Why do native Iron Age Balkanites plot over modern Italians?

[Jovialis]

[TABLE="class: distances"]
[TR]
[TH="align: right"]Distance to:[/TH]
[TH="align: left"]Protovillanovan_IA:R1:Antonio_2019[/TH]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #77FF00, align: right"]3.50880321[/TD]
[TD]C7-Mausole_di_Augusto_Late_Antiquity:R33:Antonio_2019[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #79FF00, align: right"]3.55522151[/TD]
[TD]Croatia_EMBA:I4332:Mathieson_2018[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #7FFF00, align: right"]3.74988000[/TD]
[TD]Hungary_BA:I7043:Olalde_2018[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #8BFF00, align: right"]4.09436198[/TD]
[TD]Croatia_EMBA:I4331:Mathieson_2018[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #A1FF00, align: right"]4.73285326[/TD]
[TD]Szolad43:Amorim_2018[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #A2FF00, align: right"]4.75513407[/TD]
[TD]C7-Villa_Magna_MA:R55:Antonio_2019[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #AFFF00, align: right"]5.13872552[/TD]
[TD]Collegno23:Amorim_2018[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #AFFF00, align: right"]5.14213963[/TD]
[TD]Szolad28:Amorim_2018[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #B1FF00, align: right"]5.21295502[/TD]
[TD]Vucedol:I3499:Mathieson_2018[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #B9FF00, align: right"]5.43897049[/TD]
[TD]Collegno36:Amorim_2018[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #BBFF00, align: right"]5.48600036[/TD]
[TD]I3593:Olalde_2018[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #BDFF00, align: right"]5.55054051[/TD]
[TD]Hungary_BA:I7041:Olalde_2018[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #BDFF00, align: right"]5.55906467[/TD]
[TD]Burgweinting–Nord-West_II_(ADH)_388-532calADA_Female:NW54:Veeramah_2018[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #BDFF00, align: right"]5.56696506[/TD]
[TD]Helladic_Logkas_MBA:Log04:Clemente_2021[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #C5FF00, align: right"]5.80672024[/TD]
[TD]Croatia_LBA:I3313:Mathieson_2018[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #D8FF00, align: right"]6.35463610[/TD]
[TD]Szolad31:Amorim_2018[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #D8FF00, align: right"]6.35757029[/TD]
[TD]La_Tène_IA:ERS88:Brunel_2020[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #DAFF00, align: right"]6.40659036[/TD]
[TD]Thraco-Cimmerian:MJ-12:Jarve_2019[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #DFFF00, align: right"]6.54488350[/TD]
[TD]MOK13:Zegarac_2021[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #E2FF00, align: right"]6.64578062[/TD]
[TD]MOK31:Zegarac_2021[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #E9FF00, align: right"]6.84447222[/TD]
[TD]CSN009:Etruscan_Pre-Print_2021[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #E9FF00, align: right"]6.86396387[/TD]
[TD]ETR007:Etruscan_Pre-Print_2021[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #EDFF00, align: right"]6.98428951[/TD]
[TD]Collegno49:Amorim_2018[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #EEFF00, align: right"]6.99671351[/TD]
[TD]I7040:Olalde_2018[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #FAFF00, align: right"]7.35485554[/TD]
[TD]Etruscan_IA:R474:Antonio_2019
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

MartinsicuroDate range: 930 cal BCE - 839 calBCEIndividuals:

R1 Martinsicuro is a coastal site located on the border of Le Marche and Abruzzo on central Italy’s Adriatic coast. It is a proto-Villanovan village, situated on a hill above the Tronto river, dating to the late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age(154). Excavations at the site have been limited, but during an excavation in preparation for road construction, a single post-built structure was excavated which contained a rich archaeological deposit of ceramics (155). These finds from the site indicate an affinity with contemporaries in the Balkans, suggesting direct trade contacts and interaction across the Adriatic. In particular, the practice of decorating ceramics with bronze elements was shared between the Nin region in Croatia and Picene region of Italy, including Martinsicuro (156). These finds also show the conservation and preservation (e.g. as artifacts) of ceramics from the earlier Middle Bronze Age into the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age.

