Why do native Iron Age Balkanites plot over modern Italians?

The abstract:
Unraveling the genetic history of Italians: a genome-wide study of Iron Age
Italic populations
Zaro Valentina (1), Vergata Chiara (1), Cannariato Costanza (1), Modi
Alessandra (1), Vai Stefania (1), Pilli Elena (1), Diroma Maria Angela (1),

Caramelli David (1), Lari Martina (1)
1 - Department of Biology, University of Florence, Florence, Italy (Italy)
The high genetic variability of present-day Italians reflects a complex scenario of past
population dynamics dating back not only to Late Paleolithic and Neolithic but also

Metal Ages. Although many archaeogenetic studies have been recently carried out to

investigate the peopling of Europe, only few genomic data have been reported from

Italic populations so far, especially the ones belonging to the last phase of Metal

Ages: the Iron Age. To outline a picture of Iron Age genetic variability within the
Italian context and infer potential gene flow patterns, we collected 78 human remains

from 8 Iron Age necropolises covering 5 different regions of Italy (Emilia-Romagna,
Umbria, Marche, Latium and Sicily). Double stranded half-UDG libraries were
produced and then shotgun sequenced on an Illumina NovaSeq6000 platform to

allow for an initial screening of the samples. Raw reads were processed using the

EAGER pipeline and then assessment of DNA authenticity and sex determination

were performed. Preliminary population genetics tests were run on genotyped data

by building a west Eurasian PCA including all the samples with at least 10.000 SNPs

covered on the Affymetrix Human Origins panel. The first results highlight an affinity
of the majority of the samples with previously reported Iron Age individuals from Italy,

while all samples from Sicily overlap with the genetic variability observed in this area

during the Bronze Age. Our aim is to deeper investigate these samples which can
significantly contribute to better understand past peopling dynamics of the Italian

peninsula and reconstruct modern Italians' genetic history.
 
Leopoldo Leone: reading the abstract you posted in post #41, it states the affinity of the majority of the samples with "previously reported Iron Age individuals from Italy" and the Iron age Sicilians overlap with Bronze Age Sicily variability which I think would range from the Sicilian Beakers to the samples in Fernandes et al 2020 which demonstrated some BA Sicilians had Steppe Admixture, etc. So it seems many/most of these are new Iron Age Samples from Emilia, Marche, Lazio, Umbria, etc., and I think this is (Will be) the first Iron Age Samples from Sicily (that I am aware of).

Thanks for notifying everyone here about that paper
 
The takeaway is that the Etruscans represent what the North Italian population was prior to the demographic changes enabled by wars which decimated the male population, immigration, slavery.
 
Stefania Vai works with Cosimo Posth, so my hopes aren't high for this paper.
 
"What we see in Etruscans" is a vague saying, as northern Italians are very close to Etruscans. Nobody is doubting they will not differ much.
Using Latins and Etruscans got better results than just Latins and they were very close. Let's see.
 
Stefania Vai works with Cosimo Posth, so my hopes aren't high for this paper.

I did not want to take part in the "nativist vs immigrationist" debate, since I think that new papers will make the picture clearer, and I have already presented my issues with the last paper on the Etruscans.
Even if they decided to take the route of that paper, postulating an obviously ridicolous massive migration from the Levant to Italy and then from north Europe to Italy, this time such a scenario would be much harder to conciliate with the data: the Sicilians in the IA were identical to those in the BA, and it is very unlikely that Sicily's gene pool was just confined to Sicily, and the Daunian paper shows that not every inhabitant of Italy was Italic-like, pace to those that had "high hopes" of seeing their petty theories straight from the 20th century about Italy confirmed.
The leaked PCA from the upcoming study of Campania has some points/samples that do not fall in three groups, and I wonder what they are: let's remember that Italic weren't the first people in Italy.
Main take away: before postulating that half of the inhabitants of Italy at some point came from the Levant or the middle east at some point, it is a priori much likelier that there was internal gene flow in Italy, and then from neighbouring regions like the Balkans, and then regions further away; IA samples from the rest of south Italy would shed more light on the issue.

P.S. As for the topic of the thread, I am willing to bet that there was no cline in Italy from Latin_IA to Aegean_IA because it makes literally no sense, but there are some chances there was a cline from Latin_IA to Sicilian_IA/BA, so not much different from a hypothetical Latin_IA-Aegean_IA cline. I think it would answere the question in this thread.
 
