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

[Francesco]

The Genomic portrait of the Picene culture: new insights into the Italic Iron Age and the legacy of the Roman expansion in Central Italy

Background The Italic Iron Age was characterized by the presence of various ethnic groups partially examined from a genomic perspective. To explore the evolution of Iron Age Italic populations and the genetic impact of Romanization, we focused on the Picenes, one of the most fascinating...

www.biorxiv.org

The pre print is out. Very interesting samples, but the conclusions seem a bit weak.

1) Picenes plot very close to northern italian and have less WHG admixture than other central italian IA group (cc @Vitruvius )

2) there are clearly some samples with aegean ancestry in the late antiquity period (one also in the iron age), but they are described as "middle eastern" in the conclusions, despite being dated to the byzantine rule of the region, while there is only one proper middle eastern profile.

However, the late antiquity samples are very interesting, spanning from a iron age-like sample to an aegean profile, with modern marchigiani plotting roughly in between the two. This shift seems to have already started in the iron age, with a sample already showing a greek-like profile.

 

[Maciamo]

Here are the haplogroups from this study. Unfortunately they didn't test deep clades.

Sample ID	Site	Ethnic Group	Period	Date	mtDNA haplogroup	Y-haplogroup
EV14	Monteriggioni/Colle di Val d'Elsa	Etruscan	Iron Age	VII-VI cc. BCE	H2a2a	..
EV15A	Monteriggioni/Colle di Val d'Elsa	Etruscan	Iron Age	VII-VI cc. BCE	H2a2a	R1-M269/L23
EV15B	Monteriggioni/Colle di Val d'Elsa	Etruscan	Iron Age	VII-VI cc. BCE	U5a2	..
EV16A	Monteriggioni/Colle di Val d'Elsa	Etruscan	Iron Age	VII-VI cc. BCE	K	..
EV16C	Monteriggioni/Colle di Val d'Elsa	Etruscan	Iron Age	VII-VI cc. BCE	K1a+195*2	..
EV16D1	Monteriggioni/Colle di Val d'Elsa	Etruscan	Iron Age	VII-VI cc. BCE	J1c3g	R1-M269/L23
EV16D2	Monteriggioni/Colle di Val d'Elsa	Etruscan	Iron Age	VII-VI cc. BCE	H2a2a	..
EV18	Monteriggioni/Colle di Val d'Elsa	Etruscan	Iron Age	VII-VI cc. BCE	K1c1	I2-M438/L460
EV19	Monteriggioni/Colle di Val d'Elsa	Etruscan	Iron Age	VII-VI cc. BCE	J2a1a1	..
EV7A	Monteriggioni/Colle di Val d'Elsa	Etruscan	Iron Age	VII-VI cc. BCE	J2a1a1	R1-M269/L23
PN10	Novilara	Picene	Iron Age	first half VII c. BCE	J1c+16261	..
PN101	Novilara	Picene	Iron Age	VII c. BCE	H13a1	J2-M172/M12
PN103	Novilara	Picene	Iron Age	end of VIII - first half of VII cc. BCE	H1e5a	..
PN105	Novilara	Picene	Iron Age	VII c. BCE	H15a1b	..
PN107	Novilara	Picene	Iron Age	second half of VII c. BCE	H1e1a	..
