Population structure in Italy using ancient and modern samples

[Angela]

See:

A. Raveane et al: (Capelli, Simone, all the old stalwarts, and Hellenthal, never a good sign imo)

"Population structure of modern-day Italians reveals patterns of ancient2 and archaic ancestries in Southern Europe"

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/bior...94898.full.pdf

They're only using the already published ancient samples, nothing new, so this is not the paper we've been awaiting. Lots of conjecture as well.


"In doing101 so, we assembled and analyzed a comprehensive genome-wide SNP dataset composed by 1,616102 individuals from all the 20 Italian administrative regions and more than 140 worldwide reference103 populations, for a total of 5,192 modern-day samples (fig. S1, table S1), to which we added104 genomic data available for ancient individuals (data file S1)."

The following we knew:

"Clusters within Italy were significantly more different from each other132 than within any other country here included (median Italy: 0.004, data file S3; range medians for133 listed countries 0.0001-0.002) and showed differences comparable with estimates across European134 clusters (median European clusters: 0.004, Fig. 1D, see Materials and Methods, Supplementary135 materials). The analysis of the migration surfaces (EEMS) (17) highlighted several barriers to gene136 flow within and around Italy but also suggested the existence of migration corridors in the southern137 part of the Adriatic and Ionian Sea, and between Sardinia, Corsica and continental Italy."

The methodology is different. This is what they came up with...

"In the Ultimate analysis, all the Italian clusters were characterised by relatively high amounts of Anatolian Neolithic (AN), ranging between 56% (SItaly1) and 72% (NItaly4),152 distributed along a North-South cline (Spearman ρ = 0.52, p-value < 0.05; Fig. 2A-C, fig. S8A),153 with Sardinians showing values above 80%. A closer affinity of Northern Italian than Southern Italian clusters to AN was also supported by D-statistics (fig. S10). The remaining ancestry was155 mainly assigned to WHG (Western Hunter-Gatherer), CHG and EHG. In particular, the first two156 components were more present in populations from the South (higher estimates in SItaly1 ~13%157 and SItaly3 ~ 24% for WHG and CHG respectively), while the latter was more common in Northern158 clusters (NItaly6 = 15%)....Iran Neolithic (IN) ancestry was161 detected in Europe only in Southern Italy."

Some of the above seems pretty counter-intuitive.

"When Proximate163 sources were evaluated, SBA contribution ranged between 33% in the North and 6% in the South164 of Italy, while ABA (Anatolia Bronze Age) showed an opposite distribution (Fig. 2D-F, fig. S9), in165 line with the results based on the D statistics (fig. S10, fig. S11), and mirroring the EHG and CHG166 patterns, respectively...When Proximate163 sources were evaluated, SBA contribution ranged between 33% in the North and 6% in the South164 of Italy, while ABA (Anatolia Bronze Age) showed an opposite distribution (Fig. 2D-F, fig. S9), in165 line with the results based on the D statistics (fig. S10, fig. S11), and mirroring the EHG and CHG166 patterns, respectively."

"When Proximate163 sources were evaluated, SBA contribution ranged between 33% in the North and 6% in the South164 of Italy, while ABA (Anatolia Bronze Age) showed an opposite distribution (Fig. 2D-F, fig. S9), in165 line with the results based on the D statistics (fig. S10, fig. S11), and mirroring the EHG and CHG166 patterns, respectively."

"Nevertheless, all the197 analysed clusters, could be modelled as a combination of ABA, SBA and European Middle198 Neolithic/Chalcolithic, their contributions mirroring the pattern observed in the CP/NNLS analysis199 (fig. S15, table S3, table S4). North African contributions, ranging between 3.8% (SCItaly1) to200 14.5% (SItaly1) became evident when combinations of five sources were tested."

I expected a maximum of 10%. We'll see what Svaabo and Reich have to say when their paper comes out.

"Iceman and Remedello, the oldest Italian samples here included (3,400-2,800 BCE, Before Current207 Era), were composed by high proportions of AN (74 and 85%, respectively). The Bell Beaker208 samples of Northern Italy (2,200-1,930 BCE) were modelled as ABA and AN + SBA and WHG,209 although ABA was characterised by large standard errors but the detection of Steppe ancestry, at210 14%, was more robust. On the other hand Bell Beaker samples from Sicily (2,500-1,900 BCE) were211 modelled almost exclusively as ABA, with less than 5% SBA."

