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

[kingjohn]

thanks to salento

ETR001_Imperial_Rome_Chiusi_Tuscany,8.19,0,2.62,0.45,33.92,11.31,0,0,12.02,0,31.49,0

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiusi

Distance to:	ETR001_Imperial_Rome_Chiusi_Tuscany
6.38203729	Italian_Campania
7.03265242	Italian_Abruzzo
7.62693910	Italian_Sicily
8.38596446	Italian_Calabria
8.38833142	Italian_Marche
9.60335879	Italian_Lazio
9.96289115	Ashkenazi_Jews
9.96578647	Italian_Apulia
10.96518582	Italian_Jews
11.02515760	Moldovan_Jewish
11.19228752	Greek_Lemnos
11.26296586	Italian_Romagna
11.56550474	French_Corsica
12.23690320	Greek_Central
12.30425130	Greek_Fournoi
12.35916664	Greek_Athens
12.37459494	Greek_Foca
12.60453490	Greek_Izmir
12.77140556	Sephardic_Jews
13.30770078	Greek_Crete
13.32534052	Italian_Tuscany
13.33030007	Greek_Icaria
13.47303975	Morocco_Jews
14.03145039	Greek_Kos
14.16424018	Greek_Peloponnese

 

[Jovialis]

Here is an average of 23 Etruscans from the BCE, not including any outliers.

Etruscan_IA_(n=23),1.39826087,0.080434783,1.73173913,0.413913043,46.36391304,24.45956522,0.140434783,0.125217391,5.251304348,0.242608696,19.38826087,0.405217391

 

[Pax Augusta]

thanks to salento

ETR001_Imperial_Rome_Chiusi_Tuscany,8.19,0,2.62,0.45,33.92,11.31,0,0,12.02,0,31.49,0

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiusi

Distance to:	ETR001_Imperial_Rome_Chiusi_Tuscany
6.38203729	Italian_Campania
7.03265242	Italian_Abruzzo
7.62693910	Italian_Sicily
8.38596446	Italian_Calabria
8.38833142	Italian_Marche
9.60335879	Italian_Lazio
9.96289115	Ashkenazi_Jews
9.96578647	Italian_Apulia
10.96518582	Italian_Jews
11.02515760	Moldovan_Jewish
11.19228752	Greek_Lemnos
11.26296586	Italian_Romagna
11.56550474	French_Corsica
12.23690320	Greek_Central
12.30425130	Greek_Fournoi
12.35916664	Greek_Athens
12.37459494	Greek_Foca
12.60453490	Greek_Izmir
12.77140556	Sephardic_Jews
13.30770078	Greek_Crete
13.32534052	Italian_Tuscany
13.33030007	Greek_Icaria
13.47303975	Morocco_Jews
14.03145039	Greek_Kos
14.16424018	Greek_Peloponnese

I thnk ETR001 was already published in a 2020 study, she was a woman. A big problem is that the imperial age samples are all from very peripheral areas of Tuscany, on the border with Umbria or Lazio.


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7186082/

 

[Jovialis]

When thinking of the position of samples like R437, considering it is a just a bit west of most Modern South Italians/Sicilians; It would be bracketed between Aegean_IA, and Italy Rome Republic on the PCA. Samples like R850, may actually form a clade with Aegean_IA, judging from their position.

 

[ihype02]

You are too smart not to know that the samples are too few yet to draw conclusions.





Ariel is an Hebrew/Jewish name.

I was not drawing conclusions. I was simply testing the results and comparing that to the official paper.

 

[Angela]

You are too smart not to know that the samples are too few yet to draw conclusions.





Ariel is an Hebrew/Jewish name.

Sorry, guys, it was my mistake. I was thinking of the female version, "Arielle".

Fwiw, I always think of "Ariel" in the Tempest, the male sprite or "fairy" creature who comes to Prospero.

Given how many people in this hobby choose fake identities in order to make their biased viewpoints look less biased, it could be anyone. Remember Clementina and Princess something or other who were really Sikeliot?

I wouldn't go assuming this person is an Israeli or even necessarily Jewish.

 

[Pax Augusta]

Here is an average of 23 Etruscans from the BCE, not including any outliers.

Etruscan_IA_(n=23),1.39826087,0.080434783,1.73173913,0.413913043,46.36391304,24.45956522,0.140434783,0.125217391,5.251304348,0.242608696,19.38826087,0.405217391

Similar distance to Italians that many Spanish have to Basques? What do you think Jovialis?

 

[Jovialis]

Similar distance to Italians that many Spanish have to Basques? What do you think Jovialis?

That's a good observation. Same kind of distance between Daunians and modern Puglia.

 

[Archetype0ne]

Here is an average of 23 Etruscans from the BCE, not including any outliers.

Etruscan_IA_(n=23),1.39826087,0.080434783,1.73173913,0.413913043,46.36391304,24.45956522,0.140434783,0.125217391,5.251304348,0.242608696,19.38826087,0.405217391

Jov & Pax I want to pick your brains on this:

I do believe something similar was pointed earlier in the thread by Michalis.

