@Tutkun
No one in their right mind would deny any of that. The Imperial Era samples plot where they plot; their autosomal make up is what it is. I don't find it at all surprising.
What doesn't seem to make an impression on Blevins or your mind is that there is no way of knowing who these Imperial Age people were. Were they Southern Italians already impacted by Bronze Age and Iron Age migrations perhaps mostly by way of Greece and the Balkans? Were they temporary traders from all over the Empire, but mostly from the East and, say, Egypt, because that was where the wealth was? Did they stay, maybe even for a few generations and then leave, or did they stay and intermingle? Even if they stayed, what happened to all these urban inhabitants?
Do many of them look rather similar to Greeks because they were Southern Italians who moved north and who not only had CHG/Iran Neo from the Neolithic, but from the Greeks of Magna Graecia, whom, one would assume, would still have the CHG/Iran Neo found in Mycenaeans. Did some of that ancestry perhaps come from Bronze Age movements, not forgetting that this would have arrived in combination with more Anatolian Neo, only the ratios being different.
On the other hand, could some of them have been actual Greeks or Anatolians? Of course they could. They were the most prized slaves in the empire, certainly more prized than Illyrian gladiators and those who were not enslaved still were given commissions, came to trade, etc.
Would some of them, living cheek by jowl in the huge crowded urban centers, and particularly Rome, have married? I'm sure some did.
So, how many were just Southern Italians and how many came from Greece and the Greek islands? Will we ever be able to tell the difference?
Then there's the fact of the disappearance of this "tail" into the Levant. A related question is why, during Late Antiquity, did J1 disappear, but not J2? Lack of subsequent migrations might be one reason. Another reason might be that a lot of them were Jews who were periodically expelled. A third reason is that a lot of them were perhaps merchants and entrepreneurs, and toward the end of the Empire Rome and other cities like it began to decline terribly.
The larger reason is that the cities of the Western Empire began to decline, partly because of plague, which spreads quicker in crowded urban centers. Partly because the Western Emperors weren't as good at buying off the barbarians as the Eastern Emperors were. Trade moved elsewhere, and traders of foreign descent moved elsewhere. In terms of Rome, in particular, it had declined so much that the capital of the western Empire was moved to Ravenna. That later emperors never set foot in Rome.
Those who stayed were the poor, and they died.
Then, who repopulated Rome and the other major cities? When someone shows me all this Germanic and British y Dna in Central Italy in Late Antiquity, and the Early Medieval period and Modern Central Italy, I'll believe the paper that there was a mass migration to Central Italy.
Hell, there wasn't even a mass migration to Northern Italy. How much freaking I1 and U-106 is there???? That's a rhetorical question. The answer is not much. I'm sure there were more Gauls from the first millennium BC than from the Germanics of the invasions period.
You people have always treated everything posted at eurogenes as gospel: well, now you have it from your apostle: Italian genetics was mostly complete in the Bronze and Iron Age, which Ralph and Coop said YEARS ago.
]
Oh, and the new PCA posted at the eurogenes site: