Southern Italian Ethnogenesis (My theory)

I'm sorry if the question I'm about to ask won't make much sense from a technical point of view, but I wonder if it could be a good fit to model southern Italy as a three way mix of protovillanovian + Minoan + Empuries (used as proxy for Iron age Greek), which, historically, should have been the three populations who contributed the most to the ethnogenesis of that region.

I can check using qpADM, do you know the id of the Protovillanovan sample?
But I suspect the model will fail, not because of merit, but rather even in cases where it is plausible, using populations that share common drift, such as Minoan and Empuries causes the models to have bad fits.
 
I'm sorry if the question I'm about to ask won't make much sense from a technical point of view, but I wonder if it could be a good fit to model southern Italy as a three way mix of protovillanovian + Minoan + Empuries (used as proxy for Iron age Greek), which, historically, should have been the three populations who contributed the most to the ethnogenesis of that region.

The Protovillanovan sample, which comes from the border between Abruzzo and Marche, is only one, it is most likely a Proto-Picene, and we do not know whether it is truly representative of all Protovillanovan samples, which is a supranational facies of the late Bronze Age. The fact that the Protovillanovan sample has less WHG than Latins and Etruscans suggests that this sample may be a relatively recent arrival from the Balkans, and even if this is not definitely proven there is a further problem, because archaeologists admit the role of a Balkan component in the ethnogenesis of the Picenes (plus two other components, if I remember correctly), but that is something that might concern the Picenes in this case, rather than all speakers of Osco-Umbrian languages.
 
The Protovillanovan sample, which comes from the border between Abruzzo and Marche, is only one, it is most likely a Proto-Picene, and we do not know whether it is truly representative of all Protovillanovan samples, which is a supranational facies of the late Bronze Age. The fact that the Protovillanovan sample has less WHG than Latins and Etruscans suggests that this sample may be a relatively recent arrival from the Balkans, and even if this is not definitely proven there is a further problem, because archaeologists admit the role of a Balkan component in the ethnogenesis of the Picenes (plus two other components, if I remember correctly), but that is something that might concern the Picenes in this case, rather than all speakers of Osco-Umbrian languages.
Very interesting, thank you.
I imagine it could be possible, on one hand, that the protovillanovian / protoitalic group was less WHG admixed as whole, and that the major WHG ancestry found in Etruscan and Latin samples is due to the central Italian Neolithic substrate. But it could also be, as you said, that the protovillanovian sample we have is not representative of the whole proto-italic group and that he was just a recent arrival from the Balkan.
 
I can check using qpADM, do you know the id of the Protovillanovan sample?
But I suspect the model will fail, not because of merit, but rather even in cases where it is plausible, using populations that share common drift, such as Minoan and Empuries causes the models to have bad fits.

Thanks, I had no idea about that
 
Very interesting, thank you.
I imagine it could be possible, on one hand, that the protovillanovian / protoitalic group was less WHG admixed as whole, and that the major WHG ancestry found in Etruscan and Latin samples is due to the central Italian Neolithic substrate. But it could also be, as you said, that the protovillanovian sample we have is not representative of the whole proto-italic group and that he was just a recent arrival from the Balkan.


The identification of the Protovillanovan culture with the Protoitalics is disputed by some archaeologists (the Protovillanovan is also ancestral to the Latins, Venetis and Etruscans, to name but a few examples) and is still unproven.

If it is true, as some linguists claim, that the Latin-Faliscan and Osco-Umbrian branches are separate, and arrived in Italy separately due to two different migrations (and convergence would be due to later contacts in Italy), the latter could perhaps have some more Balkan origins. But it is all very hypothetical, over a year ago studies were presented, including at least a couple that contained the genome of Osco-Umbrian language populations, hopefully helping to clarify.
 
