Genetic study The origin and legacy of the Etruscans through a 2000-year archeogenomic time transec

Really they are different from native Apulians?


They are saying that originally are more similar to Central Italian IA groups.

All samples are from Campania, including the Villanovan/Etruscans.

zvfz03q.jpg
 
I want to be a honest broker, so if I must own up I were wrong I'll admit to it, and say that the folks at anthrogenica were right about both a massive (really massive) influx of Levantine and then a substantial Germanic input, yet they too must admit that they were wrong to the extent they greatly underestimated it: even the boldest claim at anthrogenica was around 30% Levant_BA at maximum in deep south Italy, yet it seems it is at around slightly less than 40-50% in Tuscans (if they were 60-50% Levantine, depending on whether Israel or Alalakh is used, then 20% Longobard would mean 48-40% Levantine in central Italians in the middle ages), and as a result even the Germanic input they greatly underestimated.
snip*

Ditto.

"During the first half of the first millennium CE, we observe a marked shift in PCA space of all studied individuals toward the Near Eastern cline (Fig.4A), distributed across the genetic space occupied by present-day southeastern European populations. We grouped nonoutlier individuals dating between 1 and 500 CE into the “C.Italy_Imperial” cluster (table S2A). Formal f4-tests reveal its higher affinity than C.Italy_Etruscan to ancient groups from Iran, Africa, and the Near East (table S2C). We then used qpAdm to quantify this group’s ancestry components, where C.Italy_Imperial was modeled as a mixture of the sources C.Italy_Etruscan and 158 published European and Near Eastern genomes from the Bronze and Iron Ages. As a result, the models that were found to fit the data best are those with a 38 to 59% contribution from Levantine or Anatolian populations into the local/preexisting C.Italy_Etruscan gene pool (Fig.4B and table S4D). Substantial gene flow from the eastern Mediterranean was also reported in ancient individuals from Rome dated to the Imperial period (17). Despite our limited number of data points from the first five centuries CE, the new results suggest that the contribution of nonlocal ancestry in Rome was larger than in Etruria (Fig.4A). However, this large-scale genetic impact of incoming groups during the Imperial period was not only limited to the metropolitan area around Rome but also extended into the neighboring and more distant regions considered here"

"Regarding the last temporal interval of our ancient genomic transect (500 to 1000 CE), we observe that individuals grouped in the “C.Italy_Early.Medieval” cluster are generally shifted toward central European groups compared to C.Italy_Imperial and largely overlap with present-day populations from central Italy (TSI.SG) (Fig. 5A) (30). Using f4-tests, we can show that this transition is confirmed by a reduced affinity of C.Italy_Early.Medieval toward eastern Mediterranean populations compared to C.Italy_Imperial (table S2D). Moreover, the C.Italy_Early.Medieval cluster can be modeled successfully in qpAdm as a mixture between the preceding C.Italy_Imperial group and Late Antique or Medieval groups from northern and eastern Europe (among the 59 populations tested) in estimated proportions of 60 to 90% and 10 to 40%, respectively (table S4E). Notably, among the best supported models are those that feature individuals associated with Longobard cemeteries from Hungary and northern Italy (31). If we specifically restrict the analyses to those Longobard-related individuals carrying unadmixed northern European genetic ancestry (Piedmont_N.Longobard), then we obtain a ~20% contribution to the C.Italy_Early.Medieval cluster (Fig. 5. This finding is consistent with a genetic input of northern European ancestry in central Italy during the Longobard period. However, the influence of other Germanic tribes in Italy like the Ostrogoths could also have enhanced the observed genomic shift."

Even I who try/am a contrarian most of the time, would have never even on a blasphemous streak thought up those numbers. Although, this scenario made a lot of sense given the Roman crossroads paper. How C6->C4/5 (+C7)-> C6.

Edit: Yep... just the next paragraph.

