Population structure in Italy using ancient and modern samples

[Angela]

Wow, this is exciting.

Is this the same paper as the one that RYU reported on? In that one there were two "types" of Romans, yes? One was more "North Italian" like, and one was more "South Italian" like, but by the Imperial period it was definitely more "Southern Italian" like, with a further small change in the post Imperial period.

These look definitely more "South Italian" like. So, this is perhaps a different paper?

Any info on the dating of these samples or the context?

Just assuming for the moment, which I probably shouldn't do, that these samples are all Imperial Era Romans and from a different paper, then I think it just reinforces some of the conclusions we tentatively reached from that prior information.

The "original Romans", from the Republic, were definitely Italic speakers, and were probably more like Northern Italians. As time went on, more and more influence from "Greeks" infiltrated north from Southern Italy. That influence on Italy didn't begin in the first millennium B.C. with Magna Graecia. As I've been saying for ten years, and as recent papers are beginning to conclude, it started back in Mycenaean days.

So, those "more North Italian" Romans of the Republic probably had some of it too, as do modern North Italians. I would guess they were the predictable mixture of Italian MN (also known as Sardinian like) with some steppe admixed migrants, although if Parma Beakers are an indication of the type of admixture we're talking about, they would have varied in the amount of steppe they carried. To that would perhaps have been added a bit of "Mycenaean", carrying a bit of Caucasus/Iran like admixture.

After the incorporation of Magna Graecia in the last centuries of the first millennium BC that would only have increased.

As for the Etruscans, we knew for a long time that their mtDna was like that of most of southern Germany/Northern Italy, i.e. predominantly MN like, so predominantly "farmer" like but with some absorbed U5, either from the WHG, or from the steppe people. I wouldn't presume to judge. Some ancient MtDna experts will have to figure that out.

So, the question has always been, not only what were they like in terms of yDna, but what were they like autosomally. From these leaks, it seems they may have been like Parma Beakers, although which Parma Beaker I don't know. If it's a pretty steppe admixed one, I think we can probably finally put to bed any idea that there was a folk migration from Anatolia to central Italy in the first millennium B.C., an idea which so many have vociferously championed for so long, and which I have resisted for just as long. In the case of the Etruscans we have tons of archaeological evidence, and it just never supported that.

One of the arguments for that very late migration directly from Anatolia has been the "elevated" Caucasus like/Iranian like ancestry in modern Tuscans. What an irony if that came by way of the "Imperial/Classical" Romans, who got it by way of the Greek like people of Southern Italy. :)

One of the counter arguments has always been that there's a lot of R1b in Tuscans. I've always doubted much of it was "Galiic/Celtic", because other than the northwestern fringe, they really only raided into Tuscany proper, not settled. So, where did the R1b come from? One could say the Romans, but the R1b is unbroken all the way north.

Could it be that the Etruscans, like the Basque, are a case of an R1b but still farmer heavy group mixed with Sardinian like peoples, where, perhaps because it was mostly males by that point, and perhaps the culture was more matrilineal, the children adopted the "farmer" language?

Could there have been a small, elite movement from the Aegean into "Etruria" in the Iron Age? It's possible, I suppose. Y Dna will tell us what happened, although I'm starting to doubt it. Even if one or two samples carry J2, it could have filtered north or been adopted through the long contact between the Etruscans and the Greeks, both directly and through Magna Graecia. We would need a large number of samples.

I know it's unbecoming to say "I told you so", but I have to do it. I took such nonsense over the years from people on dna-forums, where I was virtually excluded, to 23andme forums and even here, where I was constantly harassed, and also saw my ideas ridiculed on theapricity, anthrogenica and by "he who most not be named", :).

That's what happens, people, when you follow an agenda, an ideology, instead of looking at all the evidence. Assemble the facts and only the facts, drop all preconceptions and "ologies", and go from there.

@Cato,
I don't know if the more "northern" influence on the Etruscans was Parma Beaker like, or ancient "Ligurian" like, or something else; that's why I said "Parma Beaker like". It definitely seems to be a steppe admixed group to some extent.

You're right; this happened relatively late.

