Population structure in Italy using ancient and modern samples

yes , I know
but Tuscany stands out on its lonesome
same as Aosta

I think Tuscany actually gets 3 clusters of its own (NCItaly1-3), which I guess suggests some degree of internal isolation/drift. What could be the reason for this?

6fIJMRm.png


Autosomally Tuscans are thoroughly unexciting though. More steppe than other Italians to their south, less Anatolian BA:

1hbCa8j.png


Sicilians are interesting because they get significantly more steppe than other South Italians.

The most interesting and one of the biggest clusters however is SCItaly3 (brown) which covers almost the entire south of Italy and extends into Lazio and Abruzzo. It's almost fully Anatolian Bronze Age with a small WHG component and an even smaller Steppe component.
 
I think Tuscany actually gets 3 clusters of its own (NCItaly1-3), which I guess suggests some degree of internal isolation/drift. What could be the reason for this?

The simplest explanation, three different Tuscan samples.
 
The simplest explanation, three different Tuscan samples.

I don't think those are regional samples. They are genetic clusters.

The phased genome-wide dataset was analysed using the110 CHROMOPAINTER (CP) and fineSTRUCTURE (fS) pipeline (12, 13) (Supplementary materials)111 to generate a tree of groups of individuals with similar “copying vectors” (clusters, Fig. 1A). The112 fraction of pairs of individuals placed in the same cluster across multiple runs was on average 0.95113 for Italian clusters and 0.96 across the whole set of clusters (see Materials and Methods,114 Supplementary materials). Related non-European clusters were merged into larger groups in115 subsequent analyses (see Materials and Methods, Supplementary materials).
 
I think Tuscany actually gets 3 clusters of its own (NCItaly1-3), which I guess suggests some degree of internal isolation/drift. What could be the reason for this?

6fIJMRm.png


Autosomally Tuscans are thoroughly unexciting though. More steppe than other Italians to their south, less Anatolian BA:

1hbCa8j.png


Sicilians are interesting because they get significantly more steppe than other South Italians.

The most interesting and one of the biggest clusters however is SCItaly3 (brown) which covers almost the entire south of Italy and extends into Lazio and Abruzzo. It's almost fully Anatolian Bronze Age with a small WHG component and an even smaller Steppe component.

I have no idea, Markod, but that would mean that Umbria, Marche and Lazio all get lumped into South Central Italy?

Also, in that particular graphic, NCItaly 1, 2, and 3, are pretty similar. In others, there are differences. If they actually got samples from the Lunigiana and the Garfagnana, which are in Massa Carrara, they would definitely pull away as they're more like Emilians and eastern Ligurians.

Without the key and the list of samples and their sources, we're a little bit in the dark.

As to Sicilians, as I said recently on another thread, Southern Italy never got the Lombard migrations of the Middle Ages. I'm skeptical of "Norman" influence. The original "Norman" invasion was a couple of dozen knights. More people came from France during the "Lombard" sponsored migrations, but that's a different issue.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lombards_of_Sicily

Still, it's not enough to pull them very far apart from the Calabrians, which makes sense given they were ruled by one entity for hundreds of years, and there's been so much movement back and forth across the Straits of Messina.

With all the talk on the other sites about Levantine migration, I checked again. I don't see any analysis using Levantine Bronze Age. Maybe too much overlap with Anatolia Bronze Age? Look what happened when they used Peloponnese Neolithic.

The only mention I see of the Levant is in one of the Chromopainter schematics, and as the authors themselves seem to recognize, until we get ancient dna it's hard to figure what came where. It only applies to one part of Sicily, however, so, perhaps with the "Moors"?
 
I have no idea, Markod, but that would mean that Umbria, Marche and Lazio all get lumped into South Central Italy?

Also, in that particular graphic, NCItaly 1, 2, and 3, are pretty similar. In others, there are differences. If they actually got samples from the Lunigiana and the Garfagnana, which are in Massa Carrara, they would definitely pull away as they're more like Emilians and eastern Ligurians.

Without the key and the list of samples and their sources, we're a little bit in the dark.

As to Sicilians, as I said recently on another thread, Southern Italy never got the Lombard migrations of the Middle Ages. I'm skeptical of "Norman" influence. The original "Norman" invasion was a couple of dozen knights. More people came from France during the "Lombard" sponsored migrations, but that's a different issue.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lombards_of_Sicily

Still, it's not enough to pull them very far apart from the Calabrians, which makes sense given they were ruled by one entity for hundreds of years, and there's been so much movement back and forth across the Straits of Messina.