Supplement of
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31699931/

If the model of Solvenian_IA + Aegean_IA can create a cline of people that plot over Tuscans to south Italian, I think a R1 (Croatian_BA-like, which is similar and aligned to Slovenian_IA) + Aegean_IA can produce a similar population in Italy. Which is perhaps why we already have Iron Age samples that fall upon this cline, in Italy.

 

[Jovialis]

R1 Protovillanoan is also closest to Log04:

[TABLE="class: distances"]
[TR]
[TH="align: right"]Distance to:[/TH]
[TH="align: left"]Helladic_Logkas_MBA:Log04:Clemente_2021[/TH]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #BDFF00, align: right"]5.56696506[/TD]
[TD]Protovillanovan_IA:R1:Antonio_2019[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #CEFF00, align: right"]6.06486603[/TD]
[TD]I5017:Olalde_2018[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #D0FF00, align: right"]6.10566950[/TD]
[TD]Nordic_Type-(ADH)_Female:STR310:Veeramah_2018[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #DBFF00, align: right"]6.43863340[/TD]
[TD]NE_Iberia_RomP:I6491:Olalde_2019[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #DFFF00, align: right"]6.54550991[/TD]
[TD]Thraco-Cimmerian:MJ-12:Jarve_2019[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #F5FF00, align: right"]7.22032548[/TD]
[TD]Hungary_BA:I7043:Olalde_2018[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #FBFF00, align: right"]7.39252325[/TD]
[TD]I3596:Olalde_2018[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #FDFF00, align: right"]7.44915431[/TD]
[TD]Bulgaria_EBA:I2165:Mathieson_2018[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFE00, align: right"]7.53061750[/TD]
[TD]C7-Villa_Magna_MA:R55:Antonio_2019[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFD00, align: right"]7.56374907[/TD]
[TD]Croatia_EMBA:I4332:Mathieson_2018[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFA00, align: right"]7.65799582[/TD]
[TD]ETR007:Etruscan_Pre-Print_2021[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFF800, align: right"]7.69709686[/TD]
[TD]Szolad1:Amorim_2018[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFF300, align: right"]7.86405112[/TD]
[TD]MAS001:Etruscan_Pre-Print_2021[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFF100, align: right"]7.89994304[/TD]
[TD]Burgweinting–Nord-West_II_(ADH)_388-532calADA_Female:NW54:Veeramah_2018[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFF100, align: right"]7.91095443[/TD]
[TD]Collegno49:Amorim_2018[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFEA00, align: right"]8.11841117[/TD]
[TD]C7-Mausole_di_Augusto_Late_Antiquity:R33:Antonio_2019[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFE700, align: right"]8.21370197[/TD]
[TD]I3593:Olalde_2018[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFE500, align: right"]8.26708534[/TD]
[TD]Szolad27:Amorim_2018[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFE400, align: right"]8.29518535[/TD]
[TD]Croatia_EMBA:I4331:Mathieson_2018[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFE000, align: right"]8.41699471[/TD]
[TD]Scythian:scy305:Krzewinska_2018_(Oct)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFDF00, align: right"]8.43026097[/TD]
[TD]Collegno36:Amorim_2018[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFDA00, align: right"]8.58206269[/TD]
[TD]Vucedol:I3499:Mathieson_2018[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFD600, align: right"]8.70583712[/TD]
[TD]I5015:Olalde_2018[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFD400, align: right"]8.76881976[/TD]
[TD]Szolad43:Amorim_2018[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFD300, align: right"]8.78218652[/TD]
[TD]Collegno23:Amorim_2018

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

 

[Jovialis]

^^Martinsicuro is in Abruzzo, not too far way from the Greek colonies that existed in the same era in the Iron Age.

 

[Jovialis]

Then we have people like R850, who could be modeled with Anatolia_ChL (Anatolia_N + Iran_N); which shift them a bit east of Aegean_IA. This kind of ancestry could have been a factor within the Greek colonies, prior to Roman invasion. Perhaps some of these were people from the Greek colonies of western Anatolia. OR perhaps this kind of ancestry was already present in Italy, due to the EBA CHG-like pulse that is detected across southern Italy and the Balkans. Perhaps these native people mixed with the Greek colonists, who were Mycenaean-like; creating R850-like people.