[Pax Augusta]

As for the Etruscans, we knew for a long time that their mtDna was like that of most of southern Germany/Northern Italy, i.e. predominantly MN like, so predominantly "farmer" like but with some absorbed U5, either from the WHG, or from the steppe people. I wouldn't presume to judge. Some ancient MtDna experts will have to figure that out.

The data of the Etruscans' mtdna are clear. Only those who are biased do not accept them.

One of the arguments for that very late migration directly from Anatolia has been the "elevated" Caucasus like/Iranian like ancestry in modern Tuscans. What an irony if that came by way of the "Imperial/Classical" Romans, who got it by way of the Greek like people of Southern Italy. :)

Compared to Parma Beaker like, most modern Northern Italians have more CHG.

Compared to Tuscans, all the central Italians (Marche, Umbria, Lazio) and southern Italians have more CHG than Tuscans, including the Italic and Greek areas. The difference in CHG between Tuscans and many Ligurians and Emilians are small. Romagnolis seem more similar to Adriatic people from Marche.

So it is quite clear that the extra input of CHG in Italians is not due to the Etruscans, and anyone who is impartial has already understood this a long time ago.

The Romanization of Italy increased CHG here and there in Italy. It was likely not (always) a Nordicisation of the Italians as had always been believed. Latins, after all, were very few and they couldn't have completely changed the genetics of the Italians. But it's quite clear that Romans were Latins mixed with something else, and what shifted the Romans further south could not be due to the Etruscans.

[Angela]

The data of the Etruscans' mtdna are clear. Only those who are biased do not accept them.




Compared to Parma Beaker like, most modern Northern Italians have more CHG.

Compared to Tuscans, all the central Italians (Marche, Umbria, Lazio) and southern Italians have more CHG than Tuscans, including the Italic and Greek areas. The difference in CHG between Tuscans and many Ligurians and Emilians are small. Romagnolis seem more similar to Adriatic people from Marche.

So it is quite clear that the extra input of CHG in Italians is not due to the Etruscans, and anyone who is impartial has already understood this a long time ago.

The Romanization of Italy increased CHG here and there in Italy. It was likely not (always) a Nordicisation of the Italians as had always been believed. Latins, after all, were very few and they couldn't have completely changed the genetics of the Italians. But it's quite clear that Romans were Latins mixed with something else, and what shifted the Romans further south could not be due to the Etruscans.

You're very close to complete vindication here, if these "leaks" are authentic, Pax. :)

You never wavered and you may be proven completely right.

[Salento]

@Angela
(if these "leaks" are authentic)

I deleted my previous post coz of that.

If real, Jovialis and I are a match for the perfect Roman (o quasi, coz of vicinity and overlap) :)

[Cpluskx]

- Etruscans from Anatolia theory was likely incorrect.
- If Etruscans are R1b i will start to think that R1b were not the original indo-european speakers at all.

[Cato]

according to Eurogenes comments Picenes, Umbrians and Samnites clustered with Etruscans

Utilizzando Tapatalk

[etrusco]

according to Eurogenes comments Picenes, Umbrians and Samnites clustered with Etruscans

Utilizzando Tapatalk

not according to Eurogenes but according to updated leaks from the authors of the paper on Anthrogenica. But that is quite pretty much obvious that the "etruscans" many are talking about are native umbrians. The proverbial discovery of "hot water".

[markod]

- Etruscans from Anatolia theory was likely incorrect.
- If Etruscans are R1b i will start to think that R1b were not the original indo-european speakers at all.

Etruscan is unlikely to be related to Basque-Iberian though, so any simplistic equation like R1b = pre-Indo-European doesn't work. If pressed I'd also say R1b groups didn't speak Indo-European, but it's far from conclusive.

[Angela]

@Angela
(if these "leaks" are authentic)

I deleted my previous post coz of that.

If real, Jovialis and I are a match for the perfect Roman (o quasi, coz of vicinity and overlap) :)

Yes, perfect Imperial Romans of Rome itself. My husband would fit in that cluster too. He'll definitely "crow" about that when I tell him. :) Or maybe I should wait to see if these leaks are legit, although it seems too detailed to be fake, given the PCA etc.

