Why do native Iron Age Balkanites plot over modern Italians?

[Jovialis]

If you feel I misrepresented something, please quote the relevant part of any of my posts and I will explain.
Great questions. Every time you disagree with someone your tactic is to make it personal, and then give infractions, ban, or delete posts if the other person replies in kind.
The "tail into the Levant" phrase I cannot find, but obviously the Near Eastern component was significantly diminished. This does not mean that those people dissappeared altogether. Both the Rome and the Etruscan papers model Late Antiquity samples as a mixture between Imperial and Central European (or Central European-like) ones.

The paper that said not to take it seriously. Are you feigning ignorance? I have quoted the paper for you. If you choose not to read it, I could care less.

[Jovialis]

The authors who constructed the idea of an Imperial Clusters say:

A) There was variation within the cohort of samples, some of which become extinct in preceding eras. However, C6 is the only one which persists past the middle ages.

B) 31 of the 48 samples were C6 and C5, two groups that were already present in the Iron age.

C) There is discontinuity after the Fall of Rome, and the modeling for Late Antiquity Romans should not be taken literally, due to lack of data and dubious origins. Furthermore, Near Eastern and north African individuals disappear.

Bump post.

[Jovialis]

Read my last post where I quote the study saying Late Antiquity Roman origins should not be taken literally because:

The precise identity of the source populations and the admixture fractions should not be interpreted literally, given the simplified admixture model assumed and the lack of data for most contemporaneous ancient populations (7).

Not to mention the demographic change the authors explicitly write about at the fall of Rome.

Bump post.

[Jovialis]

This is not true, when are you going to stop repeating it?

Here is an excerpt from the study:

We attempted to fit the Imperial population as a simple two-way combination of the preceding Iron Age population and another population, either ancient or modern, using qpAdm. Some populations producing relatively better fits come from eastern Mediterranean regions such as Cyprus, Anatolia, and the Levant (table S22). However, none of the tested two-way models provides a good, robust fit to the data, suggesting that this was a complex mixture event, potentially including source populations that have not yet been identified or studied.
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).

Ancient Rome: A genetic crossroads of Europe and the Mediterranean (science.org)

Bump post.

[Jovialis]

Posth et al 2021 only has 6 Imperial samples vs 48 from Antonio et al 2019. Furthermore, when comparing the Posth Imperial to Antonio Imperials, we see most of them were C6.

[Salento]

in italian
http://www.scuolablu.it/martinsicuro.htm

… MyHeritage, … my Chieti (Abruzzo) Genetic Group,
Martinsicuro is around the top blue circle:

[Çerç]

The paper that said not to take it seriously. Are you feigning ignorance? I have quoted the paper for you. If you choose not to read it, I could care less.

It said not to take it literally, which does not mean it is wrong, but that it is not certain. As it happens the new paper has reaffirmed what they suspected.

[Jovialis]

It said not to take it literally, which does not mean it is wrong, but that it is not certain. As it happens the new paper has reaffirmed what they suspected.

They are not the same samples. Furthermore, it is a much smaller set. Plus, despite the small size, C6 people are still the majority. Also I find your interpretation of the sentence to be not what the author meant. Also, they said there wasn't enough data to make a determination on the origin of Late Antiquity Rome. Let's get things straight.

[Angela]

If you feel I misrepresented something, please quote the relevant part of any of my posts and I will explain.



Great questions. Every time you disagree with someone your tactic is to make it personal, and then give infractions, ban, or delete posts if the other person replies in kind.

The "tail into the Levant" phrase I cannot find, but obviously the Near Eastern component was significantly diminished. This does not mean that those people dissappeared altogether. Both the Rome and the Etruscan papers model Late Antiquity samples as a mixture between Imperial and Central European (or Central European-like) ones.

Happily.

This is what you posted: "However this shift was far more dramatic than the an admixture between BA/IA Italians and BA/IA Aegeans would produce. Most of it is attributed to Levantine and Anatolian components. Four papers from Italy, Spain and the Balkans have already brought evidence of this. So BA/IA samples cannot be compared to modern populations without first accounting for the eastern shift in the early Roman period and then the western shift in the late one."

You then quoted the Danubian Limes paper:
"Balkans
4- The other major cluster (44% of the samples from Viminacium between 1-250 CE) is represented by individuals who projected towards ancient and present-day Eastern Mediterranean groups in PCA (Figure 1A), close to ancient individuals from Rome during Imperial times. Their ancestry can be modelled as deriving deeply from Chalcolithic Western Anatolian groups (Figure 2; Supplementary section 12.2), and we refer to this cluster as the Near Eastern-related cluster. The same signal of arrivals individuals with Anatolian/Near Eastern ancestral origins is also evident in Rome during the same period, consistent with largescale gene-flow originating from the major eastern urban centers of the Empire (such as Constantinople, Antioch, Smyrna and Alexandria). These results suggest that immigration from the east was a common feature across urban centers in the Roman Empire, including in border areas and large cities/military outposts such as Viminacium."This is IRRELEVANT to your point because the paper makes clear those Near Eastern people did not influence modern Balkan genetics. The shift for them happened earlier, not in the Imperial Age.