I did not want to take part in the "nativist vs immigrationist" debate, since I think that new papers will make the picture clearer, and I have already presented my issues with the last paper on the Etruscans.
Even if they decided to take the route of that paper, postulating an obviously ridicolous massive migration from the Levant to Italy and then from north Europe to Italy, this time such a scenario would be much harder to conciliate with the data: the Sicilians in the IA were identical to those in the BA, and it is very unlikely that Sicily's gene pool was just confined to Sicily, and the Daunian paper shows that not every inhabitant of Italy was Italic-like, pace to those that had "high hopes" of seeing their petty theories straight from the 20th century about Italy confirmed.
The leaked PCA from the upcoming study of Campania has some points/samples that do not fall in three groups, and I wonder what they are: let's remember that Italic weren't the first people in Italy.
Main take away: before postulating that half of the inhabitants of Italy at some point came from the Levant or the middle east at some point, it is a priori much likelier that there was internal gene flow in Italy, and then from neighbouring regions like the Balkans, and then regions further away; IA samples from the rest of south Italy would shed more light on the issue.

All things I've been saying forever, so obviously I agree.

I am looking forward to the paper regardless, if for no other reason than that there will finally be Iron Age samples from Emilia and regions in Central Italy, and especially, Sicilia.
 
Stefania Vai works with Cosimo Posth, so my hopes aren't high for this paper.

These all work together. The difference seems to be that in the Etruscan study (and the one on Campania/Magna Grecia) there is a more direct role for Max Planck/Harvard/Tubingen, but not here at least to see the little information that has come out. But autosomal DNA analysis could not have been done in Italy, I think.
 
I'm with Archetype0ne here, in terms of coincidence you find today, which is an artifact of subsequent impurities. This is similar to how some populations that have nothing to do with European farmers on the same principle float closer to them today. This is due to very late arobo-Semitic impurities that clearly mimic Anatolian origins and have nothing to do with the EEF.* The same is true for the Minoans and Mycenaeans, of course.
*“However, a MDS analysis performed on the
whole genome including sites potentially affected by selection (Fig. S19) rather suggests that
early farmers are closer to Southern Europeans other than Sardinians.”
however, we have a historical analysis and therefore the DNA studies must take a combinatorial approach, so as not to sound absurd against the background of already well-established facts.
 
Just saw those on Anthrogenica:

"And yet the latter, if brought under, might be kept under; while the Sicilians, even if conquered, are too far off and too numerous to be ruled without difficulty."

"The same winter the Athenians resolved to sail again to Sicily, with a greater armament than that under Laches and Eurymedon, and, if possible, to conquer the island; most of them being ignorant of its size and of the number of its inhabitants, hellenic and barbarian, and of the fact that they were undertaking a war not much inferior to that against the Peloponnesians."

- History of the Peloponesian war, Thuclydides, 4th century BC.

"If it were enacted Marius and Sulpicius would have everything they wanted, because the new citizens [then socii] far outnumbered the old ones. The old citizens saw this and opposed the new ones with all their might. They fought each other with sticks and stones, and the evil increased continually, till the consuls, becoming apprehensive, as the day for voting on the law drew near, proclaimed a vacation​ of several days, such as was customary on festal occasions, in order to postpone the voting and the danger."

- Appian, The Civil wars, The Histories

Nearly complete replacement of Bronze Age/Early Iron Age Sicilians, eh?
Was Thucydides seeing ghosts?
 
I'm with Archetype0ne here, in terms of coincidence you find today, which is an artifact of subsequent impurities. This is similar to how some populations that have nothing to do with European farmers on the same principle float closer to them today. This is due to very late arobo-Semitic impurities that clearly mimic Anatolian origins and have nothing to do with the EEF.* The same is true for the Minoans and Mycenaeans, of course.
*“However, a MDS analysis performed on the
whole genome including sites potentially affected by selection (Fig. S19) rather suggests that
early farmers are closer to Southern Europeans other than Sardinians.”
however, we have a historical analysis and therefore the DNA studies must take a combinatorial approach, so as not to sound absurd against the background of already well-established facts.
Impurities, wtf are you saying?

Your ancestors are closer to Southern Italians than they are to you, which is why you disapprove. Deal with it.
 
I did not want to take part in the "nativist vs immigrationist" debate, since I think that new papers will make the picture clearer, and I have already presented my issues with the last paper on the Etruscans.
Even if they decided to take the route of that paper, postulating an obviously ridicolous massive migration from the Levant to Italy and then from north Europe to Italy, this time such a scenario would be much harder to conciliate with the data: the Sicilians in the IA were identical to those in the BA, and it is very unlikely that Sicily's gene pool was just confined to Sicily, and the Daunian paper shows that not every inhabitant of Italy was Italic-like, pace to those that had "high hopes" of seeing their petty theories straight from the 20th century about Italy confirmed.
The leaked PCA from the upcoming study of Campania has some points/samples that do not fall in three groups, and I wonder what they are: let's remember that Italic weren't the first people in Italy.
Main take away: before postulating that half of the inhabitants of Italy at some point came from the Levant or the middle east at some point, it is a priori much likelier that there was internal gene flow in Italy, and then from neighbouring regions like the Balkans, and then regions further away; IA samples from the rest of south Italy would shed more light on the issue.