PN125	Novilara	Picene	Iron Age	second half of VII c. BCE	H13a2a	..
PN127	Novilara	Picene	Iron Age	second half of VII c. BCE	X2c2	..
PN128	Novilara	Picene	Iron Age	VII c. BCE	J1c	R1-M269/L23
PN13	Novilara	Picene	Iron Age	first half VII c. BCE	J2a2b	R1-M269/L23
PN135	Novilara	Picene	Iron Age	end of VIII - VII cc. BCE	I4a	..
PN137	Novilara	Picene	Iron Age	VIII - VII cc. BCE	U4d1	..
PN138	Novilara	Picene	Iron Age	VIII - VII cc. BCE	K2b1a	..
PN141	Novilara	Picene	Iron Age	end of VIII - beginning of VII cc. BCE	K2b1b	..
PN145	Novilara	Picene	Iron Age	second half of VIII c. BCE	K1a1	..
PN146	Novilara	Picene	Iron Age	second half of VIII - VII cc. BCE	U5a1	..
PN152A	Novilara	Picene	Iron Age	second half of VIII - VII cc. BCE	W1	..
PN155A	Novilara	Picene	Iron Age	VII c. BCE	H2a2a	..
PN155B	Novilara	Picene	Iron Age	VII c. BCE	T2e	..
PN157	Novilara	Picene	Iron Age	second half of VIII - VII cc. BCE	H2a2a	..
PN158	Novilara	Picene	Iron Age	second half of VIII - VII cc. BCE	J1c1	..
PN162	Novilara	Picene	Iron Age	second half of VIII - VII cc. BCE	H5	..
PN168	Novilara	Picene	Iron Age	VII c. BCE	R1a1a	..
PN171A	Novilara	Picene	Iron Age	VII c. BCE	H2a2a	..
PN171B	Novilara	Picene	Iron Age	second half of VIII - VII cc. BCE	H2a2a	..
PN172	Novilara	Picene	Iron Age	second half of VIII - VII cc. BCE	U1b3	J1-M267/F1614
PN174	Novilara	Picene	Iron Age	VII c. BCE	T2b	..
PN176	Novilara	Picene	Iron Age	VII c. BCE	JT	..
PN177	Novilara	Picene	Iron Age	end of VIII - first half of VII cc. BCE	K1a4a1	..
PN179	Novilara	Picene	Iron Age	end of VIII - first half of VII cc. BCE	H2a2a	..
PN180	Novilara	Picene	Iron Age	VII c. BCE	H2a2a	..
PN183	Novilara	Picene	Iron Age	VIII - VII cc. BCE	H2a1k	..
PN20	Novilara	Picene	Iron Age	second half of VII c. BCE	H5a	..
PN22	Novilara	Picene	Iron Age	VII c. BCE	H2a2a	R1-M269/L23
PN24	Novilara	Picene	Iron Age	end of VIII - first half of VII cc. BCE	HV0+195	..
PN28	Novilara	Picene	Iron Age	first half VII c. BCE	H5	..
PN29	Novilara	Picene	Iron Age	end of VIII - VII cc. BCE	X2b+226	..
PN3	Novilara	Picene	Iron Age	end of VIII - VII cc. BCE	T2b	..
PN35	Novilara	Picene	Iron Age	second half of VIII c. BCE	H41a	..
PN41	Novilara	Picene	Iron Age	second half of VII c. BCE	H2a2a	..
PN42	Novilara	Picene	Iron Age	VIII - VII cc. BCE	H2a2a	..
PN43	Novilara	Picene	Iron Age	VII c. BCE	H5a	R1-M269/L23
PN44	Novilara	Picene	Iron Age	VII c. BCE	N1a1a1	..
PN45	Novilara	Picene	Iron Age	end of VIII - first half of VII cc. BCE	U5b1b1+@16192	..
PN46	Novilara	Picene	Iron Age	second half of VII c. BCE	H2a2a1	..
PN47	Novilara	Picene	Iron Age	VII c. BCE	H2a2a	..
PN50	Novilara	Picene	Iron Age	VII c. BCE	H1at	..
PN51	Novilara	Picene	Iron Age	end of VIII - first half of VII cc. BCE	J1c1	R1-M269/L23