 

[Çerç]

To answer the question of the thread: because Mediterranean populations have shifted east over the last 2000 years, including the Balkans ones. BA Italians plot over modern Spaniards, BA & IA Balkanites plot over modern Italians, and even Late Antiquity Iberians were significantly eastern-shifted compared to BA & IA ones.

However this shift was far more dramatic than the an admixture between BA/IA Italians and BA/IA Aegeans would produce. Most of it is attributed to Levantine and Anatolian components. Four papers from Italy, Spain and the Balkans have already brought evidence of this. So BA/IA samples cannot be compared to modern populations without first accounting for the eastern shift in the early Roman period and then the western shift in the late one.

 

[Angela]

To answer the question of the thread: because Mediterranean populations have shifted east over the last 2000 years, including the Balkans ones. BA Italians plot over modern Spaniards, BA & IA Balkanites plot over modern Italians, and even Late Antiquity Iberians were significantly eastern-shifted compared to BA & IA ones.

However this shift was far more dramatic than the an admixture between BA/IA Italians and BA/IA Aegeans would produce. Most of it is attributed to Levantine and Anatolian components. Four papers from Italy, Spain and the Balkans have already brought evidence of this. So BA/IA samples cannot be compared to modern populations without first accounting for the eastern shift in the early Roman period and then the western shift in the late one.

FOUR? Please quote me from papers other than this latest one where it was stated that a Levantine component was part of the shift in Italians.

Just trying to keep the discussion honest, my friend.

 

[Jovialis]

FOUR? Please quote me from papers other than this latest one where it was stated that a Levantine component was part of the shift in Italians.

Just trying to keep the discussion honest, my friend.

Also, the latest paper, can't even be confident that is where it has come from too. Probably because they used Moroccan Early Neolithic, which is already highly admixed with all of the other overlapping populations in West Euasian populations. Antonio et al. 2019 used a better modeling, and was even able to determine the separate ancestry affinities, and haplotypes of various groups within the so-called "Imperial_Rome" cluster. Which in and of itself is a combination of overwhelmingly C6, and C5.

It seems that some people want to gloss over all of this, and just ham-fist their pet theory.

 

[Çerç]

FOUR? Please quote me from papers other than this latest one where it was stated that a Levantine component was part of the shift in Italians.

Just trying to keep the discussion honest, my friend.

Just because you don't like it you do not need to insinuate dishonesty.

Here you go, friend.

Italy:
1- 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.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abi7673

2- During the Imperial period (n = 48 individuals), the most prominent trend is an ancestry shift toward the eastern Mediterranean and with very few individuals of primarily western European ancestry (Fig. 3C). The distribution of Imperial Romans in PCA largely overlaps with modern Mediterranean and Near Eastern populations, such as Greek, Maltese, Cypriot, and Syrian (Figs. 2A and ​and3C).3C). This shift is accompanied by a further increase in the Neolithic Iranian component in ADMIXTURE (Fig. 2B) and is supported by f-statistics (tables S20 and S21): compared to Iron Age individuals, the Imperial population shares more alleles with early Bronze Age Jordanians (f4 statistics Z-score = 4.2) and shows significant introgression signals in admixture f3 for this population, as well as for Bronze Age Lebanese and Iron Age Iranians (Z-score < −3.4).

We attempted to fit the Imperial population as a simple two-way combination of the preceding Iron Age population and another population, either ancient or modern, using qpAdm. Some populations producing relatively better fits come from eastern Mediterranean regions such as Cyprus, Anatolia, and the Levant (table S22). However, none of the tested two-way models provides a good, robust fit to the data, suggesting that this was a complex mixture event, potentially including source populations that have not yet been identified or studied.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7093155/

