Genetic study The arrival of the Near Eastern ancestry in Central Italy predates the onset of the Roman Empire

[HereToLearn]

It ceased to be called that once the Gauls were expelled by the Romans under the late republic, but yes, I'm including Northern Italy here, complete with the Italian side of the alps. That being said I think northern Italy was much less affected by Aegean (be it magna graecian or otherwise) influence. Some areas like veneto, trentino and lombardy may not have even been affected at all by it, but at least Emelia and Piedmont show signs in the historic record that they were.

In your opinion what would be the historical circumstances under which these areas could be affected by "Aegean" inputs (excluding post unification)?

 

[D.L.M]

It ceased to be called that once the Gauls were expelled by the Romans under the late republic, but yes, I'm including Northern Italy here, complete with the Italian side of the alps. That being said I think northern Italy was much less affected by Aegean (be it magna graecian or otherwise) influence. Some areas like veneto, trentino and lombardy may not have even been affected at all by it, but at least Emelia and Piedmont show signs in the historic record that they were.

Also the Germanic admixture is still there. Maybe 20% is a bit too much, that's inflated from lack of samples and the method, but surely 10% made it there.

While for central Italy it is mostly urban bias, since rural areas were less affected and by more time passed they became more genetically uniform instead of simply Longobards pulling them north.

 

[Moja]

I think that everything after 500BC ended with Magna Grecia.

This study says: "While the Anatolia_N component remains stable over the centuries, the Iran_N one sharply increases starting from 200 BCE", and the study about Ancient Greeks says: "Both the Bronze Age Minoans and Mycenaeans derived most of their ancestry from a Neolithic Anatolian population, and a smaller component from farther east, related to populations in the Caucasus and Iran."

 

[Vitruvius]

Also the Germanic admixture is still there. Maybe 20% is a bit too much, that's inflated from lack of samples and the method, but surely 10% made it there.

While for central Italy it is mostly urban bias, since rural areas were less affected and by more time passed they became more genetically uniform instead of simply Longobards pulling them north.

I have said it many times before and I'll say it again. Germanic admixture in Italians is 0 or near 0. The only populations in Italy with significant Germanic admixture are actual Germanic speakers who certainly do not qualify as ethnic Italians.

Rural Central Italians were just as affected by the aegean shift as urban. What pulled them north was the steady and continual migration of northern Italics to central Italy in late antiquity. They were not pulled towards a high or medium WHG like population such as Germanics or iron age latins, but specifically one that was lacking WHG ancestry. The profiles we see causing this shift fit rather exclusively with northern Italian profiles from the EMA and modern era.

 

[Vitruvius]

In your opinion what would be the historical circumstances under which these areas could be affected by "Aegean" inputs (excluding post unification)?

I think in Northern Italy an Aegean influx would've been nearly exclusively due to Italians from central and southern Italy colonizing these lands and freely mixing with the populace - especially after Julius Caesar had granted the north Roman citizenship. This is relevant because there were laws prohibiting or at least penalizing marriage between Romans and non Roman citizens if memory serves. After the Socii system was done away with post Italic Social war the attitude very much became one in which the Roman state was viewed syonymously with the Italian nation of which Rome had conquered. Northern Italy was seen correctly as an extension of the Italic ethnos and differences between the south and north were largely ignored as both had been culturally romanized and remained under the same political hegemony. That being said one should keep in mind that Po valley was also the most populous part of Italy during the ancient era. The amount of aegean influence that was introgressed during the imperial timeframe would've been much more diluted than what we saw in central Italy and the Felsina study is showing evidence of this. It is very well likely in my opinion that modern emelians retain a large sum of Etruscan ancestry.

 

[D.L.M]

I have said it many times before and I'll say it again. Germanic admixture in Italians is 0 or near 0. The only populations in Italy with significant Germanic admixture are actual Germanic speakers who certainly do not qualify as ethnic Italians.

Rural Central Italians were just as affected by the aegean shift as urban. What pulled them north was the steady and continual migration of northern Italics to central Italy in late antiquity. They were not pulled towards a high or medium WHG like population such as Germanics or iron age latins, but specifically one that was lacking WHG ancestry. The profiles we see causing this shift fit rather exclusively with northern Italian profiles from the EMA and modern era.

I was specifically talking about Northern Italians.
What about 15% Germanic Y-Dna, IBD sharing and documented evidence of 100,000-120,000 Longobards settlers, some 80,000 of them in Northern Italy. Then you have Goths too.

 

[HereToLearn]

I have said it many times before and I'll say it again. Germanic admixture in Italians is 0 or near 0. The only populations in Italy with significant Germanic admixture are actual Germanic speakers who certainly do not qualify as ethnic Italians.

Rural Central Italians were just as affected by the aegean shift as urban. What pulled them north was the steady and continual migration of northern Italics to central Italy in late antiquity. They were not pulled towards a high or medium WHG like population such as Germanics or iron age latins, but specifically one that was lacking WHG ancestry. The profiles we see causing this shift fit rather exclusively with northern Italian profiles from the EMA and modern era.

