Genetic study The Genetic Legacy of the Roman Imperial Rule in northern Italy

[Pax Augusta]

No one could say that Aegean Admixture didn't few towards Italy, Etruscan had a profile that could had minor Helladic-Like profile, close to Tyrennic profile that we expected, as well as This Outlier had a LBA Western Anatolian admixture, one of them were like 80% Hittite like, but keep in mind those "iron age italics" were Republican Era Italics, meaning that Imperial Profile wasn't see as much common as we saw at Imperial Era, so doesn't make sense.

Too bad yours is the usual fanciful reading of the forum. I remind you that there is no consensus in genetic studies that the Etruscans had a profile that may have been slightly similar to that of the Hellenes, and that a Tyrrhenian profile ever existed. The current consensus is that the "Tyrrhenian languages" (which is just a name given by linguists in the 900s) are actually two, Etruscan and Raetic, corresponding to two material cultures and two distinct peoples, given the growing consensus that the very few inscriptions from Lemnos (corresponding to neither a material culture nor a specific ethnicity) could be due to a protohistoric migratory movement of Etruscan individuals from west to east. Not to mention that it is highly unlikely that R1b P312, R1b P311, R1b U152, R1b U52 L2, G2a-L497, characteristic markers of the Etruscans, were also characteristic markers of the Hellenes. Not to mention the fact that it has been decades now that there is no consensus among archaeologists and anthropologists that there is any relationship in ethnogenesis between the Etruscans and the Hellenes, let alone relationship with the Lydians and Luvians and the rest of the Anatolian company, which have been considered untrue for decades. There were contacts with that world, certainly, but they were contacts that had nothing to do with the ethnogenesis of the Etruscans. What the Etruscans were genetically is now quite clear. While the source of your knowledge remains very obscure.

The rest of your post is also completely questionable. Like the concept of an elite, genetically different from the rest of the population, which has never been proposed by archaeologists or anthropologists, but is the typical concept found spread among enthusiasts without any training in these subjects.

 

[Pax Augusta]

This could probably be tested by extensive sampling both of the poleis in Magna Grecia and in continental Greece. I suspect we will see a progressive formation of this genetic profile since the Iron Age: the archaic poet Hesiod, for instance, came from a polis in Asia Minor (Cyme) before establishing in continental Greece. It's just an example, but it may testify that some degree of mobility and interexchange with the anatolian world existed well before the hellenistic era.

However, the iatus between the start of the hellenistic age (end of IV century BC) and the Roman expansion in Magna Grecia (Tarentum was conquered in 272 BC) is really small, just a few generations. I don't think that the genetic profile of Magna Grecia inhabitants may have changed drastically over five decades.

It may have changed, eventually, after the Roman conquest, but either way by that time the Greek presence in the region was well established since many centuries, with several big cities, so a genetic shift towards the East and the Aegean had already happened in the south, as the Himera study seems to suggest.

Examples are many, see also Herodotus who although considered Greek was half Carian, that is half Anatolian. Or Strabo born in Pontus, modern-day Cappadocia, whose family was connected to the Kingdom of Pontus and some members had served the Mithridates, who were half-Persian and half-Greek.

 

[Francesco]

Examples are many, see also Herodotus who although considered Greek was half Carian, that is half Anatolian. Or Strabo born in Pontus, modern-day Cappadocia, whose family was connected to the Kingdom of Pontus and some members had served the Mithridates, who were half-Persian and half-Greek.

I thought about Hesiodus because his father migrated back from Asia Minor in the archaic age, but now that you have mentioned Herodotus, you made me remember that he too migrated from Halicarnassos to Turi, in Magna Grecia. These are acrtually two illustrious examples of contacts and "back-migrations" from Anatolia to Greece (and Magna Grecia) in Archaic and classical period.