With all the talk on the other sites about Levantine migration, I checked again. I don't see any analysis using Levantine Bronze Age. Maybe too much overlap with Anatolia Bronze Age? Look what happened when they used Peloponnese Neolithic.

The only mention I see of the Levant is in one of the Chromopainter schematics, and as the authors themselves seem to recognize, until we get ancient dna it's hard to figure what came where. It only applies to one part of Sicily, however, so, perhaps with the "Moors"?

Yes, however Lazio also gets a significant SItaly3 component, so it has an intermediate position between Abruzzo and Marche. SCItaly1 and SItaly1-3 are very similar in any case as can be seen in the dendogram. Tuscany has almost as much *internal* diversity as there exists between Puglia and the Marche region.

Tuscans and Corsicans populations are also inferred to share common drift to the exclusion of other Italians. Is this simply a result of geographic proximity or is there more to it? I admit that I know very little about the population history of Corsica.

As for Moorish or Levantine input, in the biggest south Italian cluster (SItaly3) it seems to be non-existent. The second most important South Italian cluster (SItaly1) might have around 5% North African input. The other clusters seem to represented isolated cases. Interestingly it just occurred to me that North African input correlates with increased steppe ancestry, especially in those Sicilian outliers. Did Lombards preferentially intermarry with remnants of the Moorish population or something?
 
What’s SItaly3? :)

Edited
never mind, got it. Sorry.

Sitaly3 main brown is in Puglia. I think.
If I’m wrong please correct me. Thanks
 
Actually I think a better explanation for the fact that outlier Sicilians with elevated North African ancestry also have what looks to be 3 times as much steppe ancestry as 'baseline southern Italians' might be the well-recorded fact that the Muslim soldiers stationed in these regions were in large parts of Saqaliba (Slavic) derivation.
 
If NCItaly 3 is Toscana, it has less "Caucasus" than Greece, and less than Spain. Also, it has a lot less than southern Italy, of course. Someone should e-mail them and ask them to link the Supplementary Info. You can't critique the paper without it, and especially not without a key to the areas.

I have no idea, Markod, but that would mean that Umbria, Marche and Lazio all get lumped into South Central Italy?

It's not very clear, but it's written in the paper, Tuscany with North Italy (NCItaly*), Umbria, Marche and Lazio with south Italy (SCItaly*).

Also, in that particular graphic, NCItaly 1, 2, and 3, are pretty similar. In others, there are differences. If they actually got samples from the Lunigiana and the Garfagnana, which are in Massa Carrara, they would definitely pull away as they're more like Emilians and eastern Ligurians.

Garfagnana is in the province of Lucca, not of Massa-Carrara. Scusa se sono pignolo. :)

Certainly those of Lunigiana plot much to the north, especially those in remote areas that end even further north than other northern Italians of same latitude, but others do not have a strong distance from the Tuscans, especially those from Tuscan-language Apennines.


Yes, however Lazio also gets a significant SItaly3 component, so it has an intermediate position between Abruzzo and Marche. SCItaly1 and SItaly1-3 are very similar in any case as can be seen in the dendogram. Tuscany has almost as much *internal* diversity as there exists between Puglia and the Marche region.

Between Puglia and the Marche region maybe is an exagerration, Tuscans fill the space that exists between the clusters of northern Italy and central Italy. If they are modeled differently it means that their position is not accurate.
 
Between Puglia and the Marche region maybe is an exagerration, Tuscans fill the space that exists between the clusters of northern Italy and central Italy. If they are modeled differently it means that their position is not accurate.

That's what it looks like on the PCA and in the dendogram. Perhaps it has to do with their sampling strategy?

Southern & Southern Central Italy seem very homogenous at least.
 
Yes, as we've been saying for a long time, there's less diversity in the south than in the north.

@Markod,
Do you have any estimates for the percentages compared to "regular" Muslim forces? Do you remember where you saw the discussions? I don't remember it from Chiarelli's Muslim Sicily, but I read it a long time ago. You've piqued my interest. :)

There's also the fact, however, that most of the Muslim "soldiers" who remained after the expulsions were sent to Bari. I remember speculation that this accounted for some of the North African and Near Eastern ydna there.

Do you have any idea which part of Sicily is Sicily 1 and which is Sicily 2? The Lombards primarily went to Central and Eastern Sicily.

