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

Archetype0ne said:
Yes, Such peoples were my initial thought as well.

Avars, Alans, Huns, Mongols.

But then I immediately rejected such hypothesis since we are talking about 700-200BC. Rather this looks more like something Maykop, Yamnaya, Sintashta, Central Asian Steppe BA, Sarmatian related(1st image). Also based on the results, whatever population this was it would have increased Iran_Neo and CHG in the region(2nd image, connected to an unanswered question in this paper we(me and Anglea) discussed earlier).

KNG7MzO.png

f2JsP6D.png



I personally have no clue. But there might be something interesting in such analyses.
It is obvious this affected the Balkans and based on the samples from this paper, also IA Italian peninsula.
What it could have been? Not sure.
Click to expand...

I don't know either, although as I said, for modern Italians there are those Avar settlements.

Perhaps the Scythians should be considered, as they were next door in Ukraine by the 8th century BCE.

Scythian | People, History, & Facts | Britannica

Who knows, some of the steppe groups who arrived earlier might have harbored a few percent of East Asian. I vaguely recall that East Asian haplos were found in some of the Yamnaya samples.

I think my gene plaza results for ancient groups showed a higher than expected match for me with those eastern steppe groups, which could explain it.

It's nothing I really pursued given that it disappeared from the 23andme analyses.
 
Archetype0ne said:
Why are we acting like C7 and C6 are synonymous though?
Like C6 is halfway between C4 and C7.
jjR7qSj.png

This paper and Antonio are not even in contradiction.
In fact, from the PCAs posted by our very own Mods. This is more than obvious.
UCshCN5.png

Tuscany_Imp and R437 plots right in between Cypriot and Villanova.
This is the angle Jov provided, and to me it is obvious this PCA is in line with both Antonio and Max Plank papers.
Maybe it is worth re reading both papers.
lfuhM6S.png

Iron: Majority C7(70%) + minority(C3,C5,C6;10% each) -> Imperial: C5 Majority (50%) + minority (C4,C6;25% each) + super-minority C7(4%) -> Antiquity even split C5,C6,C7 into -> Medieval 4:6 C7:C6 resurgence.
How is that timeline any different from the one proposed here? Where since the Iron age C3,5,6 are present but a minority to C7. While during Imperial Times C7 almost flatlines, with the increase of C4,5, averaging the C7 component into a C6 (what this paper calls an up to 60% admix of Levantine (C4). Meaning C7 + C4 leading to C6 like people. Then this very paper makes the point for the resurgence of C7, and the melting of any remaining unadmixed eastern C4/5 into C6, through an up to 40% Northern input (Lombards, Germanic etc).
I really do not see what is so controversial here?
Click to expand...
I don't think C7+C4 equaling C6 makes much sense, when C6 is already a cluster unto itself prior to that from happening. Also, you can't ignore the fact that those types of ancestry disappear, by just saying they mixed together and stuck around. That wouldn't make sense.
 
Angela said:
I don't know either, although as I said, for modern Italians there are those Avar settlements.

Perhaps the Scythians should be considered, as they were next door in Ukraine by the 8th century BCE.

Scythian | People, History, & Facts | Britannica

Who knows, some of the steppe groups who arrived earlier might have harbored a few percent of East Asian. I vaguely recall that East Asian haplos were found in some of the Yamnaya samples.

I think my gene plaza results for ancient groups showed a higher than expected match for me with those eastern steppe groups, which could explain it.

It's nothing I really pursued given that it disappeared from the 23andme analyses.
Click to expand...

Right now I am thinking similarly. Since even analyzing the Antonio et al PCA, it is evident that go get to the Late Antiquity phase in those ratios, there had to be some C7 like ancestry added, on its own, melting of the Imperial Averages could have only averaged down C7 like component, without some C7 like input that move is impossible.

Also I have seen some of the Moldovan Scythians plot with modern Italians, Albanians and mainland Greeks.
Even the non Lombard Szload samples looked C6, while the Lombard likely C7.

TnZtBvT.png

0I41g4i.png

bumjtXa.png

LHzpF1h.png


So I have a feeling your years old intuition is likely right. And that vector could have brought some very ancient 1-2% East Asian admix Balkan wide and even reached maybe some parts of the Italian peninsula.

Edit: Funnily enough Angela, we did not even just discover the wheel. It seems Antonio had this on the paper we just did not pay enough attention. At least that's the case for me.

zAJh9tx.png


Came across this trying to find the averages for the below experiment.
 
Jovialis said:
I don't think C7+C4 equaling C6 makes much sense, when C6 is already a cluster unto itself prior to that from happening. Also, you can't ignore the fact that those types of ancestry disappear, by just saying they mixed together and stuck around. That wouldn't make sense.
Click to expand...

We can test this if you want?
I have no idea the result, but take C6 average or individual sample coordinates, and model them as a 2 way, or just use 2 components, namely C7/4. And see the fit?

Do you want to do it or should I go ahead?


