Genetic study The origin and legacy of the Etruscans through a 2000-year archeogenomic time transec

Comparison: Apulia vs Salento (me):
top samples are all C6.

… many do not know, but Puglia (Apulia) (Iapygia) is also called “Le Puglie” … plural, … it's complicated :)

ZVEjfrq.gif


cmWC5jd.gif
 
Jov there is this thing in science called statistical significance. There is also this thing in science called a test. Then we have stuff like "context".

C3,4,5 Individuals/or shifted individuals were found in the Italian peninsula both in the Antonio paper as well as the Max Plank Paper(the one we are discussing).

"To further inspect the genetic clustering of the central and southern Italian populations studied, we performed unsupervised ADMIXTURE on 71 individuals (Fig. 2, B and C) after the exclusion of genetically related individuals (table S1B and fig. S2). C.Italy_Etruscan individuals harbor the three genetic ancestries associated with Anatolian Neolithic farmers, European hunter-gatherers, and Bronze Age pastoralists from the Pontic-Caspian Steppe. C.Italy_Etruscan.Ceu carries a higher proportion of “steppe-related ancestry,” while C.Italy_MAS001 shows a genetic component maximized in Iranian Neolithic farmers. The latter is also present in C.Italy_Etruscan.Afr individuals alongside an ancestry component identified in an Early Neolithic Moroccan group."

The local population was all within C1/C2 earlier, such as in the Mesolithic / Eneolithic.
These samples C3 (North African), C4 (Near Eastern), C5 (Eastern Mediterranean) derive their nomenclature based on their ancestry. Despite having specimen before the Imperial Period present on the peninsula.

LVpbKkG.png

*From Antonio et Al



In fact the more I re read the paper the more this all makes sense. All of it pretty much can be also tested with amateur tools, and the tests repeated independently.

1.
pCgBcDz.png



2.
uxbrVjk.png

bsk52PZ.png


3.
f2JsP6D.png
^Just one way to go at it.
I am sure more creative people can use these amateur tools more creatively.
The data speaks for itself.


So no Jov,



This is totally not the case.


Those excerpts text are not from antonio et al, they are from this current paper.

Again, here is the actual excerpt from the paper, to provide insight about those clusters:


Although the data show a shift in the ancestry averaged across all Imperial individuals (referred to as “average ancestry” henceforth) toward eastern populations, the PCA results also suggest variation in ancestry within the population. To further characterize this, we assessed haplotype sharing using ChromoPainter (11), a method more sensitive than allele frequency-based approaches such as PCA. Specifically, we measured the genetic affinity between each ancient Italian individual and a set of modern Eurasian and North African populations by the total length of the haplotype segments shared between them (Fig. 4A) (7). We clustered ancient individuals by their relative haplotype sharing with modern populations and then labeled the resulting clusters by proximity to modern populations in PCA (Fig. 4B).

ChromoPainter analysis reveals diverse ancestries among Imperial individuals (
n = 48), who fall into five distinct clusters (Fig. 4A). Notably, only 2 out of 48 Imperial-era individuals fall in the European cluster (C7) to which 8 out of 11 Iron Age individuals belong. Instead, two-thirds of Imperial individuals (31 out of 48) belong to two major clusters (C5 and C6) that overlap in PCA with central and eastern Mediterranean populations, such as those from southern and central Italy, Greece, Cyprus, and Malta (Fig. 4B). An additional quarter (13 out of 48) of the sampled Imperial Romans form a cluster (C4) defined by high amounts of haplotype sharing with Levantine and Near Eastern populations, whereas no pre-Imperial individuals appear in this cluster (Fig. 4AC). In PCA, some of the individuals in this cluster also project close to four contemporaneous individuals from Lebanon (240 to 630 CE) (fig. S18) (28). In addition, two individuals (R80 and R132) belong to a cluster featuring high haplotype sharing with North African populations (C4) and can be modeled with 30 to 50% North African ancestry in explicit modeling with qpAdm (table S28).

They were not just flying by the seat of their pants using G25. They already had information on these clusters based on their genetics, and who they were closest to, and using qpAdm.


They can already distinguish the fact that people genetically similar to modern Central and Southern Italian ancestry existed in the IA. They we not an amalgamation of C4+C5+C7 or what ever.