"Since modern-day central Italians largely overlap in PCA space with C.Italy_Early.Medieval individuals (Fig.5A), we tested the consistency of the former group deriving from the latter. To enhance resolution, qpAdm was implemented with present-day worldwide populations in the reference set. No present-day Italian populations are consistent with deriving from the C.Italy_Early.Medieval cluster (P values below 0.05), although high-coverage genomes from Tus-cany (Tuscan.DG) (32) yielded no grounds for strong rejection of genetic continuity (P =0.02) (Fig.5C and tables S2E and S4G). This suggests that the genetic makeup of present-day central Italian pop-ulations was largely formed at least by 1000 CE. To investigate whether an analogous picture is observed in contemporaneous individuals from southern Italy, data from the Early Medievalarcheological site of Venosa in Basilicata were similarly analyzed. With the exception of VEN002, all Venosa individuals (S.Italy_Ve-nosa) broadly overlap modern-day southern Italian populations in PC space and can be jointly modeled in qpAdm as deriving from the same stream of ancestry (P =0.42) (Fig.5,AandC). In PCA space, most Medieval and Early Modern individuals from Rome fall in an intermediate position between Early Medieval groups from Tuscany and Basilicata (Fig.5A). This distribution is thus consistent with the current north-south genetic cline that mirrors geography (33,34) (fig. S4), with Italy bridging the genetic gap between Europe and the eastern Mediterranean. "
 
As Leopoldo Leone said in the part I sniped^, this paper and the Danubian limes could not be any more different.
This paper uses qpADM, and fstats, in conjuction with keeping in line historic and known events, in sofar their models do not become anachronistic, and neither implausible as far as comparative populations. Furthermore this all is done, so the statistical modeling, historical veracity and limited 2D PCAs agree with each other.

I felt the Danubian Limes was a 2 min read, this I am on the 3d read through, and I still find interesting bits I might have missed on the earlier reads.
 
You're doing it all wrong. Because you're too obsessed with what the outcome might be for Southern Italy.

The paper on Campania is coming out, and it concludes that the Campanian/Italics were like Etruscans and Latins. Try the math again now.

Quite strong words when I have just exposed my reasoning, and believe me that I shall sleep at night even if southern Italians came out as 100% Saudi.
If the Campanians (as the bulk of it) were Italic-like, as I've stated, my conjecture would change.
By the way, the outcome for southern Italy is roughly the same for that for central and north Italy, though on slightly different levels, and I have "no dog in the race" since I am both southern and northern Italian.
The paper stated that:

No present-day Italian populations are consistent with deriving from the C.Italy_Early.Medieval cluster (P values below 0.05), although high-coverage genomes from Tuscany (Tuscan.DG) yielded no grounds for strong rejection of genetic continuity (P = 0.02)

Which can explain why Razib khan (quite cryptically) stated on twitter when he said that "this paper confirms his podcast", that is that those folks died out to be replaced by locals.
 
They are saying that originally are more similar to Central Italian IA groups.

All samples are from Campania, including the Villanovan/Etruscans.

zvfz03q.jpg

Interesting, do you know perhaps when it is coming out?
Also, this paper hasn't told apart north Levantines from Anatolians, though the paper about the Danubian limes showed it is very easy to do. As I said on another thread, you can theoretically use Anatolians from the imperial age to model Italians. given they are rich in CHG but have virtually no levantine ancestry in excess to what older samples had. Though, that paper also argued that people harbouring that genetic profile died out in the Balkans and in Rome (though it wasn't in the original paper to be honest): it would seem it was wrong for Italy.
 
It is really not understandable why they ended up in this study. It's not even an area where there were Etruscans.

My guess is as a tool. Since from the PCAs, and the coordinates Jov shared, they seem the closest to modern Italians. Hence they are used in the sample to make a point about potential continuity.

Check the title of the paper. The Etruscan might be a good clickbait, and raise media attention. But the 2000 year part was bound to deal with their legacy, since by the CE we could no longer talk about Etruscan per se.
 
Really they are different from native Apulians?

I’ve seen modern Apulian results (in the hundreds) been used by amateurs as substitutes for Ancient theoretical extinct Balkan and Greek samples that have no modern line or continuity.
They don’t take into account and disregard that there was a native Apulian population there for at least 20,000 years!
 