I'm not quite sure what the following means:
"Clusters from Caucasus and North-West Europe were identified all across Italy as best231 proxies for the admixing sources, while Middle Eastern and African clusters were identified as best232 proxies only in Southern Italian clusters and Sardinia (Fig. 3B, C). We noted that when we extended233 the search for the best-proxies to include also Italian clusters, these were as good as or better proxies234 than clusters from the Caucasus and the Middle East."

As to CHG..."This signature is still uncharacterised in terms of precise dates and origin; however305 such ancestry was possibly already present during the Bronze Age in Southern Italy (table S5) and306 was further supplemented by historical events (Fig. 3)"

"The very low presence of CHG signatures in Sardinia and in older Italian samples (Remedello and308 Iceman) but the occurrence in modern-day Southern Italians might be explained by different309 scenarios, not mutually exclusive: 1) population structure among early foraging groups across Italy,310 reflecting different affinities to CHG; 2) the presence in Italy of different Neolithic contributions,311 characterised by different proportion of CHG-related ancestry; 3) the combination of a post312 Neolithic, prehistoric CHG-enriched contribution with a previous AN-related Neolithic layer; 4) A313 substantial historical contribution from Southern East Europe across the whole of Southern Italy."

"An arrival315 of the CHG-related component in Southern Italy from the Southern part of the Balkan Peninsula is316 compatible with the identification of genetic corridors linking the two regions (Figure 1E, (11)) and317 the presence of Southern European ancient signatures in Italy (Figure 2). The temporal appearance318 of CHG signatures in Anatolia and Southern East Europe in the Late Neolithic/Bronze Age suggests319 its relevance for post-Neolithic contributions (37). Additional analyses of aDNA samples from320 around this time in Italy are expected to clarify what scenario might be best supported."

[markod]

I think this is a very good paper at least as far as data is concerned. The regional structure is very detailed. It also shows that the Bronze Age migration from Anatolia was a very important factor in the formative process of present Europeans.

The models on page 30 of the paper seem to confirm my suspicion that Bronze Age Anatolian ancestry in Italy is higher than in Greece and the Western Balkans

[Pax Augusta]

Tuscany is considered as part of the Northern macroarea with Emilia and the rest of northern Italy, but how do they write in 2018 that Emilia is a central region? Emilia is a northern region to all effects.



"Macro-areas are separated in Northern and Southern, where the central regions of Tuscany and Emilia are considered as part of the Northern macroarea and Latium, Abruzzo, Marche and Sardinia were considered as part of the Southern macro-area."

[Pax Augusta]

They're only using the already published ancient samples, nothing new, so this is not the paper we've been awaiting. Lots of conjecture as well.

Indeed. Nothing new.

[Angela]

Tuscany is considered as part of the Northern macroarea with Emilia and the rest of northern Italy, but how do they write in 2018 that Emilia is a central region? Emilia is a northern region to all effects.



"Macro-areas are separated in Northern and Southern, where the central regions of Tuscany and Emilia are considered as part of the Northern macroarea and Latium, Abruzzo, Marche and Sardinia were considered as part of the Southern macro-area."

Yeah, it's belied by their own analysis. Emilia Romagna is clearly distinct from Toscana and both are distinct from Umbria etc. With this group if they said it once they're going to keep saying it just not to admit they were wrong. :)

[IMG]



I'm finding it difficult to understand the graphics completely without a key as to the name of the specific clusters. I'd like to know for sure which areas they're assigning to Central Italy, for example, and which one is Toscana. Also, look at this, for example. I'm assuming the "Western European" areas with the North African and the Anatolian Bronze Age are on the Iberian peninsula, but it would be nice to know. It must be in the Supplementary Material, but I don't find a link to it. Did I miss it?

[davef]

How did Caucasus populations get that much Mycenaean? Why is Mycenaean so minuscule in the Balkans and SE Europe (Mycenaean is the light blue)? And wasn't Iran Neolithic found in the Greeks/Balkans as well (they said only in south Italy whereas other papers found it in the greeks and Balkans)?

A bit confused here...

[Angela]

How did Caucasus populations get that much Mycenaean? Why is Mycenaean so minuscule in the Balkans and SE Europe (Mycenaean is the light blue)? And wasn't Iran Neolithic found in the Greeks/Balkans as well (they said only in south Italy whereas other papers found it in the greeks and Balkans)?

A bit confused here...

Peloponnese Neolithic (Green) ate it all up. If you wanted to see the amount of Mycenaean in Southern Italy for example you would have to remove Minoan and PN. Too much overlap.

