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

[Moja]

Picenes were not even italics in the linguistic sense. And you can't generalise the special case of J2b-L283 as the same to other J2 subgroups because its really not, its a completely odd lineage in general. Plus, there are two J2-L283 etruscans and a sigbificant number of actual italIc aDna wich are R1b-M269. I mean dude can't you make a comment with actual foundations at least one single time?

Two samples from Novilara which are dated from about 650 BC are J2, look at it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Picene_language

"The archaeological date is that of the site as a whole, somewhere in the window 800–650 BCE.[8] The style of the alphabet suggests the end of the 7th and the beginning of the 6th centuries BCE.[5] The most likely date, therefore, would be about 650 BCE, the end of the Novilara window. It was a time of Italic and Etruscan wars and warrior kings during the Roman Kingdom, as martial scenes on other stelae and the presence of weapons in nearly all graves of males suggest."

 

[Ghurier]

Three of four Etruscans are R1b but three Picenes are J2, this is the main difference between them.

If you just consider statistical error bar (poisonnian distribution) ... you have way to few samples to make haplogroup ratios.
And that would be under the very-very big assumption that all sample are statistically "independant", wereas there is obvious spatial correlations within locally dominant lineages (== the haplogroup ratio is heavily variable as a function of concerned archeological site).
And even in that case, you may expect some cultural-sampling-bias related to funerary customs, that are likely to show some Y-DNA correlations.

Unless having tested many different sites (~40+) homogeneously distributed on the culture spatial distribution, with a good statistical depth (~20+ samples per site), a good genetic depth (deep classification to evaluate lineage diversity), and an homogenous sampling of the various funerary customs (not always dooable in fact) ... I won't even try to do Haplogroup ratios, that could be morphed in few centuries due to founder effects anyway.

Here, keep in mind that the 3 Picenes samples are all from the same site, and could be one and the same lineage probed on various relatives.
It is better to avoid doing statistics with dataset that are not allowing such analysis (because dominated by statistical uncertainties due to unsuffcient and inhomogenous sampling).

 

[Moja]

If you just consider statistical error bar (poisonnian distribution) ... you have way to few samples to make haplogroup ratios.
And that would be under the very-very big assumption that all sample are statistically "independant", wereas there is obvious spatial correlations within locally dominant lineages (== the haplogroup ratio is heavily variable as a function of concerned archeological site).
And even in that case, you may expect some cultural-sampling-bias related to funerary customs, that are likely to show some Y-DNA correlations.

Unless having tested many different sites (~40+) homogeneously distributed on the culture spatial distribution, with a good statistical depth (~20+ samples per site), a good genetic depth (deep classification to evaluate lineage diversity), and an homogenous sampling of the various funerary customs (not always dooable in fact) ... I won't even try to do Haplogroup ratios, that could be morphed in few centuries due to founder effects anyway.

Here, keep in mind that the 3 Picenes samples are all from the same site, and could be one and the same lineage probed on various relatives.
It is better to avoid doing statistics with dataset that are not allowing such analysis (because dominated by statistical uncertainties due to unsuffcient and inhomogenous sampling).

This study says "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)", R1-M269/L23 clearly relates to non-IE Etruscans, what do you think about J2-M172/M12? It is really meaningless to say the main haplogroup of both IE and non-IE people in Italy was R1-M269/L23 and those who had J2-M172/M12 were an unknown people!

 

[mount123]

Do you anticipate we could see unexpected results in terms of Y-DNA haplogroups given a sizeable Italic ancient DNA sample?


What were they?

The Picenes have substantial West Balkan (East Adriatic) auDNA admixture and uniparental DNA. Any analysis on the formation of their ethnogenesis cannot discard that fact.

If you just consider statistical error bar (poisonnian distribution) ... you have way to few samples to make haplogroup ratios.
And that would be under the very-very big assumption that all sample are statistically "independant", wereas there is obvious spatial correlations within locally dominant lineages (== the haplogroup ratio is heavily variable as a function of concerned archeological site).
And even in that case, you may expect some cultural-sampling-bias related to funerary customs, that are likely to show some Y-DNA correlations.

Unless having tested many different sites (~40+) homogeneously distributed on the culture spatial distribution, with a good statistical depth (~20+ samples per site), a good genetic depth (deep classification to evaluate lineage diversity), and an homogenous sampling of the various funerary customs (not always dooable in fact) ... I won't even try to do Haplogroup ratios, that could be morphed in few centuries due to founder effects anyway.