We would specifically be testing this hypothesis from the paper:

"As a result, the models that were found to fit the data best are those with a 38 to 59% contribution from Levantine or Anatolian populations into the local/preexisting C.Italy_Etruscan gene pool (Fig. 4B and table S4D)."

If modeling C7+C4; C7+C5, gives a good fit for the Venosa samples, with contributions going from ~40% to 60%. The hypothesis holds.
 
Archetype0ne said:
We can test this if you want?
I have no idea the result, but take C6 average or individual sample coordinates, and model them as a 2 way, or just use 2 components, namely C7/4. And see the fit?
Do you want to do it or should I go ahead?
We would specifically be testing this hypothesis from the paper:
"As a result, the models that were found to fit the data best are those with a 38 to 59% contribution from Levantine or Anatolian populations into the local/preexisting C.Italy_Etruscan gene pool (Fig. 4B and table S4D)."
If modeling C7+C4; C7+C5, gives a good fit for the Venosa samples, with contributions going from ~40% to 60%. The hypothesis holds.
Click to expand...
Even if it fits it doesn't matter. You can do the same with modern populations, nor doesn't it mean it is true. So I fail to see your point. That's just taking an uncontrolled set of samples with no context behind them. If it shows it existed prior to the arrival of that ancestry, than what?
 
kingjohn said:
it effected some of them not all
some are still c7 :unsure:


Distance to:C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_10 18-1151CE:TAQ022
5.02372372C6_Late_Antiquity_Mediterranean:R36_Celio


Distance to:C.Italy_Imperial:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_262-424CE:TAQ021
3.65334094C6_Iron_Age_Mediterranean:R437_(Latin_Prenestini_T ribe)_Palestrina_Selicata


Distance to:C.Italy_Imperial:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_89-236CE:TAQ020
4.22571887C6_Late_Antiquity_Mediterranean:R36_Celio


Distance to:C.Italy_Etruscan:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_358-98BCE:TAQ019
3.19007837C7_Iron_Age_European:R473_(Etruscan)_Civitavecchia


Distance to:C.Italy_Etruscan_related:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_ 346-51BCE:TAQ018
3.22772366C7_Iron_Age_European:R473_(Etruscan)_Civitavecchia


Distance to:C.Italy_Etruscan_related:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_ 356-96BCE:TAQ017
3.92517516C7_Iron_Age_European:R1016_(Latini)_Castel_di_Deci ma


Distance to:C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio): TAQ016
3.79457508C7_Iron_Age_European:R473_(Etruscan)_Civitavecchia


Distance to:C.Italy_Etruscan:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_346-51BCE:TAQ015
2.14424812C7_Iron_Age_European:R1015_(Villanovan)_Veio_Grott a_Gramiccia


Distance to:C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio): TAQ013
3.21407841C7_Iron_Age_European:R1015_(Villanovan)_Veio_Grott a_Gramiccia


Distance to:C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio): TAQ012
7.75460508C7_Iron_Age_European:R1015_(Villanovan)_Veio_Grott a_Gramiccia


Distance to:C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_89 5-1016CE:TAQ011
2.43840112C6_Late_Antiquity_Mediterranean:R120_S_Ercolano_Ne cropolis_Ostia


Distance to:C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio): TAQ010
2.88548090C7_Iron_Age_European:R851_(Latini)_Ardea


Distance to:C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_89 9-1021CE:TAQ009
2.77380605C6_Medieval_Mediterranean:R1283_Cancelleria


Distance to:C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio): TAQ008
5.01349180C7_Iron_Age_European:R1016_(Latini)_Castel_di_Deci ma


Distance to:C.Italy_Etruscan.Afr:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_391-207BCE:TAQ007
7.04589242C5_Imperial_Eastern_Mediterranean:R45_Isola_Sacra_ Necropolis


Distance to:C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_ :TAQ006
5.79330648C7_Iron_Age_European:R1021_(Latini)_Boville_Ernica


Distance to:C.Italy_Etruscan_related:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_ 346-51BCE:TAQ005
6.18588716C7_Iron_Age_European:R1015_(Villanovan)_Veio_Grott a_Gramiccia


Distance to:C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_ :TAQ004
3.51907658C7_Iron_Age_European:R473_(Etruscan)_Civitavecchia


Distance to:C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_72 9-942CE:TAQ003
2.66726452C6_Medieval_Mediterranean:R969_Tivoli_Palazzo_Cian ti


Distance to:C.Italy_Etruscan:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_103BCE-54CE:TAQ002
2.71341114C7_Iron_Age_European:R473_(Etruscan)_Civitavecchia


Distance to:C.Italy_Etruscan_related:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_ 356-96BCE:TAQ001
4.61831138C7_Iron_Age_European:R1015_(Villanovan)_Veio_Grott a_Gramiccia


Distance to:C.Italy_Etruscan:poggioRenzo(Siena_Tuscany)_772-436BCE:pRZ002
5.50763107C7_Iron_Age_European:R851_(Latini)_Ardea


Distance to:C.Italy_Etruscan:poggioRenzo(Siena_Tuscany)_794-543BCE:pRZ001
2.43057606C7_Iron_Age_European:R473_(Etruscan)_Civitavecchia