PN52	Novilara	Picene	Iron Age	VII c. BCE	H2a2a	R1-M269/L23
PN54	Novilara	Picene	Iron Age	end of VIII - first half of VII cc. BCE	HV0+195	..
PN55	Novilara	Picene	Iron Age	end of VIII - beginning of VII cc. BCE	H2a2a	..
PN56	Novilara	Picene	Iron Age	VII c. BCE	H35	..
PN57	Novilara	Picene	Iron Age	second half of VII c. BCE	J2b1a1	J2-M172/M12
PN6	Novilara	Picene	Iron Age	second half of VII c. BCE	H2a2a	..
PN62	Novilara	Picene	Iron Age	second half of VII c. BCE	T2b	R1-M269/L23
PN78	Novilara	Picene	Iron Age	VIII - VII cc. BCE	H2a2a1	..
PN79	Novilara	Picene	Iron Age	end of VIII - first half of VII cc. BCE	I4a	..
PN85	Novilara	Picene	Iron Age	second half of VII c. BCE	H46	..
PN87	Novilara	Picene	Iron Age	VII c. BCE	T2a1a	..
PN90	Novilara	Picene	Iron Age	end of VIII - first half of VII cc. BCE	X2m	..
PN91	Novilara	Picene	Iron Age	second half of VII c. BCE	H1e	J2-M172/M12
PN92	Novilara	Picene	Iron Age	second half of VIII c. BCE	K1a4	..
PNU17	Sirolo/Numana	Picene	Iron Age	VIII-V cc. BCE	H2a2a	..
PNU76	Sirolo/Numana	Picene	Iron Age	VIII-V cc. BCE	U5a'b	..
PSD1	Sirolo/Numana	Picene	Iron Age	VIII-V cc. BCE	H2a2a	..
PSD2	Sirolo/Numana	Picene	Iron Age	VIII-V cc. BCE	H2a2a1d	..
PSD3	Sirolo/Numana	Picene	Iron Age	VIII-V cc. BCE	J1c3	..
PSD4	Sirolo/Numana	Picene	Iron Age	VIII-V cc. BCE	H2a2a	J-M304
PSD5	Sirolo/Numana	Picene	Iron Age	VIII-V cc. BCE	U5a2a1	..
PSD6	Sirolo/Numana	Picene	Iron Age	VIII-V cc. BCE	U5b3	..
PSG2	Sirolo/Numana	Picene	Iron Age	VIII-V cc. BCE	H2a2a	..
PSV5	Sirolo/Numana	Picene	Iron Age	VIII-V cc. BCE	H2a2a	..
PF1	Pesaro	/	Late Antiquity	VI-VII cc. CE	J1c1	..
PF10	Pesaro	/	Late Antiquity	VI-VII cc. CE	U4c1	..
PF11	Pesaro	/	Late Antiquity	VI-VII cc. CE	H2a1k	..
PF12	Pesaro	/	Late Antiquity	VI-VII cc. CE	H2a2a	..
PF13	Pesaro	/	Late Antiquity	VI-VII cc. CE	J1c	..
PF15	Pesaro	/	Late Antiquity	VI-VII cc. CE	H2a2a	..
PF16	Pesaro	/	Late Antiquity	VI-VII cc. CE	H2a2a	..
PF17	Pesaro	/	Late Antiquity	VI-VII cc. CE	H2a2a1	..
PF19	Pesaro	/	Late Antiquity	VI-VII cc. CE	H2a2a1	..
PF20	Pesaro	/	Late Antiquity	VI-VII cc. CE	H2a2a	..
PF21	Pesaro	/	Late Antiquity	VI-VII cc. CE	H2a2a	..
PF24	Pesaro	/	Late Antiquity	VI-VII cc. CE	D2a'b	..
PF26	Pesaro	/	Late Antiquity	VI-VII cc. CE	L1b1a16	..
PF28	Pesaro	/	Late Antiquity	VI-VII cc. CE	K1a	G2-P287/L1259
PF30	Pesaro	/	Late Antiquity	VI-VII cc. CE	H2a2a1	..
PF32	Pesaro	/	Late Antiquity	VI-VII cc. CE	H2a2a	G2-P287/L1259
PF34	Pesaro	/	Late Antiquity	VI-VII cc. CE	H2a2a1	..
PF36	Pesaro	/	Late Antiquity	VI-VII cc. CE	U8b1b1	..
PF5	Pesaro	/	Late Antiquity	VI-VII cc. CE	J1c2m1	..
PF7	Pesaro	/	Late Antiquity	VI-VII cc. CE	U5a1a1c	..
PF9	Pesaro	/	Late Antiquity	VI-VII cc. CE	L2c	..

