Debate need clarification on the topic of Italian population genetics and its amateur and academic treatment

[MOESAN]

I never denied contact. The problem here is that you are unable to differentiate between contact and large scale population exchanges which are two very different events. Italics from all over northern Italy certainly had contact and established trade networks with Celts and Illyrians and nobody denies this. What I reject is that idea that there is any significant evidence to support the four suppositions you've vaguely and dogmatically put forth which I've previously listed.

I think some Celtic inputs may have been masked by some others inputs, these last ones from Southern Italy, making an autosomes mixture very close to the preceding one (which was without them), hiding some historical mixtures. I agree with a very dominant continuity, but not with a so total one. I speak here of Celts, but other minorities could have played a role, even if light. These balanced autosomes inputs combinated are very hard to disintangle I think and need very subtle and precise analysis to be put under light.
I think too that the Roman input in Gauls, magnified in old scholars times, is too understated these last years...
Agree otherwise against the nonsensical and garbage picture of Non-Mediterranean Europe + Near East = Italians - I forget almost completely North-African.

 

[Vitruvius]

I think some Celtic inputs may have been masked by some others inputs, these last ones from Southern Italy, making an autosomes mixture very close to the preceding one (which was without them), hiding some historical mixtures. I agree with a very dominant continuity, but not with a so total one. I speak here of Celts, but other minorities could have played a role, even if light. These balanced autosomes inputs combinated are very hard to disintangle I think and need very subtle and precise analysis to be put under light.
I think too that the Roman input in Gauls, magnified in old scholars times, is too understated these last years...
Agree otherwise against the nonsensical and garbage picture of Non-Mediterranean Europe + Near East = Italians - I forget almost completely North-African.

The Celts were expelled, no different than the Punics or Moors. Their historic presence as a colonization effort was only 220 years prior to that. They would not have played a role in the modern northern Italian ethnogenesis. Whatever was leftover after the expulsion would've been very small pockets of populations compared to the bulk sum Roman Italian population which remained.

 

[Jovialis]

Hi everyone, I've been passionate about archaeogenetics and population DNA for some time now and I've been on Reddit for a while, so I'd like to make this post to seek clarification that I can't find there in a uniform and coherent way. several times, regarding the genetics and DNA of the Italian population. I often read many posts (many of which come from some Redditors who seem to be solely interested in Italian genetics or any group related to them) that claim that Italians (particularly Southerners but also Central Italians) are a mixed breed between Western Asia/Canaanite and the European region, with around 50-60% of their DNA coming from MENA areas (especially the Levant) this theme is always emphasized whenever a post concerns Italians in particular, and as regards Northern Italians it is the thesis is in vogue that they are a cross between Germanic/Central European invaders and a basic Roman population like the modern southern Italians (Sicilian or Calabrian), thus arguing that Italy was the site of mass immigration both from the Middle East and from Northern/Central Europe and replacing, sometimes completely, the entire local Italian population. I recently read this post coming from the "23ndme" subreddit, which unfortunately I can't load the image but here is the link:https://www.reddit.com/r/23andme/s/xOezWtMpyH
and he says "what if 23ndme was more honest with Italian genetic results?" what I am therefore looking for is clarification for the general picture regarding the genetics of the Italian population precisely because the information changes a lot and often seems very reductive and inconsistent, and as mentioned I have not yet developed the right knowledge to talk about topics of archaeogenetics and population DNA, in contrast to a large number of Reddit users who seem (apparently) to be experts in this regard, but as said in the end it all turns out to be very vague and directed so im asking here because this is, for now, another place where the topic of genetics and DNA is discussed outside reddit

From the note:

"Note: This graphic is made in the style of 23andMe Ancestry Composition results, but is in no way meant to reflect what these populations would actually score in the 23andMe algorithm. Likewise, the reference populations used here are ancient DNA samples and therefore not completely analogous to the same-named reference populations made up of modern individuals used by 23andMe. Please see the Key for more details. For example, the “Italian” reference population in 23andMe is made up of modern individuals of Italian descent and is meant to reflect ancestry local to Italy for the past dozen generations. Here, "Italian" refers to individuals of Italic or Etruscan ancestry from ancient DNA samples dated to the Iron Age. This is rather an erroneous label to use here as its contemporary, defaulted usage amongst Italians is more broad and modern, and as such is more inclusive than just Italic or Etruscan samples. This population label is used in the modern sense to refer to the nation, largely post-unification, and modern Italian individuals. All populations sampled here (with the exception of Maltese) are genetically Italian, as much of the admixture seen here has been local to Italy for roughly 2000 years."

I.e this is not academic and is made by an amateur.