Distance to:C.Italy_Early.Medieval:poggioPelliccia(Grosseto_Tu scany)_772-960CE:pOP001
3.37237305C6_Medieval_Mediterranean:R1283_Cancelleria


Distance to:C.Italy_Etruscan:Marsilianad'Albegna(Grosseto_Tusc any)_804-557BCE:MAS004
6.43401896C7_Iron_Age_European:R1021_(Latini)_Boville_Ernica


Distance to:C.Italy_Imperial:Marsilianad'Albegna(Grosseto_Tusc any)_400-530CE:MAS003
7.72047278C3_Iron_Age_N_African/Euro-Mix:R475_(Etruscan)_Civitavecchia


Distance to:C.Italy_Imperial:Marsilianad'Albegna(Grosseto_Tusc any)_240-380CE:MAS002
2.96464163C5_Imperial_Eastern_Mediterranean:R81_Viale_Rossin i_Necropolis


Distance to:C.Italy_Etruscan_MAS001:Marsilianad'Albegna(Grosse to_Tuscany)_350-100BCE:MAS001
10.57212845C7_Medieval_European:R55_Villa_Magna


Distance to:C.Italy_Etruscan:MaglianoinToscana(Grosseto_Tuscan y)_790-550BCE:MAG001
3.49005731C7_Iron_Age_European:R1021_(Latini)_Boville_Ernica


Distance to:C.Italy_Early.Medieval_ETR014:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany )_977-1022CE:ETR014
3.41493777C6_Medieval_Mediterranean:R58_Villa_Magna


Distance to:C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)C899-1016CE:ETR013
3.06292344C6_Imperial_Mediterranean:R113_Via_Paisiello_Necro polis


Distance to:C.Italy_Early.Medieval_undated:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscan y):ETR012
17.43717580C7_Iron_Age_European:R474_(Etruscan)_Civitavecchia


Distance to:C.Italy_Early.Medieval_undated:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscan y):ETR010
1.86772589C6_Medieval_Mediterranean:R1285_Cancelleria


Distance to:C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)775-945CE:ETR007
6.17036466C6_Late_Antiquity_Mediterranean:R36_Celio


Distance to:C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)_772-888CE:ETR006
5.64591002C6_Medieval_Mediterranean:R1285_Cancelleria


Distance to:C.Italy_Etruscan:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)_805-774BCE:ETR005
4.37476857C7_Iron_Age_European:R473_(Etruscan)_Civitavecchia


Distance to::Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany):ETR004
12.27070088C6_Medieval_Mediterranean:R64_Villa_Magna


Distance to:C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)_997-1149CE:ETR003
3.75043997C6_Imperial_Mediterranean:R1549_Monterotondo


Distance to:C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tusca ny):CSN013
4.22577803C7_Iron_Age_European:R1016_(Latini)_Castel_di_Deci ma


Distance to::Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012
10.04464036C7_Medieval_European:R63_Villa_Magna


Distance to:C.Italy_Etruscan_related:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tusca ny)_380-204BCE:CSN010
6.08673147C7_Imperial_European:R116_Via_Paisiello_Necropolis


Distance to:C.Italy_Etruscan:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany)_427-265BCE:CSN009
5.65394553C7_Late_Antiquity_European:R33_Mausole_di_Augusto


Distance to:C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tusca ny):CSN008
4.70089353C7_Late_Antiquity_European:R110_Crypta_Balbi


Distance to:C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tusca ny):CSN007
5.79393649C7_Iron_Age_European:R473_(Etruscan)_Civitavecchia


Distance to:C.Italy_Etruscan:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany)_533-392BCE:CSN006
4.42379927C7_Iron_Age_European:R473_(Etruscan)_Civitavecchia


Distance to:C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tusca ny):CSN005
5.78621638C7_Medieval_European:R61_Villa_Magna


Distance to:C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tusca ny):CSN004
5.90316864C7_Iron_Age_European:R1015_(Villanovan)_Veio_Grott a_Gramiccia


Distance to:C.Italy_Etruscan:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany)_380-204BCE:CSN003
5.06993097C7_Iron_Age_European:R473_(Etruscan)_Civitavecchia


Distance to:C.Italy_Etruscan.Ceu_related:Casenovole(Grosseto_T uscany)_427-265BCE:CSN002
10.63977443C7_Late_Antiquity_European:R33_Mausole_di_Augusto


Distance to:C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tusca ny):CSN001
1.96921304C7_Iron_Age_European:R473_(Etruscan)_Civitavecchia


Distance to:C.Italy_Etruscan:CampigliadeiFoci(Siena_Tuscany)_7 70-540BCE:CAM003
3.97761235C7_Iron_Age_European:R473_(Etruscan)_Civitavecchia


Distance to:C.Italy_Etruscan.Ceu:CampigliadeiFoci(Siena_Tuscan y)_770-520BCE:CAM002
5.19538257C7_Medieval_European:R1224_Cancelleria


Distance to:C.Italy_Etruscan:CampigliadeiFoci(Siena_Tuscany)_7 80-540BCE:CAM001
3.06572993C7_Iron_Age_European:R473_(Etruscan)_Civitavecchia
Click to expand...

