Pax Augusta
Elite member
Really they are different from native Apulians?
They are saying that originally are more similar to Central Italian IA groups.
All samples are from Campania, including the Villanovan/Etruscans.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Really they are different from native Apulians?
I want to be a honest broker, so if I must own up I were wrong I'll admit to it, and say that the folks at anthrogenica were right about both a massive (really massive) influx of Levantine and then a substantial Germanic input, yet they too must admit that they were wrong to the extent they greatly underestimated it: even the boldest claim at anthrogenica was around 30% Levant_BA at maximum in deep south Italy, yet it seems it is at around slightly less than 40-50% in Tuscans (if they were 60-50% Levantine, depending on whether Israel or Alalakh is used, then 20% Longobard would mean 48-40% Levantine in central Italians in the middle ages), and as a result even the Germanic input they greatly underestimated.
snip*
You're doing it all wrong. Because you're too obsessed with what the outcome might be for Southern Italy.
The paper on Campania is coming out, and it concludes that the Campanian/Italics were like Etruscans and Latins. Try the math again now.
No present-day Italian populations are consistent with deriving from the C.Italy_Early.Medieval cluster (P values below 0.05), although high-coverage genomes from Tuscany (Tuscan.DG) yielded no grounds for strong rejection of genetic continuity (P = 0.02)
They are saying that originally are more similar to Central Italian IA groups.
All samples are from Campania, including the Villanovan/Etruscans.
They are saying that originally are more similar to Central Italian IA groups.
All samples are from Campania, including the Villanovan/Etruscans.
It is really not understandable why they ended up in this study. It's not even an area where there were Etruscans.
Really they are different from native Apulians?
48 individuals from 800 to 1 BCE (Iron Age and Roman Republic), 6 individuals from 1 to 500 CE (Imperial period), and 28 individuals from 500 to 1000 CE (12 from central Italy and 16 from southern Italy)
Quite strong words when I have just exposed my reasoning, and believe me that I shall sleep at night even if southern Italians came out as 100% Saudi.
If the Campanians (as the bulk of it) were Italic-like, as I've stated, my conjecture would change.
By the way, the outcome for southern Italy is roughly the same for that for central and north Italy, though on slightly different levels, and I have "no dog in the race" since I am both southern and northern Italian.
The paper stated that:
Which can explain why Razib khan (quite cryptically) stated on twitter when he said that "this paper confirms his podcast", that is that those folks died out to be replaced by locals.
Do you understand that Posth's explanation is very weak, or not? It is only statistics, the same statistics used for years to make us to believe that Etruscans were not autochthonous and come from Mars. Now the scenario has completely flipped.
It is clear that imperial Rome has changed many things and that the genetic profile of the Etruscans does not exist anymore, as the profile of practically all the pre-Roman iron Italy does not exist. As well as it is clear that the DNA of the eastern Mediterranean arrived during imperial Rome is not all gone and that certainly the Germanic DNA arrived later is not all gone.
But these proposed are models and that are still based on a few samples. In Italy there is a genetic cline, you cannot make these models on a population without involving all Italians, not to mention that there are not enough uniparental markers that can support the results of these models. The more you increase certain components that shift south, the more you need components that shift north to bring you back to today's position.
All of these models then rely on the assumption that the needed populations were unadmixed. So much so that the study says that 20% of North European DNA comes from individuals carrying unadmixed northern European genetic ancestry. Eh, but how many were really unadmixed? It's all much more complicated than these models. Too bad that Collegno cemetery was full of people with the most diverse genetic profiles. Only those with unadmixed northern European genetic ancestry mixed with the local population? The only sure thing is that the gene pool of central Italians, but this is true for all Italians, began to form after 1000 AD.
Razib Khan is the same guy who until just before 2019 wondered where the Etruscans came from. C'mon.
Do you understand that Posth's explanation is very weak, or not? It is only statistics, the same statistics used for years to make us to believe that Etruscans were not autochthonous and come from Mars. Now the scenario has completely flipped.
It is clear that imperial Rome has changed many things and that the genetic profile of the Etruscans does not exist anymore, as the profile of practically all the pre-Roman iron Italy does not exist. As well as it is clear that the DNA of the eastern Mediterranean arrived during imperial Rome is not all gone and that certainly the Germanic DNA arrived later is not all gone.
But these proposed are models and that are still based on a few samples. In Italy there is a genetic cline, you cannot make these models on a population without involving all Italians, not to mention that there are not enough uniparental markers that can support the results of these models. The more you increase certain components that shift south, the more you need components that shift north to bring you back to today's position.
All of these models then rely on the assumption that the needed populations were unadmixed. So much so that the study says that 20% of North European DNA comes from individuals carrying unadmixed northern European genetic ancestry. Eh, but how many were really unadmixed? It's all much more complicated than these models. Too bad that Collegno cemetery was full of people with the most diverse genetic profiles. Only those with unadmixed northern European genetic ancestry mixed with the local population? The only sure thing is that the gene pool of central Italians, but this is true for all Italians, began to form after 1000 AD.
Razib Khan is the same guy who until just before 2019 wondered where the Etruscans came from. C'mon.
Jovialis post #10
Distance to: Duarte 9.25598725 C.Italy_Etruscan_related:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_356-96BCE:TAQ001 10.20708088 C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio):TAQ016 10.35823827 :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012 10.40551777 C.Italy_Etruscan_related:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany)_380-204BCE:CSN010 10.82643524 C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN013 10.97969490 C.Italy_Etruscan:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_346-51BCE:TAQ015 11.01859338 C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio):TAQ013 11.06370191 C.Italy_Etruscan:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany)_533-392BCE:CSN006 11.12235587 C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN008 11.19851329 C.Italy_Etruscan:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_356-96BCE:TAQ024 11.23924375 C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN005 11.48003484 C.Italy_EtruscanoggioRenzo(Siena_Tuscany)_772-436BCERZ002 11.50595498 C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_:TAQ004 11.53930674 C.Italy_Etruscan:CampigliadeiFoci(Siena_Tuscany)_780-540BCE:CAM001 11.64089773 C.Italy_Etruscan:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_750-406BCE:VET001 11.66283842 C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio):TAQ008 11.81583260 C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN001 11.83354131 C.Italy_Etruscan:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany)_380-204BCE:CSN003 11.87767233 C.Italy_Etruscan_related:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_356-96BCE:TAQ017 11.93160090 C.Italy_Etruscan:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_358-98BCE:TAQ019 12.00538629 C.Italy_Etruscan:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_788-545BCE:VET010 12.08740253 C.Italy_Etruscan:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_800-590BCE:VET003_4 12.08808091 C.Italy_Etruscan:CampigliadeiFoci(Siena_Tuscany)_770-540BCE:CAM003 12.10366473 C.Italy_Etruscan:Volterra(Pisa_Tuscany)_200-60BCE:VOL001 12.13397297 C.Italy_Etruscan_related:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_346-51BCE:TAQ005
Target: Duarte
Distance: 4.9802% / 4.9801661630.8 :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012 25.5 :Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_750-413BCE:VET011 24.5 C.Italy_Etruscan_related:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany)_380-204BCE:CSN010 8.1 C.Italy_Early.Medieval_undated:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany):ETR012 5.1 S.Italy_Venosa_related:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_670-775CE:VEN010 3.2 S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_672-800CE:VEN018 2.8 S.Italy_Venosa_VEN002:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_650-800CE:VEN002
Distance to: Duarte 5.71283954 55.60% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012 + 44.40% C.Italy_Etruscan:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)_805-774BCE:ETR005 6.14483435 55.60% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012 + 44.40% C.Italy_Etruscan_related:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_346-51BCE:TAQ005 6.25573479 69.60% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012 + 30.40% C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)_772-888CE:ETR006 6.42054177 51.80% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012 + 48.20% C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN013 6.43117110 52.40% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012 + 47.60% C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio):TAQ013 6.52224720 52.40% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012 + 47.60% C.Italy_Etruscan:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_346-51BCE:TAQ015 6.56370470 67.00% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012 + 33.00% S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_660-766CE:VEN008 6.67938654 55.40% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012 + 44.60% C.Italy_Etruscan_related:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_356-96BCE:TAQ017 6.68125709 60.60% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012 + 39.40% C.Italy_Etruscan:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_790-550BCE:VET002 6.70205573 60.80% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012 + 39.20% C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio):TAQ012 6.77249138 56.00% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012 + 44.00% C.Italy_Etruscan:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_800-590BCE:VET003_4 6.77491340 46.00% C.Italy_Etruscan.Afr:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_396-216BCE:TAQ023 + 