@Pax,
As to the Garfagnana, I thought it after I wrote it, but didn't bother to go back. :)

Language clines are very important in Italy and tell us a lot about genetics.

One of many linguistic maps of Italy...we could quibble about some areas, but I think it makes the point.

11-linguistic-map-Italy.png
 
That's what it looks like on the PCA and in the dendogram. Perhaps it has to do with their sampling strategy?

No, it's like that. No sampling strategy. Also because many samples used in this study most likely come from previous studies. And if there was an initial strategy, I talk about years ago, it was that of oversampling the south of Tuscany.

However, about this study it is difficult to draw conclusions due to the lack of supp info.
 
Yes, however Lazio also gets a significant SItaly3 component, so it has an intermediate position between Abruzzo and Marche. SCItaly1 and SItaly1-3 are very similar in any case as can be seen in the dendogram. Tuscany has almost as much *internal* diversity as there exists between Puglia and the Marche region.

Tuscans and Corsicans populations are also inferred to share common drift to the exclusion of other Italians. Is this simply a result of geographic proximity or is there more to it? I admit that I know very little about the population history of Corsica.

As for Moorish or Levantine input, in the biggest south Italian cluster (SItaly3) it seems to be non-existent. The second most important South Italian cluster (SItaly1) might have around 5% North African input. The other clusters seem to represented isolated cases. Interestingly it just occurred to me that North African input correlates with increased steppe ancestry, especially in those Sicilian outliers. Did Lombards preferentially intermarry with remnants of the Moorish population or something?

You have to be careful with Lazio, over and above the fact that it's been a sink for migration from other parts of Italy. The southernmost and easternmost districts of Lazio, which are the the Sora, Cassino, Gaeta, CIttaducale, Formia and Amatrice districts, only became part of Lazio under Mussolini. They're really part of the Mezzogiorno ethnically and linguistically, since they were always before that part of "The Kingdom of the Two SIcilies. They're basically people of Campania.

SCItaly 1 is or at least includes the Abruzzi, which as I've been saying for years are much more a southern Italian rather than a Central Italian population.

I and Pax and others have also said for a long time that there are lots of genetic connections between Toscana and Corsica, as can be seen in the similarity of the languages.

The Buonaparte family originated in, or at least was long established in Stadano, a frazione in Massa Carrara right on the River Magra.
Lots of migration to Corsica over the years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corsican_language

The Lombards were specifically settled in "Moorish" or "ex-Moorish" strongholds. Eventually the soldiers, at least, were relocated in southern Italy, specifically around Bari but they weren't safe even there. and were eventually sold into slavery.


 
You have to be careful with Lazio, over and above the fact that it's been a sink for migration from other parts of Italy. The southernmost and easternmost districts of Lazio, which are the the Sora, Cassino, Gaeta, CIttaducale, Formia and Amatrice districts, only became part of Lazio under Mussolini. They're really part of the Mezzogiorno ethnically and linguistically, since they were always before that part of "The Kingdom of the Two SIcilies. They're basically people of Campania.

SCItaly 1 is or at least includes the Abruzzi, which as I've been saying for years are much more a southern Italian rather than a Central Italian population.

I and Pax and others have also said for a long time that there are lots of genetic connections between Toscana and Corsica, as can be seen in the similarity of the languages.

The Buonaparte family originated in, or at least was long established in Stadano, a frazione in Massa Carrara right on the River Magra.
Lots of migration to Corsica over the years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corsican_language

The Lombards were specifically settled in "Moorish" or "ex-Moorish" strongholds. Eventually the soldiers, at least, were relocated in southern Italy, specifically around Bari but they weren't safe even there. and were eventually sold into slavery.



The history of "Muslim" Sicily is extremely complicated. That's why Chiarelli had to write such a huge tome to cover just two hundred years. :) As in Spain, there were Arab tribes, lots of often warring Berber tribes, and yes, "Slav" slaves, as well as the Greek speaking local population.

I went back to Chiarelli and he does allocate some pages to them. They were a significant presence at least in Palermo, where a whole quarter of the city was named after them. However, not all of them were actually "Slavs". To some extent the term was used to refer to all European slaves, including Southern Italian and Spanish ones, although the "Slavs", including and perhaps predominantly people from the Balkans, formed the majority of the group. I'm unsure how much impact genetically they would have had, however, as Chiarelli seems to feel that the troops, as least, were eunuchs, much like the Mamluks I suppose.

https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/5423237.Leonard_C_Chiarelli
 
Has anyone else noticed that there's something wrong with the "North African" percentage in the Levantine populations? It's way too high. The gene flow went in the other direction.