What do you think about the distant relatives modern Lombards tend to get on DNA tests instead? As far as I can tell most (excluding other Italians) are from the Alpine region. What is the source of this common ancestry in your opinion?

 

[Vitruvius]

What do you think about the distant relatives modern Lombards tend to get on DNA tests instead? As far as I can tell most (excluding other Italians) are from the Alpine region. What is the source of this common ancestry in your opinion?

Can you provide some examples of what you're referring to? As well as some indication of frequency amongst the modern Lombard population?

 

[Vitruvius]

I was specifically talking about Northern Italians.
What about 15% Germanic Y-Dna, IBD sharing and documented evidence of 100,000-120,000 Longobards settlers, some 80,000 of them in Northern Italy. Then you have Goths too.

And I was including Northern Italians. First of all you cannot begin to claim Italians have 15% Germanic Y DNA as we don't even have Iron age northern Italian samples to draw from other than Felsina which is near the central Italian border. Furthermore, IBD sharing between Italians and all other countries, including Germanic, is extremely low. 100,000-120,000 Longobards amongst a population of 6-8 million Italians is next to nothing. We are talking about ~1-2% of the population. Peter Ralph has already made a point that the IBD structure within modern Italians is indicative of a very old structure which has not been mixing externally in the past 2,300 years. Unsurprisingly 2,300 years roughly dates to 300BC which is when we would've began to first see widespread Greek assimilation into the Italian genepool.

"On the other hand, we find that
France and the Italian and Iberian peninsulas have the lowest rates
of genetic common ancestry in the last 1,500 years (other than
Turkey and Cyprus), and are the regions of continental Europe
thought to have been least affected by the Slavic and Hunnic
migrations. These regions were, however, moved into by
Germanic tribes (e.g., the Goths, Ostrogoths, and Vandals), which
suggests that perhaps the Germanic migrations/invasions of these
regions entailed a smaller degree of population replacement than
the Slavic and/or Hunnic, or perhaps that the Germanic groups
were less genealogically cohesive. This is consistent with the
argument that the Slavs moved into relatively depopulated areas,
while Gothic ‘‘migrations’’ may have been takeovers by small
groups of extant populations [54,55].
In addition to the very few genetic common ancestors that
Italians share both with each other and with other Europeans, we
have seen significant modern substructure within Italy (i.e.,
Figure 2) that predates most of this common ancestry, and
estimate that most of the common ancestry shared between Italy
and other populations is older than about 2,300 years (Figure S16).
Also recall that most populations show no substructure with
regards to the number of blocks shared with Italians, implying that
the common ancestors other populations share with Italy predate
divisions within these other populations. This suggests significant
old substructure and large population sizes within Italy, strong
enough that different groups within Italy share as little recent
common ancestry as other distinct, modern-day countries,
substructure that was not homogenized during the migration
period. These patterns could also reflect in part geographic
isolation within Italy as well as a long history of settlement of Italy
from diverse sources." - The Geography of Recent Genetic Ancestry across
Europe, Peter Ralph et al.

 

[HereToLearn]

Can you provide some examples of what you're referring to? As well as some indication of frequency amongst the modern Lombard population?

I'm referring to the DNA relatives I'm getting on 23&Me as a Lombard. Excluding Italy, UK and New World countries (like USA, Canada, Brasil and Argentina), that are more subject to sampling bias, most of my "indigenous" relatives are from Germany (19), France (8), Croatia (7) (the only non-Alpine exception) and Switzerland (6) in this order.

I'm quite average with no known distant ancestor from other regions (except some input from Veneto according to family lore) so I suppose that I could be a good proxy for an average modern Lombard.

 

[D.L.M]

And I was including Northern Italians. First of all you cannot begin to claim Italians have 15% Germanic Y DNA as we don't even have Iron age northern Italian samples to draw from other than Felsina which is near the central Italian border. Furthermore, IBD sharing between Italians and all other countries, including Germanic, is extremely low. 100,000-120,000 Longobards amongst a population of 6-8 million Italians is next to nothing. We are talking about ~1-2% of the population. Peter Ralph has already made a point that the IBD structure within modern Italians is indicative of a very old structure which has not been mixing externally in the past 2,300 years. Unsurprisingly 2,300 years roughly dates to 300BC which is when we would've began to first see widespread Greek assimilation into the Italian genepool.