We'll have to see what the pre-Imperial Era Romans were like. If that Moots paper is correct, perhaps the Republican Era Romans may be closer to Northern Italians. They sure aren't "pure" steppe Aryans, that's for sure. It's like the Mycenaeans redux. :)

I wonder about the mytrueancestry stuff. On there I'm at 3.416 with "Central Romans", but who knows if that person actually was a native of "Central Rome". They just may be closest to modern northern and north/Central Italians.

I keep remembering that Moots said some of the ancient samples were Northern Italian like and some were Southern Italian like, but none of the samples landed on Rome itself, which may mean modern central Italians, except perhaps the Tuscans, are just a mixture of those two?

@Cato,

The only way they'd know the Etruscans are similar to Umbrians, etc. is if they also have ancient samples from those people. Do they?

[Cato]

@Cato,

The only way they'd know the Etruscans are similar to Umbrians, etc. is if they also have ancient samples from those people. Do they?

judging from what i've read yes they have them


Utilizzando Tapatalk

[Pax Augusta]

You're very close to complete vindication here, if these "leaks" are authentic, Pax. :)

You never wavered and you may be proven completely right.

I have nothing to "vindicate".

It's not the forums that decide what's true or not.


On the Etruscans there are many agendas, especially of people who have no relationship with the Etruscans. Those who really have a relationship with the Etruscans are generally not passionate about the subject of their origins, based on my personal experience.

I am serene, whether these leaks are true or false. No one can assure us that these leaks are true. It is enough to have read with sincere interest everything about the Etruscans, to figure out who they were.

[Pax Augusta]

according to Eurogenes comments Picenes, Umbrians and Samnites clustered with Etruscans

Utilizzando Tapatalk

It seems unlikely to me.

But let's take one of the arguments the migrationists are using to demonstrate that the Etruscans were an Anatolian elite who imposed themselves on an Italic population: modern Tuscans are more southern eastern shifted than Etruscans (the other argument that the Etruscan samples analysed are in fact Italic or Umbrians is so simple-minded that it does not deserve further comment). First of all not only the Tuscans but also many North Italians are more southeast than those Etruscan samples.

And in any case it proves once again to be fallacious, because modern people from Marche (Picenes), Umbria (Umbrians), and Abruzzo, Molise, Campania (Samnites) are more south eastern than Tuscans. So according to their own theory, these regions should have received more migrations from Anatolia, as showed by A. Raveane et al.

So, once again, whatever moved the Tuscans further southeast, there is no evidence that it could be due to an IA or late BA Anatolian origin of the elite of the Etruscans. I repeat, also considering that the same north Italians are usually more southeast than Parma Bell Beaker and the mtdna analyzed so far of the Etruscan samples is not compatible with this kind of allochthonous origin of the Etruscans.

[Messier 67]

according to the other leak Latium was still EEF in 1700 bc so the Latins arrived in the MBA or more likely in the LBA

Remedello 3 (2000 bc circa) was still EEF too so the indoeuropeans came in italy likely in the MBA (from Hungary?), i dont think that Parma Bell Beaker had a great impact genetically because the Po Plain was completely repopulated in the early MBA by Poladans and people from Danubian plain

Utilizzando Tapatalk

Because there is a chance the Latins and the other Italic peoples were G,I,J2b, and some others (some L and E, maybe T).

The Romans were a mix of the Etrucans and Italic people, so more R1b.

[markod]

Can anyone discern with whom those Etruscans plot? A bit closer to Iberians than to North Italians? One of them looks rather French.

[binx]

Personally, I have never believed in an eastern origin of the Etruscans. I'm glad that we're finally getting to the bottom of this.

[Angela]

Can anyone discern with whom those Etruscans plot? A bit closer to Iberians than to North Italians? One of them looks French.

On the PCA someone put up, the poster said the Etruscan plotted near the more steppe admixed Parma Beaker sample, which is closer to Extremadura, which is one of the more "southern" Iberian provinces, being close to Portugal, i.e. "western" Iberia.

I'm never sure about these PCAs with ancient samples just plopped on a PCA of modern samples, however. I'd like to see real statistical analysis as well, not just two dimensions.

If we only have "one" autosomal result from an ancient Etruscan I think we should be cautious, however. Look at the differences between the Parma Beaker samples. Even more caution will be warranted if we have only one Y dna as well.

For what it's worth, I always get them as close matches on "good" calculators, and on today's revised archaeosamples from mytrueancestry I now have tons of ancient samples from Iberia. The whole list has changed. I should post to see the fit compared to actual Iberians.

