Population structure in Italy using ancient and modern samples

wy1D99N.png


By the Late Republic, if the Italics from the steppe did mix with the Aegean-like populations in Southern Italy; figures C and F sort of look like Italia during that time.

OfNKOe3.jpg


Moreover, my K36 heat map sort of looks like a silhouette of the Roman empire.

550now6.png
 
@Angela But Etruscans were very sophisticated / advanced people and had considerable influence on Romans. I mean from their perspective you can understand why would they want Italians to have more Arab ancestry, so that they could call them non-European/white etc. But why would these Nord-Eastern supremacists would like Etruscans to be Near Eastern? Isn't Etruscans being closer to the steppe better for their ideology? Then in their mind they can claim Romans' successes too.

On Razib Khan, he used to write on Unz along with Jared Taylor etc. I think he is Republican too. I find it a little weird, i don't think most republicans would have positive views about South Asians, even though they are the richest/most educated group in US. Maybe he thinks deeper than me, i don't know.

South Asians, and you can probably include East Asians are very wealthy in USA because that country has attracted the brightest and richest people to immigrate. If history worked out differently and India or China had different immigration rules or began booming a century or more ago, you would find the brightest and wealthiest white folks move to those countries (if possible). Although racism and ethnocentrism is alive and well in both countries, so it would never happen.
 
BGh7sR7.png


In this admixture chart on line 550, it shows that the Ibiza_Phoenician sample's autosomal components looks very close to that of the Mycenaean. Let us see how things pan out in the final peer-reviewed version of the paper.

Here's another aspect of the paper I found to be intriguing:

WCdBVmt.png


The Reich paper states that it is plausible that the Caucasus-related ancestry reported in Ravenae et al is likely to have been there since the early or middle Bronze-Age. Thus it stands to reason that this makes Southern Italian mainlanders; especially SItaly3 (see figure G, below) are indeed different from Sicilians. But who knows how Reich would model them. This is just my observations and speculation. At any rate, here are examples of the difference, below. If the plausibility is indeed correct, than the mainland south owes a lot of it's ancestry to the early to middle bronze age. While Sicily took a different route to get where it is today (Perhaps with Messina being an exception).

dGcNc3F.png


Furthermore, I noticed that Anatolian_BA is also very similar to the Minoan and Mycenaean samples; More than it is to Levant_BA, as observed in the ADMIXTURE analysis below. One of the samples even overlaps with SItaly1

3TqJZbA.png


ve5Ua4q.png

Here's the one I was thinking of.
 
If accurate, this would suggest a split of Italo-Celtic in central Europe and tons of R1b moving into the Italian peninsula in the late Bronze, early Iron Age. Imperial Rome can be explained as diverse for many reasons. One being that the further south in the peninsula, you have a variety of different ethnic groups who arrived at various points in time, whereas in the north, it would appear that it was a singular, monolithic movement of similar people, like we see with Bell Beaker ethnicities. Rome was also the capital at the height of the empire's power it would have attracted many people from around the Mediterranean, especially sophisticated traders from the east. Who knows what this sample actually represents. The Etruscan result is somewhat bizarre. If they were also from the north, which seems to be the case from the male haplogroups at least, how did they create such a sophisticated civilization? I am not aware of any parallel in Bell Beaker related groups, but I might be mistaken.
 
Also as Razib Khan stated, Etruscan-Lemnian connection is still there. Were Lemnians really just traders? Or they ran away to Aegean when the steppe population invaded Italy?
 
If accurate, this would suggest a split of Italo-Celtic in central Europe and tons of R1b moving into the Italian peninsula in the late Bronze, early Iron Age. Imperial Rome can be explained as diverse for many reasons. One being that the further south in the peninsula, you have a variety of different ethnic groups who arrived at various points in time, whereas in the north, it would appear that it was a singular, monolithic movement of similar people, like we see with Bell Beaker ethnicities. Rome was also the capital at the height of the empire's power it would have attracted many people from around the Mediterranean, especially sophisticated traders from the east. Who knows what this sample actually represents. The Etruscan result is somewhat bizarre. If they were also from the north, which seems to be the case from the male haplogroups at least, how did they create such a sophisticated civilization? I am not aware of any parallel in Bell Beaker related groups, but I might be mistaken.