 

[Pax Augusta]

The Genomic portrait of the Picene culture: new insights into the Italic Iron Age and the legacy of the Roman expansion in Central Italy

Background The Italic Iron Age was characterized by the presence of various ethnic groups partially examined from a genomic perspective. To explore the evolution of Iron Age Italic populations and the genetic impact of Romanization, we focused on the Picenes, one of the most fascinating...

www.biorxiv.org

The pre print is out. Very interesting sample, but the conclusions seem a bit weak.

1) Picenes plot very close to northern italian and have less WHG admixture than other central italian IA group (cc @Vitruvius )

ethnogenesis of the Picenes (source: Treccani)

In the ethnogenesis of the Picenes according to archaeologists strongly contributed migrations from the Balkans. It remains to be understood whether it is something that concerns only the Picenes, or all populations of the Osco-Umbrian languages.

"Alla base della sua formazione si è riconosciuto il concorso di culture diverse, quella appenninica, protovillanoviana e delle popolazioni transadriatiche."

Popoli e culture dell'Italia preromana. I Piceni in "Il Mondo dell'Archeologia"

Popoli e culture dell'Italia preromana. I Piceni Giulia Rocco I piceni Con il nome di Piceni si designano le popolazioni di lingua umbro- sabellica abitanti la fascia medio-adriatica convenzionalmente compresa tra il fiume Foglia a nord, il Tronto a sud e i rilievi della dorsale...

www.treccani.it

 

[kingjohn]

p.s
so looking above at maciamo- table of the y haplogroups and mtdna from this study
we start to see more fascinating mtdna L types and even mtdna D ( might be east asian in origin )
at late antiquity pesaro
maybe in the future e1b1b-v13 will pop up among the picene given
that only 12 out of 71 total samples from picene were males at this study

 

[Vitruvius]

The Genomic portrait of the Picene culture: new insights into the Italic Iron Age and the legacy of the Roman expansion in Central Italy

Background The Italic Iron Age was characterized by the presence of various ethnic groups partially examined from a genomic perspective. To explore the evolution of Iron Age Italic populations and the genetic impact of Romanization, we focused on the Picenes, one of the most fascinating...

www.biorxiv.org

The pre print is out. Very interesting sample, but the conclusions seem a bit weak.

1) Picenes plot very close to northern italian and have less WHG admixture than other central italian IA group (cc @Vitruvius )

2) there are clearly some samples with aegean ancestry in the late antiquity period (one also in the iron age), but they are described as "middle eastern" in the conclusions, despite being dated to the byzantine rule of the region, while there is only one proper middle eastern profile.

However, the late antiquity samples are very interesting, spanning from a iron age-like sample to an aegean profile, with modern marchigiani plotting roughly in between the two. This shift seems to have already started in the iron age, with a sample already showing a greek-like profile.

View attachment 15683

Thanks for posting, Francesco.

Yes, the IA Picenes here are pretty close to what I've assumed northern Italics will look like with less WHG + Barcin and more Yamnaya than the Southern Etruscans near Lazio. They heavily overlap northern Italians indeed, but also average a tad bit north of them in the now mostly empty space between modern S. France, North Italy and East Spain. I noticed in the past that the few Vatya samples we have indeed clustered with these populations as well and I had questioned if this pattern would remain somewhat identical into the more northerly parts of Iron age Italy or if any shifts would take place. It's beginning to look like the former. I'm guessing the relative average for modern N. Italians was drifted southward a small amount by whatever aegean ancestry they picked up during the Imperial era, though not very drastically so.

Assuming the rest of Northern Italians from Po Valley look something like this in the iron age, we can presume that the vast majority of the Northern Italian genetic profile derives itself from populations similar to the Picenes. Already however during the 7th century BC there was at least some Greek like influence which matches the imperial pull of ancestry.

Other things that stick out to me are:

The Daunians in this PCA also cluster overtop of the Northern Italy and much further from sardinia than the original daunian study showed. Which PCA is truly accurate here I wonder? This strikes me as rather odd.

The Late Antiquity sample does show a significant aegean shift of ancestry but also displays more continuity than that seen around the city of Rome. It looks like there is one punic/western sicilian individual, one anatolian like individual, two samples that seem to show continuity with the IA Picene cluster and three samples which look Sicilian/Greek islander like. The samples that appear to have continuity are important to note. As we go further North in Italy the pull of Aegean/Imperial ancestry seems to become less significant. This phenomenon is corroborrated by the yet released study on imperial aged Northern italy.

Excluding the sardinian like individual, the other three Etruscans from this sample are more geographically northerly than prior Etruscan samples and they do not cluster the same. They are from central Tuscany, but they plot closer to the Picenes which again tells me that what we are looking at is perhaps an ancient north/south cline which was unique to Italy on the whole and not limited to Picene populations. Moreover the Etruscans of Po Valley will likely not be identical to those found in southern Tuscany if this cline continues. This also has major implications for other northern Italic populations we will find. The bronze age appenine profile of Pian Sultano does indeed seem to be local to central italy and will probably not be reflected in the north.

 

[Maciamo]

View attachment 15688

View attachment 15689


p.s
so looking above at maciamo- table of the y haplogroups and mtdna from this study
we start to see more fascinating mtdna L types and even mtdna D ( might be east asian in origin )
at late antiquity pesaro

They date from the 6th and 7th century CE. The mtDNA D could have come from the Huns or other steppe tribes. As for the African L, it could have come anytime from Africa during the Imperial period.

EDIT: After verification haplogroup D2a'b is found among Mongols and Uighurs today, so it's very probably came to Europe via the Huns. Haplogroup L2c is found in North Africa.