How can you still not get it?

Am I supposed to say," great job"?

How am I supposed to respond? Either you didn't read it, or you didn't understand it, or you're playing dishonest games. You're lucky I settled on didn't read these papers or understand them, because if I believed you were playing dishonest games you'd be banned.

If you were a newbie who was honestly confused I would respond differently. Instead, there's this totally misplaced arrogance about ludicrously incorrect comments.

Also, if you don't know about Antonio et al's discussion about the tail into the Levant and how it disappeared, then once again there is proof you didn't read the paper carefully.

Also, are you pretending you don't know what "drastically shrunk" means????

I'm losing my patience. Leave well enough alone, and only respond once you've re-read the papers.

[Hawk]

I don't even take them so serious, the autosomal models.

It's because of very simple and not so smart algorithms at comparing such complex genomes as autosomal.

It's clear why they plot more toward Italians than modern Balkanites, mainly Slavic admixture and some Byzantine-Anatolian admixture more evident among Greeks.

[torzio]

… MyHeritage, … my Chieti (Abruzzo) Genetic Group,
Martinsicuro is around the top blue circle:

makes sense

You are liburnian ..............your line went south ...my line went north

[Çerç]

Deleted for insults.

[Çerç]

They are not the same samples. Furthermore, it is a much smaller set. Plus, despite the small size, C6 people are still the majority. Also I find your interpretation of the sentence to be not what the author meant. Also, they said there wasn't enough data to make a determination on the origin of Late Antiquity Rome. Let's get things straight.

Not the same samples, you mean the ones from different papers? If so, of course they aren't. But the tendency is the same across the Mediterranean.

The whole point for my initial post was that your idea that Slovenian IA + Greek IA = modern Italians needs to take into account the numerous shifts between IA and today, including the eastern one.

[Jovialis]

Not the same samples, you mean the ones from different papers? If so, of course they aren't. But the tendency is the same across the Mediterranean.

The whole point for my initial post was that your idea that Slovenian IA + Greek IA = modern Italians needs to take into account the numerous shifts between IA and today, including the eastern one.

Both papers have different samples from each other. Posth has 6 Imperials, Antonio has 48. 31 of the 48 in Rome were C5 and C6. We see in the middle ages 60% of the samples in Rome are C6, and 40% C7. So the big shift was central Mediterranean ancestry taking predominace in Rome.

[Leopoldo Leone]

https://isba9.sciencesconf.org/data/...ISBA9_2022.pdf , Pag 122: it isn't surprising that the samples from central Italy plot with previous samples from Latium, more interesting to see that inhabitants of Emilia Romagna were similar to Latins, and Sicilians were identical to Sicily BA from what is stated here. Now the gap is between south Italy and Sicily: the paper about the Daunians showed that many samples were somewhat in a cline between Latins and Sicily_BA.

[Leopoldo Leone]

The abstract:

Unraveling the genetic history of Italians: a genome-wide study of Iron Age
Italic populations
Zaro Valentina (1), Vergata Chiara (1), Cannariato Costanza (1), Modi
Alessandra (1), Vai Stefania (1), Pilli Elena (1), Diroma Maria Angela (1),

Caramelli David (1), Lari Martina (1)
1 - Department of Biology, University of Florence, Florence, Italy (Italy)
The high genetic variability of present-day Italians reflects a complex scenario of past
population dynamics dating back not only to Late Paleolithic and Neolithic but also

Metal Ages. Although many archaeogenetic studies have been recently carried out to

investigate the peopling of Europe, only few genomic data have been reported from

Italic populations so far, especially the ones belonging to the last phase of Metal

Ages: the Iron Age. To outline a picture of Iron Age genetic variability within the
Italian context and infer potential gene flow patterns, we collected 78 human remains

from 8 Iron Age necropolises covering 5 different regions of Italy (Emilia-Romagna,
Umbria, Marche, Latium and Sicily). Double stranded half-UDG libraries were
produced and then shotgun sequenced on an Illumina NovaSeq6000 platform to

allow for an initial screening of the samples. Raw reads were processed using the

EAGER pipeline and then assessment of DNA authenticity and sex determination

were performed. Preliminary population genetics tests were run on genotyped data

by building a west Eurasian PCA including all the samples with at least 10.000 SNPs

covered on the Affymetrix Human Origins panel. The first results highlight an affinity
of the majority of the samples with previously reported Iron Age individuals from Italy,

while all samples from Sicily overlap with the genetic variability observed in this area

during the Bronze Age. Our aim is to deeper investigate these samples which can
significantly contribute to better understand past peopling dynamics of the Italian

peninsula and reconstruct modern Italians' genetic history.