54.00% C.Italy_Etruscan.Ceu:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_360-200BCE:VET005 6.79509036 44.60% C.Italy_Etruscan:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany)_380-204BCE:CSN003 + 55.40% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012 6.80827790 61.40% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012 + 38.60% C.Italy_Etruscan_related:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_346-51BCE:TAQ018 6.82035602 62.00% C.Italy_Etruscan_related:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany)_380-204BCE:CSN010 + 38.00% :Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_750-413BCE:VET011 6.83632398 54.80% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012 + 45.20% C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio):TAQ008 6.84279399 35.60% C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN007 + 64.40% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012 6.92103862 49.40% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012 + 50.60% C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio):TAQ016 6.92468012 39.60% C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN004 + 60.40% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012 6.94008642 60.20% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012 + 39.80% C.Italy_Etruscan:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_806-599BCE:VET007 6.94447338 47.20% C.Italy_Etruscan:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany)_533-392BCE:CSN006 + 52.80% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012 7.04884449 75.20% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012 + 24.80% C.Italy_Etruscan.Afr:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_372-204BCE:VET008 7.06419513 43.60% C.Italy_Etruscan:CampigliadeiFoci(Siena_Tuscany)_770-540BCE:CAM003 + 56.40% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012 7.06468641 44.40% C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN001 + 55.60% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012 7.07728941 56.40% C.Italy_Etruscan_related:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany)_380-204BCE:CSN010 + 43.60% C.Italy_Etruscan_related:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_346-51BCE:TAQ005
Distance to: | Torziok12b |
---|---|
7.47945854 | C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN005 |
7.77274083 | C.Italy_Etruscan:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany)_427-265BCE:CSN009 |
8.85378450 | C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN008 |
9.41315569 | C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)775-945CE:ETR007 |
9.57447649 | C.Italy_Etruscan:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_750-406BCE:VET001 |
9.89305312 | C.Italy_Etruscan_MAS001:Marsilianad'Albegna(Grosseto_Tuscany)_350-100BCE:MAS001 |
10.99554455 | C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_:TAQ006 |
11.05177814 | C.Italy_Etruscan.Ceu:CampigliadeiFoci(Siena_Tuscany)_770-520BCE:CAM002 |
11.17633214 | C.Italy_Etruscan:Volterra(Pisa_Tuscany)_200-60BCE:VOL001 |
11.32613350 | C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_1018-1151CE:TAQ022 |
11.63097588 | C.Italy_Etruscan:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany)_533-392BCE:CSN006 |
11.80943267 | C.Italy_Etruscan_related:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany)_380-204BCE:CSN010 |
11.86362508 | C.Italy_Etruscan:Marsilianad'Albegna(Grosseto_Tuscany)_804-557BCE:MAS004 |
11.98595845 | C.Italy_Imperial:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_89-236CE:TAQ020 |
12.05735460 | C.Italy_Early.MedievaloggioPelliccia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_772-960CEOP001 |
12.13428201 | C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN013 |
12.20780898 | C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_895-1016CE:TAQ011 |
12.54692393 | C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)_997-1149CE:ETR003 |
12.64932014 | C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_899-1021CE:TAQ009 |
12.85277402 | C.Italy_Etruscan.Ceu_related:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany)_427-265BCE:CSN002 |
13.01492220 | C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio):TAQ016 |
13.27414027 | C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN001 |
13.36240248 | C.Italy_Etruscan:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_346-51BCE:TAQ015 |
13.51870186 | C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio):TAQ013 |
13.52757184 | C.Italy_Etruscan:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_103BCE-54CE:TAQ002 |
We agree that the statistical models are weak and the explanation also weak, so I don't get why you disagree with me, that is about what? Contrary to Jovialis, I haven't said a word about an "east (european) med continuum", I waited for more samples.
My rub is that there is a big gap between the evidence presented by the paper about the Danubian limes and this: it is implausible that the virtually all the near eastern that went to the Balkans were Anatolians while those that went to Italy Levantines, and actually the same C6 cluster in the Antonio 2019 paper seems undefined: was it made up of people like those Anatolians or was it a two way mixture of Levantines and Italics as this paper implies? Not both can be correct.
We also agree that the genetic profile of Italy changed during the eras, but the scenario proposed (slaves plus barbarians) seems historically unfeasible.
I expected a bit more from this paper, and it doesn't take into consideration the paper from the danubian limes.