 

[mount123]

The Iron Age samples and their male uniparental DNA. 25% belong to J2b-L283 here denoted under the macrohaplogroup designation "J2b-M12" outdated nomenclature for J2b-M102. They also mention the J2b-L283 samples as THE West Balkan Y-DNA signal:

Y chromosome data of the Italic IA groups provide additional evidence to these observations,
suggesting that the two scenarios proposed are complementary. Indeed, in the Picenes, two main Y haplogroups are observed, namely R1-M269/L23 (58% of the total) and J2-M172/M12 (25% of the total) (Additional file 1: Table S13), which may be representative of the direct connection to Central Europe and the Balkan peninsula, respectively. As for the R1-M269/L23 haplogroup, it has been associated with the Yamnaya ancestry [19] and observed at high frequency among Central European populations from the BA onward. More specifically, one Picene individual (PN13) clusters with modern and ancient Central-Northern Europeans and other IA Italians, in the sub-branch defined by the L51/L11 markers, frequent in mainland Europe [48] (Additional file 2: Fig. S10). Another Picene individual (PN62) belongs to the R1-L23/Z2106 subclade, which has been previously interpreted as a genetic link between Yamnaya, Balkans and Southern Caucasus [19]. Finally, five Picenes and two Etruscans are placed at the basal portion of the R1-L23 branch, together with other ancient Yamnaya, Balkan and Southern Caucasic samples (Additional file 2: Fig. S10). On the other hand, it is worth noting that the trans-Adriatic distribution of the internal branches of J2-M172/M12 was previously interpreted as a clue of a BA expansion from the Balkans in the Italian area and a link between BA Balkans and BA Nuragic Sardinia, possibly with peninsular Italian intermediates that were not observed before [19,49]. Interestingly, two out of three of our J2-M12 Picene samples (PN91 and PN101), due to their phylogenetic position (Additional file 3: Fig. S10) in between the BA Nuragic and the BA Balkan clusters, could represent the descendants of the aforementioned Italian intermediates.

 

[Maciamo]

The Iron Age samples and their male uniparental DNA. 25% belong to J2b-L283 here denoted under the macrohaplogroup designation "J2b-M12" outdated nomenclature for J2b-M102. They also mention the J2b-L283 samples as THE West Balkan Y-DNA signal:

Y chromosome data of the Italic IA groups provide additional evidence to these observations,
suggesting that the two scenarios proposed are complementary. Indeed, in the Picenes, two main Y haplogroups are observed, namely R1-M269/L23 (58% of the total) and J2-M172/M12 (25% of the total) (Additional file 1: Table S13), which may be representative of the direct connection to Central Europe and the Balkan peninsula, respectively. As for the R1-M269/L23 haplogroup, it has been associated with the Yamnaya ancestry [19] and observed at high frequency among Central European populations from the BA onward. More specifically, one Picene individual (PN13) clusters with modern and ancient Central-Northern Europeans and other IA Italians, in the sub-branch defined by the L51/L11 markers, frequent in mainland Europe [48] (Additional file 2: Fig. S10). Another Picene individual (PN62) belongs to the R1-L23/Z2106 subclade, which has been previously interpreted as a genetic link between Yamnaya, Balkans and Southern Caucasus [19]. Finally, five Picenes and two Etruscans are placed at the basal portion of the R1-L23 branch, together with other ancient Yamnaya, Balkan and Southern Caucasic samples (Additional file 2: Fig. S10). On the other hand, it is worth noting that the trans-Adriatic distribution of the internal branches of J2-M172/M12 was previously interpreted as a clue of a BA expansion from the Balkans in the Italian area and a link between BA Balkans and BA Nuragic Sardinia, possibly with peninsular Italian intermediates that were not observed before [19,49]. Interestingly, two out of three of our J2-M12 Picene samples (PN91 and PN101), due to their phylogenetic position (Additional file 3: Fig. S10) in between the BA Nuragic and the BA Balkan clusters, could represent the descendants of the aforementioned Italian intermediates.

I hadn't read this yet. If the R1b-L23 is actually L23* and Z2103>Z2106, then it's the branch found in the Balkans (Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, Albania...), especially in combination with J2b-L283. That would mean that the Piceni have a different origin from the R1b-U152 dominant Latins and Etruscans. Well, at least the North Piceni. Note that all the R1b samples are from Novilara. But North Picene language is unclassified and may not have been related to Italic languages (including South Picene). We'll have to see which haplogroups the Umbrians are Samnites carried. If it's not L23 and/or Z2103, but U152, then the North Piceni may be a group of settlers from the Balkans who crossed the Adriatic and formed an enclave among Italic tribes. Just speculation at the moment.