As for the IN, somebody should do a Venn diagram for these people (and not just these people) of CHG and IN.

[davef]

Peloponnese Neolithic (Green) ate it all up. If you wanted to see the amount of Mycenaean in Southern Italy for example you would have to remove Minoan and PN. Too much overlap.

As for the IN, somebody should do a Venn diagram for these people (and not just these people) of CHG and IN.

Thank you. Btw they could've labeled things a bit better, I mean how useful are labels like sItaly1, sItaky2, etc? Not very.

[Angela]

I just absolutely love how the usual suspects now claim that all they ever proposed is that any additional migration from the Near East into Italy was post Neolithic, when there are thousands upon thousands of quotes from them saying it was all historic era or first millennium BC at the earliest. In the digital age when every post can be saved, this kind of lying just doesn't work anymore.

As for Polako and his snide titles for threads I'm glad he finds a paper which posits such weird admixtures is well done. There's only 30% steppe in NW Europe according to some analyses? No CHG. Oh wait, I see why it meets with his approval. Some Eastern European populations, like the Poles, do get close to 50%.

Can anyone say "predictable"?

To Ruderico: Sorry, you're incorrect. Parts of Spain have as much Anatolia Bronze Age as Central Italy, and more than parts of Northern Italy.

[markod]

I just absolutely love how the usual suspects now claim that all they ever proposed is that any additional migration from the Near East into Italy was post Neolithic, when there are thousands upon thousands of quotes from them saying it was all historic era or first millennium BC at the earliest. In the digital age when every post can be saved, this kind of lying just doesn't work anymore.

As for Polako and his snide titles for threads I'm glad he finds a paper which posits such weird admixtures is well done. There's only 30% steppe in NW Europe according to some analyses? No CHG. Oh wait, I see why it meets with his approval. Some Eastern European populations, like the Poles, do get close to 50%.

Can anyone say "predictable"?

To Ruderico: Sorry, you're incorrect. Parts of Spain have as much Anatolia Bronze Age as Central Italy, and more than parts of Northern Italy.

Is Bronze Age Anatolian ancestry considered a bad thing?

Those populations were the most advanced of their time.

[Sile]

the map of Italy, the one noted B is split into the 20 regions of Italy...........are the numbers for this map written on another sheet?

.
so looking at veneto on the map, it is only green and Beige, with Beige representing NW Europe and Green ?

[Pax Augusta]

Yeah, it's belied by their own analysis. Emilia Romagna is clearly distinct from Toscana and both are distinct from Umbria etc. With this group if they said it once they're going to keep saying it just not to admit they were wrong. :)

They are only speaking of Emilia, not of Romagna. I don't think it's an oversight in this case.

Those colours weren't chosen by them? Those colours in the PCA on the right seem to be chosen to distinguish the various inter-regional samples that form clusters. Dark green for example is used for Ligurians and Emilians at to some extent also for a minority of individuals from Piedmont and Veneto, pink is used for Tuscans (two or even three different degrees of pink), and purple is for individuals from Marche, Umbria and Lazio. Between those in dark green and those in pink there is some overlap, while those in purple (which corresponds to Central Italian dialects called "Mediani") remain separated and compact.



If the PCA is rotated then you have almost the silhouette of Italy




This too is nothing new, in Italy there is a genetic cline everywhere, and also follows the languages and the geography of Italy which is narrow and long with few plains. It was shown for the first time by Barbujani and Sokal over 30 years ago, with their studies on the genetic structure of Italians and linguistic boundaries. In fact Tuscan language despite is considered a Central Italial language is not part of the Mediani family group, but constitutes a linguistic family of its own.

Barbujani, G., & Sokal, R. R. (1991). Genetic Population Structure of Italy. II. Physical and Cultural Barriers to Gene Flow. American Journal of Human Genetics, 48, 398-411.



https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1683007/

I'm finding it difficult to understand the graphics completely without a key as to the name of the specific clusters. I'd like to know for sure which areas they're assigning to Central Italy, for example, and which one is Toscana. Also, look at this, for example. I'm assuming the "Western European" areas with the North African and the Anatolian Bronze Age are on the Iberian peninsula, but it would be nice to know. It must be in the Supplementary Material, but I don't find a link to it. Did I miss it?

It is not very clear, but Tuscans are separated from the rest of central Italians because they formed a separate cluster according to the paper, and Tuscans are with some of the groups of northern Italy labelled as NCItaly, while people from Marche and Lazio with the groups labelled as SCItaly. This division corresponds in the various PCA. Instead of dividing the peninsula into three as is usually done (north, center and south) this time have divided it into two (north and south).