[Palermo Trapani]

Leopoldo Leone: reading the abstract you posted in post #41, it states the affinity of the majority of the samples with "previously reported Iron Age individuals from Italy" and the Iron age Sicilians overlap with Bronze Age Sicily variability which I think would range from the Sicilian Beakers to the samples in Fernandes et al 2020 which demonstrated some BA Sicilians had Steppe Admixture, etc. So it seems many/most of these are new Iron Age Samples from Emilia, Marche, Lazio, Umbria, etc., and I think this is (Will be) the first Iron Age Samples from Sicily (that I am aware of).

Thanks for notifying everyone here about that paper

[Tryaga]

The takeaway is that the Etruscans represent what the North Italian population was prior to the demographic changes enabled by wars which decimated the male population, immigration, slavery.

[Angela]

Stefania Vai works with Cosimo Posth, so my hopes aren't high for this paper.

[ihype02]

"What we see in Etruscans" is a vague saying, as northern Italians are very close to Etruscans. Nobody is doubting they will not differ much.
Using Latins and Etruscans got better results than just Latins and they were very close. Let's see.

[Leopoldo Leone]

Stefania Vai works with Cosimo Posth, so my hopes aren't high for this paper.

I did not want to take part in the "nativist vs immigrationist" debate, since I think that new papers will make the picture clearer, and I have already presented my issues with the last paper on the Etruscans.
Even if they decided to take the route of that paper, postulating an obviously ridicolous massive migration from the Levant to Italy and then from north Europe to Italy, this time such a scenario would be much harder to conciliate with the data: the Sicilians in the IA were identical to those in the BA, and it is very unlikely that Sicily's gene pool was just confined to Sicily, and the Daunian paper shows that not every inhabitant of Italy was Italic-like, pace to those that had "high hopes" of seeing their petty theories straight from the 20th century about Italy confirmed.
The leaked PCA from the upcoming study of Campania has some points/samples that do not fall in three groups, and I wonder what they are: let's remember that Italic weren't the first people in Italy.
Main take away: before postulating that half of the inhabitants of Italy at some point came from the Levant or the middle east at some point, it is a priori much likelier that there was internal gene flow in Italy, and then from neighbouring regions like the Balkans, and then regions further away; IA samples from the rest of south Italy would shed more light on the issue.

P.S. As for the topic of the thread, I am willing to bet that there was no cline in Italy from Latin_IA to Aegean_IA because it makes literally no sense, but there are some chances there was a cline from Latin_IA to Sicilian_IA/BA, so not much different from a hypothetical Latin_IA-Aegean_IA cline. I think it would answere the question in this thread.

[Angela]

I did not want to take part in the "nativist vs immigrationist" debate, since I think that new papers will make the picture clearer, and I have already presented my issues with the last paper on the Etruscans.
Even if they decided to take the route of that paper, postulating an obviously ridicolous massive migration from the Levant to Italy and then from north Europe to Italy, this time such a scenario would be much harder to conciliate with the data: the Sicilians in the IA were identical to those in the BA, and it is very unlikely that Sicily's gene pool was just confined to Sicily, and the Daunian paper shows that not every inhabitant of Italy was Italic-like, pace to those that had "high hopes" of seeing their petty theories straight from the 20th century about Italy confirmed.
The leaked PCA from the upcoming study of Campania has some points/samples that do not fall in three groups, and I wonder what they are: let's remember that Italic weren't the first people in Italy.
Main take away: before postulating that half of the inhabitants of Italy at some point came from the Levant or the middle east at some point, it is a priori much likelier that there was internal gene flow in Italy, and then from neighbouring regions like the Balkans, and then regions further away; IA samples from the rest of south Italy would shed more light on the issue.

All things I've been saying forever, so obviously I agree.

I am looking forward to the paper regardless, if for no other reason than that there will finally be Iron Age samples from Emilia and regions in Central Italy, and especially, Sicilia.

[Pax Augusta]

Stefania Vai works with Cosimo Posth, so my hopes aren't high for this paper.

These all work together. The difference seems to be that in the Etruscan study (and the one on Campania/Magna Grecia) there is a more direct role for Max Planck/Harvard/Tubingen, but not here at least to see the little information that has come out. But autosomal DNA analysis could not have been done in Italy, I think.

[Blablabla]

Closer to northern or to southern Italians?!

[Jovialis]

Closer to northern or to southern Italians?!

They plot over Tuscans all the way down to South Italy/Sicilian, see the OP's PCA.