Forum | Europe Travel Guide | Ecology | Facts & Trivia | Genetics | History | Linguistics |
Austria | France | Germany | Ireland | Italy | Portugal | Spain | Switzerland |
![]() |
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.
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.
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.
Non si fa il proprio dovere perchè qualcuno ci dica grazie, lo si fa per principio, per se stessi, per la propria dignità. Oriana Fallaci
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.
Fathers mtdna ...... T2b17
Grandfather mtdna ... T1a1e
Sons mtdna ...... K1a4p
Mothers line ..... R1b-S8172
Grandmother paternal side ... I1-CTS6397
Wife paternal line ..... R1a-PF6155
Deleted for insults.
Last edited by Angela; 13-10-21 at 02:10.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Stefania Vai works with Cosimo Posth, so my hopes aren't high for this paper.
"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.
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.
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.
Closer to northern or to southern Italians?!