Talk on Ancient Italian/Roman DNA over in Stanford.

How was there not an increase in Steppe ancestry (EHG as a tracer for this) in the Early Bronze Age? From what he said, it seems like this ancestry only arrived in the Iron Age - what?!

It would be great to know if this Bronze Age increase in WHG and EEF was more pronounced in terms of WHG or in terms of EEF. The Beaker groups in Central Europe were very WHG rich (compared to, say, the more obvious Steppe groups like CWC), so perhaps this is from a theoretical pre-Steppe admixed Bell Beaker group. The other alternative is that Iran_N was an elite element in the Chalcolithic, and that during the Early Bronze Age this had been diluted with the EEF natives. Still, I would have expected some EHG if this is Bronze Age. Perhaps the arrival of U152 Beaker folk was initially limited to Northern Italy?
 
Lactase persistence arriving around 0 AD suggests its presence in Europeans is due to recent selection rather than due to demic diffusion
 
My guess is that the Italic languages were spoken by G2, I2, Es, Ts perhaps some Js and others.
 
Messier 67 said:
My guess is that the Italic languages were spoken by G2, I2, Es, Ts perhaps some Js and others.
Click to expand...

That's just stupid and you know it. The Italic languages don't date back to the early Italian Neolithic, they either came in the Early Bronze Age with the arrival of U152 Bell Beakers, or (very unlikely) later in the Bronze Age.
 
I think you gentlemen missed the following:

"Isotope information not available yet, no way apart from archaeological context to tell between migrants and locals."

So, I would suggest waiting for the paper and the results by sample, and with the isotope information, i.e. which were migrants and which locals. Also keep in mind that these are all samples from Lazio. No Sicilian or Southern Italian or Northern Italian or Tuscan samples.

As for Iran Neo in the Italian Neolithic, let's see, who was it who came on here to tell me that I was insane to think that Iran Neo might have arrived in Italy not only before "all the slaves" during the days of the Empire, but perhaps all the way back to the Neolithic? I kept on saying this component had been in Italy at least since the late Neolithic, perhaps bordering on the Chalcolithic, as Otzi showed, as I must have said a hundred times. Maybe it's even a bit earlier. After all, it would have had to make its way all the way up the boot to the Alps. Let's see, could it have been Polako, and Sikeliot, and Azzurro who were so incredulous? Are you lurking, guys, ready to downvote? I can see them, you know.

I'd been saying this since the days I was active on the defunct DNA Forums, and on the forum at 23andme. Epic arguments I've had with all of them over the years. Well, now we know.

And well, well, Early Bronze Age central Italians are still a lot like Sardinians. It will be interesting to see the dates. Is this after the arrival of populations from central Europe? If it's before, was there culture transfer without gene transfer? So when did the Central Europeans actually arrive?

Also, what do you know? Republican Romans show the following:
"Fewer samples, of those that exist 60% overlap with North Italy, 40% overlap with South Italy and Sicily, centroid of overall cluster in central Italy but no samples occur there, very wide spread.
EHG appears, Levant N Appears for the first time, sporadic and inhomogeneous distribution, Iran_N increases further."

So, the most northern samples, perhaps the more upper class Romans? overlap with Northern Italians, and the rest with Southern Italians. Tsk, tsk, I guess the Romans who, how did the poster put it, started European civilization were NOT Germans, or Scandinavians, or North East Europeans, or pure Indo-Europeans, or Corded Ware, or Central European Beakers. They're closest to modern day North Italians. :)

As for the EHG coming in, and the Levant, let's see which samples have it and how much. I completely understand the continued increase in Iran Neo. All of the southern regions, with their inhabitants of Greek descent, were being incorporated into the Republic. That's what all those wars were about for the few who actually know some Roman history.

"IMPERIAL PERIOD
Dense cluster centroid between Greeks, Cypriots, South Italians/Sicilians, and Syrians, closest to Sicilians. Long tail stretching from central cluster to Syrians and Iraqi Jews. Couple of Northern-shifted samples overlapping N Italy, France, Spain.
Iran_N increases further, Levant N again sporadic and inhomogeneous."

Well, if a lot of the samples are from port cities this is not surprising. (Frankly, I don't see the point in their releasing this kind of data without delineating between migrants, who could have been temporary, or slaves, and locals). As I said, we'll see how many of the samples are "locals", and whether they're all from urban settings. The latter is very important. I'd want to see the yDna as well. There were a lot of Jews in Rome. I must say, though, I thought the whole Levant was supposed to have emptied and come to Italy. That's what Sikeliot told me, anyway. Only SPORADIC and inhomogeneous Levant Neo? What a letdown for him. What we're seeing, instead, is early and continuing Iran Neo.