 

[felipefanfarao]

Too bad yours is the usual fanciful reading of the forum. I remind you that there is no consensus in genetic studies that the Etruscans had a profile that may have been slightly similar to that of the Hellenes, and that a Tyrrhenian profile ever existed. The current consensus is that the "Tyrrhenian languages" (which is just a name given by linguists in the 900s) are actually two, Etruscan and Raetic, corresponding to two material cultures and two distinct peoples, given the growing consensus that the very few inscriptions from Lemnos (corresponding to neither a material culture nor a specific ethnicity) could be due to a protohistoric migratory movement of Etruscan individuals from west to east. Not to mention that it is highly unlikely that R1b P312, R1b P311, R1b U152, R1b U52 L2, G2a-L497, characteristic markers of the Etruscans, were also characteristic markers of the Hellenes. Not to mention the fact that it has been decades now that there is no consensus among archaeologists and anthropologists that there is any relationship in ethnogenesis between the Etruscans and the Hellenes, let alone relationship with the Lydians and Luvians and the rest of the Anatolian company, which have been considered untrue for decades. There were contacts with that world, certainly, but they were contacts that had nothing to do with the ethnogenesis of the Etruscans. What the Etruscans were genetically is now quite clear. While the source of your knowledge remains very obscure.

The rest of your post is also completely questionable. Like the concept of an elite, genetically different from the rest of the population, which has never been proposed by archaeologists or anthropologists, but is the typical concept found spread among enthusiasts without any training in these subjects.

You could saw some Minor Hellenic Influence even from Villanovan Samples, if you use Cycladic Greek it works well.
Both Republican IA Outliers had a profile mixed with Western Anatolian Like.
Etruscan Origins still a mystery , some would argument from Terramare and Apennine cultures, however they probably had a Para-Italo-Celt unknown Dialect.
If you went towards Late Bronzer Age you will find that Several Aegean Settlers had good reasons for went to Italy. There were several Elements on Etruscan Culture and Language that might came from a Non IE Aegean Source and considering the Bronze Age Collapse , it wasn't a bad hypothesis. Keep in mind that minor migrations wouldn't mean all composition, just a minority.

Even if you take the path of Greek Influence, Terramare had some Mycenean Pottery , but I doubt any Greek settlements before Greek's Dark Ages.
As you may noticed, Greeks colonized Italy cause of Overpopulation. Those Aegean went to Italy before Iron Age, since they could be tracked on Early Iron Age Proto Villanovan and Villanovan cultures.
Not a strong evidence of Cultural Relation between Terramare and Apennine with Proto Villanovan and Villanovan cultures, neither Mycenean or Early Dark-Ages Greek migration, so we might expect that those sort of Aegean element could easily came from Western Anatolian Luwians(Trojan's) and Cycladic Like(Non-IE) Aegean Islanders, it could represent a better source.

About Imperial Profiles, several had no relation with Republican Romans, meaning they came from Eastern Provinces, probably Hellenistic Anatolians (mostly) and theirs genetic impact was lower from Modern's Days Italians since they probably died without any great contribution(much of Roman's Population on Italy). Some had a clearly Iron Age-Like profile, considering those couldn't came from Farmlands(More North African Profiles),I expected Social Selection, meaning that High Classes had more chance to survive to a Reproduction Age and more chance of Child's Survive. Obviously, High Classes doesn't mean Patricians , but better Local Elites + Patricians, Equestrians or Older/Richer Plebeians, more likely to had a sort of Iron Age Influence than commoners.

Italy became overpopulated during Early Imperial Era, as you should notice mostly from Hellenistic Greek+East Med. Thus, explain why those sort of Western Asian/Aegean element became Higher after it, but it was even found from Earlier Republicans, even Proto Villanovan, without any sort of presence before Bronze Age collapse.

So, obvious, Those Genetic Influence came before Greek Settlements(at least Classical Greeks), so we could simple come to conclusion, they came with Luwian Likes Trojan's, Thyrenean Rassena Cycladic Greek or Myceneans, maybe all those options.
But even their contribution was lower than those modern Italians had and Eastern Hellenistic Settlers was well document on Roman's History.

Talking about southern Italy, I agree with you, mostly from Greeks, Phoenicians(Not Carthage), etc... some from Imperial but Lower on Calabria and Sicily than Campania and Basicalata(more overpopulated Imperial Areas). Why? Those Greeks and Phoenicians might been the Local Elites before Roman Conquered it. As well as Etruscan, Veneti, Liguri and Cisalpines on North Italy.