"On the other hand, we find that
France and the Italian and Iberian peninsulas have the lowest rates
of genetic common ancestry in the last 1,500 years (other than
Turkey and Cyprus), and are the regions of continental Europe
thought to have been least affected by the Slavic and Hunnic
migrations. These regions were, however, moved into by
Germanic tribes (e.g., the Goths, Ostrogoths, and Vandals), which
suggests that perhaps the Germanic migrations/invasions of these
regions entailed a smaller degree of population replacement than
the Slavic and/or Hunnic, or perhaps that the Germanic groups
were less genealogically cohesive. This is consistent with the
argument that the Slavs moved into relatively depopulated areas,
while Gothic ‘‘migrations’’ may have been takeovers by small
groups of extant populations [54,55].
In addition to the very few genetic common ancestors that
Italians share both with each other and with other Europeans, we
have seen significant modern substructure within Italy (i.e.,
Figure 2) that predates most of this common ancestry, and
estimate that most of the common ancestry shared between Italy
and other populations is older than about 2,300 years (Figure S16).
Also recall that most populations show no substructure with
regards to the number of blocks shared with Italians, implying that
the common ancestors other populations share with Italy predate
divisions within these other populations. This suggests significant
old substructure and large population sizes within Italy, strong
enough that different groups within Italy share as little recent
common ancestry as other distinct, modern-day countries,
substructure that was not homogenized during the migration
period. These patterns could also reflect in part geographic
isolation within Italy as well as a long history of settlement of Italy
from diverse sources." - The Geography of Recent Genetic Ancestry across
Europe, Peter Ralph et al.

Germanic admixture in the South, where a great amount of that 6M proportion (? I recall it be 5 but whatever) is zero, while the 120,000 were heavily concentrated in the north.

 

[HereToLearn]

Germanic admixture in the South, where a great amount of that 6M proportion (? I recall it be 5 but whatever) is zero, while the 120,000 were heavily concentrated in the north.

I'm not sure about that. The most powerful Lombard duchies were in Central (Spoleto) and Southern (Benevento) Italy. Though I agree that probably very few of those 100k-120k Lombards ventured much farther south than that.

 

[torzio]

what is this BS agenda of greeks in the adriatic sea area ?.....there was mininiscule greek settlement in the adriatic sea.....you had durres and appolonia in albania as trade cities...counts for 1%

next...alpine italy was only conquered by augustus in imperial times.

next....250000 ostrogoths entered italy and conquered it...making ravenna its capital, BEFORE the lombards........lombards came in with 100000 men and conquered the ostrogoths absorbing them in lombard society.....pavia was there capital.

adriatic italy was a mix of italians, western balkan people, celtics from central europe......this greek high % is BS stories

 

[Vallicanus]

I'm not sure about that. The most powerful Lombard duchies were in Central (Spoleto) and Southern (Benevento) Italy. Though I agree that probably very few of those 100k-120k Lombards ventured much farther south than that.

The Duchy of Friuli was powerful too, providing dukes even for Benevento.

 

[Vallicanus]

next....250000 ostrogoths entered italy and conquered it...making ravenna its capital, BEFORE the lombards........lombards came in with 100000 men and conquered the ostrogoths absorbing them in lombard society.....pavia was there capital.

Belisarius and Narses defeated the Ostrogoths before the Lombard invasion of AD 568.
Surviving Ostrogoths were absorbed into both Byzantine and Lombard territories after 568.

 

[torzio]

people seems to forget the trade the was going on from italy to western balkans from early bromze-age......and we can start with Cetina culture and then others.

we have central europe trade from pre 2000BC to italy bringing in baltic amber

 

[torzio]

even the ostrogoth and lombard invasion of italy in AD times is too late to have a influence of adriatic italy from bronze and iron age times........this is when the numbers truly count

 

[torzio]

you guys need to concentrate on things like daunians in italy from bronze-age being absorbed into samnite society in eary iron-age

 

[Vitruvius]

I'm referring to the DNA relatives I'm getting on 23&Me as a Lombard. Excluding Italy, UK and New World countries (like USA, Canada, Brasil and Argentina), that are more subject to sampling bias, most of my "indigenous" relatives are from Germany (19), France (8), Croatia (7) (the only non-Alpine exception) and Switzerland (6) in this order.

I'm quite average with no known distant ancestor from other regions (except some input from Veneto according to family lore) so I suppose that I could be a good proxy for an average modern Lombard.

Are you certain? If you genetically do have many recent relatives in Germany your family history may be atypical compared to other Lombards. One first has to ask how far removed the most recent common ancestors are from you and your foreign distant relatives. There is no recent history of Germanic settlement in Lombardy so this is quite removed from the topic of the Germanic speaking Langobards that entered Italy in the 6th century.

 

[Vitruvius]

Germanic admixture in the South, where a great amount of that 6M proportion (? I recall it be 5 but whatever) is zero, while the 120,000 were heavily concentrated in the north.

Germanic admixture is ~0 in both north and south. The northern Italian autosomal profile reflects that of the Italic Picenes precisely without any northern pulls of ancestry necessary. There is no reason to assume the lombards settled more heavily in the north as far as I can tell and many seem to forget that the north had the largest Italic population to begin with. One can speak all they want about Y dna but at the end of the day it codes for less than 1% of human traits. You could tell me 100% of Italian Y haplogroups are germanic dervied but it still doesn't change the much more important autosomal history which right now is implying total continuity with Italics like the Picines.

Show me a massive southern shift towards the aegean in the imperial era in places like milan, and then a secondary northern shift from central europe with a broad spread between the two during the middle ages and I'll agree with your idea. So far the data from late antiquity is not reflecting a CEU repeopling of Italy.