Why is it only C6 does not exist to some people, but all the other just happen to exist to support their theory? Think about that.

C6 does exist, and it does have a presence in Italy in the IA. So no argument is going to make these people disappear from memory.
 
Didn't we conclude that the increased autosomal must have been due to females so Y-DNA is not the main driving force.
If you deduct the Slavic and Germanic Y-DNA in Albanians you?re left with ~78% pre-migration Y-DNA.

What you?re saying is that out of those 78%, ~50% of the local men married fully Slavic women and produced 50/50 children, 25% of locals married local women, 50% of local women died single, and after some math and hundreds of years of mixing we ended up with an average of 38% Slavic autosomal ancestry.

Nice! I will so blindly believe this and even start spreading the word around.

Italy was indeed the center and the beginning of the Roman Empire and ?all roads lead to Rome?, so obviously it needs some additional love from the geneticists before arriving to conclusions. Rome was the United States of Europe, 20 random samples ain?t gonna cut it to make the genetic map of Italy.
 
Those excerpts text are not from antonio et al, they are from this current paper.

Again, here is the actual excerpt from the paper, to provide insight about those clusters:




They were not just flying by the seat of their pants using G25. They already had information on these clusters based on their genetics, and who they were closest to, and using qpAdm.


They can already distinguish the fact that people genetically similar to modern Central and Southern Italian ancestry existed in the IA. They we not an amalgamation of C4+C5+C7 or what ever.


Why is it only C6 does not exist to some people, but all the other just happen to exist to support their theory? Think about that.

C6 does exist, and it does have a presence in Italy in the IA. So no argument is going to make these people disappear from memory.

If C6 doesn't exist, than why is the native genetic profile of the Balkans people, which is right next door to Italy, the same as C6 (Central-Southern Italian), existing in the same time in the Iron Age?

It is clear that this ancestry not only existed in Italy, but spanned Italy to the Balkans.
 
Didn't we conclude that the increased autosomal must have been due to females so Y-DNA is not the main driving force.
There is tons of Slavic y-DNA on par with the results of most models used in that study with some small expections like that of Albanians, which will find out why in some years.
The Germanic lines of late antiquity Rome were I1, I2a, R1b and E-V13 from 19 overall samples alone. Do you think that Slavs were pure R1a and I2a? And even those 2 push over 30% in northern Greece alone.
 
If you deduct the Slavic and Germanic Y-DNA in Albanians you�re left with ~78% pre-migration Y-DNA.

What you�re saying is that out of those 78%, ~50% of the local men married fully Slavic women and produced 50/50 children, 25% of locals married local women, 50% of local women died single, and after some math and hundreds of years of mixing we ended up with an average of 38% Slavic autosomal ancestry.

Nice! I will so blindly believe this and even start spreading the word around.

Italy was indeed the center and the beginning of the Roman Empire and �all roads lead to Rome�, so obviously it needs some additional love from the geneticists before arriving to conclusions. Rome was the United States of Europe, 20 random samples ain�t gonna cut it to make the genetic map of Italy.
The admix did not certainly happen in one generation.
 
I find that the person that wrote the article at phys.org also sounds skeptical about the conclusions made by this paper:

"Although more ancient DNA from across Italy is needed to support the above conclusions, ancestry shifts in Tuscany and northern Lazio similar to those reported for the city of Rome and its surroundings suggests that historical events during the first millennium CE had a major impact on the genetic transformations over much of the Italian peninsula."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/news/2021-09-legacy-etruscans.amp
 
Not sure if you are even disagreeing with me at this point Jov. Since everything you say I agree with. In fact, why would I say C6 does not exist, when I... wait for it... am C6 myself, ba dum tss.

Also that quote from the Phys.org article. Kind of supplements my points.

"Although more ancient DNA from across Italy is needed to support the above conclusions, ancestry shifts in Tuscany and northern Lazio similar to those reported for the city of Rome and its surroundings suggests that historical events during the first millennium CE had a major impact on the genetic transformations over much of the Italian peninsula."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.or...-etruscans.amp

Thesis, antithesis, synthesis.

C6 like ancestries are very old. As old as EBA, and MBA. In fact Helladic Log02, Log04 are proof of that.
They 100% exist, the question is about their genesis. They did not drop like an apple from the sky. In fact was it a Lazaridis paper? The one about Helladic samples? Can not recall. But that paper went over the admixture of the Helladic samples, and what contributet to that profile.
During that time from what we know, the Italian peninsula was purely C1-2? No?