Also Rome had colonized North Italy since 2th century BC and migrated to North during late Western Roman Decades(since Milan became the Capital), thus moving some Patricians families to Po'Valley(a area that clearly resemble iron Age Italians). I don't think Cisalpine was different from Austrian Iron Age la Tene, Southeast Gaul IA or even Switzerland IA, so not too distant from Republican's Italics, lacking the Minor Aegean Influence.

Aegean Influence doesn't mean Greek admixture, Western Anatolian IE Luwians, Aegean Islanders(Cycladic and Minoans like cultures), etc.. could easily simulated the Greek Contribution. Imperial Newcomers clearly came from Different Eastern provinces, but certainly the highest proportion came from Anatolia Hellenistic, and it happened on each European Roman provinces.
Roman's Greece had some Anatolian influence(probably from Hellenistic Era), Balkans, France, Iberia.

Certainly if you see the Imperial Profiles in a good PCA will agree with me, several had a Western Asian profile , more than Roman's Greece(even it was obviously more Western Asian than classical Greece).

 

[Vitruvius]

I feel the biggest "stone guest" in discussing Italian ethnogenesis and, in particular, its eastmed shift, is the Greek contribution.
The imperial sample from Etruria look, indeed, like Greeks.
That being said, despite a 25% contribution from a near east source in Northern Italy looks a bit too high, considering the uniperental, it still looks more reasonable than the 50% contribution wich was postulated in the etruscan paper.

But the main problem still stands: how much of this east med shift was due to Greeks going up the peninsula rather than near Eastern immigrants? The uniparentals seems to point, mainly, to the first hypothesis.

The Himera's study is interesting, because despite focusing on a peculiar siceliot polis (Himera was located at the edge of the Greek world in Sicily, between Carthaginian and Sicanians) one can clearly see a cline running from a Sicanian genetic profile to a Greek one, with a lot of mixed individuals in between. This is likely an example of an eastward shift caused by the great Greek colonization in the Iron Age.

Even between the Iron Age Latins, the outlier from Preneste could be seen as an individual with mixed aegean and (minor) italic ancestry and closely resembles modern southern Italians.

Of course, this is not to say that other migrations didn't happen or didn't affect at all the demographic composition of Italy, but one can't absolutely overlook the Greek contribution.

Yes this is correct. And when we speak of Greeks going up the peninsula we are likely going to be referring to Magna Graecians or more rather the romanized descendants of Magna Graecians more so than anybody. Greece proper is honestly modern Greek islander like or majority modern S. Italian like by the iron age as evidence by the latest studies on late bronze age greece which found an overwhelming amount of such individuals (~40%). Evidently, the Greeks were absorbing further anatolian admixture as the bronze age progressed. Himera showed a handful of individuals which match this profile as they sit over modern Sicilians, but the bulk sum are necessarily a mix between Sicani and Aegean like Greeks. The Eastern part of the island was much more heavily populated by Greeks and will likely plot more in line with modern S. Italians as a result. These types of Greek cities on the peninsula were absorbed by the ver sacrum migrational conquests, oscanized, and then quickly Romanized after Roman expansion to become citizens, thus probably being drivers of the genetic changes we see in the imperial era.

 

[Kirgonix Pereira]

I'm Portuguese and i got very matches and low genetic distance with north Italy but, based in my research it's related with North-Illyrians. So i think the major North-Italian are Basically North-Illyrian mainly + roman, germanic and native farmers the rest.

Correct me if i'm wrong in my point of view.

Check my closest ancient samples

And me genetic distance

 

[Vitruvius]

"During the Roman Imperial period, the extension of Mare Nostrum to the entire Mediterranean Sea allowed Rome to strengthen its cultural, political, and economic hegemony over the surrounding provinces. The tightened interaction with the east brought many migrants to the Empire’s capital. Supporting these historical accounts, a genomic time-transect in the city of Rome clearly documented a shift in genetic ancestry towards eastern Mediterranean populations during the Imperial period. A following study expanded on this finding by showing that the shift was not unique to Rome but also affected the central Italian region of Etruria. However, how much further north along the Italian peninsula this incoming ancestry spread remains to be addressed. Here, we generated genome-wide data of 32 individuals from six sites in northern Italy archaeologically dated to the Imperial period. Principal Component Analysis reveals that all individuals fall on an admixture cline stretching from the placement of preceding Iron Age groups towards modern-day Near Easterners. While this trend mirrors the results obtained for the city of Rome and Etruria, the proportion of eastern Mediterranean ancestry varies considerably. Most of the newly studied individuals derive three-quarters of their genetic profile from the local population and one-quarter from contemporaneous groups in the Near East. However, the latter contribution is around half of what was observed for central Italy at the same time. Compared to present-day northern Italians, we could then model an additional 20% gene flow from northern European ancestries, possibly influenced by migrations into Italy during the Early Middle Ages. To conclude, while northern European ancestries left a similar genetic imprint into present-day populations from central and northern Italy, the demographic shift connected with the Roman Empire was diluted moving northward, but its genetic legacy still survives until today."