As I'm sure you know, those are the B.C.E. ones or the undated ones which are probably B.C.E. given that they are undated because they are more deteriorated and thus probably older.
 
Angela said:
As I'm sure you know, those are the B.C.E. ones or the undated ones which are probably B.C.E. given that they are undated because they are more deteriorated and thus probably older.
Click to expand...


yes, we see c6 cluster at much later date :unsure:
 
ihype02 said:
tDTYRF2_d.webp

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.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I didn't edit your post. It's just that I inadvertently pressed the edit button.

I don't know how anything can be figured out using that graphic. Couldn't they have shown percentages?

Germanic yDna was heavily U-106. That would be in the R1b portion along with the Italic U-152,

For what it's worth, Tuscany today is more than 55% R1b, but the percentage of U-106 in that is very small.
 
Archetype0ne said:
We can test this if you want?
I have no idea the result, but take C6 average or individual sample coordinates, and model them as a 2 way, or just use 2 components, namely C7/4. And see the fit?

Do you want to do it or should I go ahead?


We would specifically be testing this hypothesis from the paper:

"As a result, the models that were found to fit the data best are those with a 38 to 59% contribution from Levantine or Anatolian populations into the local/preexisting C.Italy_Etruscan gene pool (Fig. 4B and table S4D)."

If modeling C7+C4; C7+C5, gives a good fit for the Venosa samples, with contributions going from ~40% to 60%. The hypothesis holds.
Click to expand...


Using your same logic, I could take Balkans_IA, and say Tuscans and southern Italians are 100% native Balkans_IA. But we know that isn't true.
 
Jovialis said:
Using your same logic, I could take Balkans_IA, and say Tuscans and southern Italians are 100% native Balkans_IA. But we know that isn't true.
Click to expand...

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

1.We first grouped 21 dated and genetically unrelated individuals from the C.Italy_Etruscan cluster (Fig. 3A) and modeled them with qpAdm (P > 0.05) as a mixture of steppe-related ancestry, represented by Bronze Age pastoralists from Samara in western Russia (Yamnaya), and Neolithic or Copper Age populations from Italy (table S4B). This analysis demonstrated around 25% ancestry from such a distal steppe-related source, which reached around 50% when comparative populations were reduced to those more proximate in time and space than the Yamnaya, e.g., central European Bell Beakers (Fig. 3B). Moreover, C.Italy_Etruscan can be modeled successfully as having derived its entire ancestry from other European populations such as the earlier Bell Beaker group from northern Italy and Iron Age populations from southern Europe (Iberia, Croatia, and Greece) (table S4A). PCA reveals a complete overlap between Iron Age and Roman Republic individuals from Tuscany and Lazio, including the ancient city of Rome (17), indicating that substantial levels of steppe-related ancestry were widespread and homogenized in the multilingual context known to include both Indo-European (i.e., Italic and Celtic) and non–Indo-European (i.e., Etruscan) speakers across central Italy by the Iron Age.

~

2.During the first half of the first millennium CE, we observe a marked shift in PCA space of all studied individuals toward the Near Eastern cline (Fig. 4A), distributed across the genetic space occupied by present-day southeastern European populations. We grouped nonoutlier individuals dating between 1 and 500 CE into the “C.Italy_Imperial” cluster (table S2A). Formal f4-tests reveal its higher affinity than C.Italy_Etruscan to ancient groups from Iran, Africa, and the Near East (table S2C). We then used qpAdm to quantify this group’s ancestry components, where C.Italy_Imperial was modeled as a mixture of the sources C.Italy_Etruscan and 158 published European and Near Eastern genomes from the Bronze and Iron Ages. As a result, the models that were found to fit the data best are those with a 38 to 59% contribution from Levantine or Anatolian populations into the local/preexisting C.Italy_Etruscan gene pool (Fig. 4B and table S4D).

~

3.The C.Italy_Etruscan_MAS001 individual represents a single exception in our dataset showing a shift in PCA space toward Near Eastern populations ~200 BCE (Fig. 4A). While f-statistics do not significantly reject ancestry continuity with the C.Italy_Etruscan cluster (table S2C), an admixture model between Neolithic- and steppe-related ancestries does not fit the genetic profile of this individual (table S4B). Instead, C.Italy_Etruscan_MAS001 can be modeled as a mixture between the C.Italy_Etruscan cluster and populations from the Caucasus, such as Bronze Age Armenians (Fig. 4B), indicating the sporadic presence of Iranian-related ancestry in Etruria at least by the second century BCE.
Click to expand...


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,

Even if it fits it doesn't matter. You can do the same with modern populations, nor doesn't it mean it is true. So I fail to see your point. That's just taking an uncontrolled set of samples with no context behind them. If it shows it existed prior to the arrival of that ancestry, than what?
Click to expand...

This is totally not the case.
 
Archetype0ne said:
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".
Click to expand...

Yes I know, but I happen to think you are doing it wrong.
 
