Jov there is this thing in science called statistical significance. There is also this thing in science called a test. Then we have stuff like "context".
C3,4,5 Individuals/or shifted individuals were found in the Italian peninsula both in the Antonio paper as well as the Max Plank Paper(the one we are discussing).
"
To further inspect the genetic clustering of the central and southern Italian populations studied, we performed unsupervised ADMIXTURE on 71 individuals (Fig. 2, B and C) after the exclusion of genetically related individuals (table S1B and fig. S2). C.Italy_Etruscan individuals harbor the three genetic ancestries associated with Anatolian Neolithic farmers, European hunter-gatherers, and Bronze Age pastoralists from the Pontic-Caspian Steppe. C.Italy_Etruscan.Ceu carries a higher proportion of “steppe-related ancestry,” while C.Italy_MAS001 shows a genetic component maximized in Iranian Neolithic farmers. The latter is also present in C.Italy_Etruscan.Afr individuals alongside an ancestry component identified in an Early Neolithic Moroccan group."
The local population was all within C1/C2 earlier, such as in the Mesolithic / Eneolithic.
These samples C3 (North African), C4 (Near Eastern), C5 (Eastern Mediterranean) derive their nomenclature based on their ancestry. Despite having specimen before the Imperial Period present on the peninsula.
*From Antonio et Al
In fact the more I re read the paper the more this all makes sense. All of it pretty much can be also tested with amateur tools, and the tests repeated independently.
1.
2.
3.
^Just one way to go at it.
I am sure more creative people can use these amateur tools more creatively.
The data speaks for itself.
So no Jov,
This is totally not the case.