I would also like to find some more detailed information on the samples used.

[Sile]

They are only speaking of Emilia, not of Romagna. I don't think it's an oversight in this case.

Those colours weren't chosen by them? Those colours in the PCA on the right seem to be chosen to distinguish the various inter-regional samples that form clusters. Dark green for example is used for Ligurians and Emilians at to some extent also for a minority of individuals from Piedmont and Veneto, pink is used for Tuscans (two or even three different degrees of pink), and purple is for individuals from Marche, Umbria and Lazio. Between those in dark green and those in pink there is some overlap, while those in purple (which corresponds to Central Italian dialects called "Mediani") remain separated and compact.



If the PCA is rotated then you have almost the silhouette of Italy




This too is nothing new, in Italy there is a genetic cline everywhere, and also follows the languages and the geography of Italy which is narrow and long with few plains. It was shown for the first time by Barbujani and Sokal over 30 years ago, with their studies on the genetic structure of Italians and linguistic boundaries. In fact Tuscan language despite is considered a Central Italial language is not part of the Mediani family group, but constitutes a linguistic family of its own.

Barbujani, G., & Sokal, R. R. (1991). Genetic Population Structure of Italy. II. Physical and Cultural Barriers to Gene Flow. American Journal of Human Genetics, 48, 398-411.



https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1683007/





It is not very clear, but Tuscans are separated from the rest of central Italians because they formed a separate cluster according to the paper, and Tuscans are with some of the groups of northern Italy labelled as NCItaly, while people from Marche and Lazio with the groups labelled as SCItaly. This division corresponds in the various PCA. Instead of dividing the peninsula into three as is usually done (north, center and south) this time have divided it into two (north and south).

I would also like to find some more detailed information on the samples used.

The Emilia on the map represents all of emilia-romagna.....the map indicates the 20 regions of Italy

[Pax Augusta]

The Emilia on the map represents all of emilia-romagna.....the map indicates the 20 regions of Italy

Yes, but most likely the samples are only from Emilia.

[Sile]

Yes, but most likely the samples are only from Emilia.

ok
Dark green to me represnts the gallic from the south , while mid blue the other gallic
Beige is noted as NW europe which seems like British isles and maybe dutch lands.
Dark blue looks like Germanics

[Angela]

Is Bronze Age Anatolian ancestry considered a bad thing?

Those populations were the most advanced of their time.

It's a bad thing for Nordicists. Where do you think that snide comment of Polako's comes from? Why do you think he's so obsessed with placing CHG north of the Caucasus? Why do you think he can't bear to acknowledge that CHG and Iran Neo are like 95%? similar? If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, it's a duck. :)

What I particularly object to is the Sikeliot/Portuguese Princesses of the world (plus his socks and minions) who now try to get cover for their racism by claiming other people are racist for just wanting to get the facts straight. I guess all those thousands of posts by him trying desperately to keep that "tainted" blood away from his Iberian ancestors are supposed to be forgotten.

It certainly doesn't apply to me. My favorite ancient civilization is the Minoans, as I've been saying since I first started exploring this discipline. I'd love to be related to them, even if it's at lower levels than that of the Southern Italians. My next favorite is the Etruscans.

I'm probably too old to be so upset by dishonesty and hypocrisy, but I can't help it. :) I've been like this since I was a child. I abhor dishonestly and even more, hypocrisy. It makes my skin crawl. It's undoubtedly why I chose my profession.

[Pax Augusta]

ok
Dark green to me represnts the gallic from the south , while mid blue the other gallic
Beige is noted as NW europe which seems like British isles and maybe dutch lands.
Dark blue looks like Germanics

Those are just inter-regional clusters and nothing else.

[Olympus Mons]

It's a bad thing for Nordicists. Where do you think that snide comment of Polako's comes from? Why do you think he's so obsessed with placing CHG north of the Caucasus? Why do you think he can't bear to acknowledge that CHG and Iran Neo are like 95%? similar? If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, it's a duck. :)

What I particularly object to is the Sikeliot/Portuguese Princesses of the world (plus his socks and minions) who now try to get cover for their racism by claiming other people are racist for just wanting to get the facts straight. I guess all those thousands of posts by him trying desperately to keep that "tainted" blood away from his Iberian ancestors are supposed to be forgotten.