For the future, I think it's going to be very important to see the local Southern Italian samples. Did they, as a result of Greek colonization, contain enough Iran Neo to account for the increase further up the peninsula on their own, or was there some incorporation of outsiders?

"LATE ANTIQUITY
Tight cluster centroid in S Italy, in the same place as in the previous period. Southern tail to Middle East disappears. N Italian, Northern European and NW European outliers exist."

Good grief, how can this be? I thought all of North Africa arrived in Sicily and Southern Italy. How can they be basically the same as they were in Late Antiquity? Even if they're including the 8th century in their definition of Late Antiquity, the samples of that period are still basically the same as those from the Imperial period. So, no room for a huge effect by the Moors. I always figured somewhere under 10% maximum.

Well, I've had enough fun. Let's wait for the paper. :)
 
So to summarise:

pre-Neolithic = Typical WHGs

Neolithic = Mostly EEF with some additional WHG (i.e. typically Sardinian-like). Iran_N appears too though, and whether this dates to the Early or Late Neolithic is a big deal. If to the Early Neolithic, it makes no sense whatsoever. If to the Later Neolithic, like with the Iran_N that appeared in Greece, it suggests a spread of Iran_N with the spread of copper metallurgy (which seems more likely).

Early Bronze Age = Decrease in this Iran_N ancestry and resurgence in the Neolithic EEF and WHG. This resurgence was due to the dilution of Iran_N ancestry (presumably originally from metallurgical elites) from mixing with typical Neolithic types. Steppe ancestry does not appear - this suggests that R1b-U152 Bell Beaker types were initially limited to the Northern Italian Polada culture.

Roman Kingdom to Roman Republic = Heterogenous, with one group clustering around Northern Italy and another group clustering around Southern Italy with little in between, suggesting confluence of two different peoples. This period marks the first signs of EHG, presumably related to the Northern group and ultimately the original Italics, and Levant_N, presumably related to the Southern group and representing immigration from the Western Near East (Iran_N increases too, and this is also probably related to the spread of Steppe ancestry from the North and notably from the Greek colonisation of Southern Italy, which likely provided most of this Iran_N ancestry).

Roman Empire = Northern and Southern groups from the preceding period have blended together, meaning the modern cline from Northern to Southern Italy has been formed, but in this case the large Iran_N component from Magna Graecia and from the Western Middle East has shifted this Southwards compared to nowadays. Besides this homogenous blended group and the cases of Western Middle Easterners, a separate small group exists clustering around the previous Northern group, who for whatever reason did not blend (so either elites and/or cultural conservatives). A further separate group exists, clustering around modern-day Lebanese individuals.

Late Antiquity = Disappearance of Western Middle Eastern (Lebanese-like) individuals, but the vast majority of the samples still form a homogenous group around Southern Italians. Northern group outliers remain as before, but new Northern European individuals appear (presumably Germanics).

Middle Ages = Modern Central Italy

Implications:

Iran_N, unless confirmed to have been present in the Early Neolithic, spread with copper metallurgy from the Eastern Mediterranean

Steppe ancestry in Italy spread from the North, and reached Central Italy sometime in the Middle Bronze Age to form a Northern group; immigration from the Middle East occurs from the Iron Age, mixing with the previous Sardinian-like folk to form a Southern group

This Northern group, similar to modern Northern Italians, was initially segregated from the Southern group, similar to modern South Italians. These groups had blended together by the time of the Roman Empire. Northern Italian outliers exist, who apparently resisted this blend, who were either the Roman elite or simply cultural conservatives. Middle Eastern outliers also exist, plotting roughly around modern-day Lebanese individuals (and presumably it was these people, along with the Greeks, who added the Middle Eastern ancestry to form the Southern group).

This situation continues to the Late Antiquity period, with the Northern Italian elites/conservatives remaining separated, but the Middle Eastern outliers have moved on or mixed in. Germanic warriors appear.

By the Middle Ages, this smaller Northern Italian-like group (as well as the Germanics in all likelihood) has blended with the larger Southern Italian-like group, shifting this fully homogenous group North to its current present admixture.

One can only speculate, but the Middle Eastern outliers plotting near modern-day Lebanese presumably represent Jews, who were historically by far the largest immigrant group from the Middle East in the Roman Empire.

Also, this puts the nail in the coffin for those still hoping for Northern European elites ruling classical Greece and Italy (i.e. the foundational civilisations of the West). These likely elites were Northern-shifted though, existing in their own caste for some time, and likely had lighter pigmentation, but they were certainly nothing like modern Northern Europeans.
 
ToBeOrNotToBe said:
So to summarise:

pre-Neolithic = Typical WHGs

Neolithic = Mostly EEF with some additional WHG (i.e. typically Sardinian-like). Iran_N appears too though, and whether this dates to the Early or Late Neolithic is a big deal. If to the Early Neolithic, it makes no sense whatsoever. If to the Later Neolithic, like with the Iran_N that appeared in Greece, it suggests a spread of Iran_N with the spread of copper metallurgy (which seems more likely).