Then a Greek member mentioned that both he and his parents show 1-2 East Asian ancestry, and that he has seen this signal apear in the Balkans.
I am starting to think it is the same signal seen on those AC-BC calculations. Since anything more recent would have been picked up by calcs, and would have come in a package with distinct traceable components.


Edit: First noticed this shift in my coordinates compared to HRV:MBA.

What could have contributed to that shift, that very early? I even saw that shift in myself when compared to BA/IA Balkans. So I have a feeling it is there.

https://imgur.com/a/TXztTav

 

[Pax Augusta]

Jov & Pax I want to pick your brains on this:

Slavs in Italy?

 

[kingjohn]

I thnk ETR001 was already published in a 2020 study, she was a woman. A big problem is that the imperial age samples are all from very peripheral areas of Tuscany, on the border with Umbria or Lazio.


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7186082/

yes you are correct
she is from older paper
just it was in a list of k12b values of samples salento posted
for lucas to add to vahaduo k12b ancient tool
it is still cool she clusters with campania :cool-v:

 

[ihype02]

The Germanic Y-DNA .... hmmm seems higher in early medieval time than now, especially in late antiquity probably extends 20%. Perphaps it was a similar case in Tuscany.
Could it be that medieval and post-medieval era reduced both Germanic and Near Eastern input. Instead increased R1b with Northern Italian-Spanish-French- like input.
But the sample size is small.

 

[Archetype0ne]

Slavs in Italy?

No. Look again at the linked images.
Slavs did not exist in Neolithic China, Turkmenistan, Taikistan, Kyrgystan, Mongolia MA.
This shift looks like some sort of Eurasian Steppe component given it pulled 200BC Etruscan from the same burial context as 700BC Etruscans away from Basque/Spanish/Villanovan towards Central Asia.

The question is what could make such a pull.
As far as I know no such movements, or movements of people with similar autosomal makeup, that would allow such shift happened to wards the Balkans and the Italian peninsula between 700-200 BC.

This is more of a question based on curiosity. I am not trying to imply anything. I am kind of lost for words. Since as I posted this shift even appears in my autosomal drift compared to Balkan BA/IA. And it predates any sort of Mongolian/Turkish.

 

[Angela]

Do you think that the people in Piedmont after the fall of Rome were like the people of today? In the Collegno cemetery none of the "Italians" were similar to the northern Italians of today.

Actually, there is one of the Collegno samples which while closest to Tuscans does match very well with modern people from Emilia Romagna, and not at all badly Piemonte itself. It is Collegno 36, which was not usually part of the analysis of the actual paper because it is dated to slightly later than the samples from which the authors were drawing their conclusions.

Distance to:	Collegno36:Amorim_2018
2.46775201	Italian_Tuscany
2.89387284	Italian_Romagna
3.28444820	Italian_Emilia
4.35029884	Italian_Liguria
5.88460704	Italian_Lazio
6.01826254	Italian_Marche
6.52736547	Italian_Veneto
6.58314514	Italian_Piedmont
6.74535396	Italian_Lombardy
7.42958949	French_Corsica
8.10821189	Albanian_Kosovo
8.19740203	Italian_Friuli_VG
8.79603320	Albanian
8.87493099	Greek_Thessaly
9.10417487	Macedonian_South
9.11127324	Greek_Thrace
9.15621101	Macedonian_Vardar
10.10454910	Swiss_Italian
10.37224180	Greek_Macedonia
10.45471186	Italian_Trentino
10.46337422	Macedonian_East
10.65537423	Greek_Thessaloniki
11.00164533	Macedonian_Polog
11.16440773	Greek_Peloponnese
11.33608839	Greek_Central

It's also important to remember, I think, that Amorim found, using the Popres sample set, that the "local" Italians found at Collegno resembled modern Southern Italians. It is only the amateur community which concluded they were from the east, even proposing they were Jewish, of which there was no indication. I find it amusing that when such a comparison is made, it is usually to Ashkenazim, who didn't even exist during that time period.

 

[Jovialis]

@Pax, take a look at the pca values in the way I have reorganized it:

S.Italian:Abruzzo,7.59,0.03,3.23,0.04,29.12,16.1,0,0.08,10.91,0.32,32.6,0
N.Italian:Aosta_Valley,5.82,0.06,1.62,0.14,40.65,29.99,0.25,0.05,4.3,0.03,16.98,0.1
S.Italian:Apulia,7.38,0.32,2.81,0.34,26.2,17.19,0.27,0.27,11.31,0.41,33.36,0.15
S.Italian:Calabria,7,0.13,4.18,0.08,27,11.44,0.26,0.6,13.52,0.22,35.45,0.1
S.Italian:Campania,7.07,0.09,2.82,0.09,28.91,13.73,0.1,0.33,12.32,0.02,34.34,0.1
N.Italian:Emilia,6.13,0,1.15,0.18,37.61,22.76,0.14,0.11,7.4,0.25,24.22,0.06
N.Italian:Friuli_VG,5.44,0.28,1.17,0.01,34.92,29.32,0.08,0,7.03,0,21.72,0.02
Italian_Jews,5.91,0.27,5.61,0.28,26.04,8.53,0.36,1.02,16.51,0.14,35.34,0
C.Italian:Lazio,6.73,0,2.67,0.05,31.7,19.82,0.26,0.07,9.79,0.17,28.75,0
N.Italian:Liguria,5.1,0.05,2.01,0.09,37.89,23.23,0.25,0.05,7.89,0.05,23.39,0
N.Italian:Lombardy,4.75,0.12,1.12,0.04,39.63,25.08,0.17,0.01,6.41,0.03,22.62,0.03
C.Italian:Marche,6.42,0.08,2.38,0.05,32.91,18.72,0.29,0.27,9.80,0,29.042,0.03
N.Italian:Piedmont,5.92,0.13,1.73,0.09,37.82,26.02,0.04,0.04,6.73,0.02,21.37,0.1
N.Italian:Romagna,6.08,0,1.87,0.13,34.66,20.98,0.1,0,8.99,0,27.19,0
Sicily,7.31,0.48,4.59,0.10,27.22,13.45,0.25,0.65,12.1,0.05,33.16,0.64
N.Italian:Trentino,4.79,0.22,0.73,0.04,38.71,29.79,0,0,5.47,0.02,20.22,0
Tuscany,6.12,0.05,1.21,0.14,36.89,21.81,0.16,0.06,8.21,0,25.36,0
N.Italian:Veneto,5.44,0.04,1.43,0.18,36.93,27.16,0.06,0,5.73,0.15,22.83,0.0
Spanish:Andalusia,5.70,0.22,4.38,0.16,47.02,24.67,0.40,0.17,4.99,0.10,11.79,0.39
Spanish:Aragon,5.86,0.08,3.39,0,48.45,25.57,0.34,0.17,3.80,0.08,12.21,0.15
Spanish:Asturias,6.23,0.04,5.04,0.39,48.59,23.26,0.34,0.66,4.45,0.00,10.52,0.50
Spanish:Baleares,6.00,0.10,2.70,0.40,43.77,27.09,0.24,0.10,4.74,0.22,15.33,0.33
Spanish_Basque,6.47,0.14,1.35,0.21,59.28,25.18,0.20,0.04,1.80,0.16,5.12,0.04
Spanish:Canarias,4.50,0.25,7.93,0.18,39.36,23.46,0.22,1.50,6.70,0.15,13.62,2.12
Spanish:Cantabria,5.07,0.39,3.00,0.04,48.31,27.20,0,0.53,3.31,0.20,11.75,0.22
Spanish:Castilla-Leon,5.43,0,4.31,0.20,45.13,25.39,0.22,0.24,5.29,0.13,13.30,0.35
Spanish:Catalonia,5.43,0.09,2.60,0.10,46.39,27.16,0.46,0.26,4.23,0.09,12.99,0.18
Spanish:Galicia,5.16,0.29,5.08,0.51,45.34,26.31,0.73,0.54,4.38,0,11.30,0.39
Spanish:La_Rioja,5.26,0.10,2.62,0,51.23,26.02,0.46,0.11,3.42,0.10,10.5,0.18
Spanish:Valencia,5.43,0.14,3.66,0.16,46.01,25.63,0.24,0.19,4.93,0.18,13.21,0.23
Swiss_Italian,3.9175,0.0825,1.1025,0,39.8525,28.55,0.185,0.0625,5.7975,0,20.45,0
Etruscan_IA_(n=23),1.39826087,0.080434783,1.73173913,0.413913043,46.36391304,24.45956522,0.140434783,0.125217391,5.251304348,0.242608696,19.38826087,0.405217391
Latins_(n=4),3.10,0.41,1.38,0.20,47.83,24.48,0.40,0.04,2.68,0.00,19.26,0.25
Minoan_Greece_(n=10),1.24,0.05,2.80,0.09,40.35,0.07,0.00,0.00,13.79,0.29,41.27,0.04
Mycenaean_Greece_(n=4),2.09,0.31,2.85,0.36,38.17,7.57,0.13,0.25,9.98,0.42,37.10,0.80
R437:Antonio_2019,5.89,0,2.61,0,32.88,11.52,0,0,11.42,0.47,34.68,0.53
R850:Antonio_2019,7.3,0,4.52,1.08,21.26,10.54,0,0.43,14.77,0,40.1,0
Protovillanovan_IA:R1:Antonio_2019,4.87,1.72,1.2,0,34.92,26.41,0,0,5.74,0,24.51,0.64
Villanovan_IA:R1015:Antonio_2019,1.64,0.26,2.62,0.01,48.21,21.4,0,0,5.06,0,20.64,0.16
East_Med_Imp.:Imperial-age_Latium_(East_Med_immigrants)_(n=46),8.39,0.14,3.33,0.21,24.69,8.66,0.26,0.54,14.86,0.14,38.36,0.43
Tuscany_Imp.:Imperial-age_Tuscany_(n=4),5.52,0.55,4.06,0.49,31.41,12.42,0.53,0.44,12.56,0.01,31.84,0.19
Marche_Imp.:Imperial-age_Marche_(n=2),8.03,0.24,2.22,0.79,30.54,15.60,0.00,0.00,10.52,0.00,32.08,0.00
Latium_LA:_(n=24),6.54,0.21,3.14,0.20,32.52,17.92,0.30,0.46,10.05,0.10,28.33,0.25
Latium_EMA:Early_Medieval_Latium_(n=5),4.21,0.19,2.29,0.19,34.59,19.45,0.61,0.43,9.88,0.18,27.42,0.55
Latium_MA:Late_Medieval_Latium_(n=16),6.43,0.27,1.77,0.21,33.12,24.00,0.33,0.38,8.11,0.25,24.71,0.42
Piedmont_LA:6th-century_Piedmont_(Italians_only)_(n=7),7.98,0.21,2.80,0.84,29.83,14.91,0.61,0.47,9.99,2.32,29.77,0.27
Piedmont_LA_(Italians_&_Lombards):6th-century_Piedmont_(Italians_&_Lombards)_(n=24),7.80,0.47,1.40,0.44,33.46,32.13,0.37,0.52,4.87,0.75,17.44,0.35
Tuscany_MA:Medieval_Tuscany_(n=10),5.72,0.06,2.04,0.37,32.59,18.68,0.31,0.20,9.94,0.14,29.46,0.50
Basilicata_MA:Medieval_Basilicata_(n=10),7.02,0.71,4.29,0.40,29.74,15.35,0.31,0.48,11.15,1.22,28.76,0.56
Foggia_MA:Medieval_Foggia_Apulia_(n=5),5.89,0.56,3.82,0.49,27.97,19.28,0.19,0.47,10.48,0.34,29.06,1.44
Mainland_Greece:Greek_Athens,5.40,0.38,1.46,0.27,26.85,20.60,0.16,0.13,10.50,0.34,33.64,0.25
Greek_Cappadocia,11.66,0.41,0.6,0,18.85,6.27,0.13,0,14.23,0.1,47.73,0.02
Mainland_Greece:Greek_Central,6.57,0.30,1.39,0.15,26.97,20.86,0.01,0.23,10.20,0.24,33.07,0.01
Aegean_Is.:Greek_Crete,8.29,0.25,2.44,0.02,22.84,13.54,0.36,0.30,13.40,0.07,38.34,0.12
Greek_Cypriot,8.86,0.14,3.25,0.13,20.88,3.81,0.33,0.37,18.23,0.26,43.72,0
Aegean_Is.:Greek_Foca,6.56,0.19,1.76,0.18,25.37,18.93,0.21,0.02,10.90,0.32,35.62,0
Aegean_Is.:Greek_Fournoi,7.48,0,3.19,0,23.67,13.76,0.26,0,13.04,0.99,37.59,0 
Aegean_Is.:Greek_Icaria,5.33,0.76,1.77,0.25,25.46,10.78,0.77,0,13.57,0.11,41.15,0.04
Aegean_Is.:Greek_Izmir,7.35,0.18,2.22,0.08,24.16,15.48,0.15,0.10,12.00,0.04,38.21,0
Aegean_Is.:Greek_Kos,8.51,0.10,2.81,0.29,23.06,10.34,0.16,0.07,14.40,0.22,39.98,0.06
Aegean_Is.:Greek_Lemnos,8.61,0.03,2.25,0,24.94,17.12,0.93,0.09,11.15,0.91,34.30,0
Mainland_Greece:Greek_Macedonia,5.32,0.31,0.60,0.15,28.27,29.61,0.20,0.00,7.24,0.21,28.12,0.00
Mainland_Greece:Greek_Peloponnese,6.05,0.17,1.59,0.11,26.09,22.67,1.02,0.06,10.20,0.23,31.76,0
Greek_Pontus,14.93,0.01,0.41,0.06,12.38,4.19,0.13,0.02,12.78,0.1,54.94,0
Aegean_Is.:Greek_Rhodes,8.41,0.16,2.72,0.36,23.32,9.44,0.16,0.12,14.41,0.1,40.77,0
Mainland_Greece:Greek_Thessaloniki,5.04,0.36,1.51,0.19,26.71,25.24,0.48,0.05,8.95,0.21,31.24,0.03
Mainland_Greece:Greek_Thessaly,5.71,0.39,1.56,0.05,27.83,25.09,0.47,0,8.96,0.13,29.67,0.01
Mainland_Greece:Greek_Thrace,5.98,0.37,1.30,0.04,27.71,24.67,0.29,0,9.26,0.14,30.21,0.01