The blatantly politicized near eastern replacement narrative being pushed by the authors is extraordinarily tiring. The type of DNA they refer to has already been proved to have its origins in the Aegean bronze age as shown in "Ancient DNA reveals admixture and endogomy in the aegean (2022)". We see it again in the greek colony of Himera in 490BC, prior to Rome's dominance of Italy. The profile has little if anything to do with the modern near east. At most we can say it has partial origins in bronze age western anatolia, but that's really it.

Beside this point, the abstract seems also disingenuous in its statements. There are no preceeding iron age northern italics sequenced to this date to compare imperial ancestry to, so the determination of what defines "preceding iron age groups" in nothern italy is a loaded statement. While it wouldn't surprise me to see Northern Italians in the imperial era somewhat impacted settlements from C./S. Italians of the time, the determinations they make are really more of assumptions in poor taste. They state a few important things, however, namely that the """near-eastern"'' (Read: Aegean Greek) ancestry is half of what is found in Imperial Central Italy for the average, but also that all individuals fall on a cline between with some of them having none of this type of ancestry. This tells me that the results are likely going to closely mimic the Bardonecchia and Torino EMA samples in which modern Central Italian like individuals are found in a gradient alongside thoroughly Northern Italian like individuals. Southernmost individuals will represent imperial era migrations from south in the peninsula where as the northern shifted ones will be descended purely from the natives of the Bronze age Polada and Terramare cultures. Higher fertility rates amongst more rural areas eventually will lead to the replacement of Po Valley C. Italian types in the middle ages and the restoration of the original profile related to the etruscans and northern adriatics. C. Italian like profiles with "southern ancestry" would've been concentrated in urban settlements with necessarily lower fertility rates (A common phenomenon in nearly all cultures). We also see this same phenomenon of Northern Italian replacement impacting Central Italy in the 300-500 AD time frame. During this period Modern-like Northern Italian individuals to the rate of about 20% are present alongside the rest of the modern Southern Italian like samples in Rome. As time would go on, it appears that Northern Italy was repopulating central Italy and shifting it to an intermediate position between North and South for many generations all the way to present day. Because of this it appears quite clear to me that fertility rates and population sizes must have been elevated in the north comparatively to central Italy from the collapse of the empire to present day.

 

[Vitruvius]

I'm Portuguese and i got very matches and low genetic distance with north Italy but, based in my research it's related with North-Illyrians. So i think the major North-Italian are Basically North-Illyrian mainly + roman, germanic and native farmers the rest.

Correct me if i'm wrong in my point of view.

Check my closest ancient samples

And me genetic distance

Northern Adriatic and Proto-Etruscan cultures were very closely connected in the bronze age - you are correct about this aspect. These peoples effectively were the ethnogenesis of the Northern Italian profile, where as the southern Italian profile shows much more Aegean influence from the Magna Graecian migrations. With the exception of Sardinians, who are a neolithic holdover, all modern Italians plot on a cline between these two peoples and the Romans (Roman Era Italians) are appropriately represented by one or a combination of both types of ancestries.

Germans, however, have had little to no impact on Italy as their migrations were carried out in very small numbers comparatively to the much larger Italian populace. You can check the Bardonecchia and Torino samples to get a look at what the population of northern Italy looked like during the Lombard Invasions. Of the 15 samples there are none that cluster with modern German speaking populations and only 1 clustered with French. The rest were Central to Northern Italian like - mostly Northern.

 

[Pax Augusta]

Northern Adriatic and Etruscan cultures were very closely connected in the bronze age

Not exactly.