Early Bronze Age = Decrease in this Iran_N ancestry and resurgence in the typical Neolithic EEF and WHG. Two possibilities here: this resurgence was due to the dilution of Iran_N ancestry (presumably originally from metallurgical elites) from mixing with typical Neolithic types, and/or due to admixture with some WHG-enriched group different to typical Neolithic folk. The first scenario alone seems the more likely to me. Steppe ancestry does not appear - this suggests that R1b-U152 Bell Beaker types were initially limited to the Northern Italian Polada culture.

Roman Kingdom to Roman Republic = Heterogenous, with one group clustering around Northern Italy and another group clustering around Southern Italy with little in between, suggesting confluence of two different peoples. This period marks the first signs of EHG, presumably related to the Northern group and ultimately the original Italics, and Levant_N, presumably related to the Southern group and representing immigration from the Western Near East (Iran_N increases too, but this is also probably related to the spread of Steppe ancestry from the North).

Roman Empire = Northern and Southern groups from the preceding period have blended together, meaning the modern cline from Northern to Southern Italy has been formed, but in this case the introduction of groups from the Middle East (as represented by the focal point of the cluster being roughly Sicilian and the existence of a "tail" stretching roughly to modern Lebanese) has shifted this Southwards compared to nowadays. Besides this homogenous blended group and the cases of Western Middle Easterners, a separate small group exists clustering around the previous Northern group, who for whatever reason did not blend (so either elites or cultural conservatives).

Late Antiquity = Disappearance of Western Middle Eastern individuals, but the vast majority of the samples still form a homogenous group around Sicilians. Northern group outliers remain as before, but new Northern European individuals appear (presumably Germanics).

Middle Ages = Modern Central Italy


Implications:

Iran_N, unless confirmed to have been present in the Early Neolithic, spread with copper metallurgy from the Eastern Mediterranean

Steppe ancestry in Italy spread from the North, and reached Central Italy sometime in the Middle Bronze Age to form a Northern group; immigration from the Middle East occurs from the Iron Age, mixing with the previous Sardinian-like folk to form a Southern group

This Steppe group, similar to modern Northern Italians, was initially segregated from a different Southern group, similar to modern South Italians. These groups had blended together by the time of the Roman Empire, with additional Middle Eastern ancestry compared to nowadays, moving this cluster to near modern-day Sicilians. Northern Italian outliers exist, who apparently resisted this blend, who were either the Roman elite or simply cultural conservatives. Middle Eastern outliers also exist, plotting roughly around modern-day Lebanese individuals.

This situation continues to the Late Antiquity period, with the Northern Italian elites/conservatives remaining, but the Middle Eastern outliers have disappeared (WITHOUT changing the genetic profile of the masses). Germanic barbarians appear.

By the Middle Ages, this smaller Northern Italian group has blended with the Southern Italian mass, shifting this fully homogenous group North to its current present admixture.

One can only speculate, but the Middle Eastern outliers plotting near modern-day Lebanese presumably represent Jews
Click to expand...

We've come a long way since my arguments on dna forums trying to point out that copper metallurgy DID NOT come to Italy with steppe people and R1b.

Unless some major paper has eluded me, we don't know anything about the genetics of the Polada people or when and with whom U-152 arrived. Let's stick to FACTS, shall we?

You're forgetting all those Greeks in southern Italy, who, if they were anything like the Mycenaeans, had quite a bit of Iran Neo, and haplogroup J, and were being incorporated into the Republic.

Northern Italians are not similar to any steppe group whatsoever. They are not even Central Europeans. The Alps did indeed spare us the magnitude of the turnover experienced there. When the Italic speaking groups arrived, who would indeed have carried steppe ancestry, I think we will find they admixed with the Sardinian like inhabitants. To this day, the closest people to Sardinians are Northern Italians. The people in Italy with the highest Anatolian Neolithic are Northern Italians.

We don't have any idea what Southern Italians and Sicilians looked like genetically in the Republican Age or the Imperial Age, so we have no way of knowing what and how much "other" ancestry was incorporated by them, which could then have made it's way up the peninsula. I also fail to see how "sporadic" Levantine could have had much of an impact. I think we might find those samples are indeed Levantine residents in the capital. There I agree with you.

Once again, I think you are ignoring the impact of Greek colonization.

We will only be able to revise these issues with facts when we have the paper in front of us.

As always,
 
Angela said:
We've come a long way since my arguments on dna forums trying to point out that copper metallurgy DID NOT come to Italy with steppe people and R1b.