 

[Francis Drake]

So basically,

Antonio et al. 2019 supports the idea of local-population resurgence in Rome

Olalde et al. 2021 supports the idea of local-population resurgence in the Balkans, and cites the phenomonon in Rome:



This paper seems to not even explore this possibility and makes the statement that the Imperial era had an impact.


To me it seems that the Reich Lab and the Max Planck Institute may be in disagreement here.

Personally, I find the evidence of the two aforementioned papers to be too compelling to accept that there is what, 60% Eastern Mediterranean in Tuscany!? What is 99% in the south? To me this is a bit outrageous.


They seem to shoehorn the Venosa samples into the study from the middle ages (Like Pax said, I am not sure why these are even in a study about Etruscans), without even comparing to see if IA and Bronze age samples from the region are similar. This paper seems to be drawn on pretty broad conclusions and very limited amounts of data.


Also, if it were a choice between Levantine and Anatolian source, I think it is clear from the Olalde et al 2021 paper in the Balkans, that it was probably the Anatolian "Near eastern" population (Anatolian_ChL+Iran_N) in the Imperial era, and NOT a Levantine source, for these East Mediterraneans.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the samples uncovered in Viminacium all come from the same period? It showed native balkanites living alongside anatolians/levantines/ethiopians(kek), in contrast the imperial roman samples all seem to be distinct from IA romans.

 

[Jovialis]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the samples uncovered in Viminacium all come from the same period? It showed native balkanites living alongside anatolians/levantines/ethiopians(kek), in contrast the imperial roman samples all seem to be distinct from IA romans.

They're not distant from R437 (Latin IA sample), and Balkan_IA, both of which have similar ancestry to the C6 Imperial samples. That's the ancestry that re-surged in the middle ages, in Latium, according to Antonio et al. 2019.

 

[Angela]

@Pax, take a look at the pca values in the way I have reorganized it:

S.Italian:Abruzzo,7.59,0.03,3.23,0.04,29.12,16.1,0,0.08,10.91,0.32,32.6,0
N.Italian:Aosta_Valley,5.82,0.06,1.62,0.14,40.65,29.99,0.25,0.05,4.3,0.03,16.98,0.1
S.Italian:Apulia,7.38,0.32,2.81,0.34,26.2,17.19,0.27,0.27,11.31,0.41,33.36,0.15
S.Italian:Calabria,7,0.13,4.18,0.08,27,11.44,0.26,0.6,13.52,0.22,35.45,0.1
S.Italian:Campania,7.07,0.09,2.82,0.09,28.91,13.73,0.1,0.33,12.32,0.02,34.34,0.1
N.Italian:Emilia,6.13,0,1.15,0.18,37.61,22.76,0.14,0.11,7.4,0.25,24.22,0.06
N.Italian:Friuli_VG,5.44,0.28,1.17,0.01,34.92,29.32,0.08,0,7.03,0,21.72,0.02
Italian_Jews,5.91,0.27,5.61,0.28,26.04,8.53,0.36,1.02,16.51,0.14,35.34,0
C.Italian:Lazio,6.73,0,2.67,0.05,31.7,19.82,0.26,0.07,9.79,0.17,28.75,0
N.Italian:Liguria,5.1,0.05,2.01,0.09,37.89,23.23,0.25,0.05,7.89,0.05,23.39,0
N.Italian:Lombardy,4.75,0.12,1.12,0.04,39.63,25.08,0.17,0.01,6.41,0.03,22.62,0.03
C.Italian:Marche,6.42,0.08,2.38,0.05,32.91,18.72,0.29,0.27,9.80,0,29.042,0.03
N.Italian:Piedmont,5.92,0.13,1.73,0.09,37.82,26.02,0.04,0.04,6.73,0.02,21.37,0.1
N.Italian:Romagna,6.08,0,1.87,0.13,34.66,20.98,0.1,0,8.99,0,27.19,0
Sicily,7.31,0.48,4.59,0.10,27.22,13.45,0.25,0.65,12.1,0.05,33.16,0.64
N.Italian:Trentino,4.79,0.22,0.73,0.04,38.71,29.79,0,0,5.47,0.02,20.22,0
Tuscany,6.12,0.05,1.21,0.14,36.89,21.81,0.16,0.06,8.21,0,25.36,0
N.Italian:Veneto,5.44,0.04,1.43,0.18,36.93,27.16,0.06,0,5.73,0.15,22.83,0.0
Spanish:Andalusia,5.70,0.22,4.38,0.16,47.02,24.67,0.40,0.17,4.99,0.10,11.79,0.39
Spanish:Aragon,5.86,0.08,3.39,0,48.45,25.57,0.34,0.17,3.80,0.08,12.21,0.15
Spanish:Asturias,6.23,0.04,5.04,0.39,48.59,23.26,0.34,0.66,4.45,0.00,10.52,0.50
Spanish:Baleares,6.00,0.10,2.70,0.40,43.77,27.09,0.24,0.10,4.74,0.22,15.33,0.33
Spanish_Basque,6.47,0.14,1.35,0.21,59.28,25.18,0.20,0.04,1.80,0.16,5.12,0.04
Spanish:Canarias,4.50,0.25,7.93,0.18,39.36,23.46,0.22,1.50,6.70,0.15,13.62,2.12
Spanish:Cantabria,5.07,0.39,3.00,0.04,48.31,27.20,0,0.53,3.31,0.20,11.75,0.22
Spanish:Castilla-Leon,5.43,0,4.31,0.20,45.13,25.39,0.22,0.24,5.29,0.13,13.30,0.35
Spanish:Catalonia,5.43,0.09,2.60,0.10,46.39,27.16,0.46,0.26,4.23,0.09,12.99,0.18
Spanish:Galicia,5.16,0.29,5.08,0.51,45.34,26.31,0.73,0.54,4.38,0,11.30,0.39
Spanish:La_Rioja,5.26,0.10,2.62,0,51.23,26.02,0.46,0.11,3.42,0.10,10.5,0.18
Spanish:Valencia,5.43,0.14,3.66,0.16,46.01,25.63,0.24,0.19,4.93,0.18,13.21,0.23
Swiss_Italian,3.9175,0.0825,1.1025,0,39.8525,28.55,0.185,0.0625,5.7975,0,20.45,0
Etruscan_IA_(n=23),1.39826087,0.080434783,1.73173913,0.413913043,46.36391304,24.45956522,0.140434783,0.125217391,5.251304348,0.242608696,19.38826087,0.405217391
Latins_(n=4),3.10,0.41,1.38,0.20,47.83,24.48,0.40,0.04,2.68,0.00,19.26,0.25
Minoan_Greece_(n=10),1.24,0.05,2.80,0.09,40.35,0.07,0.00,0.00,13.79,0.29,41.27,0.04
Mycenaean_Greece_(n=4),2.09,0.31,2.85,0.36,38.17,7.57,0.13,0.25,9.98,0.42,37.10,0.80
R437:Antonio_2019,5.89,0,2.61,0,32.88,11.52,0,0,11.42,0.47,34.68,0.53
R850:Antonio_2019,7.3,0,4.52,1.08,21.26,10.54,0,0.43,14.77,0,40.1,0