48 individuals from 800 to 1 BCE (Iron Age and Roman Republic), 6 individuals from 1 to 500 CE (Imperial period), and 28 individuals from 500 to 1000 CE (12 from central Italy and 16 from southern Italy)

sciadv.abi7673-f1.jpg

"The mtDNA diversity does not seem to change substantially before and after year 1 CE (fig. S5A). By contrast, the newly reported central Italian individuals from 800 to 1 BCE show ~75% frequency of the Y-chromosome haplogroup R1b, mostly represented by the R1b-P312 polymorphism and its derived R1b-L2, that diffused across Europe alongside steppe-related ancestry in association with the Bell Beaker complex (16). This suggests that this R1b Y-chromosome lineage spread into the Italian peninsula with steppe-related movements during the Bronze Age. In the first millennium CE, its frequency is reduced to ~40% with higher oc-currence of Near Eastern–associated Y-chromosome lineages such as J (fig. S5
cool.gif
. While we cannot rule out substantial female mobility, the marked shift in Y-chromosome haplogroup frequency indicates that male mobility played an important role in the observed genetic turnovers from the Imperial period onward"

:cool-v: Now we need Magna Grecia paper to come out. Both papers were presented at the same conference if I am not mistaken.

I also found out the Albanian samples wont be published on a separate/Illyrian study, but along with more regional samples, not sure if just Balkans or even beyond. Meaning the team is international.
 
Quite strong words when I have just exposed my reasoning, and believe me that I shall sleep at night even if southern Italians came out as 100% Saudi.
If the Campanians (as the bulk of it) were Italic-like, as I've stated, my conjecture would change.
By the way, the outcome for southern Italy is roughly the same for that for central and north Italy, though on slightly different levels, and I have "no dog in the race" since I am both southern and northern Italian.
The paper stated that:

Do you understand that Posth's explanation is very weak, or not? It is only statistics, the same statistics used for years to make us to believe that Etruscans were not autochthonous and come from Mars. Now the scenario has completely flipped. The work of geneticists has improved since the whole genome of ancient DNA can be analyzed, but the tricks and gambles of geneticists have remained as they always have.

It is clear that imperial Rome has changed many things and that the genetic profile of the Etruscans does not exist anymore, as the profile of practically all the pre-Roman Iron Ag Italy does not exist. As well as it is clear that the DNA of the eastern Mediterranean arrived during imperial Rome is not all gone and that certainly the Germanic DNA arrived later is not all gone.

But these proposed are models and that are still based on a few samples. In Italy there is a genetic cline, you cannot make these models on a population without involving all Italians, not to mention that there are not enough uniparental markers that can support the results of these models. The more you increase certain components that shift south, the more you need components that shift north to bring you back to today's position.

All of these models then rely on the assumption that the needed populations were unadmixed. So much so that the study says that 20% of North European DNA comes from individuals carrying unadmixed northern European genetic ancestry. Eh, but how many were really unadmixed? It's all much more complicated than these models. Too bad that Collegno cemetery was full of people with the most diverse genetic profiles. Only those with unadmixed northern European genetic ancestry mixed with the local population? The only sure thing is that the gene pool of central Italians, but this is true for all Italians, began to form after 1000 AD.


Which can explain why Razib khan (quite cryptically) stated on twitter when he said that "this paper confirms his podcast", that is that those folks died out to be replaced by locals.

Razib Khan is the same guy who until just before 2019 wondered where the Etruscans came from. C'mon.
 
Do you understand that Posth's explanation is very weak, or not? It is only statistics, the same statistics used for years to make us to believe that Etruscans were not autochthonous and come from Mars. Now the scenario has completely flipped.

It is clear that imperial Rome has changed many things and that the genetic profile of the Etruscans does not exist anymore, as the profile of practically all the pre-Roman iron Italy does not exist. As well as it is clear that the DNA of the eastern Mediterranean arrived during imperial Rome is not all gone and that certainly the Germanic DNA arrived later is not all gone.

But these proposed are models and that are still based on a few samples. In Italy there is a genetic cline, you cannot make these models on a population without involving all Italians, not to mention that there are not enough uniparental markers that can support the results of these models. The more you increase certain components that shift south, the more you need components that shift north to bring you back to today's position.