 

[Jovialis]

I had ChatGPT assess the note and asked about accuracy and reliability, the response on tools and accuracy are critical:

Based on the notes provided in the image, here are the problems and reliability concerns with the graphic:

### **Problems:**

1. **Misleading Population Labels:**
- The term "Italian" in this graphic refers to ancient populations like Italic or Etruscan individuals from Iron Age DNA samples. This use of "Italian" is misleading because, in modern context, it broadly refers to contemporary Italians, who have a more diverse genetic background due to millennia of admixture and migrations.

2. **Ancient vs. Modern DNA:**
- The reference populations in this graphic are based on ancient DNA samples, which are not directly analogous to the reference populations used by modern services like 23andMe. This can lead to confusion as the graphic does not reflect the genetic composition of living individuals but rather ancient populations, which can have very different genetic profiles.

3. **Erroneous Labeling:**
- The graphic’s labeling of populations such as "Italian" or "Roman" may be considered erroneous because these terms have evolved over time. The populations labeled in the graphic are based on ancient DNA, while modern Italians are a product of much more recent historical and genetic developments, including significant admixture from various groups throughout history.

4. **No Direct Comparison to 23andMe Results:**
- Although the graphic is styled like 23andMe’s Ancestry Composition results, the populations analyzed and the data used are fundamentally different. This could lead users to incorrectly assume that these results are directly comparable to what they might receive from a 23andMe test, which is not the case.

5. **Highly Individual Variability:**
- The notes mention that ancestry is highly variable on an individual level, particularly in Italy due to its history as a crossroads of civilizations. This means the graphic’s generalized breakdowns might not accurately represent individual genetic makeups, especially in a modern context where admixture is more complex.

### **Reliability Concerns:**

1. **Historical Context vs. Modern Genetics:**
- The graphic seems reliable for illustrating ancient genetic influences on modern Italians but may not be reliable for understanding the contemporary genetic composition of individuals. The genetic data is drawn from ancient populations, and while it provides historical insights, it doesn’t fully account for subsequent migrations, admixtures, and changes over the centuries.

2. **Generalization Across Regions:**
- The graphic provides a generalized view of genetic influences across different regions of Italy. However, given the extensive regional diversity in Italy, even within ancient times, these generalizations might oversimplify the actual genetic landscape, which can vary significantly from one region to another.

3. **Use of Global 25:**
- The use of Global 25 for genetic calculations is mentioned, which is a reliable method for comparing ancient DNA samples. However, the reliability of these comparisons for making inferences about modern populations is limited because Global 25 focuses on ancient genetic components rather than the full spectrum of modern genetic diversity.

### **Summary:**
The graphic is a useful educational tool for understanding the historical and ancient genetic influences on Italian populations. However, it has limitations when it comes to accurately reflecting modern Italian genetic diversity due to its reliance on ancient DNA samples and potentially misleading labels. Users should be cautious in interpreting this graphic as a reflection of contemporary genetic makeup and should understand it within its historical context.

 

[Jovialis]

Basically, this was made by some guy with G25, who styled his results in a 23andMe art project. Honestly, I would not take it seriously at all.

 

[MOESAN]

The Celts were expelled, no different than the Punics or Moors. Their historic presence as a colonization effort was only 220 years prior to that. They would not have played a role in the modern northern Italian ethnogenesis. Whatever was leftover after the expulsion would've been very small pockets of populations compared to the bulk sum Roman Italian population which remained.

I think their input is light, but nit so negligible. At tle linguistic level the so called 'gallo-itaian' dialects show undeniable affinities with French language, evidently closer to the southern ones than to the most northern ones, but I doubt this could be due only to geographic proximity or commercial influence; I find that phonetically these dialects show more proximity to France regions than to ther Italian regions, spite we coud have expected more contacts with other Italian region during these last centuries... Only a personal statement. What is sure is that as time pass, northern Italy will loose more and more of its (small?) peculiarities respective to other regions.

 

[Vitruvius]

I think their input is light, but nit so negligible. At tle linguistic level the so called 'gallo-itaian' dialects show undeniable affinities with French language, evidently closer to the southern ones than to the most northern ones, but I doubt this could be due only to geographic proximity or commercial influence; I find that phonetically these dialects show more proximity to France regions than to ther Italian regions, spite we coud have expected more contacts with other Italian region during these last centuries... Only a personal statement. What is sure is that as time pass, northern Italy will loose more and more of its (small?) peculiarities respective to other regions.

The French language is a Latin language, not celtic, with a vastly majority Latin vocabulary at about 85%. The similarities between French and Northern Italian dialects are chiefly due to Roman influence in France after Caesar's conquests, not Celtic influence in 4th century BC Italy. There are also the continued trade contacts which were maintained between the two regions which without a doubt allotted for some back and forth borrowing of verbiage over the course of thousands of years. Despite this language is not a proxy for ethnic make up. We all know the French show strong continuity with the iron age Gauls despite their significant language shift. Even if Northern Italian dialects did have considerable celtic introgression in a proven, not speculative sense (such as what we see theorized from language reconstructions of nearly totally illiterate cultures), it does not evidence celtic introgression into the genepool.