Here, keep in mind that the 3 Picenes samples are all from the same site, and could be one and the same lineage probed on various relatives.
It is better to avoid doing statistics with dataset that are not allowing such analysis (because dominated by statistical uncertainties due to unsuffcient and inhomogenous sampling).

There is a clear pattern in West Adriatic Italy during BA-IA and J2b-L283 samples always pop up with a BA-IA West Balkan auDNA profile (Cetina-Dinaric-Classical Illyrians) or shifted toward it which you are completely fading out. We have Daunian, Apulian BA-IA J2b-L283 samples. The kinship argument is senseless in that regard. There's also archeology solidifying this which the authors themselves mention (see their Cetina and trans-Adriatic IA passage).

 

[Ghurier]

This study says "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)", R1-M269/L23 clearly relates to non-IE Etruscans, what do you think about J2-M172/M12? It is really meaningless to say the main haplogroup of both IE and non-IE people in Italy was R1-M269/L23 and those who had J2-M172/M12 were an unknown people!

And what they say is factually correct. But, are they making "conclusions" from those numbers ? I hope not, for their credibility.
Anyone drawing conlusions on ratio based on so few samples should only pray for one thing : "Not falling on someone like me as a referee for your paper".

What I think about J-M102 ? I think it is a beautifull haplogroup, and I prefer him under the name J-M102 rather then J-M12 (for purely "cosmetic" reasons regarding the name).

Then J-M102, was a mightly man living some ~27600 ybp, thus roughly at the time of the begining of the LGM.
As many others, I don't see the point about using broad clades (when we have better) regarding samples from Italian IA (particulary when the migration history of sub-lineages are significantly different).
You might aswell speak of "F" or "CT" samples using such terminologie.

This sample is J-L283 at least ... regarding the phylogeny they propose in the paper, this sample is likely at least J-Z585.
But, even that, it is not sufficient to completely analyse the meaning of the samples.
Because there is a big deal on J-L283 diffusion area when passing (or not) the J-Z615 and J-Z597 levels.

On a general note, many things could be said on this topic, but it is not the place.
Most likely, being on the Adriatic coast, these sample are some J-Z597 lineages (with many options by Italian IA).
Nothing spectacular for the region.

J-L283 was a minor lineage likely unable to carry its own specific language during his first steps in Europe.
It started to widely diffuse with J-Z597 and the later J-Y15058 and J-Z638.
Also, I don't think Y-DNA have to be bijective with languages. If there is correlations, it is nothing more than that. Migrants most likely take the language of the host culture. And J-L283 looks by all means like a migrants for its early stages in Europe.

 

[Ghurier]

The Picenes have substantial West Balkan (East Adriatic) auDNA admixture and uniparental DNA. Any analysis on the formation of their ethnogenesis cannot discard that fact.

There is a clear pattern in West Adriatic Italy during BA-IA and J2b-L283 samples always pop up with a BA-IA West Balkan auDNA profile (Cetina-Dinaric-Classical Illyrians) or shifted toward it which you are completely fading out. We have Daunian, Apulian BA-IA J2b-L283 samples. The kinship argument is senseless in that regard. There's also archeology solidifying this which the authors themselves mention (see their Cetina and trans-Adriatic IA passage).

West Balkans uniparentals ? Which ones ? The attested lineage with diversity in Western Balkans is J-Z597 (J-Z615 at most).
Even if these samples are likely under this subclade of J-L283, we don't have confirmation yet.
If they are (J-Z585+, J-Z615-), then there is just no diversity in the Balkans (I know that "balkanists" don't like this fact), when all the diversity is in Italy in fact
The most likely is some J-Z597 from my PoV, but we don't have confirmation yet.

J-L283 always with Balkans DNA profile ? What is this BS ?
Do you think Nuragic peoples (by ~1200 BCE) have Balkans DNA profiles ? Hell, they are fully EEF !!!
Do you think Kura-Araxes (by ~2000 BCE) have Balkans DNA profiles ?
Do you think Southern Germans (by EIA) have Balkans DNA profiles ?

There is indeed some Western Balkans clades that could be the source of those Picenes samples (and that are likely the source from my PoV), but we don't have confirmation yet ... When we don't have confirmation of something, when other options cannot be completely discarded, the only reasonable position is to stay cautious.