All of these models then rely on the assumption that the needed populations were unadmixed. So much so that the study says that 20% of North European DNA comes from individuals carrying unadmixed northern European genetic ancestry. Eh, but how many were really unadmixed? It's all much more complicated than these models. Too bad that Collegno cemetery was full of people with the most diverse genetic profiles. Only those with unadmixed northern European genetic ancestry mixed with the local population? The only sure thing is that the gene pool of central Italians, but this is true for all Italians, began to form after 1000 AD.




Razib Khan is the same guy who until just before 2019 wondered where the Etruscans came from. C'mon.

I wish I had more upvotes to give!
 
Do you understand that Posth's explanation is very weak, or not? It is only statistics, the same statistics used for years to make us to believe that Etruscans were not autochthonous and come from Mars. Now the scenario has completely flipped.

It is clear that imperial Rome has changed many things and that the genetic profile of the Etruscans does not exist anymore, as the profile of practically all the pre-Roman iron Italy does not exist. As well as it is clear that the DNA of the eastern Mediterranean arrived during imperial Rome is not all gone and that certainly the Germanic DNA arrived later is not all gone.

But these proposed are models and that are still based on a few samples. In Italy there is a genetic cline, you cannot make these models on a population without involving all Italians, not to mention that there are not enough uniparental markers that can support the results of these models. The more you increase certain components that shift south, the more you need components that shift north to bring you back to today's position.

All of these models then rely on the assumption that the needed populations were unadmixed. So much so that the study says that 20% of North European DNA comes from individuals carrying unadmixed northern European genetic ancestry. Eh, but how many were really unadmixed? It's all much more complicated than these models. Too bad that Collegno cemetery was full of people with the most diverse genetic profiles. Only those with unadmixed northern European genetic ancestry mixed with the local population? The only sure thing is that the gene pool of central Italians, but this is true for all Italians, began to form after 1000 AD.




Razib Khan is the same guy who until just before 2019 wondered where the Etruscans came from. C'mon.

We agree that the statistical models are weak and the explanation also weak, so I don't get why you disagree with me, that is about what? Contrary to Jovialis, I haven't said a word about an "east (european) med continuum", I waited for more samples.
My rub is that there is a big gap between the evidence presented by the paper about the Danubian limes and this: it is implausible that the virtually all the near eastern that went to the Balkans were Anatolians while those that went to Italy Levantines, and actually the same C6 cluster in the Antonio 2019 paper seems undefined: was it made up of people like those Anatolians or was it a two way mixture of Levantines and Italics as this paper implies? Not both can be correct.

We also agree that the genetic profile of Italy changed during the eras, but the scenario proposed (slaves plus barbarians) seems historically unfeasible.
I expected a bit more from this paper, and it doesn't take into consideration the paper from the danubian limes.
 
Jovialis post #10 (y)

Distance to:Duarte
9.25598725C.Italy_Etruscan_related:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_356-96BCE:TAQ001
10.20708088C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio):TAQ016
10.35823827:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012
10.40551777C.Italy_Etruscan_related:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany)_380-204BCE:CSN010
10.82643524C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN013
10.97969490C.Italy_Etruscan:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_346-51BCE:TAQ015
11.01859338C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio):TAQ013
11.06370191C.Italy_Etruscan:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany)_533-392BCE:CSN006
11.12235587C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN008
11.19851329C.Italy_Etruscan:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_356-96BCE:TAQ024
11.23924375C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN005
11.48003484C.Italy_Etruscan:poggioRenzo(Siena_Tuscany)_772-436BCE:pRZ002
11.50595498C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_:TAQ004
11.53930674C.Italy_Etruscan:CampigliadeiFoci(Siena_Tuscany)_780-540BCE:CAM001
11.64089773C.Italy_Etruscan:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_750-406BCE:VET001
11.66283842C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio):TAQ008
11.81583260C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN001
11.83354131C.Italy_Etruscan:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany)_380-204BCE:CSN003
11.87767233C.Italy_Etruscan_related:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_356-96BCE:TAQ017
11.93160090C.Italy_Etruscan:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_358-98BCE:TAQ019
12.00538629C.Italy_Etruscan:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_788-545BCE:VET010
12.08740253C.Italy_Etruscan:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_800-590BCE:VET003_4
12.08808091C.Italy_Etruscan:CampigliadeiFoci(Siena_Tuscany)_770-540BCE:CAM003
12.10366473C.Italy_Etruscan:Volterra(Pisa_Tuscany)_200-60BCE:VOL001
12.13397297C.Italy_Etruscan_related:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_346-51BCE:TAQ005