In the Bronze Age, similar archaeological cultures are shared by multiple different protohistoric peoples, who then only emerge in the Iron Age as distinct ethnic groups. What we know today thanks to genetics, however, is that the biological material was often the same, despite emerging as autonomous ethnic groups in the Iron Age. This seems to be the thesis that geneticists endorse, at least, for northern and central Italy.

Claiming that northern Italy was primarily "northern Illyrian", as did the user to whom you are responding, is one of many fanciful interpretations on the forum. The rather common misconception in forums is that the similar genetic profile of Bronze Age samples from the northern/western Balkans to the one of northern Italy, or other areas, may imply a common origin. It is not quite like that. Also because we don't have the Iron Age samples from northern Italy so we are talking about hot air. That profile will likely be quite common to more different southern European populations, the difference will have been made by WHG rates or its complete absence (and the addition of CHG/Iran_N).

Then clearly there must have been some migratiosn as well, the border between Italy and Slovenia has always been trafficked. A possible contribution from the northern Balkans is speculated for several peoples of Preroman Italy. One above all the Picenes. Plausible also a contribution in the peoples of northeastern Italy.

For the Etruscans, there is only one hypothesis concerning the very last quarter of the Bronze Age, within the Urnfield Culture and when in Etruria there is protovillanovian culture, of small groups, originally from the Danubian-Carpathian plain who entered the border between Italy and Slovenia, and descended as far as Etruria participating in the ethnogenesis of the Etruscans. The two J2b-L283s found among the Etruscans could well be due to these small groups.

You can check the Bardonecchia and Torino samples to get a look at what the population of northern Italy looked like during the Lombard Invasions.

I have already commented on this paper. Geneticists here have a big problem with northern Italian samples from the Final Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age, because incineration was the most common funerary practice for centuries (It seems to me that the earliest examples of incineration were even found in the Terramare culture).

The Lavazza and Bardonecchia samples are indeed not considered "Longobards" by archaeologists. For Lavazza they are thought to be some kind of local "Christian" descendants from the late Roman period; for Bardonecchia, instead, the archaeologists think they are a small allochthonous group (I think there are 12 burials in all but two if I remember correctly, have different dates and are without grave goods), the necropolis is described as "Merovingian," so with some possible Frankish or Burgundian influence (which does not rule out that they might have been some Gallo-Roman survivals assimilated by the Franks or Burgundians).

The underlying problem is not only the lack of Iron Age samples but also the fact that from the Imperial Roman era onward geneticists need a truly incredible number of samples before they can draw any conclusions. The demographics of the Bronze Age and early Iron Age were much less complex than those of later eras.

 

[Vitruvius]

Not exactly.

In the Bronze Age, similar archaeological cultures are shared by multiple different protohistoric peoples, who then only emerge in the Iron Age as distinct ethnic groups. What we know today thanks to genetics, however, is that the biological material was often the same, despite emerging as autonomous ethnic groups in the Iron Age. This seems to be the thesis that geneticists endorse, at least, for northern and central Italy.

The distinct "ethnic groups" you refer to in the iron age are less so ethnic groups in the modern sense of the word and more of tribal varieties of Italians that exist on a related genetic cline. You can say there were some cultural differences but they were largely culturally homogenized in the protovillanovan era. Differences in culture after that period mostly had to do with degrees of contact with the Greek world technological complex.

Claiming that northern Italy was primarily "northern Illyrian", as did the user to whom you are responding, is one of many fanciful interpretations on the forum. The rather common misconception in forums is that the similar genetic profile of Bronze Age samples from the northern/western Balkans to the one of northern Italy, or other areas, may imply a common origin. It is not quite like that. Also because we don't have the Iron Age samples from northern Italy so we are talking about hot air. That profile will likely be quite common to more different southern European populations, the difference will have been made by WHG rates or its complete absence (and the addition of CHG/Iran_N).

My claim is less so that Italy is/was "Northern Illyrian" and more so that Northern Illyrian and Northern italians derive from the same bronze age population dwelling in the northern Balkans in and around the Julian alps. Their genetics are identical for this reason but culturally they would begin to diverge as time goes on. The Castellieri culture provides evidence of this link, having settlements widespread throughout croatia, istra, fvg and veneto.