Protovillanovan_IA:R1:Antonio_2019,4.87,1.72,1.2,0,34.92,26.41,0,0,5.74,0,24.51,0.64
Villanovan_IA:R1015:Antonio_2019,1.64,0.26,2.62,0.01,48.21,21.4,0,0,5.06,0,20.64,0.16
East_Med_Imp.:Imperial-age_Latium_(East_Med_immigrants)_(n=46),8.39,0.14,3.33,0.21,24.69,8.66,0.26,0.54,14.86,0.14,38.36,0.43
Tuscany_Imp.:Imperial-age_Tuscany_(n=4),5.52,0.55,4.06,0.49,31.41,12.42,0.53,0.44,12.56,0.01,31.84,0.19
Marche_Imp.:Imperial-age_Marche_(n=2),8.03,0.24,2.22,0.79,30.54,15.60,0.00,0.00,10.52,0.00,32.08,0.00
Latium_LA:_(n=24),6.54,0.21,3.14,0.20,32.52,17.92,0.30,0.46,10.05,0.10,28.33,0.25
Latium_EMA:Early_Medieval_Latium_(n=5),4.21,0.19,2.29,0.19,34.59,19.45,0.61,0.43,9.88,0.18,27.42,0.55
Latium_MA:Late_Medieval_Latium_(n=16),6.43,0.27,1.77,0.21,33.12,24.00,0.33,0.38,8.11,0.25,24.71,0.42
Piedmont_LA:6th-century_Piedmont_(Italians_only)_(n=7),7.98,0.21,2.80,0.84,29.83,14.91,0.61,0.47,9.99,2.32,29.77,0.27
Piedmont_LA_(Italians_&_Lombards):6th-century_Piedmont_(Italians_&_Lombards)_(n=24),7.80,0.47,1.40,0.44,33.46,32.13,0.37,0.52,4.87,0.75,17.44,0.35
Tuscany_MA:Medieval_Tuscany_(n=10),5.72,0.06,2.04,0.37,32.59,18.68,0.31,0.20,9.94,0.14,29.46,0.50
Basilicata_MA:Medieval_Basilicata_(n=10),7.02,0.71,4.29,0.40,29.74,15.35,0.31,0.48,11.15,1.22,28.76,0.56
Foggia_MA:Medieval_Foggia_Apulia_(n=5),5.89,0.56,3.82,0.49,27.97,19.28,0.19,0.47,10.48,0.34,29.06,1.44
Mainland_Greece:Greek_Athens,5.40,0.38,1.46,0.27,26.85,20.60,0.16,0.13,10.50,0.34,33.64,0.25
Greek_Cappadocia,11.66,0.41,0.6,0,18.85,6.27,0.13,0,14.23,0.1,47.73,0.02
Mainland_Greece:Greek_Central,6.57,0.30,1.39,0.15,26.97,20.86,0.01,0.23,10.20,0.24,33.07,0.01
Aegean_Is.:Greek_Crete,8.29,0.25,2.44,0.02,22.84,13.54,0.36,0.30,13.40,0.07,38.34,0.12
Greek_Cypriot,8.86,0.14,3.25,0.13,20.88,3.81,0.33,0.37,18.23,0.26,43.72,0
Aegean_Is.:Greek_Foca,6.56,0.19,1.76,0.18,25.37,18.93,0.21,0.02,10.90,0.32,35.62,0
Aegean_Is.:Greek_Fournoi,7.48,0,3.19,0,23.67,13.76,0.26,0,13.04,0.99,37.59,0 
Aegean_Is.:Greek_Icaria,5.33,0.76,1.77,0.25,25.46,10.78,0.77,0,13.57,0.11,41.15,0.04
Aegean_Is.:Greek_Izmir,7.35,0.18,2.22,0.08,24.16,15.48,0.15,0.10,12.00,0.04,38.21,0
Aegean_Is.:Greek_Kos,8.51,0.10,2.81,0.29,23.06,10.34,0.16,0.07,14.40,0.22,39.98,0.06
Aegean_Is.:Greek_Lemnos,8.61,0.03,2.25,0,24.94,17.12,0.93,0.09,11.15,0.91,34.30,0
Mainland_Greece:Greek_Macedonia,5.32,0.31,0.60,0.15,28.27,29.61,0.20,0.00,7.24,0.21,28.12,0.00
Mainland_Greece:Greek_Peloponnese,6.05,0.17,1.59,0.11,26.09,22.67,1.02,0.06,10.20,0.23,31.76,0
Greek_Pontus,14.93,0.01,0.41,0.06,12.38,4.19,0.13,0.02,12.78,0.1,54.94,0
Aegean_Is.:Greek_Rhodes,8.41,0.16,2.72,0.36,23.32,9.44,0.16,0.12,14.41,0.1,40.77,0
Mainland_Greece:Greek_Thessaloniki,5.04,0.36,1.51,0.19,26.71,25.24,0.48,0.05,8.95,0.21,31.24,0.03
Mainland_Greece:Greek_Thessaly,5.71,0.39,1.56,0.05,27.83,25.09,0.47,0,8.96,0.13,29.67,0.01
Mainland_Greece:Greek_Thrace,5.98,0.37,1.30,0.04,27.71,24.67,0.29,0,9.26,0.14,30.21,0.01