Angela said:
Sorry, I didn't edit your post. It's just that I inadvertently pressed the edit button.

I don't know how anything can be figured out using that graphic. Couldn't they have shown percentages?

Germanic yDna was heavily U-106. That would be in the R1b portion along with the Italic U-152,

For what it's worth, Tuscany today is more than 55% R1b, but the percentage of U-106 in that is very small.
Click to expand...

I2 and I1 in the "Imperial" section combined seem around 10% to 15%.
 
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).
Click to expand...

From the Antonio et al. 2019 paper, C6 is Central Mediterranean and is similar to central and southern Italy. It is distinguished from the other clusters. End of story.
 
Jovialis said:
Yes I know, but I happen to think you are doing it wrong.
Click to expand...

Then we wait for the future papers. Since I will respect your right to disagree with the Max Plank institute. It is your right, and it is the point of the scientific method. But you better provide your own hypothesis and models like I did when I was arguing vs the Danubian Limes model. See I do not really make appeals to authority.

But either way, maybe by the Magna Grecia paper you might get convinced. If not more will come.

At this point for me the writing is on the wall. One just has to be willing to see it.

(y)
 
A few remarks:

1)We don't know what is the genetic make up of the C5 cluster: when only Antonio 2019 came out, it was everybody's guess if they were the result of massive mixing between various people, though the authors tried to model them and they said the fits were bad, so it was up to future papers to find potential sources. Judging from the relative position of C7 and the position of the near eastern cluster in the limes paper, I am confident they were Anatolians.
2)The labels themselves were arbitrary and the "C7 cluster" is a joke: for our purposes, let's take the C7 cluster as the "west med" cluster, that is latins, but when one talks of Lombards as being part of the C7 cluster he is using useless terms that refer to nothing, since the genetic distance between C6 437 latin outlier and the normal Latins is way inferiour than the genetic distance between C7 latins and C7 Lombards.
3)if we assume, as it is likely, that C5 is made up of Anatolians, one can't model them as a two way mixture of C4 near easterners and C7 latin: The same holds for C6, and the reason is that C4, that is Levantines, harbour way more natufian than those Anatolians, indeed it is how the authors of the limes paper easily told apart Anatolians from the single north Levantine outlier, since all samples from the Levant (and thus having way too much natufian, that is Levant_N in terms of a less remote pop) gave worse fits than using samples that weren't from Anatolia.
4)we don't know how the C6 latin outliers came to be: technically, since they appear to be balkan_IA like, that is they have a bit less steppe, way less WHG and higher caucasus related ancestry (as a sidenote: do not literally interpret Iran_N as Iran_N, since we know that it works as a placeholder for "caucasus related", look at the Daunian paper to check this claim), it can be possible to model them as a mix of Anatolians plus Latins, since the Anatolians were a mix of Balkan_IA and Anatolia_BA, and it is how they were modelled like using Armenian_BA, though a more proximate source from the Balkans is more plausible imo. It can be that the C6 cluster in the imperial period was formed thanks to a panmixia between C7 latin-like people and C5 anatolians, but it is a possible explanation, another is that this ancestry was already present in Italy. Future papers will answere this question.
5)The two way model of imperial Italians as south levantines and italic people is already empirically unfounded: let's think about it, even if we take the "southern Levantine" as an average of all the populations that came to Italy, we have many samples from Italy and even the Balkans from the imperial era, and the vast majority is made up of Anatolians, a few are Levantines, and to get to south Levantines as an average you'd need a good deal of a much more "southern" population than actual Levantines, like north africans, who were present during the imperial age, but they were a minority compared to the other two. One could think that future studies will find way more north africans or that somehow it was only southern Levantines that mixed with Italics whereas everybody else died out, but both options are ridicolously implausible.
6)The paper already said that no modern Italian pop is consistent with deriving from an Etruscan medieval-like pop: I have already quoted the extract, and the only comment in the paper was "we can't strongly reject genetic continuity". and then proceeded to use Venosa samples to argue for it, yet they didn't try to model Venosa samples in the same way they've done for medieval Tuscans; it seems to me that they knew it was a bad model and tried somehow to argue for it in a surreptitious way.
 
Antonio et al 2019 said that C6 is a distinguished cluster. The Imperial and medieval Tuscans look like they fall into that category. They are central Mediterranean, not eastern Mediterranean, which is identified as similar to Cyprus, Malta, etc.
 
mQwkAlS.jpg
[/QUOTE]

The West Med admixture in Ancient Greeks of Italy is overlooked. None of the samples of Campania seem to be East Med beyond the Greek cluster.
Apparently Ancient Greeks according to some were only interested into assimilating Anatolians and Levantines.
 
Archetype0ne said:
Right now I am thinking similarly. Since even analyzing the Antonio et al PCA, it is evident that go get to the Late Antiquity phase in those ratios, there had to be some C7 like ancestry added, on its own, melting of the Imperial Averages could have only averaged down C7 like component, without some C7 like input that move is impossible.

Also I have seen some of the Moldovan Scythians plot with modern Italians, Albanians and mainland Greeks.
Even the non Lombard Szload samples looked C6, while the Lombard likely C7.