Target: Duarte
Distance: 4.9802% / 4.98016616
30.8:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012
25.5:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_750-413BCE:VET011
24.5C.Italy_Etruscan_related:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany)_380-204BCE:CSN010
8.1C.Italy_Early.Medieval_undated:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany):ETR012
5.1S.Italy_Venosa_related:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_670-775CE:VEN010
3.2S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_672-800CE:VEN018
2.8S.Italy_Venosa_VEN002:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_650-800CE:VEN002

Distance to:Duarte
5.7128395455.60% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012 + 44.40% C.Italy_Etruscan:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)_805-774BCE:ETR005
6.1448343555.60% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012 + 44.40% C.Italy_Etruscan_related:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_346-51BCE:TAQ005
6.2557347969.60% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012 + 30.40% C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)_772-888CE:ETR006
6.4205417751.80% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012 + 48.20% C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN013
6.4311711052.40% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012 + 47.60% C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio):TAQ013
6.5222472052.40% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012 + 47.60% C.Italy_Etruscan:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_346-51BCE:TAQ015
6.5637047067.00% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012 + 33.00% S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_660-766CE:VEN008
6.6793865455.40% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012 + 44.60% C.Italy_Etruscan_related:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_356-96BCE:TAQ017
6.6812570960.60% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012 + 39.40% C.Italy_Etruscan:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_790-550BCE:VET002
6.7020557360.80% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012 + 39.20% C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio):TAQ012
6.7724913856.00% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012 + 44.00% C.Italy_Etruscan:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_800-590BCE:VET003_4
6.7749134046.00% C.Italy_Etruscan.Afr:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_396-216BCE:TAQ023 + 54.00% C.Italy_Etruscan.Ceu:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_360-200BCE:VET005
6.7950903644.60% C.Italy_Etruscan:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany)_380-204BCE:CSN003 + 55.40% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012
6.8082779061.40% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012 + 38.60% C.Italy_Etruscan_related:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_346-51BCE:TAQ018
6.8203560262.00% C.Italy_Etruscan_related:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany)_380-204BCE:CSN010 + 38.00% :Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_750-413BCE:VET011
6.8363239854.80% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012 + 45.20% C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio):TAQ008
6.8427939935.60% C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN007 + 64.40% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012
6.9210386249.40% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012 + 50.60% C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio):TAQ016
6.9246801239.60% C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN004 + 60.40% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012
6.9400864260.20% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012 + 39.80% C.Italy_Etruscan:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_806-599BCE:VET007
6.9444733847.20% C.Italy_Etruscan:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany)_533-392BCE:CSN006 + 52.80% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012
7.0488444975.20% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012 + 24.80% C.Italy_Etruscan.Afr:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_372-204BCE:VET008
7.0641951343.60% C.Italy_Etruscan:CampigliadeiFoci(Siena_Tuscany)_770-540BCE:CAM003 + 56.40% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012
7.0646864144.40% C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN001 + 55.60% :Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN012
7.0772894156.40% C.Italy_Etruscan_related:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany)_380-204BCE:CSN010 + 43.60% C.Italy_Etruscan_related:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_346-51BCE:TAQ005