But it is all very hypothetical, over a year ago studies were presented, including at least a couple that contained the genome of Osco-Umbrian language populations, hopefully helping to clarify.
Probably the most important missing link to properly understand Southern Italy's ethnogenesis are exactly samples from the southern oscan tribes. If Jovialis' intuitions are rights, oscans (or at least the most southern of them) should be a two way mixture of Minoan (or late bronze age Sicily) and some sort of IE population. If you then ad more Iron age greeks to the picture, you should have a good model for southern Italy, or at least for the bulk of it.
 
I'm sorry if the question I'm about to ask won't make much sense from a technical point of view, but I wonder if it could be a good fit to model southern Italy as a three way mix of protovillanovian + Minoan + Empuries (used as proxy for Iron age Greek), which, historically, should have been the three populations who contributed the most to the ethnogenesis of that region.
Are you referring to the Woman ( Sample ID R1 ) ................found in Martinscuro and tronto areas of Picene , at that time a Liburnian colony


she is now part of this project

https://www.archaeological.org/fieldwork/nadin-gradina-archaeological-project-croatia/
 
Are you referring to the Woman ( Sample ID R1 ) ................found in Martinscuro and tronto areas of Picene , at that time a Liburnian colony

she is now part of this project
https://www.archaeological.org/fieldwork/nadin-gradina-archaeological-project-croatia/

To be honest I didn't have in mind a particular individual, I just knew we had at least one protovillanovian sample (to be precise I thought we had more than just one) and I guessed they could be an acceptable proxy for the people of the italic expansion of the late bronze age
 
Scrolling on the forum I just realize we have some sample from Iron age Venosa which sectacularly plot with modern central and southern italians: https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threa...000-CE)/page12?p=629001&viewfull=1#post629001

I'm referring, of course, to the samples labelled as VEN. In the Iron age, Venosa was inhabited by oscan tribes: if the samples are actually from southern italics individuals (are they or have I mistaken something?), it would prove once more Jovialis' theory and the fact that by the beginning of the iron age the genetic profile of the modern italian paeninsula was already largely formed.
 
Scrolling on the forum I just realize we have some sample from Iron age Venosa which sectacularly plot with modern central and southern italians: https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threa...000-CE)/page12?p=629001&viewfull=1#post629001

I'm referring, of course, to the samples labelled as VEN. In the Iron age, Venosa was inhabited by oscan tribes: if the samples are actually from southern italics individuals (are they or have I mistaken something?), it would prove once more Jovialis' theory and the fact that by the beginning of the iron age the genetic profile of the modern italian paeninsula was already largely formed.

Venosa samples are dated between AD 707 and 736, not the Iron Age.

Geo-political situation during that period

ttA7ciC.png
 
Most Venosa samples are also low coverage (less than at least 20%).

Sample IDCoverage
VEN01577,43%
VEN00154,04%
VEN01349,24%
VEN00641,09%
VEN01636,69%
VEN00519,25%
VEN01216,68%
VEN0109,23%
VEN0098,73%
VEN0087,14%
VEN0185,49%
VEN0144,15%
VEN0213,73%
VEN0023,69%
VEN0172,92%
VEN0222,70%
 
Venosa samples are dated between AD 707 and 736, not the Iron Age.
Geo-political situation during that period
ttA7ciC.png
Thanks, I dug into the supplementary material and the burials are indeed dated roughly to the 8th century.
 
This model is basically a more expanded upon version. Interestingly, southern Italians remain the same in spite of all the new additions. Which leads me to believe it is a good model.

DeHJsK7.png

Wonder if the new Mycenaeans samples (some of wich seem to be a bit more anatolian adimixed than the previous four published samples) could explain, at least to some extent, the ABA component in southern Italy.

RdJBBal.png
 
Wonder if the new Mycenaeans samples (some of wich seem to be a bit more anatolian adimixed than the previous four published samples) could explain, at least to some extent, the ABA component in southern Italy.

RdJBBal.png

Just for the record, some of the new Mycenaean samples actually have less EHG than the old ones. There's a lot of variation in them.

