I think you gentlemen missed the following:
"
Isotope information not available yet, no way apart from archaeological context to tell between migrants and locals."
So, I would suggest waiting for the paper and the results by sample, and with the isotope information, i.e. which were migrants and which locals. Also keep in mind that these are all samples from Lazio. No Sicilian or Southern Italian or Northern Italian or Tuscan samples.
As for Iran Neo in the Italian Neolithic, let's see, who was it who came on here to tell me that I was insane to think that Iran Neo might have arrived in Italy not only before "all the slaves" during the days of the Empire, but perhaps all the way back to the Neolithic? I kept on saying this component had been in Italy at least since the late Neolithic, perhaps bordering on the Chalcolithic, as Otzi showed, as I must have said a hundred times. Maybe it's even a bit earlier. After all, it would have had to make its way all the way up the boot to the Alps. Let's see, could it have been Polako, and Sikeliot, and Azzurro who were so incredulous? Are you lurking, guys, ready to downvote? I can see them, you know.
I'd been saying this since the days I was active on the defunct DNA Forums, and on the forum at 23andme. Epic arguments I've had with all of them over the years. Well, now we know.
And well, well, Early Bronze Age central Italians are still a lot like Sardinians. It will be interesting to see the dates. Is this after the arrival of populations from central Europe? If it's before, was there culture transfer without gene transfer? So when did the Central Europeans actually arrive?
Also, what do you know? Republican Romans show the following:
"
Fewer samples, of those that exist 60% overlap with North Italy, 40% overlap with South Italy and Sicily, centroid of overall cluster in central Italy but no samples occur there, very wide spread.
EHG appears, Levant N Appears for the first time, sporadic and inhomogeneous distribution, Iran_N increases further."
So, the most northern samples, perhaps the more upper class Romans? overlap with Northern Italians, and the rest with Southern Italians. Tsk, tsk, I guess the Romans who, how did the poster put it, started European civilization were NOT Germans, or Scandinavians, or North East Europeans, or pure Indo-Europeans, or Corded Ware, or Central European Beakers. They're closest to modern day North Italians.
As for the EHG coming in, and the Levant, let's see which samples have it and how much. I completely understand the continued increase in Iran Neo. All of the southern regions, with their inhabitants of Greek descent, were being incorporated into the Republic. That's what all those wars were about for the few who actually know some Roman history.
"
IMPERIAL PERIOD
Dense cluster centroid between Greeks, Cypriots, South Italians/Sicilians, and Syrians, closest to Sicilians. Long tail stretching from central cluster to Syrians and Iraqi Jews. Couple of Northern-shifted samples overlapping N Italy, France, Spain.
Iran_N increases further, Levant N again sporadic and inhomogeneous."
Well, if a lot of the samples are from port cities this is not surprising. (Frankly, I don't see the point in their releasing this kind of data without delineating between migrants, who could have been temporary, or slaves, and locals). As I said, we'll see how many of the samples are "locals", and whether they're all from urban settings. The latter is very important. I'd want to see the yDna as well. There were a lot of Jews in Rome. I must say, though, I thought the whole Levant was supposed to have emptied and come to Italy. That's what Sikeliot told me, anyway. Only SPORADIC and inhomogeneous Levant Neo? What a letdown for him. What we're seeing, instead, is early and continuing Iran Neo.
For the future, I think it's going to be very important to see the local Southern Italian samples. Did they, as a result of Greek colonization, contain enough Iran Neo to account for the increase further up the peninsula on their own, or was there some incorporation of outsiders?
"
LATE ANTIQUITY
Tight cluster centroid in S Italy, in the same place as in the previous period. Southern tail to Middle East disappears. N Italian, Northern European and NW European outliers exist."
Good grief, how can this be? I thought all of North Africa arrived in Sicily and Southern Italy. How can they be basically the same as they were in Late Antiquity? Even if they're including the 8th century in their definition of Late Antiquity, the samples of that period are still basically the same as those from the Imperial period. So, no room for a huge effect by the Moors. I always figured somewhere under 10% maximum.
Well, I've had enough fun. Let's wait for the paper.