanian Balkan grandparent might get German or some odd other mix instead.

 

[Francesco]

Yes, G25 isn't too reliable. Bardonecchia + Torino it's not that much of an odd mix though, since they are two clusters of people wich actually lived in the region in the Early middle age. Even looking at the PCA the cline seems to run between this two clusters.



Anyway, I wouldn't bet too much on the model.

 

[Pax Augusta]

In order to extimate the germanic input in northern Italy using already published samples, I ran a model with three groups of samples posted in this thread https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threa...migrations-in-5th–6th-century-pannonia.44451/

C1: Turin Early Medieval: only the samples with a "tuscan-like" profile
C2: Bardonecchia Early Medieval: from a rural context, likely more similar to the Iron Age population (maybe Celto-ligures?)
C3: sampls from the langobard cemetry from Hacs, but only those with a northern eurpean profile

The model seems to support a small germanic input (smaller than I would expect, frankly) in favor of a rural resurgence, at least for modern Piedmont. Of course, it's just a model made from a few samples and with an amateurish tool, so I wouldn't take it too seriously.

I also answer Poxy who had asked. In the past few days I spoke with an archaeologist who has excavated in Piedmont and he told me that neither Lavazza nor Bardonecchia are considered Longobard necropolises. Lavazza is a Christian necropolis outside the walls of Roman Turin, while the one in Bardonecchia has grave goods in the early Middle Ages of Burgundian and Frankish but not Longobard type, and it is supposed to be a necropolis used by a small allochthonous community between the 6th and 8th centuries. Of course, there is no certainty that among those at Lavazza there were no allochthonous individuals, and among those at Bardonecchia there were autochthonous individuals.

 

[ihype02]

I was just questioning the ultimate source of this ancestry: in my opinion the Aegean area played a pivotal role in this shift to the east, not only in the south, but probably in the north as well (via southerners moving northward after the romanization of cisalpine Gaul).

 

[Francesco]

The Himera's study is interesting, because despite focusing on a peculiar siceliot polis (Himera was located at the edge of the Greek world in Sicily, between Carthaginian and Sicanians) one can clearly see a cline running from a Sicanian genetic profile to a Greek one, with a lot of mixed individuals in between. This is likely an example of an eastward shift caused by the great Greek colonization in the Iron Age.

Even between the Iron Age Latins, the outlier from Preneste could be seen as an individual with mixed aegean and (minor) italic ancestry and closely resembles modern southern Italians.

Of course, this is not to say that other migrations didn't happen or didn't affect at all the demographic composition of Italy, but one can't absolutely overlook the Greek contribution.

 

[felipefanfarao]

The Greek contribution came from Iron Age Settlers,but you should notice that the Outlier could easily been from a Western Anatolian LBA(like Troy) instead of Greek Element, Aegean admixture could been very similar to Trojan's os Luwian Western Anatolia.
Also, mostly DNA from Imperial Era came much before Iron Age, Iron Age Italics were Republicans, as you could seen.
In fact Anatolian Hellenistic population was the highest after Alexander's Successors Empires, and most them went to Italy during Imperial Era. It was a migration well record and the Articles always goes to this direction, cause clearly All Western Provinces received a massive eastern shifted at the same time Anatolian Hellenistic Settlers went to Italy, France and Iberia

 

[felipefanfarao]

The Himera's study is interesting, because despite focusing on a peculiar siceliot polis (Himera was located at the edge of the Greek world in Sicily, between Carthaginian and Sicanians) one can clearly see a cline running from a Sicanian genetic profile to a Greek one, with a lot of mixed individuals in between. This is likely an example of an eastward shift caused by the great Greek colonization in the Iron Age.

Even between the Iron Age Latins, the outlier from Preneste could be seen as an individual with mixed aegean and (minor) italic ancestry and closely resembles modern southern Italians.

Of course, this is not to say that other migrations didn't happen or didn't affect at all the demographic composition of Italy, but one can't absolutely overlook the Greek contribution.

No one could say that Aegean Admixture didn't few towards Italy, Etruscan had a profile that could had minor Helladic-Like profile, close to Tyrennic profile that we expected, as well as This Outlier had a LBA Western Anatolian admixture, one of them were like 80% Hittite like, but keep in mind those "iron age italics" were Republican Era Italics, meaning that Imperial Profile wasn't see as much common as we saw at Imperial Era, so doesn't make sense.
Greeks settlers weren't the highest portion, Anatolians were , even some Iranian and Egyptian profiles or mixed could been found.
But if you think it was the "Southern Italian profile" you re wrong, Imperial Profile simple got end during Late Antiquity, southern Italy had more population then more Imperial Like admixture , but most of them died, however local Greco-Phoenicians elites, from ancient time, might contribute to a SIMILAR profile, as it was the dominant from Collegno to Malta, cause it derived from Migration.