It certainly doesn't apply to me. My favorite ancient civilization is the Minoans, as I've been saying since I first started exploring this discipline. I'd love to be related to them, even if it's at lower levels than that of the Southern Italians. My next favorite is the Etruscans.

I'm probably too old to be so upset by dishonesty and hypocrisy, but I can't help it. :) I've been like this since I was a child. I abhor dishonestly and even more, hypocrisy. It makes my skin crawl. It's undoubtedly why I chose my profession.

I do not know any of the people you are bashing, but you are bashing on... people. ... Who gives you that right when you penalize people here for far less than you just did. I truly don't get it.

[Sile]

Those are just inter-regional clusters and nothing else.

yes , I know
but Tuscany stands out on its lonesome
same as Aosta

[Angela]

They are only speaking of Emilia, not of Romagna. I don't think it's an oversight in this case.

Those colours weren't chosen by them? Those colours in the PCA on the right seem to be chosen to distinguish the various inter-regional samples that form clusters. Dark green for example is used for Ligurians and Emilians at to some extent also for a minority of individuals from Piedmont and Veneto, pink is used for Tuscans (two or even three different degrees of pink), and purple is for individuals from Marche, Umbria and Lazio. Between those in dark green and those in pink there is some overlap, while those in purple (which corresponds to Central Italian dialects called "Mediani") remain separated and compact.



If the PCA is rotated then you have almost the silhouette of Italy




This too is nothing new, in Italy there is a genetic cline everywhere, and also follows the languages and the geography of Italy which is narrow and long with few plains. It was shown for the first time by Barbujani and Sokal over 30 years ago, with their studies on the genetic structure of Italians and linguistic boundaries. In fact Tuscan language despite is considered a Central Italial language is not part of the Mediani family group, but constitutes a linguistic family of its own.

Barbujani, G., & Sokal, R. R. (1991). Genetic Population Structure of Italy. II. Physical and Cultural Barriers to Gene Flow. American Journal of Human Genetics, 48, 398-411.



https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1683007/





It is not very clear, but Tuscans are separated from the rest of central Italians because they formed a separate cluster according to the paper, and Tuscans are with some of the groups of northern Italy labelled as NCItaly, while people from Marche and Lazio with the groups labelled as SCItaly. This division corresponds in the various PCA. Instead of dividing the peninsula into three as is usually done (north, center and south) this time have divided it into two (north and south).

I would also like to find some more detailed information on the samples used.

If NCItaly 3 is Toscana, it has less "Caucasus" than Greece, and less than Spain. Also, it has a lot less than southern Italy, of course. Someone should e-mail them and ask them to link the Supplementary Info. You can't critique the paper without it, and especially not without a key to the areas.

@Olympic Mons,
Indeed, and this from the man who did nothing but trash Eurogenes on his own site and everywhere else, and all the people at anthrogenica likewise, and me on this one? You are delusional.

If you indeed don't know that Polako/Davidski on other sites (as well as Generalissimo...now there's a dead give away) is Eurogenes, and that Sikeliot has had many "names", including Portuguese Princess on theapricity (which he ruined, not that I shed tears over it) and that many of the posters on anthrogenica are his "socks", then that might partly explain your inability to put two and two together. You just haven't been in this "hobby" for long enough, which is also why you think you were the first to entertain certain ideas.

[markod]

yes , I know
but Tuscany stands out on its lonesome
same as Aosta

I think Tuscany actually gets 3 clusters of its own (NCItaly1-3), which I guess suggests some degree of internal isolation/drift. What could be the reason for this?



Autosomally Tuscans are thoroughly unexciting though. More steppe than other Italians to their south, less Anatolian BA:



Sicilians are interesting because they get significantly more steppe than other South Italians.

The most interesting and one of the biggest clusters however is SCItaly3 (brown) which covers almost the entire south of Italy and extends into Lazio and Abruzzo. It's almost fully Anatolian Bronze Age with a small WHG component and an even smaller Steppe component.

[brick]

I think Tuscany actually gets 3 clusters of its own (NCItaly1-3), which I guess suggests some degree of internal isolation/drift. What could be the reason for this?

The simplest explanation, three different Tuscan samples.

[markod]

The simplest explanation, three different Tuscan samples.

I don't think those are regional samples. They are genetic clusters.