we are a long way away from these etruscans

Distance to:Torziok12b
7.47945854C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN005
7.77274083C.Italy_Etruscan:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany)_427-265BCE:CSN009
8.85378450C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN008
9.41315569C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)775-945CE:ETR007
9.57447649C.Italy_Etruscan:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_750-406BCE:VET001
9.89305312C.Italy_Etruscan_MAS001:Marsilianad'Albegna(Grosseto_Tuscany)_350-100BCE:MAS001
10.99554455C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_:TAQ006
11.05177814C.Italy_Etruscan.Ceu:CampigliadeiFoci(Siena_Tuscany)_770-520BCE:CAM002
11.17633214C.Italy_Etruscan:Volterra(Pisa_Tuscany)_200-60BCE:VOL001
11.32613350C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_1018-1151CE:TAQ022
11.63097588C.Italy_Etruscan:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany)_533-392BCE:CSN006
11.80943267C.Italy_Etruscan_related:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany)_380-204BCE:CSN010
11.86362508C.Italy_Etruscan:Marsilianad'Albegna(Grosseto_Tuscany)_804-557BCE:MAS004
11.98595845C.Italy_Imperial:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_89-236CE:TAQ020
12.05735460C.Italy_Early.Medieval:poggioPelliccia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_772-960CE:pOP001
12.13428201C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN013
12.20780898C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_895-1016CE:TAQ011
12.54692393C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)_997-1149CE:ETR003
12.64932014C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_899-1021CE:TAQ009
12.85277402C.Italy_Etruscan.Ceu_related:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany)_427-265BCE:CSN002
13.01492220C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio):TAQ016
13.27414027C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Casenovole(Grosseto_Tuscany):CSN001
13.36240248C.Italy_Etruscan:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_346-51BCE:TAQ015
13.51870186C.Italy_Etruscan_undated:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio):TAQ013
13.52757184C.Italy_Etruscan:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_103BCE-54CE:TAQ002
 
We agree that the statistical models are weak and the explanation also weak, so I don't get why you disagree with me, that is about what? Contrary to Jovialis, I haven't said a word about an "east (european) med continuum", I waited for more samples.
My rub is that there is a big gap between the evidence presented by the paper about the Danubian limes and this: it is implausible that the virtually all the near eastern that went to the Balkans were Anatolians while those that went to Italy Levantines, and actually the same C6 cluster in the Antonio 2019 paper seems undefined: was it made up of people like those Anatolians or was it a two way mixture of Levantines and Italics as this paper implies? Not both can be correct.

We also agree that the genetic profile of Italy changed during the eras, but the scenario proposed (slaves plus barbarians) seems historically unfeasible.
I expected a bit more from this paper, and it doesn't take into consideration the paper from the danubian limes.

With a paper from the Max Planck Institute, I have to defer to their expertise. Thus I should have more respect towards the position that the Imperial era had a larger impact on the Modern Italians. This paper makes it a viable conclusion, by the virtue of the fact that the Max Planck Institute supports it. So, I have to say this does support what some of the people on Anthrogenica have said. I still have to read it fully, but based on the salient points I have seen, it doesn't support what I have been saying. Nevertheless, I have faith that as more samples come out, such as the ones from Magna Graecia, it may change the story.


The Venosa samples would have been more interesting if they at least included Iron Age samples from the area, to compare to.
 
My top 25 distances using coordinates provided by Jovialis (post #10)

Distance to:PalermoTrapani_Combined
2.38784422S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_670-775CE:VEN015
4.04278369S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_670-775CE:VEN013
4.24855269S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_650-763CE:VEN005
4.61280826C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_729-942CE:TAQ003
6.12952690C.Italy_Imperial:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_262-424CE:TAQ021
6.18293620S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_650-800CE:VEN001
6.18618622S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_650-763CE:VEN006
6.44542473C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)C899-1016CE:ETR013
6.46209718S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_672-800CE:VEN016
7.28809303C.Italy_Early.Medieval_ETR014:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)_977-1022CE:ETR014
8.15834542C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_895-1016CE:TAQ011
8.49709951C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_899-1021CE:TAQ009
9.17092689C.Italy_Imperial:Marsilianad'Albegna(Grosseto_Tuscany)_400-530CE:MAS003
9.23174415C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)_997-1149CE:ETR003
9.35309040C.Italy_Early.Medieval_undated:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany):ETR010
9.52039915C.Italy_Imperial:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_89-236CE:TAQ020
9.73570747C.Italy_Etruscan.Afr:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_391-207BCE:TAQ007
9.87760092C.Italy_Early.Medieval:poggioPelliccia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_772-960CE:pOP001
10.49192547S.Italy_Venosa_related:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_672-800CE:VEN017
10.62509765S.Italy_Venosa_related:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_660-766CE:VEN009
10.67940541C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_1018-1151CE:TAQ022
10.73998603S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_670-775CE:VEN012
11.58488671C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)_772-888CE:ETR006
12.44673049C.Italy_Etruscan.Afr:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_372-204BCE:VET008
12.70596317C.Italy_Imperial:Marsilianad'Albegna(Grosseto_Tuscany)_240-380CE:MAS002