Idk, but I think my explanation seems pretty viable in regards to the Romans of the late Republic. Moreover, I believe your presentation is invalid. Certainly, the Greeks, and Greek-like populations in the south were a monolithic genetic entity too. The Italics mixing with these populations makes sense for the lion's share of the genetic composition of the Late Republican Romans of Italia. Moreover as Razib said the biggest contributing factor was EEF. We don't even know how similar the Italics were from Celts by the time they got to Italy. Moreover, some of that SBA in the modern populations in the North came much after the Romans.

wy1D99N.png


By the Late Republic, if the Italics from the steppe did mix with the Aegean-like populations in Southern Italy; figures C and F sort of look like Italia during that time.

OfNKOe3.jpg


Moreover, my K36 heat map sort of looks like a silhouette of the Roman empire.

550now6.png
 
Here is Razib Khan's take on the paper.

That's what an honest and objective take on the published data looks like. I have no quarrel with any of it.

Too bad so many people in the amateur popgen world are incapable of this kind of analysis.

As to the paper itself, it's been discussed before, but the only North African found is in Sicily, so we can put paid to all the frenzied attempts to find anything but traces of it in the mainland. It all makes sense, of course, because the Saracens were in Sicily, as they were in Iberia, which has similar levels of North African, for two centuries, and barely settled in the mainland.

History matters.

Their designation of Sicily Bell Beaker as essentially already Anatolian Bronze Age type people is also interesting. As some of us have been saying forever, it didn't need the Empire to bring that ancestry to Southern Italy.

The strange thing is their finding of "Iran Neolithic" in the south.If they are correct, we need ancient dna to understand it. The farmers of Iran didn't fly over all the territory in between to land in Southern Italy at some late date. Nor, I would suggest, did undiluted Iranian farmer ancestry still exist in the Roman Era. Everything indicates to me that it started to spread during the Copper Age, mixing with, in West Asia, earlier farmer ancestry. Likewise, Anatolian type farmer ancestry moved to the lands of the Iranian farmers.

I don't see how it could have arrived in Italy undiluted.

Nor, to forestall the usual suspects, can we attribute it to "Levantine" ancestry, as it would be a minority element in them, following, as it does, a north south cline in Western Asia.

Interestingly enough, they don't find "Levantine" ancestry anywhere but Sicily if I'm reading the charts correctly.

As to the high levels of sophistication of the Etruscan civilization, it certainly didn't come from Bell Beaker people or Central Europe. The metallurgy of Bell Beaker, for one thing, and their pottery, for another, was initially inferior to that of MN people in the Balkans, for example. Most of it had to come about from adoption of more sophisticated metallurgy, art, and on and on from the east, perhaps via their contacts with Sardinia. Also, less disruption from the steppe admixed people meant less disruption to the prior culture. The same thing happened to Italy in what became the Early Renaissance. More of the ancient culture survived, so it re-ignited there. I'm not saying that some highly advanced people from the east didn't go there. It's possible. We'll see. I'm more inclined, however, to see it as a slow spread up the peninsula.

I do, as always, have a problem with their admixture dates. I just don't think these programs are accurate. They pick up only the latest signal. That was the case for the Egyptians, if I remember correctly.
 
That's what an honest and objective take on the published data looks like. I have no quarrel with any of it.

Too bad so many people in the amateur popgen world are incapable of this kind of analysis.

As to the paper itself, it's been discussed before, but the only North African found is in Sicily, so we can put paid to all the frenzied attempts to find anything but traces of it in the mainland. It all makes sense, of course, because the Saracens were in Sicily, as they were in Iberia, which has similar levels of North African, for two centuries, and barely settled in the mainland.

History matters.

Their designation of Sicily Bell Beaker as essentially already Anatolian Bronze Age type people is also interesting. As some of us have been saying forever, it didn't need the Empire to bring that ancestry to Southern Italy.