Then clearly there must have been some migratiosn as well, the border between Italy and Slovenia has always been trafficked. A possible contribution from the northern Balkans is speculated for several peoples of Preroman Italy. One above all the Picenes. Plausible also a contribution in the peoples of northeastern Italy.

The migrations from this route would've been large and likely occurred in multiple waves throughout the bronze age. I believe there is stronger evidence for the protoItalics arriving through this route from an area between western hungary and the adriatic than that of anywhere else. On the topic of the Picenes, have you seen the abstract related to their DNA that Robotnick posted? It specifies close similarity with iron age etruscans with additional balkan relatedness. That of course points to a modern northern italian-like profile.

For the Etruscans, there is only one hypothesis concerning the very last quarter of the Bronze Age, within the Urnfield Culture and when in Etruria there is protovillanovian culture, of small groups, originally from the Danubian-Carpathian plain who entered the border between Italy and Slovenia, and descended as far as Etruria participating in the ethnogenesis of the Etruscans. The two J2b-L283s found among the Etruscans could well be due to these small groups.

While I agree with the locations, I think the timeline is too late with this idea. These danubian-carpathian plain migrations likely occurred prior to the Villanovan era and formed the ethnogenesis of the Terramare and Polada. The Terramare would later become the Protovillanovans you speak of, spreading to nearly all of Italy which would later regionalize and birth the numerous related Italian tribes we see emerge from the iron age, including the Etruscans.

I have already commented on this paper. Geneticists here have a big problem with northern Italian samples from the Final Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age, because incineration was the most common funerary practice for centuries (It seems to me that the earliest examples of incineration were even found in the Terramare culture).

Yes, I've taken note of this and a similar problem exists for Roman finds where inhumation practices during the imperial era were attributed to mainly foreign funerary practices south of the Mediterranean according to Tacitus. It creates an issue of survivorship bias that very few seem to be talking about. Nonetheless, the Terramare culture practiced both inhumation and cremation simultaneously unlike the early imperial Romans, so I have hope we will get some individuals at some point.

The Lavazza and Bardonecchia samples are indeed not considered "Longobards" by archaeologists.

Right and this is why they are more representative of the local population than a specifically Longobard necropolis. If the longobards were numerous and influential on the local population genetics we would see their types appear often and commonly in typical local burial sites, but we do not see this so far.

The underlying problem is not only the lack of Iron Age samples but also the fact that from the Imperial Roman era onward geneticists need a truly incredible number of samples before they can draw any conclusions. The demographics of the Bronze Age and early Iron Age were much less complex than those of later eras.

I agree that more sampling is needed in general but I'm surprised to hear that you think the bronze age was less complex than the historic era. In my mind it was just as complex if not more so than the iron age and is indicative of large amounts of warfare and migratory events.

 

[Robotnick]

If I had to make an educated guess, Polada Culture comes moreso from migrations from the NW in Upper Rhine/Danube and Switzerland, from Bell Beaker people who used the many river systems beginning in the Alps that flow down into the Po Valley and out towards Venetia, rather than the Middle Danube/Pannonia.

Polada finds in the Aosta Valley in the far NW of Alpine Italy make the Middle Danube/Pannonia unlikely as the predominant source. Though I suppose the Polada could have been a convergence of migrations from multiple regions, perhaps of related people who may or may not have kept in contact. Some taking the Alpine river systems, some taking the Rhone, and some taking the Danube, perhaps betting on which is the best route to eventually reach the promised land of the Po Valley.

excuse me for derailing the thread a bit.

 

[torzio]

The only Northern-Illyrian tribes are the Liburnians, Japodes ( Iapodes ) , Histrians and the Venetics ( as some say )
middle -Illyrians are in majority the Dalmatians and the Daorsi

The Daunians in Foggia Italy came to Italy ( as per the 2021 paper ) from Northern-Croatia circa 1000BC ................the Messapic came to Salento peninsula Italy 400 years after the Daunians arrived................the Messapics are not the same as the Daunians

 

[Cato]

With the exception of Sardinians, who are a neolithic holdover

Just a note: Sardinians cluster with LBA/IA Sicilians and MBA Olmo di Nogara not with Cardium pottery samples. Etruscans and Latins are closer to Sardinians than most BA Nuragics and much closer than Sardinia N(eolithic)