 

[mount123]

@Ghurier Don't put words in my mouth. I specifically mentioned samples from West Adriatic Italy (Daunians, BA Apulia and Picenes) NOT the Sardinian ones. Learn English and Geography too. Zero logic in your usual blabbering.

Balkanists The northern French statistician that hopes Z631 was diversifying somewhere in Bavaria, you're projecting.

 

[Ghurier]

Balkanists The northern French statistician that hopes Z631 was diversifying somewhere in Bavaria, you're projecting.

You should read me more carefully, I place Z631 cradle in South-Eastern-Alps around Southern Austria or Slovenia inside cremating Eastern-Hallstatt culture.
I know that the recent South-German EIA J-Z597 sample makes you angry ... but please control yourself.

Me, a statistician ? Nope, "just" a PhD in data analysis with more than 100 peer-reviewed publications ...

You know, since I arrived on this J-L283 topic, my claims are validated one after the other :
-Diversity spot on the Adriatic at J-Z597 level ? Validated
-Some J-Z597 reaching north Albania by ~2000 BCE ? Validated
-Some J-Z597 in southern Germany during EIA ? Recently validated

Apparently, betting against me didn't looks like a great idea.
Of course, you are even more scared by some other claims I made, particularly about J-Z2509 and J-Z585 stages.
But with time, ancient DNA validation will come !

@Ghurier Don't put words in my mouth.

No need :

J2b-L283 samples always pop up with a BA-IA West Balkan auDNA profile

You might want to be clearer if you wanted to precise "Western-Balkans subclades of J-L283" ... there is no-point at using "J-L283" label, it is as silly as using "J2" or "F" ... Western Balkans Cetina lineages are J-Z597 !
I'm still amazed that some people use broad clades instead of being specific and consistent with ancient DNA findings !!!

 

[torzio]

my ancient matches are with ..................BC times

Pre-Illyrian Bronze Age Croatia Cetina Valley
1800 BC - Genetic Distance: 9.862 - I18746


Protovillanovia Martinsicuro
930 BC - Genetic Distance: 4.903 - R1 .............................for many years this Liburnian sample was my number one


Illyrian / Dalmatian
1200 BC - Genetic Distance: 8.808 - I3313


Illyrian Smiljan Croatia
530 BC - Genetic Distance: 9.7 - I24639

 

[Moja]

Also, I don't think Y-DNA have to be bijective with languages. If there is correlations, it is nothing more than that. Migrants most likely take the language of the host culture. And J-L283 looks by all means like a migrants for its early stages in Europe.

Who were these migrants? They had no language? What was the host culture?

 

[MOESAN]

You can't argue with these people. They'll always make such erroneous comments based on macrohaplogroups. Lumping haplogroups under some Paleolithic TMRCA whilst similary proposing a joint migration in the BA-IA Like imagine comparing J2b-L283 with the later arrival of say J2a-L24+ clades in Italy, pure BS.

If you were right then we should be seeing German profiles all over late antiquity and the EMA, but I've yet to see any other than in the specifically Lombard associated Collegno burial (which was mixed Northern and southern European anyways). The Lombards were not demographically significant and they were subsumed into the general Italian genepool incredibly rapidly due to their demographic insignificance.

As for a southern Italian shift from the Roman era, I'm not ruling it out entirely, but it definitely couldn't have been large. If we use the Picenes as a proxy for the N. italic iron age then I would guess maybe around a 10% southward shift from aegean-like colonizing Italians of Roman Italy simply based off the PCA averages.


Let's not kid yourself to pretend you have any idea how much I1 was or wasn't in northern Italy during this time period. A lot of samples remain to be had.

I spoke of modern Italy without giving details about the making of this state of things. I thought nevertheless that in Central Southern Italy the "northern" possibly Germanic input as in North is still visible spite very light, and the Y-haplo's could support this partially at least. I was not speaking of the east-Mediterranean BA/IA input.
Now, saying that a people, even crossed with others, has not left any genetic traces after more than 4 centuries of domination over so a large country as Italy is amazing to me. I make the difference between very light and insignificant.
I find there are too much simplications in statements. The same for the "no-Germanic" input in France. I may tell you the North, Northwest, NorthEast and East France had serious traces of Germanic input (Vikings, Franks, Alamans, Burgundians, here stronger than the Germanics traces in Italy. The Wisigoths left less traces, I think.