As for the actual PCA from the paper, I can't make heads or tails of it. Yellow squares are all over the area and I can't see the difference between the "yellow" Italians, and the "yellow" Iberians.

Do you by any chance have a link to the modern PCA which forms the background?

[davef]

There are some seriously awful (AWFUL!!!) posts surrounding this topic on a***ro***ica by hateful members with their heavy assumptions. I have no agenda and if a professionally conducted study proves the ancient Romans were anything (South/north Italian, German, Spanish, whatever) I'll live with it.

[markod]

On the PCA someone put up, the poster said the Etruscan plotted near the more steppe admixed Parma Beaker sample, which is closer to Extremadura, which is one of the more "southern" Iberian provinces, being close to Portugal, i.e. "western" Iberia.

I'm never sure about these PCAs with ancient samples just plopped on a PCA of modern samples, however. I'd like to see real statistical analysis as well, not just two dimensions.

If we only have "one" autosomal result from an ancient Etruscan I think we should be cautious, however. Look at the differences between the Parma Beaker samples. Even more caution will be warranted if we have only one Y dna as well.

For what it's worth, I always get them as close matches on "good" calculators, and on today's revised archaeosamples from mytrueancestry I now have tons of ancient samples from Iberia. The whole list has changed. I should post to see the fit compared to actual Iberians.

As for the actual PCA from the paper, I can't make heads or tails of it. Yellow squares are all over the area and I can't see the difference between the "yellow" Italians, and the "yellow" Iberians.

Do you by any chance have a link to the modern PCA which forms the background?

No, it doesn't seem to be based on the dataset used by Lazaridis and others, so we can only guess. Though the cluster just above the Etruscans I'm pretty sure are Iberians, while one Etruscan is more Italian and another one more within the Central European range.

[markod]

There are some seriously awful (AWFUL!!!) posts surrounding this topic on a***ro***ica by hateful members with their heavy assumptions. I have no agenda and if a professionally conducted study proves the ancient Romans were anything (South/north Italian, German, Spanish, whatever) I'll live with it.

What is their explanation for the Roman position in the PCA? Jews, or Syrians this time?

It's definitely interesting though, why are some of the Romans between South Italians and Cypriotes? It looks like a stabilised cluster so any imperial immigration hypothesis is untenable. Greek settlement doesn't work either. This is Mediterranean Bronze Age ancestry 99% sure.

[davef]

What is their explanation for the Roman position in the PCA? Jews, or Syrians this time?

It's definitely interesting though, why are some of the Romans between South Italians and Cretans? It looks like a stabilised cluster so any imperial immigration hypothesis is untenable. Greek settlement doesn't work either. This is Mediterranean Bronze Age ancestry 99% sure.

Indeed! You get an upvote

[berun]

As far as I know Etruscans incinerated, so no DNA available other than lucky finds or with outliers... I prefer to wait, Reich and co just did that with Ullastret skulls, they were exposed on the streets with their swords, they were like war trophies and are not the usual Iberian incineration, these skulls had some extra CE autosomal, and it could fit Gauls trying to do what they were doing in Italy, the Balkans, or Anatolia, or in France itself the Volci.

[halfalp]

There are some seriously awful (AWFUL!!!) posts surrounding this topic on a***ro***ica by hateful members with their heavy assumptions. I have no agenda and if a professionally conducted study proves the ancient Romans were anything (South/north Italian, German, Spanish, whatever) I'll live with it.

What does it means?

[halfalp]

I read the paper and a litte bit of the posts but i'm out of touch with this paper. Can someone make me a little summary of the community conclusions? Especially about Etruscans?

[Johane Derite]

What is their explanation for the Roman position in the PCA? Jews, or Syrians this time?

It's definitely interesting though, why are some of the Romans between South Italians and Cypriotes? It looks like a stabilised cluster so any imperial immigration hypothesis is untenable. Greek settlement doesn't work either. This is Mediterranean Bronze Age ancestry 99% sure.

Markod do you think its possible that romans were transylvanian migrants?

[Johane Derite]

This is very exciting, yet at the same time frustrating that we have to wait for results. Is there indiciation that Y dna has been tested in this paper?