Maybe it dumped certain alleles in the North African cluster because there was no South West Asian reference?

Two final things:

They seem to say that the admixture in the historical period in Italy is better fitted as being from Italian proxies rather than from West Asian proxies. That would better agree with Ralph and Coop and other IBS analyses that don't show any genetic intrusion into Italy since about 400 BC, other than from the Balkans. If that proves to be the case, then this might mark the unification of the peninsula under the Romans, with the heavily Greek influenced southern Italians moving north through colonia, or just in the normal course of life and trade.

I'm not sure I'm buying that Otzi had no "Anatolian Bronze Age" type ancestry, either. At least in old calculators he had 22% "Caucasus" like, as in modern Caucasus like, which is indeed a blend of old Anatolian Neolithic and IN (as well as a bit of EHG perhaps). He also had more than 7% South West Asian.

I'm just going to wait for Reich. I have more confidence in him and Paabo and in ancient dna.
 
Actually I think a better explanation for the fact that outlier Sicilians with elevated North African ancestry also have what looks to be 3 times as much steppe ancestry as 'baseline southern Italians' might be the well-recorded fact that the Muslim soldiers stationed in these regions were in large parts of Saqaliba (Slavic) derivation.
There was a quarter in Palermo called Harat as Saqaliba,the other four were Al Qasr , Al-Khalisa , Harat al-Masjid , where the so-called SaqālibaSon Mosque ( Masjid Ibn Siqlab ) was located, and Harat-al-Gadidah , the Jewish quarter also known as Harat al-Yahud. ("Jewish Quarter").

The Harat as-Saqaliba was briefly mentioned by the Arab traveler Ibn Hawqal who visited Sicily from 972 to 973. It was at that time the most populous and water-rich district of the city.

https://translate.google.com/transl...tps://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harat_as-Saqaliba

The origin of these Slavs is disputed; according to conflicting claims they go back all the way to 535 AD when the Byzantine General Belisarius presumably left a Slavic garrison in the city, or to the 10th century when the Fatimids conquered Sicily and likewise left a Slavic garrison there.
The Italian historian Amari probably came with the most plausible explanation for their origin; he points out that Abu'l Fida'y, an Arabic historian and geographer from the 1300's, states that in 928/9 off the coast of Maghreb and Sicily there appeared a Slavic piratical fleet of 30 ships which, together with the Arabs, pillaged Calabria, Corsica, and Sardinia. After some time these very Slavic pirates decided to permanently settle in a quarter of Palermo which was named after them. These were most certainly South Slavic pirates from the Adriatic littoral who were quite active sea rovers during the period in question. These Sicilian Slavs are mentioned by Ibn Hauqal, an Arabic geographer and traveler from the second half of the 10th century, as well as by Yaqut, who also mentions a different quarter of Palermo whose name was "The Quarter of the Slavic mosque"

Conclusion however is that
The Slavs of Palermo assimilated little by little to the Arab-Muslim population or whatever other population and lost their identity. In Latin documents of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, there is no mention of a Slavic quarter in Palermo and the name Harat as-Saqaliba is replaced by Seralcadi , which comes from the Arabic Shari 'al- Qadi meaning "Street of Judge "
 
The history of "Muslim" Sicily is extremely complicated. That's why Chiarelli had to write such a huge tome to cover just two hundred years. :) As in Spain, there were Arab tribes, lots of often warring Berber tribes, and yes, "Slav" slaves, as well as the Greek speaking local population.

I went back to Chiarelli and he does allocate some pages to them. They were a significant presence at least in Palermo, where a whole quarter of the city was named after them. However, not all of them were actually "Slavs". To some extent the term was used to refer to all European slaves, including Southern Italian and Spanish ones, although the "Slavs", including and perhaps predominantly people from the Balkans, formed the majority of the group. I'm unsure how much impact genetically they would have had, however, as Chiarelli seems to feel that the troops, as least, were eunuchs, much like the Mamluks I suppose.

https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/5423237.Leonard_C_Chiarelli

Saqaliba were not only eunuchs in reality

The Saqāliba occupied various functions: servants, eunuchs , craftsmen, soldiers and even guards of the caliph. The Byzantine chronicler Theophanes mentions that in the 660s, the Umayyad caliph Muawiya I er established in Syria an army of 5,000 Slav mercenaries . In the Emirate of Cordoba (Spain), the Saqāliba appeared under the reign of Al-Hakam I (796-822) and formed the personal guard of the caliph Abd al-Rahman III 1 .
Many of them occupied important posts and, unlike the millions of unknown slaves, their fate is well informed. In Al-Andalus , Maghreb , Damascus and Sicily , their role can be compared to that of the Mamluks in the Ottoman Empire . Some Saqāliba like Mujāhid al-'Amirī even became kings of taifas in Spain after the fall of the caliphate of Cordoba
 
However i do not think that Saqaliba would had big impact on the population in Sicily,we are not talking about waste land here but already settled area.