Similarly at the linguistic level Etruscan has little to no relation to any IE language and yet the Etruscans are genetically fully descended from the same Appenine tribes that would also become the IE speaking Latins. Language does not define or even necessarily implicate genetic ties. And further more how much of this closeness was shared from bronze age contacts rather than iron age colonization? There is no way to discriminate between any of this and the concrete answers are mostly lost to time, unless some new corpus is to be uncovered.

I respect your opinions as you have typically given fairly balanced and historically evidenced ideas relating to ethnography but I truthfully don't think Celtic genetic input in Italy is at all appreciable if it even exists. I'll give that Aosta Valley may be an exception to the rule here, but these likely have more to do with medieval ties to France than to that of the Gallic era.

 

[Vallicanus]

The Aosta Valley is Arpitan (Franco-Provencal) in speech.

It became part of Frankish-controlled Burgundy around the year 575.

 

[MOESAN]

The French language is a Latin language, not celtic, with a vastly majority Latin vocabulary at about 85%. The similarities between French and Northern Italian dialects are chiefly due to Roman influence in France after Caesar's conquests, not Celtic influence in 4th century BC Italy. There are also the continued trade contacts which were maintained between the two regions which without a doubt allotted for some back and forth borrowing of verbiage over the course of thousands of years. Despite this language is not a proxy for ethnic make up. We all know the French show strong continuity with the iron age Gauls despite their significant language shift. Even if Northern Italian dialects did have considerable celtic introgression in a proven, not speculative sense (such as what we see theorized from language reconstructions of nearly totally illiterate cultures), it does not evidence celtic introgression into the genepool.

Similarly at the linguistic level Etruscan has little to no relation to any IE language and yet the Etruscans are genetically fully descended from the same Appenine tribes that would also become the IE speaking Latins. Language does not define or even necessarily implicate genetic ties. And further more how much of this closeness was shared from bronze age contacts rather than iron age colonization? There is no way to discriminate between any of this and the concrete answers are mostly lost to time, unless some new corpus is to be uncovered.

I respect your opinions as you have typically given fairly balanced and historically evidenced ideas relating to ethnography but I truthfully don't think Celtic genetic input in Italy is at all appreciable if it even exists. I'll give that Aosta Valley may be an exception to the rule here, but these likely have more to do with medieval ties to France than to that of the Gallic era.

When analysing possible ties between pop's at the ancestral level, phonetic evolution is far more important than vocabulary or recent origin of the language (shift, as you say). SO, NO, the French evolution upon Latin is not due as a whole to Roman colonization and commercial contacts had ceased since long enough time, I think. I see the proof of the substratum input in the fact that southern French dialects which were spoken by people with less Celtic ethnic heritage are stayed a bit closer to their Roman origin as language. Maybe could we think also in a Ligurian input, if we rely on the ones who sayed that phonetically it seemd that Ligurian was closer to Celtic than to Italic? Concerning Etruscan, its seemingly tendancy to hard stops (so resistance to voicing and lenition) finds some echoes in modern Italian, so if their genetic if not ethnic making was close to the Latin (and other Italics?) one, it left little influence on northern Italian dialects. I respect too your way of thinking and I ask not to take my propositions of explanation and the links I speak of as 100% equations. Celtic dialects themselves were surely adopted by partially celtized pops (different levels of ethnic penetration) and knew some variance in dialectal evolution.
My life doesn't depend on my suggestions which can evolve yet. That said I would have been glad to can compare northern Italian countryside people autoDNA to northern Italian great cities people, not excludning more local surveys. All that doesn't change the fact that modern Italian pop (recent immigrants left aside) is as a big majority the continuation of Neolithic and Chalco-BA-IA demic history, with kid of a "entract" during the Empire, IMO.
Good afternoon.

 

[Palermo Trapani]

The French Language and its ties to Latin are, and this might upset some people, largely tied to the Latin Vulgate Translation of the Vetus Latina Bible (old Latin) by Saint Jerome in the late 4th century. The Latin Vulgate would then influence the Catholic Liturgy across all areas of Western Christendom. In regions like Iberia (Spain, Portugal) and France, the Liturgical Language of the Catholic Church also more directly impacted the language spoken in the vernacular among the populace. Prior to the 16th century protestant movement, one would find for example the Catholic Liturgy in England and other parts of the British Isles celebrated in Latin even though the languages spoken would be English (from old Germanic) or Gaelic in Scotland and Ireland (from Celtic).