 

[Pax Augusta]

Just a note: Sardinians cluster with LBA/IA Sicilians and MBA Olmo di Nogara not with Cardium pottery samples. Etruscans and Latins are closer to Sardinians than most BA Nuragics and much closer than Sardinia N(eolithic)

Modern Sardinians are not identical to the Nuragic BA, that much is clear, but they remain a genetically isolated population, although perhaps Sardinia HGDP is not representative of all Sardinians and some sample of modern Sardinians shows more admixture with the rest of the Italians or something else. Whereas Latins and Etruscans were not genetically isolated populations at all.

 

[Pygmalion]

Modern Sardinians are not identical to the Nuragic BA, that much is clear, but they remain a genetically isolated population, although perhaps Sardinia HGDP is not representative of all Sardinians and some sample of modern Sardinians shows more admixture with the rest of the Italians or something else. Whereas Latins and Etruscans were not genetically isolated populations at all.

Sardinian HGDP samples form two clusters:

"""We find the HGDP Sardinia individuals partially overlap with our dataset and include a subset that clusters near the Ogliastra sub-population Thus, we use the term “Gennargentu-region” to describe this ancestry component.""""

Genomic history of the Sardinian population

The population of the Mediterranean island of Sardinia has made important contributions to genome-wide association studies of complex disease traits and, based on ancient DNA (aDNA) studies of mainland Europe, Sardinia is hypothesized to be a unique refuge ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

""""The Gennargentu region is also where some of the Sardinian individuals in the Human Genome Diversity Project (HGDP) originate (A. Piazza, personal communication). Consistent with this record, the HGDP Sardinians show close affinity to individuals from Ogliastra, although roughly half of the samples are more similar to the broader sample outside of Ogliastra. Thus, we labeled the two subgroups of HGDP as ‘SarHGa’ and ‘SarHGb’.. """"


Probably that's cluster A, which in your picture would be the most distant cluster from the other modern populatons:

In the PCA "a" from " Genetic history from the Middle Neolithic to present on the Mediterranean island of Sardinia"
it's easy to notice that the Ogliastra and Nuoro - AKA Gennargentu area - samples are the closest ones to the Nuragic cluster while the other Sardinian subgroups are closer to Non-Sardinian populations.

Genetic history from the Middle Neolithic to present on the Mediterranean island of Sardinia - Nature Communications

Ancient DNA analysis of early European farmers has found a high level of genetic affinity with present-day Sardinians. Here, the authors generate genome-wide capture data for 70 individuals from Sardinia spanning the Middle Neolithic to Medieval period to reveal relationships with mainland...

www.nature.com

Both HGDP Sardinian subgroups have more WHG than most Sardinians from outside of the Gennargentu area, except for those from the Olbia province which have that "high" WHG component probably because they're more North Mediterranean shifted and also have higher Yamnaya admixture than most other Sard subgroups.

Population history of the Sardinian people inferred from whole-genome sequencing

The population of the Mediterranean island of Sardinia has made important contributions to genome-wide association studies of traits and diseases. The history of the Sardinian population has also been the focus of much research, and in recent ancient DNA (aDNA) studies, Sardinia has provided...

www.biorxiv.org

 

[Vitruvius]

If I had to make an educated guess, Polada Culture comes moreso from migrations from the NW in Upper Rhine/Danube and Switzerland, from Bell Beaker people who used the many river systems beginning in the Alps that flow down into the Po Valley and out towards Venetia, rather than the Middle Danube/Pannonia.

Polada finds in the Aosta Valley in the far NW of Alpine Italy make the Middle Danube/Pannonia unlikely as the predominant source. Though I suppose the Polada could have been a convergence of migrations from multiple regions, perhaps of related people who may or may not have kept in contact. Some taking the Alpine river systems, some taking the Rhone, and some taking the Danube, perhaps betting on which is the best route to eventually reach the promised land of the Po Valley.

excuse me for derailing the thread a bit.