 

[mount123]

I hadn't read this yet. If the R1b-L23 is actually L23* and Z2103>Z2106, then it's the branch found in the Balkans (Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, Albania...), especially in combination with J2b-L283. That would mean that the Piceni have a different origin from the R1b-U152 dominant Latins and Etruscans.

At least one Picene R1b-L23 is L51 and should without a doubt belong to a clade under U152, most likely L2 of some sort. The majority of the R1b-L23 should be U152+, IMO. The raw data is scheduled to be uploaded to ENA browser so a more refined clade placement could be possible prior to the paper being published. The R1b-Z2103>Z2106+ might be an additional Balkan Y-DNA contribution next to J2b-L283.

 

[Vitruvius]

I hadn't read this yet. If the R1b-L23 is actually L23* and Z2103>Z2106, then it's the branch found in the Balkans (Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, Albania...), especially in combination with J2b-L283. That would mean that the Piceni have a different origin from the R1b-U152 dominant Latins and Etruscans. Well, at least the North Piceni. Note that all the R1b samples are from Novilara. But North Picene language is unclassified and may not have been related to Italic languages (including South Picene). We'll have to see which haplogroups the Umbrians are Samnites carried. If it's not L23 and/or Z2103, but U152, then the North Piceni may be a group of settlers from the Balkans who crossed the Adriatic and formed an enclave among Italic tribes. Just speculation at the moment.

3 out of the 4 male Etruscans in this study from central Tusany are carrying R1b-L23 as well. This leads me to think it is not anything specific or unique to the Picenes but more so a broad genetic profile that overlaps various Italian subethnic groups of this region. That's not to preclude North-Central Italy from having any genetic exchanges with the northern adriatic in times past, but any major exchanges are probably much older than the scope of this study.

 

[Maciamo]

At least one Picene R1b-L23 is L51 and should without a doubt belong to a clade under U152, most likely L2 of some sort. The majority of the R1b-L23 should be U152+, IMO. The raw data is scheduled to be uploaded to ENA browser so a more refined clade placement could be possible prior to the paper being published. The R1b-Z2103>Z2106+ might be an additional Balkan Y-DNA contribution next to J2b-L283.

From the wording of the paper's authors it sounded like the samples were L23*. They even go as far as to say that it is associated with Yamnaya ancestry, which is definitely not P312 and even less its subclade U152. Why would they make such a claim without testing for clades downstream of L23? Are they suicidal in their scientific career?

 

[Palermo Trapani]

The Iron Age samples and their male uniparental DNA. 25% belong to J2b-L283 here denoted under the macrohaplogroup designation "J2b-M12" outdated nomenclature for J2b-M102. They also mention the J2b-L283 samples as THE West Balkan Y-DNA signal:

Y chromosome data of the Italic IA groups provide additional evidence to these observations,
suggesting that the two scenarios proposed are complementary. Indeed, in the Picenes, two main Y haplogroups are observed, namely R1-M269/L23 (58% of the total) and J2-M172/M12 (25% of the total) (Additional file 1: Table S13), which may be representative of the direct connection to Central Europe and the Balkan peninsula, respectively. As for the R1-M269/L23 haplogroup, it has been associated with the Yamnaya ancestry [19] and observed at high frequency among Central European populations from the BA onward. More specifically, one Picene individual (PN13) clusters with modern and ancient Central-Northern Europeans and other IA Italians, in the sub-branch defined by the L51/L11 markers, frequent in mainland Europe [48] (Additional file 2: Fig. S10). Another Picene individual (PN62) belongs to the R1-L23/Z2106 subclade, which has been previously interpreted as a genetic link between Yamnaya, Balkans and Southern Caucasus [19]. Finally, five Picenes and two Etruscans are placed at the basal portion of the R1-L23 branch, together with other ancient Yamnaya, Balkan and Southern Caucasic samples (Additional file 2: Fig. S10). On the other hand, it is worth noting that the trans-Adriatic distribution of the internal branches of J2-M172/M12 was previously interpreted as a clue of a BA expansion from the Balkans in the Italian area and a link between BA Balkans and BA Nuragic Sardinia, possibly with peninsular Italian intermediates that were not observed before [19,49]. Interestingly, two out of three of our J2-M12 Picene samples (PN91 and PN101), due to their phylogenetic position (Additional file 3: Fig. S10) in between the BA Nuragic and the BA Balkan clusters, could represent the descendants of the aforementioned Italian intermediates.