Jovialis, are these samples plotted against European variation as I asked you to consider doing, to see if there would be a contrast with the PCA from the paper which is plotted against West Eurasian variation?

Also, do the Piemonte samples include Collegno 36?

 

[Francis Drake]

Personally, I've shared the criticism that the slavic input is overestimated ( I think it is between 10%-20% in southern Balkanites) because 1) they chose Greek empuries for the whole Balkan,2) Mycenean average and Empuries average worked essentially in the same way but the former has high heterogeneity because it was the result of a recent invasion (so individuals with relatively high steppe and other with almost none) and the latter because of extremely likely Anatolian admixture so it isn't clear it would be a good proxy for IA greeks,3) from what I've seen they didn't take into consideration the inputs due to invading Germanics and east Iranics, 4) the haplo didn't support the estimated autosomal admixture, and Angela's post shares this concern too.
What was relentlessly bashed was the theory that Albanians were somehow pure logkas-like Balkanites that came to plot like north Greeks despite not sharing the same genetic processes with them (basically Albanians were already "north" whereas the Greeks were first pulled south and then north by "east meds" and Slavs). That theory is unattainable for obvious reasons; also I've said that it can well be that some of the "northern" ancestry in Albanians comes from a northern Balkanite population, while in Greeks it came straight with the Slavs, but if so I doubt it can account for much.

This paper has so many flaws that it is illogical, and I am willing to bet future papers will set the records straigh; to recapitulate some of these flaws, first of all it makes wild assumptions based on just six samples from the imperial period (and I am certain that they got their south Levantine fit because they've averaged also a guy that has some north african ancestry, it is the MAS003 sample that plot with an Etruscan that had north african admixture), and it doesn't take into consideration even the possibilities of much more proximate sources, individuals like the latin outliers first of all (this is a matter to investigate, but there were these individuals with Armenian BA-like or Croat IA-like admixture in Italy well before the empire), then the Balkans and Greece, and then Anatolia since the danubian limes paper showed that they made up the bulk of the near eastern immigrants (and it seems that the "east med" cluster of Antonio et al 2019 is made up of such individuals too); I get that they followed statistical procedures (but I believe I've already caught their "trick"), but when one gets such "odd results" such as straight half south Levantine admixture in Tuscany they usually caution "not too read too much" into them and to wait for future studies to settle the matter, but this one made a bold and so highly implausible claim, that "it was slaves and soldiers", that it makes the crazy "analysis" and theories I read on anthrogenica look sophisticated and plausible: were all north and central European slaves killed when their utility expired? Were all those that came from the east spared and apparently did they become so extremely wealthy and influential that they had no problems at outcompeting the locals in the "mating game"? Also, as with the Danubian limes paper, the haplo analysis is comical to say the least: they really sorted out all J1 and J2 clades in the branch J and claimed that "it came from the middle east": all the studies I've checked show that almost all the J subclades in Italy look Southeastern European (ultimately all from the caucasus), except a particular Italian subclade. This is really something I expected from Anthrogenica.

