Just because you don't like it you do not need to insinuate dishonesty.
Here you go, friend.
Italy:
1-
During the first half of the first millennium CE, we observe a marked shift in PCA space of all studied individuals toward the Near Eastern cline (Fig. 4A), distributed across the genetic space occupied by present-day southeastern European populations. We grouped nonoutlier individuals dating between 1 and 500 CE into the “C.Italy_Imperial” cluster (table S2A). Formal f4-tests reveal its higher affinity than C.Italy_Etruscan to ancient groups from Iran, Africa, and the Near East (table S2C). We then used qpAdm to quantify this group’s ancestry components, where C.Italy_Imperial was modeled as a mixture of the sources C.Italy_Etruscan and 158 published European and Near Eastern genomes from the Bronze and Iron Ages. As a result, the models that were found to fit the data best are those with a 38 to 59% contribution from Levantine or Anatolian populations into the local/preexisting C.Italy_Etruscan gene pool (Fig. 4B and table S4D). Substantial gene flow from the eastern Mediterranean was also reported in ancient individuals from Rome dated to the Imperial period (17). Despite our limited number of data points from the first five centuries CE, the new results suggest that the contribution of nonlocal ancestry in Rome was larger than in Etruria (Fig. 4A). However, this large-scale genetic impact of incoming groups during the Imperial period was not only limited to the metropolitan area around Rome but also extended into the neighboring and more distant regions considered here.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abi7673
2-
During the Imperial period (n = 48 individuals), the most prominent trend is an ancestry shift toward the eastern Mediterranean and with very few individuals of primarily western European ancestry (Fig. 3C). The distribution of Imperial Romans in PCA largely overlaps with modern Mediterranean and Near Eastern populations, such as Greek, Maltese, Cypriot, and Syrian (Figs. 2A and and3C).3C). This shift is accompanied by a further increase in the Neolithic Iranian component in ADMIXTURE (Fig. 2B) and is supported by f-statistics (tables S20 and S21): compared to Iron Age individuals, the Imperial population shares more alleles with early Bronze Age Jordanians (f4 statistics Z-score = 4.2) and shows significant introgression signals in admixture f3 for this population, as well as for Bronze Age Lebanese and Iron Age Iranians (Z-score < −3.4).
We attempted to fit the Imperial population as a simple two-way combination of the preceding Iron Age population and another population, either ancient or modern, using qpAdm. Some populations producing relatively better fits come from eastern Mediterranean regions such as Cyprus, Anatolia, and the Levant (table S22). However, none of the tested two-way models provides a good, robust fit to the data, suggesting that this was a complex mixture event, potentially including source populations that have not yet been identified or studied.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7093155/
Spain:
3-
In the southeast, we recovered genomic data from 45 individuals dated between the 3rd-16th centuries CE. All the analyzed individuals fell outside the genetic variation of preceding Iberian Iron Age populations (Figs. 1C-D and S3) and harbored ancestry from both southern European and North African populations (Fig. 2D), as well as additional Levantine-related ancestry that could reflect Jewish contributions (21). These results demonstrate that by the Roman period, southern Iberia had experienced a major influx of North African ancestry, probably related to the well-known mobility patterns during the Roman Empire (22) or the earlier Phoenician-Punic presence (23); the latter is also supported by the observation of the Phoenician-associated Y-chromosome J2 (24). Gene flow from North Africa continued into the Muslim period, as is clear from Muslim burials with elevated North African and sub-Saharan African ancestry (Figs. 2D, S4 and table S22), and uniparental markers typical of North Africa not present among pre-Islamic individuals (Figs. 2D and S11). Present-day populations from southern Iberia harbor less North African ancestry (25) than the ancient Muslim burials, plausibly reflecting expulsion of moriscos (former Muslims converted to Christianity) and repopulation from the north, as supported by historical sources and genetic analysis of present-day groups (25). The impact of Muslim rule is also evident in northeast Iberia in seven individuals from Sant Julià de Ramis from the 8–12th centuries CE who, unlike previous ancient individuals from the same region, show North African-related ancestry (Fig. 2C and table S19) and a complete overlap in PCA with present-day Iberians (Fig. 1D).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6436108/
Balkans
4- The other major cluster (44% of the samples from Viminacium between 1-250 CE) is represented by individuals who projected towards ancient and present-day Eastern Mediterranean groups in PCA (Figure 1A), close to ancient individuals from Rome during Imperial times. Their ancestry can be modelled as deriving deeply from Chalcolithic Western Anatolian groups (Figure 2; Supplementary section 12.2), and we refer to this cluster as the Near Eastern-related cluster. The same signal of arrivals individuals with Anatolian/Near Eastern ancestral origins is also evident in Rome during the same period, consistent with largescale gene-flow originating from the major eastern urban centers of the Empire (such as Constantinople, Antioch, Smyrna and Alexandria). These results suggest that immigration from the east was a common feature across urban centers in the Roman Empire, including in border areas and large cities/military outposts such as Viminacium.
Just trying to keep the discussion within the scientific consensus.
OMG. You said
four papers suggested a significant Levantine input in
Italy. I said it was one, the paper on the Etruscans. which, by the way, shows a graph indicating that, but in the text says it could be Anatolian
or Levantine. Meanwhile, the "Levant" Dna in Tuscany, even if you count all J1 and J2 in Tuscany, and some of the J2 would be Greek, Anatolian etc. comes to 13%, and THERE IS A MINUTE amount of Germanic yDna in Tuscany. So, please, tell me how modern Tuscans could be 50% Levantine.
The only additional paper on Italy you provided is Antonio et al, which said the "TAIL INTO THE LEVANT"
disappeared. They didn't model modern Italians using them to the best of my recollection.
The other two papers are on Spain and the Balkans.
FYI, the paper on the Balkans (Danubian Limes) goes out of its way to say that this NEAR EASTERN Imperial Age group did
NOT go into the creation of modern Balkanites.
I couldn't care less if it's true, and I'm not insinuating anything. I'm saying outright that you don't comprehend what you're reading in the papers or you don't read every sentence and just look for a paragraph which might support your pre-conceived notions. Otherwise, how could you possibly have missed the fact that the authors of the Balkan paper specifically said the
Imperial Age Near Eastern cluster didn't influence Balkan genetics.
Just as a general matter, finding bones from another region in a cemetery doesn't mean that person represents some sort of huge migration which influenced succeeding generations. Do you get that?