 

[Palermo Trapani]

This study says "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)", R1-M269/L23 clearly relates to non-IE Etruscans, what do you think about J2-M172/M12? It is really meaningless to say the main haplogroup of both IE and non-IE people in Italy was R1-M269/L23 and those who had J2-M172/M12 were an unknown people!

Why do you assume that R1-M269/L23 etc are non-IE Etruscans. The Picenes paper labels those R1-M269/L23 samples at the basal of of R1-M269 in the Pontic Steppe before the split into the R1-M269/L51 leading to Bell Beakers and the R1-M269/Z2103 with the Yamnaya. Go back and take a look at Lazaridis et al 2021 "The genetic history of the Southern Arc: A bridge between West Asia and Europe". The R1-M269/L23/Z2103 are a major factor in their analysis related to documenting the spread of Indo-European languages in the Southern Arc. It seems the Picene Paper is finding some evidence of a Yamnaya impact on at least what J.P Mallory referred to as East Italic. His work "In Search of the Europeans from 1999) argues that Yamnaya is responsible for what he called "East Italic", Italic languages spoken East of the Apennines.

Regarding the Etruscans, the The Posth et al 2020 paper has Etruscan DNA samples that they have Steppe ancestry. Only 1 Etruscan Sample is R1-M269/L23/Z2103, The other 22 Etruscan Samples with R1B are all from R1B-M269/L51 (Bell Beaker related folk). Now, if you go to Antonio et al 2019 on Ancient Rome, 7 samples have Y-DNA haplogroups reported, 5 of them are R1B with 1 of them being older that is R1-M343 (very old) but 4 of them appear to me to be also from R1-M269/L51. The other 2 are T and J2b, respectively.

So we have similar R1-M269/L51 in the Etruscan and Ancient Roman papers consistent with Steppe Ancestry but the Etruscans did not speak and IE Language whereas in Lazio you had 2 (Latin and Faliscan). Over in the Picene area of what is modern Marche, an area where an Italic language was spoken related to the Osco-Umbrian Italic languages, you have R-M269/L23 and 1 further downstream R-M269/L23/Z2103.

I am beginning to think that J.P. Mallory's theory about Yamanaya being the main source of East Italic (i.e. Osco-Umbrian) could be correct. If you go back and look at David Anthony's map, which advocates the Kurgan Theory, he has Yamnaya moving down along the Black Sea into the Balkans leading to Greek but it splits somewhere further North near modern Romania where it mergers with Bell Beakers on the Austrian-Hungary southern Border (lower Danube basin/valley) and that is where Proto-Italic comes from.

The Map from the Picenes paper that Torzio posted earlier sort of lays this model out.

I think you are still hypothesizing Indo-Iranic as the source for Proto-Italic, are maybe I am reading your post wrong (if So I apologize) but In the past I think you have had such theories.

 

[MOESAN]

What are you on about? Urnfield ended Tumulus in central Europe and it hasn't got much to do with Balkans where Tumulus remained. Urnfield core was in central Europe and high on WHG ancestry, it expanded north west (Germany), west (France, north Italy) and east (Ukraine, Romania) probably assimilating/recruiting a lot of the natives in these regions

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.

 

[MOESAN]

Are you drunk?
Vatya were i2, there is zero i2 in picenes. They are completely unrelated. Hungary is not in balkans, iron age Italians seem to get some of their ancestry from illyrians or a shared Cetina ancestry which were unrelated to Vatya further north east -

"No convincing evidence for significant migratory movements from the Urnfield-Lusatian culture into the west Balkans has ever been found."

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.

 

[MOESAN]

It's not the very topic but it concerns Italics, Etruscans, Veneti and the pre-proto-Villanovan period:
I beg your pardon!
- The Terramare had some links with the N-W Alps (Switzerland and around) and at the same time with Hungary old cultures (heirs of the Tells culture heirs of the Neolithic of Central Europe with diverse, left aside diverse inputs of CWC, BBC, Unetice, involving descendants of I-E and mybe Near-Eastern people). It seems this way (Danube and around) has never been completely abandoned.

- It seems the Urnfields aspect (in the first place burying) entered northern Terramare territories (North of Pô river) progressively when at the opposite it imposed itself abruptly enough in Emilia, south of the river. Would this say that a stronger demic input is responsible for Emilia ?