Distance to: | PalermoTrapani_Combined |
---|---|
2.38784422 | S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_670-775CE:VEN015 |
4.04278369 | S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_670-775CE:VEN013 |
4.24855269 | S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_650-763CE:VEN005 |
4.61280826 | C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_729-942CE:TAQ003 |
6.12952690 | C.Italy_Imperial:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_262-424CE:TAQ021 |
6.18293620 | S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_650-800CE:VEN001 |
6.18618622 | S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_650-763CE:VEN006 |
6.44542473 | C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)C899-1016CE:ETR013 |
6.46209718 | S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_672-800CE:VEN016 |
7.28809303 | C.Italy_Early.Medieval_ETR014:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)_977-1022CE:ETR014 |
8.15834542 | C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_895-1016CE:TAQ011 |
8.49709951 | C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_899-1021CE:TAQ009 |
9.17092689 | C.Italy_Imperial:Marsilianad'Albegna(Grosseto_Tuscany)_400-530CE:MAS003 |
9.23174415 | C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)_997-1149CE:ETR003 |
9.35309040 | C.Italy_Early.Medieval_undated:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany):ETR010 |
9.52039915 | C.Italy_Imperial:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_89-236CE:TAQ020 |
9.73570747 | C.Italy_Etruscan.Afr:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_391-207BCE:TAQ007 |
9.87760092 | C.Italy_Early.MedievaloggioPelliccia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_772-960CEOP001 |
10.49192547 | S.Italy_Venosa_related:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_672-800CE:VEN017 |
10.62509765 | S.Italy_Venosa_related:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_660-766CE:VEN009 |
10.67940541 | C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_1018-1151CE:TAQ022 |
10.73998603 | S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_670-775CE:VEN012 |
11.58488671 | C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)_772-888CE:ETR006 |
12.44673049 | C.Italy_Etruscan.Afr:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_372-204BCE:VET008 |
12.70596317 | C.Italy_Imperial:Marsilianad'Albegna(Grosseto_Tuscany)_240-380CE:MAS002 |
My top 25 distances using coordinates provided by Jovialis (post #10)
Distance to: PalermoTrapani_Combined 2.38784422 S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_670-775CE:VEN015 4.04278369 S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_670-775CE:VEN013 4.24855269 S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_650-763CE:VEN005 4.61280826 C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_729-942CE:TAQ003 6.12952690 C.Italy_Imperial:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_262-424CE:TAQ021 6.18293620 S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_650-800CE:VEN001 6.18618622 S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_650-763CE:VEN006 6.44542473 C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)C899-1016CE:ETR013 6.46209718 S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_672-800CE:VEN016 7.28809303 C.Italy_Early.Medieval_ETR014:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)_977-1022CE:ETR014 8.15834542 C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_895-1016CE:TAQ011 8.49709951 C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_899-1021CE:TAQ009 9.17092689 C.Italy_Imperial:Marsilianad'Albegna(Grosseto_Tuscany)_400-530CE:MAS003 9.23174415 C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)_997-1149CE:ETR003 9.35309040 C.Italy_Early.Medieval_undated:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany):ETR010 9.52039915 C.Italy_Imperial:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_89-236CE:TAQ020 9.73570747 C.Italy_Etruscan.Afr:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_391-207BCE:TAQ007 9.87760092 C.Italy_Early.MedievaloggioPelliccia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_772-960CEOP001 10.49192547 S.Italy_Venosa_related:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_672-800CE:VEN017 10.62509765 S.Italy_Venosa_related:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_660-766CE:VEN009 10.67940541 C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_1018-1151CE:TAQ022 10.73998603 S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_670-775CE:VEN012 11.58488671 C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)_772-888CE:ETR006 12.44673049 C.Italy_Etruscan.Afr:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_372-204BCE:VET008 12.70596317 C.Italy_Imperial:Marsilianad'Albegna(Grosseto_Tuscany)_240-380CE:MAS002
Unrestricted Model
Target: PalermoTrapani_Combined
Distance: 0.6841% / 0.68409247 | ADC: 0.25x RC
82.6 S.Italy_Venosa
14.2 C.Italy_Early.Medieval
1.8 C.Italy_Etruscan.Afr
1.4 S.Italy_Venosa_related
Restricted to 2 Populatons
Target: PalermoTrapani_Combined
Distance: 0.6750% / 0.67500023 | R2P | ADC: 0.25x RC
85.6 S.Italy_Venosa
14.4 C.Italy_Early.Medieval
Quite strong words when I have just exposed my reasoning, and believe me that I shall sleep at night even if southern Italians came out as 100% Saudi.
If the Campanians (as the bulk of it) were Italic-like, as I've stated, my conjecture would change.
By the way, the outcome for southern Italy is roughly the same for that for central and north Italy, though on slightly different levels, and I have "no dog in the race" since I am both southern and northern Italian.
The paper stated that:
Which can explain why Razib khan (quite cryptically) stated on twitter when he said that "this paper confirms his podcast", that is that those folks died out to be replaced by locals.
We agree that the statistical models are weak and the explanation also weak, so I don't get why you disagree with me, that is about what? Contrary to Jovialis, I haven't said a word about an "east (european) med continuum", I waited for more samples.
My rub is that there is a big gap between the evidence presented by the paper about the Danubian limes and this: it is implausible that the virtually all the near eastern that went to the Balkans were Anatolians while those that went to Italy Levantines, and actually the same C6 cluster in the Antonio 2019 paper seems undefined: was it made up of people like those Anatolians or was it a two way mixture of Levantines and Italics as this paper implies? Not both can be correct.
We also agree that the genetic profile of Italy changed during the eras, but the scenario proposed (slaves plus barbarians) seems historically unfeasible.
I expected a bit more from this paper, and it doesn't take into consideration the paper from the danubian limes.
They are pre-Moorish era samples. It seems that the Moorish impact was greater in Iberia than in Southern Italy and Sicily.
How do those samples fit the scenario?
This thread has been viewed 131230 times.