The phased genome-wide dataset was analysed using the110 CHROMOPAINTER (CP) and fineSTRUCTURE (fS) pipeline (12, 13) (Supplementary materials)111 to generate a tree of groups of individuals with similar “copying vectors” (clusters, Fig. 1A). The112 fraction of pairs of individuals placed in the same cluster across multiple runs was on average 0.95113 for Italian clusters and 0.96 across the whole set of clusters (see Materials and Methods,114 Supplementary materials). Related non-European clusters were merged into larger groups in115 subsequent analyses (see Materials and Methods, Supplementary materials).

[Angela]

I think Tuscany actually gets 3 clusters of its own (NCItaly1-3), which I guess suggests some degree of internal isolation/drift. What could be the reason for this?



Autosomally Tuscans are thoroughly unexciting though. More steppe than other Italians to their south, less Anatolian BA:



Sicilians are interesting because they get significantly more steppe than other South Italians.

The most interesting and one of the biggest clusters however is SCItaly3 (brown) which covers almost the entire south of Italy and extends into Lazio and Abruzzo. It's almost fully Anatolian Bronze Age with a small WHG component and an even smaller Steppe component.

I have no idea, Markod, but that would mean that Umbria, Marche and Lazio all get lumped into South Central Italy?

Also, in that particular graphic, NCItaly 1, 2, and 3, are pretty similar. In others, there are differences. If they actually got samples from the Lunigiana and the Garfagnana, which are in Massa Carrara, they would definitely pull away as they're more like Emilians and eastern Ligurians.

Without the key and the list of samples and their sources, we're a little bit in the dark.

As to Sicilians, as I said recently on another thread, Southern Italy never got the Lombard migrations of the Middle Ages. I'm skeptical of "Norman" influence. The original "Norman" invasion was a couple of dozen knights. More people came from France during the "Lombard" sponsored migrations, but that's a different issue.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lombards_of_Sicily

Still, it's not enough to pull them very far apart from the Calabrians, which makes sense given they were ruled by one entity for hundreds of years, and there's been so much movement back and forth across the Straits of Messina.

With all the talk on the other sites about Levantine migration, I checked again. I don't see any analysis using Levantine Bronze Age. Maybe too much overlap with Anatolia Bronze Age? Look what happened when they used Peloponnese Neolithic.

The only mention I see of the Levant is in one of the Chromopainter schematics, and as the authors themselves seem to recognize, until we get ancient dna it's hard to figure what came where. It only applies to one part of Sicily, however, so, perhaps with the "Moors"?

[markod]

I have no idea, Markod, but that would mean that Umbria, Marche and Lazio all get lumped into South Central Italy?

Also, in that particular graphic, NCItaly 1, 2, and 3, are pretty similar. In others, there are differences. If they actually got samples from the Lunigiana and the Garfagnana, which are in Massa Carrara, they would definitely pull away as they're more like Emilians and eastern Ligurians.

Without the key and the list of samples and their sources, we're a little bit in the dark.

As to Sicilians, as I said recently on another thread, Southern Italy never got the Lombard migrations of the Middle Ages. I'm skeptical of "Norman" influence. The original "Norman" invasion was a couple of dozen knights. More people came from France during the "Lombard" sponsored migrations, but that's a different issue.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lombards_of_Sicily

Still, it's not enough to pull them very far apart from the Calabrians, which makes sense given they were ruled by one entity for hundreds of years, and there's been so much movement back and forth across the Straits of Messina.

With all the talk on the other sites about Levantine migration, I checked again. I don't see any analysis using Levantine Bronze Age. Maybe too much overlap with Anatolia Bronze Age? Look what happened when they used Peloponnese Neolithic.

The only mention I see of the Levant is in one of the Chromopainter schematics, and as the authors themselves seem to recognize, until we get ancient dna it's hard to figure what came where. It only applies to one part of Sicily, however, so, perhaps with the "Moors"?

Yes, however Lazio also gets a significant SItaly3 component, so it has an intermediate position between Abruzzo and Marche. SCItaly1 and SItaly1-3 are very similar in any case as can be seen in the dendogram. Tuscany has almost as much *internal* diversity as there exists between Puglia and the Marche region.

Tuscans and Corsicans populations are also inferred to share common drift to the exclusion of other Italians. Is this simply a result of geographic proximity or is there more to it? I admit that I know very little about the population history of Corsica.

As for Moorish or Levantine input, in the biggest south Italian cluster (SItaly3) it seems to be non-existent. The second most important South Italian cluster (SItaly1) might have around 5% North African input. The other clusters seem to represented isolated cases. Interestingly it just occurred to me that North African input correlates with increased steppe ancestry, especially in those Sicilian outliers. Did Lombards preferentially intermarry with remnants of the Moorish population or something?