Spain:
3- In the southeast, we recovered genomic data from 45 individuals dated between the 3rd-16th centuries CE. All the analyzed individuals fell outside the genetic variation of preceding Iberian Iron Age populations (Figs. 1C-D and S3) and harbored ancestry from both southern European and North African populations (Fig. 2D), as well as additional Levantine-related ancestry that could reflect Jewish contributions (21). These results demonstrate that by the Roman period, southern Iberia had experienced a major influx of North African ancestry, probably related to the well-known mobility patterns during the Roman Empire (22) or the earlier Phoenician-Punic presence (23); the latter is also supported by the observation of the Phoenician-associated Y-chromosome J2 (24). Gene flow from North Africa continued into the Muslim period, as is clear from Muslim burials with elevated North African and sub-Saharan African ancestry (Figs. 2D, S4 and table S22), and uniparental markers typical of North Africa not present among pre-Islamic individuals (Figs. 2D and S11). Present-day populations from southern Iberia harbor less North African ancestry (25) than the ancient Muslim burials, plausibly reflecting expulsion of moriscos (former Muslims converted to Christianity) and repopulation from the north, as supported by historical sources and genetic analysis of present-day groups (25). The impact of Muslim rule is also evident in northeast Iberia in seven individuals from Sant Julià de Ramis from the 8–12th centuries CE who, unlike previous ancient individuals from the same region, show North African-related ancestry (Fig. 2C and table S19) and a complete overlap in PCA with present-day Iberians (Fig. 1D).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6436108/

Balkans
4- The other major cluster (44% of the samples from Viminacium between 1-250 CE) is represented by individuals who projected towards ancient and present-day Eastern Mediterranean groups in PCA (Figure 1A), close to ancient individuals from Rome during Imperial times. Their ancestry can be modelled as deriving deeply from Chalcolithic Western Anatolian groups (Figure 2; Supplementary section 12.2), and we refer to this cluster as the Near Eastern-related cluster. The same signal of arrivals individuals with Anatolian/Near Eastern ancestral origins is also evident in Rome during the same period, consistent with largescale gene-flow originating from the major eastern urban centers of the Empire (such as Constantinople, Antioch, Smyrna and Alexandria). These results suggest that immigration from the east was a common feature across urban centers in the Roman Empire, including in border areas and large cities/military outposts such as Viminacium.

Just trying to keep the discussion within the scientific consensus.

 

[Çerç]

Also, the latest paper, can't even be confident that is where it has come from too. Probably because they used Moroccan Early Neolithic, which is already highly admixed with all of the other overlapping populations in West Euasian populations. Antonio et al. 2019 used a better modeling, and was even able to determine the separate ancestry affinities, and haplotypes of various groups within the so-called "Imperial_Rome" cluster. Which in and of itself is a combination of overwhelmingly C6, and C5.

It seems that some people want to gloss over all of this, and just ham-fist their pet theory.

This is only what I learned from the scientific publications in the last two years. I was actually surprised to see how eastern-shifted Imperial age Italians came out to be. But this is what the results show until now.

 

[Archetype0ne]

Off the top of my head Antonios Roman Crossroads, Danubian Limes, Etruscans paper, all support what Çerç is hinting.

In fact you got your answer in the last Etruscans paper, you just act like you did not.
Spanish like Neolithic Italian peninsula + Eastern Influence during Imperial + Northern Germanic shift during the middle ages gave you modern Italians. This is corroborated not only by the Etruscan paper, but Antonios Roman Crossroads, the two most comprehensive and latest papers regarding Italian peninsula genetics.
Why this modern mix plots similar to Iron Age Balkans on PCAs, is likely a coincidence due to similar components being mixed in similar ratios, ie Anatolian Farmers + Yamnaya + CHG.

 

[Jovialis]

Off the top of my head Antonios Roman Crossroads, Danubian Limes, Etruscans paper, all support what Çerç is hinting.

In fact you got your answer in the last Etruscans paper, you just act like you did not.
Spanish like Neolithic Italian peninsula + Eastern Influence during Imperial + Northern Germanic shift during the middle ages gave you modern Italians. This is corroborated not only by the Etruscan paper, but Antonios Roman Crossroads, the two most comprehensive and latest papers regarding Italian peninsula genetics.
Why this modern mix plots similar to Iron Age Balkans on PCAs, is likely a coincidence due to similar components being mixed in similar ratios, ie Anatolian Farmers + Yamnaya + CHG.

This is not true, when are you going to stop repeating it?