Unrestricted Model

Target: PalermoTrapani_Combined
Distance: 0.6841% / 0.68409247 | ADC: 0.25x RC
82.6 S.Italy_Venosa
14.2 C.Italy_Early.Medieval
1.8 C.Italy_Etruscan.Afr
1.4 S.Italy_Venosa_related

Restricted to 2 Populatons

Target: PalermoTrapani_Combined
Distance: 0.6750% / 0.67500023 | R2P | ADC: 0.25x RC
85.6 S.Italy_Venosa
14.4 C.Italy_Early.Medieval
 
Last edited:
My top 25 distances using coordinates provided by Jovialis (post #10)

Distance to:PalermoTrapani_Combined
2.38784422S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_670-775CE:VEN015
4.04278369S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_670-775CE:VEN013
4.24855269S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_650-763CE:VEN005
4.61280826C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_729-942CE:TAQ003
6.12952690C.Italy_Imperial:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_262-424CE:TAQ021
6.18293620S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_650-800CE:VEN001
6.18618622S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_650-763CE:VEN006
6.44542473C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)C899-1016CE:ETR013
6.46209718S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_672-800CE:VEN016
7.28809303C.Italy_Early.Medieval_ETR014:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)_977-1022CE:ETR014
8.15834542C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_895-1016CE:TAQ011
8.49709951C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_899-1021CE:TAQ009
9.17092689C.Italy_Imperial:Marsilianad'Albegna(Grosseto_Tuscany)_400-530CE:MAS003
9.23174415C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)_997-1149CE:ETR003
9.35309040C.Italy_Early.Medieval_undated:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany):ETR010
9.52039915C.Italy_Imperial:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_89-236CE:TAQ020
9.73570747C.Italy_Etruscan.Afr:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_391-207BCE:TAQ007
9.87760092C.Italy_Early.Medieval:poggioPelliccia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_772-960CE:pOP001
10.49192547S.Italy_Venosa_related:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_672-800CE:VEN017
10.62509765S.Italy_Venosa_related:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_660-766CE:VEN009
10.67940541C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Tarquinia(Viterbo_Lazio)_1018-1151CE:TAQ022
10.73998603S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_670-775CE:VEN012
11.58488671C.Italy_Early.Medieval:Chiusi(Siena_Tuscany)_772-888CE:ETR006
12.44673049C.Italy_Etruscan.Afr:Vetulonia(Grosseto_Tuscany)_372-204BCE:VET008
12.70596317C.Italy_Imperial:Marsilianad'Albegna(Grosseto_Tuscany)_240-380CE:MAS002

Unrestricted Model

Target: PalermoTrapani_Combined
Distance: 0.6841% / 0.68409247 | ADC: 0.25x RC
82.6 S.Italy_Venosa
14.2 C.Italy_Early.Medieval
1.8 C.Italy_Etruscan.Afr
1.4 S.Italy_Venosa_related

Restricted to 2 Populatons

Target: PalermoTrapani_Combined
Distance: 0.6750% / 0.67500023 | R2P | ADC: 0.25x RC
85.6 S.Italy_Venosa
14.4 C.Italy_Early.Medieval

Nice results, especially now that we know the context.
Coca Cola has got nothing on you, your formula has remained original for 1300 year ;)
 
Quite strong words when I have just exposed my reasoning, and believe me that I shall sleep at night even if southern Italians came out as 100% Saudi.
If the Campanians (as the bulk of it) were Italic-like, as I've stated, my conjecture would change.
By the way, the outcome for southern Italy is roughly the same for that for central and north Italy, though on slightly different levels, and I have "no dog in the race" since I am both southern and northern Italian.
The paper stated that:



Which can explain why Razib khan (quite cryptically) stated on twitter when he said that "this paper confirms his podcast", that is that those folks died out to be replaced by locals.