All eastern provinces migrated to the Capital of the Empire, it is how a empire work, slaves had a Carthage-Rich DNA(Not Phoenician proper) as several studies said. Around 60-70% of Italian's Population were Citizenship , as the name suggest mostly Urban Inhabitants, commoners had more eastern provinces elements and elites Italic IA+More Aegean/Minor Anatolic admixture, the reduce of the Commoner typical DNA was a consequence of Brutal Populational Reduce, as around 14 milion people went to 3 milion, after several centuries of Populational decline even with high fertility rates.

Genetics just confirmed what history said, nothing different or special , just Natural Selection based on Material Access.
High Classes were Local Elites + Patricians /Equestrian, it might explain why Southern Italy got this DNA + more population(even if more died it could sustain the "imperial profile") .
If you use Imperial x Phoenician-Greek at south will discover that Imperial Influence would been more expressive on the places that had the highest population density.
Obviously cause it couldn't came with Greeks


Also pay attention to Classical Greeks Delphi x Imperial, even Greece and Balkans had Several West Asian like profiles or admixture during that era.

Doesn't make any sense to credit classical Greeks settlers, keep in mind that Hellenistic Anatolia had the perfect matching with Historical and Genetic evidences.

 

[felipefanfarao]

Common sense attribute any East Med profile to Greeks.

 

[Francesco]

Common sense attribute any East Med profile to Greeks.

Doesn't make any sense to credit classical Greeks settlers, keep in mind that Hellenistic Anatolia had the perfect matching with Historical and Genetic evidences.

I'm not quite sure I got what you meant, since those two sentences seems in contradiction with each other.
However, I agree that demographic collapse might have played a role and I agree that individuals with a more anatolian profile might have been present in the Iron Age.
On the other hand, I'm a bit perplexed by rigid correlations between social class and gentic profile: there might have been many slaves with a certain genetic background as we see in isola Sacra, but It's pretty difficult to establish solid generalizations on the matter, I believe. At least with the current knowledge we have. Several memebers of the senatorial class, for example, my have had a more "exotic" background than commoners of minor settlements.

 

[Riverman]

I'm not quite sure I got what you meant, since those two sentences seems in contradiction with each other.
However, I agree that demographic collapse might have played a role and I agree that individuals with a more anatolian profile might have been present in the Iron Age.

I think the shift in the Greeks from the Mycenaean profile to a more East Mediterranean one won't predate the Hellenistic era and will rather accelerate under Roman rule to reach its final status. Therefore if one wants to explain the Roman shift with the Greeks, its just like giving the quest to explain it to another station, which was affected in pretty much the same way. It also seems, that some of the shift started before the Romans fully controlled the East Mediterranean, so already with the first acquisitions and when they gained a position of importance.
Crucial is when the Servile Wars started:

Servile Wars - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That was in the 2nd century BC.

Many of the slaves were bought, many of the workers, traders etc. likely came in, because Rome became more attractive to migrants, before the actual conquest of the East.
And especially in Southern Italia-Sicilia the local Greeks will have had a massive influx of Eastern workers and slaves even before joining Rome, that's something I would predict already. And that will start, by and large, in the Hellenistic era, presumably.

 

[Francesco]

I think the shift in the Greeks from the Mycenaean profile to a more East Mediterranean one won't predate the Hellenistic era and will rather accelerate under Roman rule to reach its final status. [...]
And especially in Southern Italia-Sicilia the local Greeks will have had a massive influx of Eastern workers and slaves even before joining Rome, that's something I would predict already. And that will start, by and large, in the Hellenistic era, presumably.

This could probably be tested by extensive sampling both of the poleis in Magna Grecia and in continental Greece. I suspect we will see a progressive formation of this genetic profile since the Iron Age: the archaic poet Hesiod, for instance, came from a polis in Asia Minor (Cyme) before establishing in continental Greece. It's just an example, but it may testify that some degree of mobility and interexchange with the anatolian world existed well before the hellenistic era.

However, the iatus between the start of the hellenistic age (end of IV century BC) and the Roman expansion in Magna Grecia (Tarentum was conquered in 272 BC) is really small, just a few generations. I don't think that the genetic profile of Magna Grecia inhabitants may have changed drastically over five decades.

It may have changed, eventually, after the Roman conquest, but either way by that time the Greek presence in the region was well established since many centuries, with several big cities, so a genetic shift towards the East and the Aegean had already happened in the south, as the Himera study seems to suggest.

 

[Riverman]

I doubt that the Ionian Greeks had that kind of profile. They rather will by like the Mycenaeans with minor West Anatolian (!) admixture, which will not even be that far removed from the Mycenaeans. I might be wrong, but I don't think it started to gain momentum before the Hellenistic period.

What we might rather observe is an increase of Thracian admixture first (starting in the classical era), Central-East Anatolian-Levantine second (in the Hellenistic period). Because in the earlier periods, Thracians were surely more important than in the latter.