Interesting section of the paper. The Picene Languages are Indo-European and part of the Osco-Umbrian-Italic languages correct. The Latin Language and the Umbrian are considered part of a Common Proto-Italic language. However, what is interesting is the 5 Picenes who were placed at the Basal portion of R1-L23 and they are from Yamnaya. So when you follow the migration of Indo European starting with Yamnaya which spread first then Corded Ware. Maybe I am wrong but it seems Corded Ware is directly linked to Proto-Germanic, closely linked to Proto-Baltic/Slavic while Yamnaya is pretty much directly linked to Greek. Proto Celtic seems to be mediated through Bell Beaker civilization similar to Proto-Italic but it seems that Yamnaya from the Balkans may have had a larger role on Italic than just Bell-Beaker mediated folks. Am I totally off base here.

It would be good to have some Bronze Age samples to clear up and how much did these R1b-M269>L23 Yamanaya go down to the Balkans early on and then cross the Adriatic and influence early Italic languages spoken in the 1st millenium BC. In other words, as some other posters have hypothesized, what if Proto-Italic represents a Yamnaya-Bell Beaker merger to speak and the Proto-Italics split off early somewhere in the Balkans, could be in the Northern Part in what is near the border of Fruili-Venezia and Veneto and modern Slovenia and Croatia before coming into Italy (Picenes in Marche) as opposed to the other hypothesis that they came directly from Central Europe-Bell Beaker merger, etc.

And again I am an I-M223 Man so which R1B clades got here first has been in the past something that I had no dogmatic feelings about, purely an academic topic. More Data, in particular from the Bronze Age and more detailed testing as also suggested by some posters above.

 

[mount123]

From the wording of the paper's authors it sounded like the samples were L23*. They even go as far as to say that it is associated with Yamnaya ancestry, which is definitely not P312 and even less its subclade U152. Why would they make such a claim without testing for clades downstream of L23? Are they suicidal in their scientific career?

I have seen worse and generally the impression most academics in the population genetics field radiate is a rather big ignorance/cluelesness when it comes to uniparental analysis.

They associate L23 in general (both its descendant lineages Z2103 and L51), going by that wording, with Yamnaya. Even though L51 evidently came from Corded Ware. A L23 negative (what the * usually implies) for all its thus known subclades in Iron Age Italy? That's impossible. If there's one R1b-Z2103>Z2106+ in that site there can be more though. There is shared material culture between parts of West Adriatic Italy (especially the south) and the Southwestern Balkans. See Matt-Painted Ware culture. Sites under this BA-IA complex in the SW Balkans have yielded R1b-Z2103>CTS1450+ and due to be published R1b-PF7562+ samples. That's probably the earliest possible vector for their dispersal to Italy.

 

[Vitruvius]

Interesting section of the paper. The Picene Languages are Indo-European and part of the Osco-Umbrian-Italic languages correct. The Latin Latin Language and the Umbrian are considered part of a Common Proto-Italic language. However, what is interesting is the 5 Picenes who were placed at the Basal portion of R1-L23 and they are from Yamnaya. So when you follow the migration of Indo European starting with Yamnaya which spread first then Corded Ware. Maybe I am wrong but it seems Corded Ware is directly linked to Proto-Germanic, closely linked to Proto-Baltic/Slavic while Yamnaya is pretty much directly linked to Greek. Proto Celtic seems to be mediated through Bell Beaker civilization similar to Proto-Italic but it seems that Yamnaya from the Balkans may have had a larger role on Italic than just Bell-Beaker mediated folks. Am I totally off base here.

It would be good to have some Bronze Age samples to clear up and how much did these R1b-M269>L23 Yamanaya go down to the Balkans early on and then cross the Adriatic and influence early Italic languages spoken in the 1st millenium BC. In other words, as some other posters have hypothesized, what if Proto-Italic represents a Yamnaya-Bell Beaker merger to speak and the Proto-Italics split off early somewhere in the Balkans, could be in the Northern Part in what is near the border of Fruili-Venezia and Veneto and modern Slovenia and Croatia before coming into Italy (Picenes in Marche) as opposed to the other hypothesis that they came directly from Central Europe-Bell Beaker merger, etc.

And again I am an I-M223 Man so which R1B clades got here first has been in the past something that I had no dogmatic feelings about, purely an academic topic. More Data, in particular from the Bronze Age and more detailed testing as also suggested by some posters above.