We need to see what Southern Italian Greeks were like during the IA.
 
We agree that the statistical models are weak and the explanation also weak, so I don't get why you disagree with me, that is about what? Contrary to Jovialis, I haven't said a word about an "east (european) med continuum", I waited for more samples.
My rub is that there is a big gap between the evidence presented by the paper about the Danubian limes and this: it is implausible that the virtually all the near eastern that went to the Balkans were Anatolians while those that went to Italy Levantines, and actually the same C6 cluster in the Antonio 2019 paper seems undefined: was it made up of people like those Anatolians or was it a two way mixture of Levantines and Italics as this paper implies? Not both can be correct.

We also agree that the genetic profile of Italy changed during the eras, but the scenario proposed (slaves plus barbarians) seems historically unfeasible.
I expected a bit more from this paper, and it doesn't take into consideration the paper from the danubian limes.

Geneticists generally follow narratives and tend to defend the work of colleagues with whom they collaborate, even when the conclusions are wrong or not entirely correct. For years two distinct groups of Italian geneticists have been dealing with the question of Etruscan origins, which is very debatable because they began to deal with Etruscans far too soon when prehistoric migrations were not even clear.

The first group (universities of Turin and Pavia, mainly, and others) has never analyzed the DNA of a single Etruscan or single Lydian, and, siding with the eastern origin from the beginning against what archeology concluded, has only analyzed modern samples. Their working method has always consisted in attributing anything found in modern samples, which could be traced to the eastern Mediterranean, to the eastern origin of the Etruscans, thus producing a series of ridiculous studies that claimed to have proved that Herodotus was right. Wthout proving it as something related to the Etruscans, they left a legacy in the debate that there was something in modern Tuscans' mtDNA attributable to Iron Age Anatolia (which is not even so true, so much so that they have never published new samples for the fear of self-discrediting), also making believe that the Tuscans were a kind of special case in Italy, which has been regularly refuted by other more impartial geneticists who have analyzed all of Italy.

The second group (universities of Ferrara and Florence, and then also Max Planck, Harvard, Tubingen), which includes the authors of this study released today, instead decided to focus more on ancient DNA, and their conclusions since 2013 were diametrically opposed to the first group and more in line with archaeology. But even this group has distinguished itself by some exaggeration. They never openly criticized the other group, they played along and accepted the narrative about the modern Tuscans created by the other group, and to discredit their work from the beginning this group claimed that there was very little Etruscan DNA left in the modern samples from Etruria (it's clear why they did it, isn't it?). The problem is that they started to support it initially on the basis of only mitochondrial DNA of Etruscans and modern samples. If we see the results of today with mtDNA H which is dominant both in Etruscans and in modern Tuscans it appears they were wrong. But of course today they are using other arguments to support it, and no longer the comparison based on mitochondrial DNA.

It is clear that the migrations of the imperial age have left traces in modern central Italians. No doubt, but the problem is who were they? They weren't from just one place. An ancestral component does not always tell us exactly the origin of someone at that time. In any case it is highly unlikely they did not leave it in the rest of Italy as well. The problem is that this group has an interest in exaggerating this, especially in the relationship between Etruscans and modern central Italians. We will have a clearer picture only in a few years. As I've already said, in Italy there is a genetic cline, you cannot make these models on a single Italian population without involving all Italians.
 
They are pre-Moorish era samples. It seems that the Moorish impact was greater in Iberia than in Southern Italy and Sicily.
How do those samples fit the scenario?

The Muslims only ruled Sicily for 200 years. They had footholds in parts of the mainland for a couple of decades here and there, and Frederick II sent his "Saracen" soldiers to Foggia because he didn't trust them in Sicily, but that's it.

I'm also confused because there isn't enough yDna I1 and U-106 in Toscana to make a huge change in the autosomal composition.

I'm missing something, I guess.
 
... from post #10 (credit to Jovialis ... same top sample: Taq003)

... although Venosa is not an Apulian town, AncestryDNA include it in the Genetic Community of Puglia.

pagXhy1.jpg


uuCBakF.gif
 

This thread has been viewed 130997 times.

Back
Top