:indifferent:
 
:unsure: … the C classification is based on the DNA segment LENGTHS shared between an Ancient sample and a set of modern populations.

the longer the segment, the greater the genetic affinity.

cMs + Statistics = C*
 
There is tons of Slavic y-DNA on par with the results of most models used in that study with some small expections like that of Albanians, which will find out why in some years.
The Germanic lines of late antiquity Rome were I1, I2a, R1b and E-V13 from 19 overall samples alone. Do you think that Slavs were pure R1a and I2a? And even those 2 push over 30% in northern Greece alone.
So there is 30% in Northern Greece. Albanians are a bit more endogamic as far as males are concerned but exogamic as far as females are concerned. Greeks were not.
 
Not sure if you are even disagreeing with me at this point Jov. Since everything you say I agree with. In fact, why would I say C6 does not exist, when I... wait for it... am C6 myself, ba dum tss.

Also that quote from the Phys.org article. Kind of supplements my points.



Thesis, antithesis, synthesis.

C6 like ancestries are very old. As old as EBA, and MBA. In fact Helladic Log02, Log04 are proof of that.
They 100% exist, the question is about their genesis. They did not drop like an apple from the sky. In fact was it a Lazaridis paper? The one about Helladic samples? Can not recall. But that paper went over the admixture of the Helladic samples, and what contributet to that profile.
During that time from what we know, the Italian peninsula was purely C1-2? No?

:indifferent:

I see, for me I speculate that the ethnogenesis of the C6 ancestry began when the Anatolian/Iran_N-like ancestry entered the Italian and Balkan region in the early Bronze age. The people already there could have already had some extra Iran_N-like DNA from the neolithic era like Greece_N, and C.Italian_N shows, adding to the total. Then of course there were later migrations from Greek, and Balkan people into the area, exchanging similar DNA. The reason why Balkans_IA is similar to C6 in Italy, is because they are from similar source populations. Croatian_IA/BA, Slovenian_IA, are similar to Northern Italians during that era. Likewise the "southern" source is the same and or similar, i.e. Aegean IA/BA. The Balkans are very close to Italy, geographically. I think it is likely that there could have been a homogeneous population that lived there during classical antiquity. Basically, the cline been Northern Balkan/C.Italian-like people, and Aegean_IA-like people. Were there some Cypriot or Maltese-like influences, I sure there were, as were there influences from other exotic sources. But I think that the general-cline making up the majority of ancestry of C6-like people is similar to that of Balkan_IA.
 
Tuscan and Albanians are modeled similarly in Raveane et al. 2018. both of them have been modeled with ABA as a component, where the author suggests there was a early Bronze age migration of this kind of ancestry.

Olalde et al. 2021 shows that the C6-like ancestry found in the Balkans is native to the region (Slovenian_IA + Aegean_IA).

Posth et al. 2021 says that the C6-like ancestry found in Tuscany is a result of Etruscan+Eastern Mediterranean (of dubious ancestry) in the Imperial age.

However, Antonio et al. 2019 found that this C6-like ancestry was found among one of the members of a Latin tribe during the Iron Age.

Antonio et al. 2019 also found that relative to other farmers in Europe, Central Italian Farmers had an increased amount of Iran_N. To me this indicates that it had been arriving since before the early bronze age, and and like Greece_N, southern Italy had similar ancestry with elevated Iran_N.

Therefore, I believe the C6 ancestry is indeed native to Italy, and the Balkans. It was during the Imperial era that this ancestry expanded throughout the empire. Which is why you see it in later periods throughout Italy, in places like Lazio, and Tuscany.

DtHmqxF.jpg
 
The current linguistic consensus is that Albanian is a thracian or dacian language, and that is definitely has a lot of dacian influence. This combined with the fact that the Iron-Age Moldova samples (scy197,192,305,300) plot extremely close to Albanians means something may be happening there. Those samples on K13 also score similar levels of baltic to modern Albanians on K13.
 
Tuscan and Albanians are modeled similarly in Raveane et al. 2018. both of them have been modeled with ABA as a component, where the author suggests there was a early Bronze age migration of this kind of ancestry.