The strange thing is their finding of "Iran Neolithic" in the south.If they are correct, we need ancient dna to understand it. The farmers of Iran didn't fly over all the territory in between to land in Southern Italy at some late date. Nor, I would suggest, did undiluted Iranian farmer ancestry still exist in the Roman Era. Everything indicates to me that it started to spread during the Copper Age, mixing with, in West Asia, earlier farmer ancestry. Likewise, Anatolian type farmer ancestry moved to the lands of the Iranian farmers.

I don't see how it could have arrived in Italy undiluted.

Nor, to forestall the usual suspects, can we attribute it to "Levantine" ancestry, as it would be a minority element in them, following, as it does, a north south cline in Western Asia.

Interestingly enough, they don't find "Levantine" ancestry anywhere but Sicily if I'm reading the charts correctly.

As to the high levels of sophistication of the Etruscan civilization, it certainly didn't come from Bell Beaker people or Central Europe. The metallurgy of Bell Beaker, for one thing, and their pottery, for another, was initially inferior to that of MN people in the Balkans, for example. Most of it had to come about from adoption of more sophisticated metallurgy, art, and on and on from the east, perhaps via their contacts with Sardinia. Also, less disruption from the steppe admixed people meant less disruption to the prior culture. The same thing happened to Italy in what became the Early Renaissance. More of the ancient culture survived, so it re-ignited there. I'm not saying that some highly advanced people from the east didn't go there. It's possible. We'll see. I'm more inclined, however, to see it as a slow spread up the peninsula.

I do, as always, have a problem with their admixture dates. I just don't think these programs are accurate. They pick up only the latest signal. That was the case for the Egyptians, if I remember correctly.


I did find something which I think is new, and should be investigated:

""Contrary to previous reports (4), the occurrence of CHG as detected by our CP/NNLS analysis did not mirror the presence of SBA, with several populations testing positive for the latter but not for the former (Fig. 2 and fig. S5, A and B). When we compared this analysis and the one using a different CHG sample (SATP) (5), the two were highly correlated (Spearman ρ = 0.972, P < 0.05; fig. S5F). We therefore speculate that our approach might, in general, underestimate the presence of CHG across the continent; however, we note that even considering this scenario, the excess of Caucasus-related ancestry detected in the south of the European continent, and in Southern Italy in particular, is notable and unexplained by currently proposed models for the peopling of the continent."


 
Just as an aside, looking at the amounts of AN in Europe, except for the low population extreme northeast, Europeans are close to or over 50% AN.

Contrary to the way people think about Europe, that's the single most important component.
 
Just as an aside, looking at the amounts of AN in Europe, except for the low population extreme northeast, Europeans are close to or over 50% AN.

Contrary to the way people think about Europe, that's the single most important component.

Indeed, and the pre-print that's been pinned on Lazaridis' tweeter for nearly a year has been under-discussed IMO

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/423079v1

As the Anatolian_N-like population from the Paleolithic Caucasus, is suggested to be the core of all West Eurasian ancestry.
 
As to the high levels of sophistication of the Etruscan civilization, it certainly didn't come from Bell Beaker people or Central Europe. The metallurgy of Bell Beaker, for one thing, and their pottery, for another, was initially inferior to that of MN people in the Balkans, for example. Most of it had to come about from adoption of more sophisticated metallurgy, art, and on and on from the east, perhaps via their contacts with Sardinia. Also, less disruption from the steppe admixed people meant less disruption to the prior culture. The same thing happened to Italy in what became the Early Renaissance. More of the ancient culture survived, so it re-ignited there. I'm not saying that some highly advanced people from the east didn't go there. It's possible. We'll see. I'm more inclined, however, to see it as a slow spread up the peninsula.

According to many etruscologists and archaeologists, the high levels of sophistication of Etruscan civilization have nothing to do with their origins and are mostly due to the orientalizing period. The question of the origins of the Etruscans was solved long ago by archaeologists. The thesis of the eastern origin has been proposed again by indo-europeanists, orientalists, non-etruscologists and mostly by amateur scholars. While the majority of etruscologists, of any nationality (it is a lie written by the indo-europeanist Beekes that the autochthony of the Etruscans was only supported by Italian etruscologists), have never changed their minds.