ATW in northern Terramare both inhumation and cremation took place in same burying places, spite the attitude in front of material life and spiritual life (and social/psychological position of the children) were different too. And the burials, mixed in the same place during the acculturation stage, are separated in what seems the last period. Two societies nested one in another at first, before segregation, maybe two languages* : the famous question of Italic and Etruscan spoken by almost similar people at the auDNA level ? At the last periods (complete Urnfields way) the density of populations increased what could be the signal of a demic immigration or reinforcement of this immigration. This population increase has been seen in diverse places during Urnfields period without internal demographic explanation, so some people moves are sure. It has not been the case everywhere, “Urnfields” is a so complex phenomenon.

The language question could find some solution if we consider that the first “intruders” were women (transition period). But it resolves not the Y-haplo’s question.

*: it’s true some scholars think first Terramare could have been Ligurian, without decisive argument. I doubt, the square organization of the Terramare sites has something common with the Latins organization if the ‘Roma quadrata’ myth is true.

 

[Moja]

Why do you assume that R1-M269/L23 etc are non-IE Etruscans. The Picenes paper labels those R1-M269/L23 samples at the basal of of R1-M269 in the Pontic Steppe before the split into the R1-M269/L51 leading to Bell Beakers and the R1-M269/Z2103 with the Yamnaya. Go back and take a look at Lazaridis et al 2021 "The genetic history of the Southern Arc: A bridge between West Asia and Europe". The R1-M269/L23/Z2103 are a major factor in their analysis related to documenting the spread of Indo-European languages in the Southern Arc. It seems the Picene Paper is finding some evidence of a Yamnaya impact on at least what J.P Mallory referred to as East Italic. His work "In Search of the Europeans from 1999) argues that Yamnaya is responsible for what he called "East Italic", Italic languages spoken East of the Apennines.

Regarding the Etruscans, the The Posth et al 2020 paper has Etruscan DNA samples that they have Steppe ancestry. Only 1 Etruscan Sample is R1-M269/L23/Z2103, The other 22 Etruscan Samples with R1B are all from R1B-M269/L51 (Bell Beaker related folk). Now, if you go to Antonio et al 2019 on Ancient Rome, 7 samples have Y-DNA haplogroups reported, 5 of them are R1B with 1 of them being older that is R1-M343 (very old) but 4 of them appear to me to be also from R1-M269/L51. The other 2 are T and J2b, respectively.

So we have similar R1-M269/L51 in the Etruscan and Ancient Roman papers consistent with Steppe Ancestry but the Etruscans did not speak and IE Language whereas in Lazio you had 2 (Latin and Faliscan). Over in the Picene area of what is modern Marche, an area where an Italic language was spoken related to the Osco-Umbrian Italic languages, you have R-M269/L23 and 1 further downstream R-M269/L23/Z2103.

I am beginning to think that J.P. Mallory's theory about Yamanaya being the main source of East Italic (i.e. Osco-Umbrian) could be correct. If you go back and look at David Anthony's map, which advocates the Kurgan Theory, he has Yamnaya moving down along the Black Sea into the Balkans leading to Greek but it splits somewhere further North near modern Romania where it mergers with Bell Beakers on the Austrian-Hungary southern Border (lower Danube basin/valley) and that is where Proto-Italic comes from.

The Map from the Picenes paper that Torzio posted earlier sort of lays this model out.

I think you are still hypothesizing Indo-Iranic as the source for Proto-Italic, are maybe I am reading your post wrong (if So I apologize) but In the past I think you have had such theories.

Almost all recent studies have focused on CHG/Iranian ancestry as the main source of Indo-Europeans, haplogroup J2 relates to this ancestry, so we should consider it when we talk about the migrations of Indo-Europeans, as you read here: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abm4247 "Prospects for solving the Indo‑European enigma are brighter now, free from the outdated preconception that the Steppe must have been its earliest, original source."

Indo-Iranian and Italic are different branches of Indo-European languages, it is clear that none of them could be the source of another one.

 

[Palermo Trapani]

Ok so we agree that Italic and Indo-Iranian are separate branches.

I have always maintained I am not Dogmatic about where the Proto-IE homeland was. If it is in the Pontic-Caspian Steppe just North of the Caucuses or South of the Caucuses in areas that include Northern Iran, it is not going to impact me. I am just interested in the subject to learn the facts.