On the topic of proto-italic having a possible balkanic origin, you may be interested to know that numerous archaeologists today hypothesize the Nagyrev and later Vatya cultures of Hungary to be the origin of proto Italic and link their material culture and ubran organization methods to the arrival of the demographically massive Terramare culture in Po Valley of the middle bronze age. There is a line of thought which associates the collapse of the Tell system in the Carpathian basin to a large migrations into Northern Italy through the Julian alps which dwarfed the preceeding Polada culture in size. The Terramare culture whose culture, weaponry and militarized practices mimic that of Vatya in turn would go on to become the protovillanovan culture which stretched from Sicily to the Alps and the first broad pan-Italic material culture of the bronze age.

We also have samples from Vatya and Proto Nagyrev which look distinctly like the picenes we are looking at here and also modern northern Italians. Some here are somewhat averse to this theory but to me it seems very likely.

 

[Pax Augusta]

3 out of the 4 male Etruscans in this study from central Tusany are carrying R1b-L23 as well.

It says R1-M269/L23, it implies they didn't test deep and final clades, as Maciamo said. L23 is upstream to any L51-derived.

 

[Palermo Trapani]

Pax Augusta: Thanks for the R1B Tree. Perhaps I am reading the paper wrong but it does state: 1) One individual was placed at R1b-L23>Z2106 which is while 4 were placed at the Basal portion of R1b-L23. So it does seem they did do some downstream testing from R1B-L23 if they were able to place 1 Iron Age Picene (PN62) at R1b-L23>Z2103>Z2106.

If I misread the paper wrong, open to any clarifications by more knowledgeable posters regarding R1b.

 

[mount123]

And again I am an I-M223 Man so which R1B clades got here first has been in the past something that I had no dogmatic feelings about, purely an academic topic. More Data, in particular from the Bronze Age and more detailed testing as also suggested by some posters above.

I have highlighted the J2b-L283 parts that caught my attention in my initial post. I have no big interest in R1b-Z2103 or R1b-L51>>>P312>U152+ or R1b-M269>L23 (on a macro scale) research either. Regarding Italy there's enough data to conclude that U152+ likely makes up the vast majority of BCE R1b-M269>L23 (which is, again, a broad nomenclature) samples. Certain R1b-Z2103 more often than not should have come from somewhere in the Balkans, I don't disagree with that at all.

It says R1-M269/L23, it implies they didn't test deep and final clades, as Maciamo said. L23 is upstream to any L51-derived.

Them using macrohaplogroup designations doesn't imply the coverage of the samples is not good enough to determine a more exact clade placement. Most academics use macrohaplogroup designations (often times at least). For instance they talk about J2-M172/M12, meaning "J2b" samples, but they further elaborate on them belonging to clades under samples which in turn are verified to belong to L283.

 

[Pax Augusta]

From the wording of the paper's authors it sounded like the samples were L23*. They even go as far as to say that it is associated with Yamnaya ancestry, which is definitely not P312 and even less its subclade U152. Why would they make such a claim without testing for clades downstream of L23? Are they suicidal in their scientific career?

I wouldn't be surprised if they blundered in trying to make their point. For years, errors of all kinds have been seen in genetic studies.

 

[Pax Augusta]

Pax Augusta: Thanks for the R1B Tree. Perhaps I am reading the paper wrong but it does state: 1) One individual was placed at R1b-L23>Z2106 which is while 4 were placed at the Basal portion of R1b-L23. So it does seem they did do some downstream testing from R1B-L23 if they were able to place 1 Iron Age Picene (PN62) at R1b-L23>Z2103>Z2106.

If I misread the paper wrong, open to any clarifications by more knowledgeable posters regarding R1b.

I'm traveling at the moment and I can't check. Are they claiming that they tested the Etruscan Y-DNAs down to the final clades?

 

[Pax Augusta]

I have highlighted the J2b-L283 parts that caught my attention in my initial post. I have no big interest in R1b-Z2103 or R1b-L51>>>P312>U152+ or R1b-M269>L23 (on a macro scale) research either. Regarding Italy there's enough data to conclude that U152+ likely makes up the vast majority of BCE R1b-M269>L23 (which is, again, a broad nomenclature) samples. Certain R1b-Z2103 more often than not should have come from somewhere in the Balkans, I don't disagree with that at all.

Them using macrohaplogroup designations doesn't imply the coverage of the samples is not good enough to determine a more exact clade placement. Most academics use macrohaplogroup designations (often times at least). For instance they talk about J2-M172/M12, meaning "J2b" samples, but they further elaborate on them belonging to clades under samples which in turn are verified to belong to L283.

Yes many of the new samples from this study seem low coverage indeed.