No offense, but I have to disagree with this take. We have Bronze age samples dated to the Polada era from Broion. They show a Balkan route of Yamnaya pull rather than a northern route. If the ancestry was coming from north of the alps, I would expect the samples to fall along a more typical central european cline, but they don't. They're somewhat southern drifted. Geographically, Polada finds are also concentrated between Eastern Lombardy, Trentino, and Western Veneto, which implies an eastern bias of settlement. The Terramare culture is directly descended from them and by extension the Protovillanovans are descended from the Terramare. The Protovillanovan sample we have clusters with adriatic bronze+iron age populations found in Croatia, as well, hence my reasoning. Ultimately though, we'll have to wait and find out for Polada to be directly sampled.

 

[Robotnick]

No offense, but I have to disagree with this take. We have Bronze age samples dated to the Polada era from Broion. They show a Balkan route of Yamnaya pull rather than a northern route. If the ancestry was coming from north of the alps, I would expect the samples to fall along a more typical central european cline, but they don't. They're somewhat southern drifted. Geographically, Polada finds are also concentrated between Eastern Lombardy, Trentino, and Western Veneto, which implies an eastern bias of settlement. The Terramare culture is directly descended from them and by extension the Protovillanovans are descended from the Terramare. The Protovillanovan sample we have clusters with adriatic bronze+iron age populations found in Croatia, as well, hence my reasoning. Ultimately though, we'll have to wait and find out for Polada to be directly sampled.

More Polada samples (as well as haplogroups, I believe the only Y-dna found so far is G?) would be nice. I haven't looked into the the dna as much, especially autosomal. You may be right.

Culturally, from what I understand at least, Western Unetice appears to be the main source of Polada. These people may not have contributed a huge chunk of DNA. Maybe there is also a Western and Eastern cline, with West Polada showing more upper Rhine BB genetic input? All the rivers from Alpine Italy pretty much flow in a South and Eastward direction and converge in the East not far from the Adriatic. This would have been the most attractive location and could have easily become a multi-ethnic trading hub by the MBA.

Pre or Non-beaker IEs from the East may have already been contributing to Italian genetics by this time, but Polada as I understand is principally BB-derived.

 

[Poxy]

No offense, but I have to disagree with this take. We have Bronze age samples dated to the Polada era from Broion. They show a Balkan route of Yamnaya pull rather than a northern route. If the ancestry was coming from north of the alps, I would expect the samples to fall along a more typical central european cline, but they don't. They're somewhat southern drifted. Geographically, Polada finds are also concentrated between Eastern Lombardy, Trentino, and Western Veneto, which implies an eastern bias of settlement. The Terramare culture is directly descended from them and by extension the Protovillanovans are descended from the Terramare. The Protovillanovan sample we have clusters with adriatic bronze+iron age populations found in Croatia, as well, hence my reasoning. Ultimately though, we'll have to wait and find out for Polada to be directly sampled.

I believe it is more likely that Broion's BRC003 sample with R-L2 was a trace of Carpathian unfielders who fled to Northern Italy rather than a Polada. The BRC003 sample is dated 1532–1452 cal BCE, which roughly corresponds to the period in which the funeral of Emilian Terramare(Southern Po valley) began to be replaced by Urn-cremation around 1500–1450 BC. Of course, we don't know exactly when R-L2 was introduced. I think, it is also possible that it was introduced with Bell-Beaker.

 

[Pax Augusta]

I believe it is more likely that Broion's BRC003 sample with R-L2 was a trace of Carpathian unfielders who fled to Northern Italy rather than a Polada. The BRC003 sample is dated 1532–1452 cal BCE, which roughly corresponds to the period in which the funeral of Emilian Terramare(Southern Po valley) began to be replaced by Urn-cremation around 1500–1450 BC. Of course, we don't know exactly when R-L2 was introduced. I think, it is also possible that it was introduced with Bell-Beaker.

Obviously this does not prove the date and place of origin for each R-L2 in Italy but here is where it is thought to have formed, well away from the Balkans, Pannonia, and the Carpathians.

 

[Poxy]

Obviously this does not prove the date and place of origin for each R-L2 in Italy but here is where it is thought to have formed, well away from the Balkans, Pannonia, and the Carpathians.

It's still unclear, and I think either Bell-Beaker or Unfield are both possibilities. More samples of Bronze Age North Italian males are needed. But, It is very unfortunate that Emilian Terramare had a cremation funeral even before the Urn-cremation conversion.