Unless some major paper has eluded me, we don't know anything about the genetics of the Polada people or when and with whom U-152 arrived. Let's stick to FACTS, shall we?

You're forgetting all those Greeks in southern Italy, who, if they were anything like the Mycenaeans, had quite a bit of Iran Neo, and haplogroup J, and were being incorporated into the Republic.

Northern Italians are not similar to any steppe group whatsoever. They are not even Central Europeans. The Alps did indeed spare us the magnitude of the turnover experienced there. When the Italic speaking groups arrived, who would indeed have carried steppe ancestry, I think we will find they admixed with the Sardinian like inhabitants. To this day, the closest people to Sardinians are Northern Italians. The people in Italy with the highest Anatolian Neolithic are Northern Italians.

We don't have any idea what Southern Italians and Sicilians looked like genetically in the Republican Age or the Imperial Age, so we have no way of knowing what and how much "other" ancestry was incorporated by them, which could then have made it's way up the peninsula. I also fail to see how "sporadic" Levantine could have had much of an impact. I think we might find those samples are indeed Levantine residents in the capital. There I agree with you.

Once again, I think you are ignoring the impact of Greek colonization.

We will only be able to revise these issues with facts when we have the paper in front of us.

As always,
Click to expand...

True, I didn't consider the impact of Greek colonisation - some of the extra Iran_N that formed this Southern group could have come from there rather than the Middle East. It does seem unlikely that Middle Eastern migration would occur before the Imperial period. In fact, I'd say most of it came from the Greeks rather than the Middle East, as the additional West Asian ancestry during the period of the Roman Empire seems to have changed little. This extra Iran_N (from the Imperial period) was surely Middle Eastern, though, given the Lebanese-like samples.

I concede, though, that the ancient Jews would have been Lebanese-like. I do think they would have looked different, for whatever reason, to the modern Lebanese though - I stand by my point of e.g. high red hair being unexplainable by European admixture. A typically West Asian Jordanian sample with light skin, red hair and blue eyes dates to the 3rd millennium BCE, so I think that Jews (and Ashkenazim in particular) preserved this ancestry better, before mixing with this Southern group after immigrating to Italy
 
I wonder when Y DNA J2 arrives - whether it relates to a copper or bronze age migration.
 
the Iran_N in Neolithic Italy must have crashed many ideas, i would bet that they tried first admixtures with steppes... and... oh, wait!
Yamnayans in Neolithic Italy! when something is wrong finaly it pops up (or down), they needed to check with other pops, and EHG enters the penninsula when Urnfielders of Villanova start to cross the Alps, and so with the first IE languages to deal, Celtic and Italic.
 
berun said:
and EHG enters the penninsula when Urnfielders of Villanova start to cross the Alps, and so with the first IE languages to deal, Celtic and Italic.
Click to expand...

or the Danubian admixed Terramare...

Utilizzando Tapatalk
 
Is anyone really surprised that the Romans were autosomally southern Italian :grin:
 
im not very surprised...if i'm not wrong Roman dialect belonged to the southern dialects till the Renaissance...now is Central Italian

Utilizzando Tapatalk
 
markod said:
Is anyone really surprised that the Romans were autosomally southern Italian :grin:
Click to expand...


LrMwiIQ.jpg


:unsure: No :giggle:
 
Cato said:
im not very surprised...if i'm not wrong Roman dialect belonged to the southern dialects till the Renaissance...now is Central Italian

Utilizzando Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Right roman dialect resembled the neapolitan one till the renaissance with the big inflow of florentines changed the landscape and shifted north the pronaunciation.
 
etrusco said:
Right roman dialect resembled the neapolitan one till the renaissance with the big inflow of florentines changed the landscape and shifted north the pronaunciation.
Click to expand...
exactly

Utilizzando Tapatalk
 
apology double post.
 
markod said:
Is anyone really surprised that the Romans were autosomally southern Italian :grin:
Click to expand...

Oh, I can imagine there is some heart burning. :) There is a deafening silence about it from certain quarters. I'm afraid the late 19th century "anthropologists" and "historians" got this wrong too, just like they got the Mycenaeans wrong, yes?

Technically, though, that's only true in the Imperial period, after, I believe, the incorporation of the southern parts of Italy. In the Republican period you have two groups it seems, one modern day Northern Italian like, and one Southern Italian like. What will be interesting to see is if the "northern" group is more "local" than the southern group, of if there was a division even before all the wars to incorporate the south. I've always believed that the patricians and plebeians were basically the same people, but perhaps not. If they weren't, then the conflicts were "ethnic" as well as "class" oriented struggles for power.
 
Let's hope someone has the sense to test early Samnite samples. Those will be much more informative of Original Italic DNA than the Latins who probably absorbed no insignificant number of Etruscans.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 40643 times.

Back
Top