Or otherwise i don't understand the history of the region,maybe genetics can tell us something but i don't see Slavic Y-dna there for example?
 
As I said, while they were certainly not JUST eunuchs, and hence my reference to the Mamluk rulers of Egypt, the troops and government administrators were indeed probably eunuchs, and therefore left no descendants.

Some of the "Slavs" in Sicily might not have been but they would have been a trickle into the ocean. After all, 8,000 Slavs were settled in Syria. What trace is there of them?
 
As I said, while they were certainly not JUST eunuchs, and hence my reference to the Mamluk rulers of Egypt, the troops and government administrators were indeed probably eunuchs, and therefore left no descendants.

Some of the "Slavs" in Sicily might not have been but they would have been a trickle into the ocean. After all, 8,000 Slavs were settled in Syria. What trace is there of them?
How do you know that they were eunuchs? Being a soldier or administrator doesn't automaticaly mean eunuch,in reality many of the slave kids taken in the Otoman empire from the Balkans for example came to be grand viziers and married the sisters of the sultan himself,they were no eunuchs being administrators.If you can sent any source claiming that i am fine with that.We are discussing possibilities here.

There is the rare I2a din in western Europe for example in Spain how it landed there.Yes we can guess Goths,Vandals,Saqaliba or whatever.
Also i have no data to check medieval settlements of Slavs or genetic data in either Syria or Sicily,and their "descendants" if left any.
 
How do you know that they were eunuchs? Being a soldier doesn't automaticaly mean eunuch,in reality many of the slave kids taken in the Otoman empire from the Balkans for example came to be grand viziers and merried the sisters of the sultan himself,they were no eunuchs being administrators.If you can sent any source claiming that i am fine with that.We are discussing possibilities here.

There is the rare I2a din in western Europe for example in Spain how it landed there.Yes we can guess Goths,Vandals,Saqaliba or whatever.
Also i have no data to check medieval settlements of Slavs or genetic data in either Syria or Sicily,and their "descendants" if left any.

Did I say they were all eunuchs?

To deny that was a common occurrence is silly, however.

"White Eunuchs were Europeans from the Balkans or the Caucasus, either purchased in the slave markets or were boys taken from Christian families in the Balkans who were unable to pay the Jizya tax. They served the recruits at the Palace School and were from 1582 prohibited from entering the Harem."

"
The entire Devşirme system, where the children of Christian families in the Balkans unable to pay the onerous jizya tax were taken away, and, depending upon their sex, became either concubines, in the case of the girls, or, in the case of the boys, were conscripted into Janissary Corps or became eunuchs. The act (emasculation) made Ottoman rule much hated by Christians in the Balkans."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eunuch#Ottoman_Empire

In the case of Sicily, this is what Chiarelli has to say:

"Thus, this quarter seems to have been named after the white European eunuch slaves who were an important part of the Fatimid army and held high positions in bureaucratic offices of the government. Arabic sources generically referred to these white slave sas "saqalibah" regardless of their actual origins,which vary. They were mostly of Slavic origin, since the name originally meant Slav, that is, those people who inhabited central Europe and the Balkans. It was also used to designate any European originating outside the Frankish and Byzantine empires, although at times it was also used for southern Italians (especially Lombards) and some Sicilians."
P. 255-258

Many rose to great heights as leaders of armies and as civilian administrators.

Whether they were made eunuchs or not seems very much to depend on the place, the dynasty, the rulers etc.

Did you miss these tidbits when you were doing your research?

"In al-Andalus, Slavic eunuchs were so popular and widely distributed that they became synonymous with Saqāliba.[4]"

"Theophanes mentions that the Umayyad caliph Muawiyah I settled a whole army of 5,000 Slavic mercenaries in Syria in the 660s."

You should know by now that I don't make things up.
 

This thread has been viewed 338961 times.

Back
Top