TnZtBvT.png

0I41g4i.png

bumjtXa.png

LHzpF1h.png


So I have a feeling your years old intuition is likely right. And that vector could have brought some very ancient 1-2% East Asian admix Balkan wide and even reached maybe some parts of the Italian peninsula.

Edit: Funnily enough Angela, we did not even just discover the wheel. It seems Antonio had this on the paper we just did not pay enough attention. At least that's the case for me.

zAJh9tx.png


Came across this trying to find the averages for the below experiment.
Click to expand...

Just researching my own results, and having a good memory for details from the pop gen papers and from history texts has led to a lot of my predictions being accurate, if I say so myself. :)

For example, as I said, I knew from 23andme that I originally scored about 1-2% East Asian. From other testing services I realized that I had a higher than average ratio of east steppe to west steppe than do, for example, northwestern Europeans. There were papers which showed East Asian like haplos definitely in groups like Maykop Yamnaya, in eastern steppe groups, and even in some Yamnaya samples closer to the west.

Obviously, after the fall of Rome numerous groups could have brought that ancestry to the Balkans and Italy. However, Scythians could have brought it in the first millennium BCE given that I remembered reading Greek writers talking about the Scythians, and some of the elite among the Greeks even admixing with their elites.

Coincidentally, when the Scythian samples were published, it turned out that I had matches to the admixed ones. I knew there were admixed Scythians from years before, and discussed the issue here, because a lot of the Scythians had EEF like mtDna. So, my having matches among them was no surprise.

I didn't need the Antonio et al paper or this paper to tell me that. :)

My matching some of the Szolad and Collegno samples was also no surprise, because quite a few of the samples were closest to people from Tuscany and Emilia/Romagna, and I have ancestry from both places.

In the field of population genetics you have to have read widely both the genetics papers and the history of the various areas if you're going to be anywhere near correct in your predictions. You also have to have been at it for more than a hot minute, as they say. I knew, for example, 25 years ago, from reading many papers and books by Cavalli-Sforza that Northern Italians would turn out to be close to Northern Balkanites, and Tuscans pretty close to Albanians. The only difference would basically be was the majority more steppe heavy admixing agent be northwestern or northeastern. Clearly, Balkanites would be more admixed with Northeastern Europeans if speaking about the period after the fall of Rome, and Italians more admixed with Northwestern Europeans. Once again, my own results corroborated that theory.

You can see what I'm talking about in general terms here. I have a plethora of Balkan matches, and people north of me in Italy are even closer.
Distance to:Angela
5.88072274I3313_Balkans_BronzeAge
6.32650773I8475_NE_Iberia_RomP_atypical
6.32865705I9123_Bronze_Age_Armenoi_Crete
6.44030279R1285_Medieval_Era_Cancelleria
6.46676117Szolad43
6.53661992R1287_Medieval_Era_Cancelleria
6.62573015C.Italy_Early.Medieval_undated:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscan y):ETR010
6.95926002C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_10 18-1151CE:TAQ022
7.03668956I3499_NWBalkans_PannonianPlain_Vucedol_EN
7.04472143I1979_Bronze_Age_Beaker_Northern_Italy
7.09619616I2176_Balkans_BronzeAge
7.14881808R111_Imperial_Era_Via_Paisiello_Necropolis
7.44927513I2175_Balkans_BronzeAge
7.46848043C.Italy_Early.Medieval:poggioPelliccia(Grosseto_Tu scany)_772-960CE:pOP001
7.88178279Collegno36
7.98552440C.Italy_Etruscan:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_750-406BCE:VET001
8.01499844C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_ :TAQ006
8.25132717scy197_Scythian
8.36475343Szolad28
8.58821285C.Italy_Imperial:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_89-236CE:TAQ020
8.77719773Bul10_Balkans_BronzeAge
8.79924429C.Italy_Etruscan:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_790-550BCE:VEU001
8.92554760R1016_Iron_Age_Castel_di_Decima
8.94997207Bul6_Balkans_BronzeAge
9.13925599scy192_Scythian

The matches are even closer in mytrueancestry.com, which I think is just basically Eurogenes K13.

. Central Roman
590 AD - Genetic Distance: 3.614 - SZ43 [FONT=&quot]
Top
100 %​
match vs all users [FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[/FONT]


2. Central Roman
630 AD - Genetic Distance: 4.508 - CL36 [FONT=&quot]
Top
100 %​
match vs all users [FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[/FONT]


3. Ancient Middle Helladic Elati-Logkas Greece
1861 BC - Genetic Distance: 5.447 - Log02_cap
Top
100 %​
match vs all users [FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]


4. Tuscan Medieval Villa Magna Italy
905 AD - Genetic Distance: 5.964 - R60 [FONT=&quot]
Top
100 %​
match vs all users [FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[/FONT]


5. Protovillanovia Martinsicuro
930 BC - Genetic Distance: 6.241 - R1 [FONT=&quot]
Top
99 %​
match vs all users [FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[/FONT]