Here is an excerpt from the study:

We attempted to fit the Imperial population as a simple two-way combination of the preceding Iron Age population and another population, either ancient or modern, using qpAdm. Some populations producing relatively better fits come from eastern Mediterranean regions such as Cyprus, Anatolia, and the Levant (table S22). However, none of the tested two-way models provides a good, robust fit to the data, suggesting that this was a complex mixture event, potentially including source populations that have not yet been identified or studied.
Although the data show a shift in the ancestry averaged across all Imperial individuals (referred to as “average ancestry” henceforth) toward eastern populations, the PCA results also suggest variation in ancestry within the population. To further characterize this, we assessed haplotype sharing using ChromoPainter (11), a method more sensitive than allele frequency–based approaches such as PCA. Specifically, we measured the genetic affinity between each ancient Italian individual and a set of modern Eurasian and North African populations by the total length of the haplotype segments shared between them (Fig. 4A) (7). We clustered ancient individuals by their relative haplotype sharing with modern populations and then labeled the resulting clusters by proximity to modern populations in PCA (Fig. 4B).

ChromoPainter analysis reveals diverse ancestries among Imperial individuals (n = 48), who fall into five distinct clusters (Fig. 4A). Notably, only 2 out of 48 Imperial-era individuals fall in the European cluster (C7) to which 8 out of 11 Iron Age individuals belong. Instead, two-thirds of Imperial individuals (31 out of 48) belong to two major clusters (C5 and C6) that overlap in PCA with central and eastern Mediterranean populations, such as those from southern and central Italy, Greece, Cyprus, and Malta (Fig. 4B). An additional quarter (13 out of 48) of the sampled Imperial Romans form a cluster (C4) defined by high amounts of haplotype sharing with Levantine and Near Eastern populations, whereas no pre-Imperial individuals appear in this cluster (Fig. 4AC). In PCA, some of the individuals in this cluster also project close to four contemporaneous individuals from Lebanon (240 to 630 CE) (fig. S18) (28). In addition, two individuals (R80 and R132) belong to a cluster featuring high haplotype sharing with North African populations (C4) and can be modeled with 30 to 50% North African ancestry in explicit modeling with qpAdm (table S28).

Ancient Rome: A genetic crossroads of Europe and the Mediterranean (science.org)

 

[Jovialis]

Why this modern mix plots similar to Iron Age Balkans on PCAs, is likely a coincidence due to similar components being mixed in similar ratios, ie Anatolian Farmers + Yamnaya + CHG.

R1 similar to Croatia_IA & BA (Found in Abruzzio), and Aegaen_IA was in southern Italy. It is more than just a coincidence, it is using one half of the same model (Aegean_IA), and comparing it to a sample that is verified to be similar to Solvenia_IA.

It is undenyable that the Northern Balkans in the Bronze age and Iron age were similar to Northern Italian-like samples such as R1. It is undeniable that Aegean_IA exists as well.

 

[Jovialis]

Antonio et al. 2019 doesn't even model medieval Italian with an "Imperial Cluster".

Rather it takes the Late Antiquity cluster, of which there are no near easterners, and models it with a European donor population:

The Medieval population is roughly centered on modern-day central Italians (Fig. 3F). It can be modeled as a two-way combination of Rome’s Late Antique population and a European donor population.

I really don't think people read the study, and just keep regurgitating what others say that tickle their interest.

 

[Jovialis]

Antonio et al. 2019 doesn't even model medieval Italian with an "Imperial Cluster".

Rather it takes the Late Antiquity cluster, of which there are no near easterners, and models it with a European donor population:

The Medieval population is roughly centered on modern-day central Italians (Fig. 3F). It can be modeled as a two-way combination of Rome’s Late Antique population and a European donor population.

I really don't think people read the study, and just keep regurgitating what others say that tickle their interest.

More from the study:

[h=3]Late Antiquity and the fall of Rome[/h][FONT=&quot]Late Antiquity was characterized by deep demographic changes and political reorganization, including the split of the Roman Empire into eastern and western halves, the movement of the capital from Rome to Byzantium (later Constantinople), and the gradual dissolution of the Western Roman Empire (maps in Fig. 3, C and D) (1, 3).[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The average ancestry of the Late Antique individuals (n = 24) shifts away from the Near East and toward modern central European populations in PCA (Fig. 3D). Formally, they can be modeled as a two-way mixture of the preceding Imperial individuals and 38 to 41% ancestry from a late Imperial period individual from Bavaria or modern Basque individuals (table S24). The precise identity of the source populations and the admixture fractions should not be interpreted literally, given the simplified admixture model assumed and the lack of data for most contemporaneous ancient populations (7). This ancestry shift is also reflected in ChromoPainter results by the drastic shrinkage of the Near Eastern cluster (C4), maintenance of the two Mediterranean clusters (C5 and C6), and marked expansion of the European cluster (C7) (Fig. 4C).[/FONT]

 

[Çerç]

Antonio et al. 2019 doesn't even model medieval Italian with an "Imperial Cluster".