The Etruscans certainly had many contacts and not only with the Greeks, being connected to all the main cultural and commercial routes of the time. From central Europe, to south-western and south-eastern Europe and the Aegean, of course. The Greeks called the Tyrrhenians "pirates". But the first contacts with the East Mediterranean with archaeological evidence date back to Frattesina in the south of Veneto, which is a site of the proto-Villanovan era. While today there are testimonies of previous contacts with movements not only from east to west, but also from west to east.

The Etruscans are the cultural synthesis of all this. Then, of course, small groups of foreigners may have arrived in Etruria, but they were foreigners assimilated by the Etruscans, not the ancestors of the Etruscans.

Of course the question of the language remains open, but it is difficult to believe and very unlikely that the Rhaetian language spoken in the Eastern Alps also came from a recent migration and that the Rhaetians were "Etruscans" driven out by the Gauls. The Rhaetian language is attested before the Gallic invasions of northern Italy, the Rhaetians are identified with a material culture called Fritzens-Sanzeno which is not Etruscan and the relations between Rhaetians and Etruscans seem very ancient both on an archaeological and linguistic level. Then, if it is definitively proved that also the Camunic language spoken in the Central Alps was also related to the Rhaetian language and therefore part of the same family, at this point it becomes really clear that it is a pre-Indo-European language that has been present for a long time. Moreover, the few inscriptions of Lemnos, written in an alphabet more common in Italy and Greece than in Asia Minor, are more recent than the oldest Etruscan inscriptions in Italy.

Without a doubt, the Etruscans owe much of their growth to their contacts with the Aegean Sea and the ancient Near East, but this is also true for the Greeks and, to a lesser extent, for the Romans.
 
South Asians, and you can probably include East Asians are very wealthy in USA because that country has attracted the brightest and richest people to immigrate.

you mean the exception confirms the rule? would republicans dislike south asians if there wasn't such a bias in your opinion?
 
How the hell does Davidski have all the Raveane genomes already and plugged into G25? Anyone know if they were published anywhere and when?

I guess he doesn't like people from Emilia Romagna. They're not included. :)

Anyone remember how much Iran Neo was in the Greek Neolithic? How much was in the Minoans?
 
I'm sorry to say it, but ONE Liguria sample and no samples from Emilia Romagna is NOT helpful.

We've known for ages that there's a difference between western and eastern Liguria, as we know that Emilia Romagna is a bridge between areas further north and Toscana.

Without these samples it's going to look like there's a break between the far north and Toscana, which is not true. The break starts with Central South/Italy, i.e. Marche, Umbria, and especially Lazio and the Abruzzi. Only someone completely clueless about Italian genetics would exclude them. Makes no sense, unless there's some purpose to this madness?

This is the kind of stuff that makes me distrust the Global 25 results in general. Everything depends on the samples chosen.

Edit:
Like I said, it leads to an incorrect PCA.
https://postimg.cc/z33FbLvm
 
According to many etruscologists and archaeologists, the high levels of sophistication of Etruscan civilization have nothing to do with their origins and are mostly due to the orientalizing period. The question of the origins of the Etruscans was solved long ago by archaeologists. The thesis of the eastern origin has been proposed again by indo-europeanists, orientalists, non-etruscologists and mostly by amateur scholars. While the majority of etruscologists, of any nationality (it is a lie written by the indo-europeanist Beekes that the autochthony of the Etruscans was only supported by Italian etruscologists), have never changed their minds.

The Etruscans certainly had many contacts and not only with the Greeks, being connected to all the main cultural and commercial routes of the time. From central Europe, to south-western and south-eastern Europe and the Aegean, of course. The Greeks called the Tyrrhenians "pirates". But the first contacts with the East Mediterranean with archaeological evidence date back to Frattesina in the south of Veneto, which is a site of the proto-Villanovan era. While today there are testimonies of previous contacts with movements not only from east to west, but also from west to east.

The Etruscans are the cultural synthesis of all this. Then, of course, small groups of foreigners may have arrived in Etruria, but they were foreigners assimilated by the Etruscans, not the ancestors of the Etruscans.