6. Etruscan Tarquinii Italy
800 BC - Genetic Distance: 6.39 - TAQ003
Top
100 %​
match vs all users [FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]


7. Central Roman
590 AD - Genetic Distance: 6.771 - SZ36 [FONT=&quot]
Top
100 %​
match vs all users [FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[/FONT]


8. Ancient Middle Helladic Elati-Logkas Greece
1861 BC - Genetic Distance: 7.044 - Log02_wgs
Top
99 %​
match vs all users [FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]


9. Ancient Venosa Samnite
400 BC - Genetic Distance: 7.92 - VEN016
Top
100 %​
match vs all users [FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]


10. Roman Outlier Lombard Grave
590 AD - Genetic Distance: 8.346 - SZ37 [FONT=&quot]
Top
99 %​
match vs all users [FONT=&quot][/FONT][/FONT]
 
Angela said:
Just researching my own results, and having a good memory for details from the pop gen papers and from history texts has led to a lot of my predictions being accurate, if I say so myself. :)

For example, as I said, I knew from 23andme that I originally scored about 1-2% East Asian. From other testing services I realized that I had a higher than average ratio of east steppe to west steppe than do, for example, northwestern Europeans. There were papers which showed East Asian like haplos definitely in groups like Maykop Yamnaya, in eastern steppe groups, and even in some Yamnaya samples closer to the west.

Obviously, after the fall of Rome numerous groups could have brought that ancestry to the Balkans and Italy. However, Scythians could have brought it in the first millennium BCE given that I remembered reading Greek writers talking about the Scythians, and some of the elite among the Greeks even admixing with their elites.

Coincidentally, when the Scythian samples were published, it turned out that I had matches to the admixed ones. I knew there were admixed Scythians from years before, and discussed the issue here, because a lot of the Scythians had EEF like mtDna. So, my having matches among them was no surprise.

I didn't need the Antonio et al paper or this paper to tell me that. :)

My matching some of the Szolad and Collegno samples was also no surprise, because quite a few of the samples were closest to people from Tuscany and Emilia/Romagna, and I have ancestry from both places.

In the field of population genetics you have to have read widely both the genetics papers and the history of the various areas if you're going to be anywhere near correct in your predictions. You also have to have been at it for more than a hot minute, as they say. I knew, for example, 25 years ago, from reading many papers and books by Cavalli-Sforza that Northern Italians would turn out to be close to Northern Balkanites, and Tuscans pretty close to Albanians. The only difference would basically be was the majority more steppe heavy admixing agent be northwestern or northeastern. Clearly, Balkanites would be more admixed with Northeastern Europeans if speaking about the period after the fall of Rome, and Italians more admixed with Northwestern Europeans. Once again, my own results corroborated that theory.

You can see what I'm talking about in general terms here. I have a plethora of Balkan matches, and people north of me in Italy are even closer.
Distance to:Angela
5.88072274I3313_Balkans_BronzeAge
6.32650773I8475_NE_Iberia_RomP_atypical
6.32865705I9123_Bronze_Age_Armenoi_Crete
6.44030279R1285_Medieval_Era_Cancelleria
6.46676117Szolad43
6.53661992R1287_Medieval_Era_Cancelleria
6.62573015C.Italy_Early.Medieval_undated:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscan y):ETR010
6.95926002C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_10 18-1151CE:TAQ022
7.03668956I3499_NWBalkans_PannonianPlain_Vucedol_EN
7.04472143I1979_Bronze_Age_Beaker_Northern_Italy
7.09619616I2176_Balkans_BronzeAge
7.14881808R111_Imperial_Era_Via_Paisiello_Necropolis
7.44927513I2175_Balkans_BronzeAge
7.46848043C.Italy_Early.Medieval:poggioPelliccia(Grosseto_Tu scany)_772-960CE:pOP001
7.88178279Collegno36
7.98552440C.Italy_Etruscan:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_750-406BCE:VET001
8.01499844C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_ :TAQ006
8.25132717scy197_Scythian
8.36475343Szolad28
8.58821285C.Italy_Imperial:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_89-236CE:TAQ020
8.77719773Bul10_Balkans_BronzeAge
8.79924429C.Italy_Etruscan:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_790-550BCE:VEU001
8.92554760R1016_Iron_Age_Castel_di_Decima
8.94997207Bul6_Balkans_BronzeAge
9.13925599scy192_Scythian

The matches are even closer in mytrueancestry.com, which I think is just basically Eurogenes K13.