Rather it takes the Late Antiquity cluster, of which there are no near easterners, and models it with a European donor population:

The Medieval population is roughly centered on modern-day central Italians (Fig. 3F). It can be modeled as a two-way combination of Rome’s Late Antique population and a European donor population.

Of course. Because this is how it should be done, taking the previous period and comparing to the subsequent one, not going from BA/IA to modern samples.

The Late Antiquity cluster itself had a significant proportion of Imperial Roman ancestry.

 

[Jovialis]

Of course. Because this is how it should be done, taking the previous period and comparing to the subsequent one, not going from BA/IA to modern samples.

The Late Antiquity cluster itself had a significant proportion of Imperial Roman ancestry.

Read my last post where I quote the study saying Late Antiquity Roman origins should not be taken literally because:

The precise identity of the source populations and the admixture fractions should not be interpreted literally, given the simplified admixture model assumed and the lack of data for most contemporaneous ancient populations (7).

Not to mention the demographic change the authors explicitly write about at the fall of Rome.

 

[Angela]

Just because you don't like it you do not need to insinuate dishonesty.

Here you go, friend.

Italy:
1- 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.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abi7673

2- During the Imperial period (n = 48 individuals), the most prominent trend is an ancestry shift toward the eastern Mediterranean and with very few individuals of primarily western European ancestry (Fig. 3C). The distribution of Imperial Romans in PCA largely overlaps with modern Mediterranean and Near Eastern populations, such as Greek, Maltese, Cypriot, and Syrian (Figs. 2A and ​and3C).3C). This shift is accompanied by a further increase in the Neolithic Iranian component in ADMIXTURE (Fig. 2B) and is supported by f-statistics (tables S20 and S21): compared to Iron Age individuals, the Imperial population shares more alleles with early Bronze Age Jordanians (f4 statistics Z-score = 4.2) and shows significant introgression signals in admixture f3 for this population, as well as for Bronze Age Lebanese and Iron Age Iranians (Z-score < −3.4).

We attempted to fit the Imperial population as a simple two-way combination of the preceding Iron Age population and another population, either ancient or modern, using qpAdm. Some populations producing relatively better fits come from eastern Mediterranean regions such as Cyprus, Anatolia, and the Levant (table S22). However, none of the tested two-way models provides a good, robust fit to the data, suggesting that this was a complex mixture event, potentially including source populations that have not yet been identified or studied.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7093155/

Spain:
3- In the southeast, we recovered genomic data from 45 individuals dated between the 3rd-16th centuries CE. All the analyzed individuals fell outside the genetic variation of preceding Iberian Iron Age populations (Figs. 1C-D and S3) and harbored ancestry from both southern European and North African populations (Fig. 2D), as well as additional Levantine-related ancestry that could reflect Jewish contributions (21). These results demonstrate that by the Roman period, southern Iberia had experienced a major influx of North African ancestry, probably related to the well-known mobility patterns during the Roman Empire (22) or the earlier Phoenician-Punic presence (23); the latter is also supported by the observation of the Phoenician-associated Y-chromosome J2 (24). Gene flow from North Africa continued into the Muslim period, as is clear from Muslim burials with elevated North African and sub-Saharan African ancestry (Figs. 2D, S4 and table S22), and uniparental markers typical of North Africa not present among pre-Islamic individuals (Figs. 2D and S11). Present-day populations from southern Iberia harbor less North African ancestry (25) than the ancient Muslim burials, plausibly reflecting expulsion of moriscos (former Muslims converted to Christianity) and repopulation from the north, as supported by historical sources and genetic analysis of present-day groups (25). The impact of Muslim rule is also evident in northeast Iberia in seven individuals from Sant Julià de Ramis from the 8–12th centuries CE who, unlike previous ancient individuals from the same region, show North African-related ancestry (Fig. 2C and table S19) and a complete overlap in PCA with present-day Iberians (Fig. 1D).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6436108/