Regarding the Southern Arc papers, I think the Yamanaya were a EHG/CHG mix with the rest Farmer DNA, so something like 40/40/20. But there Farmer DNA was a mixture of Anatolian Farmers further in Eastern Anatolia who mixed with Iran-Neolithic and moved North of the Caucuses (Yamnaya have no WHG).

You can't just focus on the CHG/Iranian admixture, to the exclusion of the EHG and in the same fashion you can't focus only on the EHG admixture, to the exclusion of the CHG/Iranian ancestry. When you do research that way, you have already determined the answer and then you go looking for any data to support your position.

A true academic would have a theory. Lets say some Archeologist/Geneticists advocate a form of the Kurgan Theory. Then Hypothesis H1 would be Pontic-Caspian Steppe is not the homeland of Proto-Indo European

As you analyze the DNA, you would test and if u find evidence to reject H1, then you would conclude the evidence supports the Pontic-Caspian Steppe being the homeland.

If your theory suggests areas South of the Caucus MTNs is the PIE homeland (Armenia/Northern Iran), then you would formulate your hypothesis and test it. And you are going to need Data from Anatolia from sites from the Bronze Age when Indo-Anatolian was spoken and then test for whether they had any EHG or not. If you can find such samples that are clearly in the period when Indo-Anatolian was spoken and there is only CHG/Iran_Neolithic type ancestry with No EHG, then I think you have the evidence you need.

Please note, Proto-Indo European may indeed by a CHG language or CHG/Iran_Neolithic admixed population language. I think we just need more data.

Regarding J2 lineages, where were those integrated into the Steppe migrants. For example, where there J2 folks in areas where say the Yamnaya migrated and those were assimilated into a particular group. I think regarding J2, you are going to need to find evidence for J2 lineages in the Yamnaya in the Pontic-Caspian Steppe before the Steppe-Herders migrated.

The Y Haplogroups of the Yamanya were mostly 1) R-M269/L23/Z2103 (Lazaridis et al 2021 in the Southern Arc papers clearly say that) and 2) a few I-M223.

 

[Vitruvius]

I spoke of modern Italy without giving details about the making of this state of things. I thought nevertheless that in Central Southern Italy the "northern" possibly Germanic input as in North is still visible spite very light, and the Y-haplo's could support this partially at least. I was not speaking of the east-Mediterranean BA/IA input.
Now, saying that a people, even crossed with others, has not left any genetic traces after more than 4 centuries of domination over so a large country as Italy is amazing to me. I make the difference between very light and insignificant.
I find there are too much simplications in statements. The same for the "no-Germanic" input in France. I may tell you the North, Northwest, NorthEast and East France had serious traces of Germanic input (Vikings, Franks, Alamans, Burgundians, here stronger than the Germanics traces in Italy. The Wisigoths left less traces, I think.

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 between then and modern day samples. 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 deleterious 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.

 

[Vitruvius]

Do you anticipate we could see unexpected results in terms of Y-DNA haplogroups given a sizeable Italic ancient DNA sample?


What were they?

I suppose that would depend how you define "unexpected", but in general it stands to reason that that the larger the sample size one has, the greater Y-DNA diversity he will also find. Regardless, Y-DNA is not a proxy for autosomal ancestry, which is the only type of ancestry that matters if one is trying to argue a significantly quantifiable Germanic input for modern Italians.

 

[Ghurier]

I suppose that would depend how you define "unexpected", but in general it stands to reason that that the larger the sample size one has, the greater Y-DNA diversity he will also find. Regardless, Y-DNA is not a proxy for autosomal ancestry, which is the only type of ancestry that matters if one is trying to argue a significantly quantifiable Germanic input for modern Italians.

That's true, but if few lineages can migrate without affecting the destination's "autosomal signature", most if not any significant migration will induce injection of Y-DNA.
Thus, while a "single lineage" shouldn't be over-interpreted, when you see collections of clades with a clear correlation signal at a given epoch, it is the signature of a migration.

The only real analyses that can voice without ambiguity for or against injection of autosomal signal (and evaluate in which amount) is a segment by segment approach.
Whereas PCA, as most peoples are using on internet can be misleading, once we enter the deep structure of Europe, the number of years to generate new peculiar shifts have been fairly small, therefore all European have nearly the same "components", just in different amount from the point of view of a PCA.

That's why compagnies doing PCA even for modern DNA are very often over-fitting when trying to invert the admixture ... because such problem admit multiple solution within Europe.