From the leaked information from the Greek colonial site near Naples, some of the Greek colonists had a lot of Anatolian Bronze. However, it's difficult to project these things because we don't know how many Greeks arrived, the relative number of "Italics" and Etruscans versus the Greek newcomers, if the ancestry spread all over the south, etc.
 
From the leaked information from the Greek colonial site near Naples, some of the Greek colonists had a lot of Anatolian Bronze.

That's indeed very interesting and in line with the ancestry of many of those new Mycenaean samples, If I'm not mistaken.


However, it's difficult to project these things because we don't know how many Greeks arrived, the relative number of "Italics" and Etruscans versus the Greek newcomers, if the ancestry spread all over the south, etc.

We could maybe desume those data by comparing the archeological data with the new archeogenetic research. In order to do so, we surely need samples from Southern Italic tribes(wich could already be more "Minoan" like than Latins and Etruscans) and Greek settlers of the Iron age.
 
This model is basically a more expanded upon version. Interestingly, southern Italians remain the same in spite of all the new additions. Which leads me to believe it is a good model.

DeHJsK7.png

am I the only one that finds it strange that Crete and Rhodos have almost zero minoan (almost all anatolian) while the jewish entries are full of minoan ....?
 
am I the only one that finds it strange that Crete and Rhodos have almost zero minoan (almost all anatolian) while the jewish entries are full of minoan ....?

I could attempt an explanation, or rather two:

a) Jews axorbed their minoan admiture somewere else than Crete and Rhodes, were this admixture wasn't presente anymore at the time they moved to southern Europe

b) Maybe Crete and Rhodes received a small input of additional Levant PPN adimixture after the bronze age, wich "masks" their minoan adimixture as Anatolian Bronze age admixture...I don't even know if anything like that could technically happen, tough, and if it was possible it should happen to jews' model as well, I guess.
 
I could attempt an explanation, or rather two:

a) Jews axorbed their minoan admiture somewere else than Crete and Rhodes, were this admixture wasn't presente anymore at the time they moved to southern Europe

b) Maybe Crete and Rhodes received a small input of additional Levant PPN adimixture after the bronze age, wich "masks" their minoan adimixture as Anatolian Bronze age admixture...I don't even know if anything like that could technically happen, tough, and if it was possible it could happened to jews' model as well.

thanks for the answer, and believe me I am far from an expert in genetics, but it is hard not to be sceptical:

a) maroccan jews have so much minoan... can't explain it.
b)yes the graph does not unmask that or any component in what it should be probably the highest minoan concentration (almost a reference).
By the graph Cretans have less minoan than Austrial tyrol. I think that is a critical failure as i would not pass any consistency test.

honestly i thought i was going daltonic by how many times I checked the colorcoding.
 
gW7rJ3B.png


Code:
Minoan_Zakros:I14916,0,0,3.51,0,31.15,0,2.37,0,12.57,0,49.61,0.8
Minoan_Lasithi,0.652,0.01,3.302,0.19,37.716,0.046,0,0,14.12,0,43.886,0.078
Minoan_Odigitria,2.584,0.472,1.574,0,42.44,0,0,0.338,14.602,0.204,37.722,0.066
Minoan_Petras:Pta08:Clemente_2021,0,0,3.85,0.33,34.73,0.38,0.14,0.05,14.68,0.48,43.65,1.72
Yamnaya,26.74263158,2.019473684,0.048947368,0.048947368,4.413157895,59.63526316,1.102631579,0.022631579,0.02,0,5.234210526,0.712631579

Ldgl42L.png
 
1-s2.0-S0960982221005352-gr2.jpg

Two pretty heavily steppe admixed individuals from bronze age Friuli (Broion_BA) seem to fall outside the central european bronze age cluster (wich sits on a cline between Yamnaya and Western Europe neolithic) and are located on a cline which connect Yamnaya with eastern europe neolithic.
This circumstance seems to fit with your model of using Yamanaya to model italians rather than a more "Bell Beaker-like" population.
 

This thread has been viewed 68312 times.

Back
Top