Balkans
4- The other major cluster (44% of the samples from Viminacium between 1-250 CE) is represented by individuals who projected towards ancient and present-day Eastern Mediterranean groups in PCA (Figure 1A), close to ancient individuals from Rome during Imperial times. Their ancestry can be modelled as deriving deeply from Chalcolithic Western Anatolian groups (Figure 2; Supplementary section 12.2), and we refer to this cluster as the Near Eastern-related cluster. The same signal of arrivals individuals with Anatolian/Near Eastern ancestral origins is also evident in Rome during the same period, consistent with largescale gene-flow originating from the major eastern urban centers of the Empire (such as Constantinople, Antioch, Smyrna and Alexandria). These results suggest that immigration from the east was a common feature across urban centers in the Roman Empire, including in border areas and large cities/military outposts such as Viminacium.

Just trying to keep the discussion within the scientific consensus.

OMG. You said four papers suggested a significant Levantine input in Italy. I said it was one, the paper on the Etruscans. which, by the way, shows a graph indicating that, but in the text says it could be Anatolian or Levantine. Meanwhile, the "Levant" Dna in Tuscany, even if you count all J1 and J2 in Tuscany, and some of the J2 would be Greek, Anatolian etc. comes to 13%, and THERE IS A MINUTE amount of Germanic yDna in Tuscany. So, please, tell me how modern Tuscans could be 50% Levantine.

The only additional paper on Italy you provided is Antonio et al, which said the "TAIL INTO THE LEVANT" disappeared. They didn't model modern Italians using them to the best of my recollection.

The other two papers are on Spain and the Balkans.

FYI, the paper on the Balkans (Danubian Limes) goes out of its way to say that this NEAR EASTERN Imperial Age group did NOT go into the creation of modern Balkanites.

I couldn't care less if it's true, and I'm not insinuating anything. I'm saying outright that you don't comprehend what you're reading in the papers or you don't read every sentence and just look for a paragraph which might support your pre-conceived notions. Otherwise, how could you possibly have missed the fact that the authors of the Balkan paper specifically said the Imperial Age Near Eastern cluster didn't influence Balkan genetics.

Just as a general matter, finding bones from another region in a cemetery doesn't mean that person represents some sort of huge migration which influenced succeeding generations. Do you get that?

 

[Angela]

Also, the latest paper, can't even be confident that is where it has come from too. Probably because they used Moroccan Early Neolithic, which is already highly admixed with all of the other overlapping populations in West Euasian populations. Antonio et al. 2019 used a better modeling, and was even able to determine the separate ancestry affinities, and haplotypes of various groups within the so-called "Imperial_Rome" cluster. Which in and of itself is a combination of overwhelmingly C6, and C5.

It seems that some people want to gloss over all of this, and just ham-fist their pet theory.

For crying out loud, I'm even seeing "modeling" using samples which overlap, or are completely inaccurate in terms of their coordinates. It's like being in a fun house mirror.

 

[Çerç]

OMG. You said four papers suggested a significant Levantine input in Italy.

Here is what I said. It cannot be clearer than that.

Four papers from Italy, Spain and the Balkans have already brought evidence of this.

 

[Angela]

Antonio et al. 2019 doesn't even model medieval Italian with an "Imperial Cluster".

Rather it takes the Late Antiquity cluster, of which there are no near easterners, and models it with a European donor population:

The Medieval population is roughly centered on modern-day central Italians (Fig. 3F). It can be modeled as a two-way combination of Rome’s Late Antique population and a European donor population.

I really don't think people read the study, and just keep regurgitating what others say that tickle their interest.

I said much the same thing. Some of the posters in this thread either don't read every line of the paper and look at every graph, but just search for a sentence which will support their position, or don't comprehend what they are reading. The first would be worse, because it smacks of dishonesty.

Did you, btw, see that tragicomic analysis of how Mycenaean relicts still existed in Hungary in the Middle Ages by using coordinates which produce results totally out of sync with the Amorim paper's Admixture chart for the sample in question?

I didn't know whether to laugh or be horrified.