Models come and go like the wind. From Olaide 2021 we know the roman imperial cluster was very distinct to balkans IA.

For northern Greeks/ South Balkans, it seemed that Iron-Age Greek + Slav worked fine, has anyone does these qpadm runs for Italians? Do they pass? I'm curious, shouldn't seem hard to do since another user on AG had admixtools running himself (I knew Empuries + slav worked before the paper because he posted those runs).
 
Neither am I aware of such consensus.

And to be honest I think we will never know. I trust Johane is the most knowledgable person on such issues in this forum.

In my opinion, its a question akin to is English a Germanic or Latin language? And in my opinion, any answer given to such question is wrong. I think whether Albanian is of Thracian or Illyrian descent is even more problematic, since we lack writen sources for both languages, both those languages could have been related to begin with, it could have descended from a third group of speakers in the Balkans, or like the case of English, be of dual nature.

Anyone claiming proof of otherwise, is either a liar or missinformed.
 
Models come and go like the wind. From Olaide 2021 we know the roman imperial cluster was very distinct to balkans IA.

For northern Greeks/ South Balkans, it seemed that Iron-Age Greek + Slav worked fine, has anyone does these qpadm runs for Italians? Do they pass? I'm curious, shouldn't seem hard to do since another user on AG had admixtools running himself (I knew Empuries + slav worked before the paper because he posted those runs).

"Roman Imperial Cluster" is not an ethnic monolithic group, which I have already pointed out that Antonio et al 2019 demonstrated. Rather they are different meta-ethnic groups, organized into different cohorts by genetic affinity.
 
Those excerpts text are not from antonio et al, they are from this current paper.

Again, here is the actual excerpt from the paper, to provide insight about those clusters:




They were not just flying by the seat of their pants using G25. They already had information on these clusters based on their genetics, and who they were closest to, and using qpAdm.


They can already distinguish the fact that people genetically similar to modern Central and Southern Italian ancestry existed in the IA. They we not an amalgamation of C4+C5+C7 or what ever.


Why is it only C6 does not exist to some people, but all the other just happen to exist to support their theory? Think about that.

C6 does exist, and it does have a presence in Italy in the IA. So no argument is going to make these people disappear from memory.

Excellent summary, Jovialis. C6 people did exist, and R437 is in C6. Since that First Millennium BCE sample was analyzed in depth, we can make an educated logical deduction as to how C6 people were created, i.e. what admixtures went into creating them.

The authors called C5 East Mediterranean Anatolian Iron Age like, or perhaps Aegean Iron Age like might be a better description, encompassing also Western Anatolia? They're not from the Levant, whether or not all of them contributed to the modern Italian gene pool.

C4, the smallest group, which they describe as Near Eastern, is actually from the Levant, and disappeared in subsequent periods. Did SOME contribute SOME ancestry to the Italian gene pool? Perhaps some did, but they disappeared as well because Rome ceased to be the center of the Empire economically and politically.

I don't see what is so difficult to understand.

We found out recently that there were Levantine like slaves working in tanning factories on the outskirts of Rome. Do people really think that those people were all manumitted and admixed into society? The only slaves who became manumitted would have been slaves who could perform high level functions, not tanners or miners or galley slaves or slaves worked to death in latifundia. Perhaps that's why we don't find Gallic or Germanic remains in the Imperial period. Perhaps that's why there was admixture with some C5 people.
 
"Roman Imperial Cluster" is not an ethnic monolithic group, which I have already pointed out that Antonio et al 2019 demonstrated. Rather they are different meta-ethnic groups, organized into different cohorts by genetic affinity.

How many times do you think you're going to have to repeat that, and refer people to the graphic.

How many times do you think it has to be pointed out which Imperial Age cluster is similar to the Balkan Iron Age Cluster.

Good grief!

It's as if people don't read the papers or they don't understand what they read.
 
Using Pre Rome Imperial Etruscan the Nordic impact will lose 3% to 5% from the overall percentage. But still it does not add up. I just checked the population of Sicily, it is estimated that 600,000 people lived in the island during the imperial period. So I suppose 300,000 people lived in Tuscany minimally. You would need 60,000 Germanic people all to settle down to Tuscany to make percentage and that is the number of total Germanic that entered Italy. It is mathematically impossible.

Something is missing, for sure.
 

This thread has been viewed 129857 times.

Back
Top