Of course the question of the language remains open, but it is difficult to believe and very unlikely that the Rhaetian language spoken in the Eastern Alps also came from a recent migration and that the Rhaetians were "Etruscans" driven out by the Gauls. The Rhaetian language is attested before the Gallic invasions of northern Italy, the Rhaetians are identified with a material culture called Fritzens-Sanzeno which is not Etruscan and the relations between Rhaetians and Etruscans seem very ancient both on an archaeological and linguistic level. Then, if it is definitively proved that also the Camunic language spoken in the Central Alps was also related to the Rhaetian language and therefore part of the same family, at this point it becomes really clear that it is a pre-Indo-European language that has been present for a long time. Moreover, the few inscriptions of Lemnos, written in an alphabet more common in Italy and Greece than in Asia Minor, are more recent than the oldest Etruscan inscriptions in Italy.

Without a doubt, the Etruscans owe much of their growth to their contacts with the Aegean Sea and the ancient Near East, but this is also true for the Greeks and, to a lesser extent, for the Romans.

The cumunic language is from the camuni people, a major group of the indigenous people called Euganei.....the euganei are the first venetic people.... they should also be connected with polada and este cultures
 
The cumunic language is from the camuni people, a major group of the indigenous people called Euganei.....the euganei are the first venetic people.... they should also be connected with polada and este cultures

Camunic language is considered a pre–Indo-European language and some scholars think is related to the Rhaetian language. Others think Camunic language might be related to that of the Euganei, but we have not Euganei inscriptions as I know. Euganei were very unlikely the first Venetic people.
 
Camunic language is considered a pre–Indo-European language and some scholars think is related to the Rhaetian language. Others think Camunic language might be related to that of the Euganei, but we have not Euganei inscriptions as I know. Euganei were very unlikely the first Venetic people.
Eth. EUGA´NEI a people of Northern Italy, who play but an unimportant part in historical times, but appear at an earlier period to have been more powerful and widely spread. Livy expressly tells us (1.1) that they occupied the whole tract from the Alps to the head of the Adriatic, from which they were expelled by the Veneti. And it is quite in accordance with this statement that Pliny describes Verona as inhabited partly by Rhaetians, partly by Euganeans, and that Cato enumerated 34 towns belonging to them. (Plin. Nat. 3.19. s. 23, 20. s. 24.) They appear to have been driven by the Veneti into the valleys of the Alps on the Italian side of the chain, where they continued to subsist in the time of Pliny as a separate people, and had received the Latin franchise. But they must also have occupied the detached group of volcanic hills between Patavium and Verona, which are still known as the Euganean Hills (Colli Euganei), a name evidently transmitted by uninterrupted tradition, though not found in any ancient geographer.


Clearly Ateste is a euganei town in origin
 
Eth. EUGA´NEI a people of Northern Italy, who play but an unimportant part in historical times, but appear at an earlier period to have been more powerful and widely spread. Livy expressly tells us (1.1) that they occupied the whole tract from the Alps to the head of the Adriatic, from which they were expelled by the Veneti. And it is quite in accordance with this statement that Pliny describes Verona as inhabited partly by Rhaetians, partly by Euganeans, and that Cato enumerated 34 towns belonging to them. (Plin. Nat. 3.19. s. 23, 20. s. 24.) They appear to have been driven by the Veneti into the valleys of the Alps on the Italian side of the chain, where they continued to subsist in the time of Pliny as a separate people, and had received the Latin franchise. But they must also have occupied the detached group of volcanic hills between Patavium and Verona, which are still known as the Euganean Hills (Colli Euganei), a name evidently transmitted by uninterrupted tradition, though not found in any ancient geographer. Clearly Ateste is a euganei town in origin

If Euganei were expelled from the Veneti, how can they be the first Venetic people? The Euganei were certainly one of the first Venetic people, if not the first, in a broad sense. But they were more similar to Camuni and Rhaetians than to the Veneti in my opinion. Euganei probably represented the pre-indo-European layer. Of course, this does not imply that in the late Bronze Age or early Iron age Euganei were genetically completely pre-Indo-European or EEF. I don't know if it's clear what I mean.
 

This thread has been viewed 327267 times.

Back
Top