What today is Romance Languages from the Proto-Italic Family have as there most direct ancestor Vulgar Latin as opposed to the more formal "Ecclesial Latin" (used in the Creeds and Doctrinal formulations) which is closer to what is called Classical Latin.

 

[torzio]

did dante italian have vulgar latin, did the improvement of dante 13th century italian by pietro bembo in the 16th century have vulgar latin characters.....do not think so..........the regional italian languages prior to the 12th century did have vulgar latin

 

[HereToLearn]

The Aosta Valley is Arpitan (Franco-Provencal) in speech.

It became part of Frankish-controlled Burgundy around the year 575.

Nonetheless as a frequent visitor of Aosta Valley myself I can confirm that the local people in this region form much more of a continuum with their Northern Italian neighbors than those in other regions with significant linguistic minorities (such as f.e. Alto Adige). Even the ones speaking patois are very little French sounding.

 

[Vallicanus]

Nonetheless as a frequent visitor of Aosta Valley myself I can confirm that the local people in this region form much more of a continuum with their Northern Italian neighbors than those in other regions with significant linguistic minorities (such as f.e. Alto Adige). Even the ones speaking patois are very little French sounding.

The genuine Valdostans are genetically closer to Provencal French than to Italian Piedmontese.

Many Southern Italians, notably Calabrians , settled in the Aosta valley after Italian unification.

 

[HereToLearn]

The genuine Valdostans are genetically closer to Provencal French than to Italian Piedmontese.

If you could please refer me to graphics or plots indicating this, that would be great. Not to doubt what you say, I just find this subject matter interesting, thanks.

 

[HereToLearn]

The idea that Italians are a mixed melting pot midway between central europeans and levantines/north africans is itself antiItalian propoganda spread by those who have a bone to pick with the Italian sense of identity and the idiots that are naive enough to believe them.

I agree in whole with your general point, if I may I would just add that, very oddly, some of "those who have a bone to pick with the Italian sense of identity and the idiots that are naive enough to believe them" are indeed Italian themselves.

That's a curious phenomenon I have observed on other boards, Italians seeking connections with more geographically southern and eastern peoples and it has no parallelism with any other peoples, who instead often try to establish links with more northern regions for themselves.

It would seem that if there's one thing that modern Italians have retained from the Roman era is a taste for the exotic.

 

[Stuvanè]

I agree in whole with your general point, if I may I would just add that, very oddly, some of "those who have a bone to pick with the Italian sense of identity and the idiots that are naive enough to believe them" are indeed Italian themselves.

That's a curious phenomenon I have observed on other boards, Italians seeking connections with more geographically southern and eastern peoples and it has no parallelism with any other peoples, who instead often try to establish links with more northern regions for themselves.

It would seem that if there's one thing that modern Italians have retained from the Roman era is a taste for the exotic.

Absit iniuria verbis: what you cite is partly determined in my opinion by an unconscious or semi-conscious psychological mechanism (an inferiority complex?), according to which many of my compatriots - not considering themselves (or not being perceived) as true Europeans - prefer to pass themselves off as Middle Easterners/North Africans, with the hope of thus climbing up at least a few positions in that group, in their imaginary ranking of advanced and civilized peoples.
On the other hand, an interested, insistent and effective local left-wing political campaign of self-denigrating and anti-nationalism completes everything else.

 

[HereToLearn]

On the other hand, an interested, insistent and effective local left-wing political campaign of self-denigrating and anti-nationalism completes everything else.

I tend to agree with your point here.

 

[Palermo Trapani]

did dante italian have vulgar latin, did the improvement of dante 13th century italian by pietro bembo in the 16th century have vulgar latin characters.....do not think so..........the regional italian languages prior to the 12th century did have vulgar latin

Sorry Torzio. Everybody in Italy had Vulgar Latin and it then developed into the Regional Languages. So I don't agree with you at all in your analysis. You may not like it, but that is your problem not mine. You don't seem to understand organic development. The Root of all modern Italian languages "Romance Family" has its foundation in Vulgar Latin.

 

[torzio]

what part do you not agree with myself, that the regional languages came via vulgar latin ?

are you trying to split these languages into the la spezia line ?..

as i said the regional languages where born from vulgar latin......i do not know where you are going with your comment...i hope you do not refer them to dialects, which they are not

 

[Palermo Trapani]

what part do you not agree with myself, that the regional languages came via vulgar latin ?

are you trying to split these languages into the la spezia line ?..

as i said the regional languages where born from vulgar latin......i do not know where you are going with your comment...i hope you do not refer them to dialects, which they are not

No they are not dialects, I am well aware of that. Neopolitan, Sicilian, Gallo-Italian (Ligurian, Piedmontese) are all languages. I never said they were dialects so if that is what you had issue with, then Ok, yes then I agree with u.