. Central Roman
590 AD - Genetic Distance: 3.614 - SZ43
Top
100 %​
match vs all users



2. Central Roman
630 AD - Genetic Distance: 4.508 - CL36
Top
100 %​
match vs all users



3. Ancient Middle Helladic Elati-Logkas Greece
1861 BC - Genetic Distance: 5.447 - Log02_cap
Top
100 %​
match vs all users



4. Tuscan Medieval Villa Magna Italy
905 AD - Genetic Distance: 5.964 - R60
Top
100 %​
match vs all users



5. Protovillanovia Martinsicuro
930 BC - Genetic Distance: 6.241 - R1
Top
99 %​
match vs all users



6. Etruscan Tarquinii Italy
800 BC - Genetic Distance: 6.39 - TAQ003
Top
100 %​
match vs all users



7. Central Roman
590 AD - Genetic Distance: 6.771 - SZ36
Top
100 %​
match vs all users



8. Ancient Middle Helladic Elati-Logkas Greece
1861 BC - Genetic Distance: 7.044 - Log02_wgs
Top
99 %​
match vs all users



9. Ancient Venosa Samnite
400 BC - Genetic Distance: 7.92 - VEN016
Top
100 %​
match vs all users



10. Roman Outlier Lombard Grave
590 AD - Genetic Distance: 8.346 - SZ37
Top
99 %​
match vs all users
Click to expand...

Fwiw, these are the closest populations to the Bronze Age North Italian (Parma) Beaker sample to which I get a match of 7.04.
Distance to:I1979:Olalde_2018
7.66583981French_Corsica
9.15438146Italian_Lombardy
9.36782792Italian_Liguria
9.72487018Italian_Emilia
9.86970618Italian_Tuscany
11.69194595Italian_Romagna
11.71190420Italian_Piedmont
11.90674441Swiss_Italian
12.23369118Italian_Veneto
13.63891858Italian_Trentino
13.84391939Italian_Marche
14.74565699Spanish_Baleares
14.84070416Italian_Friuli_VG
14.90914820Italian_Lazio
15.53721661Italian_Aosta_Valley
15.71857182Spanish_Castilla-Leon
15.83608853Spanish_Valencia
16.32088233Portuguese
16.58355209Spanish_Catalonia
16.77931167Spanish_Canarias
17.11851921Spanish_Andalusia
17.32825438Albanian_Kosovo
17.40040804Spanish_Aragon
17.40597886Albanian
17.98685909Spanish_Galicia

That French Corsica sample, which is at almost the same distance to the Beaker sample as I am, is often my closest modern match on the Vahaduo K12b, and is a French admixed Corsican. Corsicans were admixed with settlers from Liguria and Toscana, areas from which I have ancestry, and Emilia, which constitutes 50% of my ancestry is north of them, so it probably is all pretty legit.

These are the closest modern populations to my Imperial Roman match. They weren't all East Med.
Distance to:Via_Paisiello_Necropolis_Imperial_Rome:R111:Antonio_2019
4.37268796Italian_Romagna
4.40196547French_Corsica
4.52567122Italian_Tuscany
5.34800374Italian_Marche
6.02374468Italian_Emilia
6.60205271Italian_Lazio
6.97389418Italian_Liguria
9.43665725Italian_Lombardy
10.32837354Italian_Piedmont
10.64679294Italian_Abruzzo
10.91365200Italian_Veneto
11.46594523Albanian
12.24593810Greek_Thrace
12.31293223Greek_Thessaly
12.37012530Albanian_Kosovo
12.44505524Greek_Central
12.52507086Italian_Campania
12.85758920Greek_Athens
13.07603533Italian_Friuli_VG
13.23058956Italian_Apulia
13.23207089Greek_Peloponnese
13.53561090Swiss_Italian
13.62172529Italian_Sicily
13.74291454Greek_Thessaloniki
13.76111551Macedonian_South

For all we know, this could have been a North Italian visitor to Rome who happened to die there.

Just a general comment about the difficulty both the academics who worked on Antonio et al and this paper, and the internet hobbyists are having in getting good fits for modern Italians or even Medieval Italians and fits that make historical sense as well.

It's essentially because none of these people seem to accept the to me inescapable fact that Italy, as center of the Empire, and as the seat of the Papacy, was always crawling with traders, business men of all sorts, politicians from the provinces, ambassadors, tourists visiting the Pope, and yes, slaves, the vast majority of whom may never have left a single descendant to contribute to the Italian gene pool. This is what happens when, unlike the situation with the Amorim paper on the Lombards, the authors don't bother to do isotope analysis of the remains.

This was discussed at some length in the Antonio et al thread, where I concurred with Maciamo that it was clear that some of the Late Antiquity samples were obviously Northern Europeans probably just visiting Rome.

The same kind of common sense has to be applied to all of the samples from Antonio et al and the subject paper. They can't be treated as blocks of people who lived their lives and left descendants in the areas where their bones were found.
 
Dushman said:
Sounds too similar to my struggle to pinpoint that a max 10-15% Slavic Y-DNA in Albanians cannot contribute to 38% autosmal input, but most people were fine with that logic.

Perhaps we don�t have enough ancient/medieval samples from Tuscany and Northern Italy in general to account for the full impact of the earlier Celtic and later Germanic inputs.

You could for instance be testing the tombs of Roman or North Italian/Tuscan citizens exclusively and completely miss the suburbs or villages that could have had originally Celtic/Germanic populations. Just an example by the way, don�t hang me for the village/city details.

I say this because the further back in time we go, the more homogeneous populations tended to be.
Click to expand...

Didn't we conclude that the increased autosomal must have been due to females so Y-DNA is not the main driving force.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 130778 times.

Back
Top