In the thead about the Daunian paper, before the danubian limes paper was published, I said that, if Anatolians turned out to be roughly a mix of CHH/iran_N and Anatolian_N, then they would theoretically be available as a source of gene flow for Italians since virtually all models of Italians have steppe, Iran_N/CHG, WHG and Anatolian_N, without any need for extra levantine_N, thus that I know that the bulk of the near easterners in the empire was made up of Anatolians (modelled as half balkan_IA and Anatolian_BA) I entertain the possibility that they left a not trivial genetic impact in Italy, I am even open to the possibility that there's some true Levantine in the mix in low amounts (less than 5%, that would explain why it went undetected so far): I have no "loath" towards the Levantines and I would sleep fine even if I turned out to be more than half Jordanian, not everybody has the same biases that are somehow common among those in this hobby, but I accept only rational, well backed up theories; the accusations I've seen on anthrogenica and sometimes here made towards those that criticise the "east med models" of beeing hidden antisemites slide off of me, and won't make up for the lack of a viable theory.

Speaking of Anthrogenica, I have browsed it and I've seen (again) peaks of ethnonarcisism that you usually find in nordicists in (at least allegedly) jews: their theory that the ethnogenesis of the western Jews happened overwhelmingly in the Levant, with little admixture during the diaspora, and they have this idea that they somehow "built hellenistic Greece and imperial Rome" and were the driving force in their development, and it is just because of a secondary matter of "necessary corollary theories" to explain other facts that they came up with their theories about Italy and Greece, and that's why many nordicists tagged in. I've read the post of one that commented the PCA leaked from the upcoming study about Campania who stated that "the campanian samples dated between 600 BC and 400 BC show an obvious pull towards Anatolians and Syrians", as if it were even remotely plausible that at the time Campania was swarming with such individuals or that Greek colonies had mostly Anatolians and Syrians.
First of all it flies on the face of historical evidence, because the hard truth (contra what many folks on anthrogenica believe) is that Greeks were quite xenophobic for a long time ("the invention of racism in classical antiquity" is my main reference, but usually Greek literature has plenty of "not politically correct" remarks towards many "barbarians"), and second there is no archeological evidence of such a massive presence of Anatolians and Syrians at those times. I swear that the only way I can "see" how they come up with such theories is that many think "southern Italians = super swarthy> Semitic admixture!" (because many Americans have quite a distorted idea of how southern Italians look like, let's say for questionable casting choices in Hollywood and especially those at anthrogenica have been exposed to the photos and results of "Sicilians" and other "southern Italians" in Sikeliot's threads).

To end this post, I've seen they are again after the theory that "the east med shift was caused by hellenistic greeks that were actually a mixture of Anatolians, Levantines and original Greeks", yet this paper is against such a theory: it has central Italians (and by implication other Italians) as a two way mixture of Latin/Etruscans and south Levantines, no greek or anatolian showing up, that is where the hellenistic culture was weakest outside the Decapolis, unless they came all from Jerusalem, Joppa and beersheba.

P.S. with "central Italians" I mean imperial central Italians (and other Italians south of them)

Albanians descend from a bottleneck population, that most likely move down from Kosovo/far-North Albanian alps in the early-medieval, as suggested by the current linguistic/topynomic consensus academically , them having more Thracian/Dacian ancestry than Greeks is undeniable just by simply looking at which haplogroups dominated the Vimancium site in Serbia.

Something people must contend with as well, in the Albanian highlands there exists minimal slavic haplos, the only way for such admixture to be present would be female introgression, which is definitely possible, but something to consider.

 

[Angela]

No. Look again at the linked images.
Slavs did not exist in Neolithic China, Turkmenistan, Taikistan, Kyrgystan, Mongolia MA.
This shift looks like some sort of Eurasian Steppe component given it pulled 200BC Etruscan from the same burial context as 700BC Etruscans away from Basque/Spanish/Villanovan towards Central Asia.

The question is what could make such a pull.
As far as I know no such movements, or movements of people with similar autosomal makeup, that would allow such shift happened to wards the Balkans and the Italian peninsula between 700-200 BC.

This is more of a question based on curiosity. I am not trying to imply anything. I am kind of lost for words. Since as I posted this shift even appears in my autosomal drift compared to Balkan BA/IA. And it predates any sort of Mongolian/Turkish.

Some Avars were re-settled in Italy, and they were certainly present in the Balkans. I had a long discussion about this a couple of years ago because I sometimes used to get 1-2% East Asian, and so do people in my area and in Emilia Romagna. That's the closest I could get to an explanation.

There were also Sarmatians and Scythians in the Balkans.

Fwiw, on the K12b calculator I often get matches to admixed Scythians.