P.S. As for the topic of the thread, I am willing to bet that there was no cline in Italy from Latin_IA to Aegean_IA because it makes literally no sense, but there are some chances there was a cline from Latin_IA to Sicilian_IA/BA, so not much different from a hypothetical Latin_IA-Aegean_IA cline. I think it would answere the question in this thread.

The question is WHEN did these Levant and Middle-East communities enter Italy

We only have Romans occupying modern Albania from the Macedonias just before the hannibal wars and never letting it go.

Then we have Roman outposts in western Asia-Minor from circa 88BC ( from the Greek Seleucid empire ) ..........................the bulk of levant and middle-eastern movements to Italy happened under Imperial Rome and Not under republican Rome times
 
The question is WHEN did these Levant and Middle-East communities enter Italy
We only have Romans occupying modern Albania from the Macedonias just before the hannibal wars and never letting it go.
Then we have Roman outposts in western Asia-Minor from circa 88BC ( from the Greek Seleucid empire ) ..........................the bulk of levant and middle-eastern movements to Italy happened under Imperial Rome and Not under republican Rome times

This is why I wanted to keep myself out of this pointless discussion: no one denies Levantines and middle easteners entered in Italy (we have samples from the Antonio et al paper, those in the C4 cluster), but it is starting to look as if the "east med" gene flow was actually from south Italy or the Balkans; the point isn't to deny a priori any eventual contribution from the Levant or the middle east in the Italian gene pool, but the scenario in which Italians are Italics+Levantines+Germanics honestly sounds too far fetched, and it is grounded on false premises (as that all Italy was Italic-like).
 
This is why I wanted to keep myself out of this pointless discussion: no one denies Levantines and middle easteners entered in Italy (we have samples from the Antonio et al paper, those in the C4 cluster), but it is starting to look as if the "east med" gene flow was actually from south Italy or the Balkans; the point isn't to deny a priori any eventual contribution from the Levant or the middle east in the Italian gene pool, but the scenario in which Italians are Italics+Levantines+Germanics honestly sounds too far fetched, and it is grounded on false premises (as that all Italy was Italic-like).
Exactly, Italy was basically genetically mirroring the Balkans during the IA. You had a Northern group and a southern group in both peninsulas, and people that fall on that gradient. Big changes happened in the middle ages in the Balkans.
 
I did not want to take part in the "nativist vs immigrationist" debate, since I think that new papers will make the picture clearer, and I have already presented my issues with the last paper on the Etruscans.
Even if they decided to take the route of that paper, postulating an obviously ridicolous massive migration from the Levant to Italy and then from north Europe to Italy, this time such a scenario would be much harder to conciliate with the data: the Sicilians in the IA were identical to those in the BA, and it is very unlikely that Sicily's gene pool was just confined to Sicily, and the Daunian paper shows that not every inhabitant of Italy was Italic-like, pace to those that had "high hopes" of seeing their petty theories straight from the 20th century about Italy confirmed.
The leaked PCA from the upcoming study of Campania has some points/samples that do not fall in three groups, and I wonder what they are: let's remember that Italic weren't the first people in Italy.
Main take away: before postulating that half of the inhabitants of Italy at some point came from the Levant or the middle east at some point, it is a priori much likelier that there was internal gene flow in Italy, and then from neighbouring regions like the Balkans, and then regions further away; IA samples from the rest of south Italy would shed more light on the issue.

P.S. As for the topic of the thread, I am willing to bet that there was no cline in Italy from Latin_IA to Aegean_IA because it makes literally no sense, but there are some chances there was a cline from Latin_IA to Sicilian_IA/BA, so not much different from a hypothetical Latin_IA-Aegean_IA cline. I think it would answere the question in this thread.

When did I say there was a Latin_IA to Aegean_IA cline?!

I said it was R1 to Aegean_IA cline, which is consistent with using the Balkan_IA model as a proxy.
 
Distance to:Protovillanovan_IA:R1:Antonio_2019
3.50880321C7-Mausole_di_Augusto_Late_Antiquity:R33:Antonio_2019
3.55522151Croatia_EMBA:I4332:Mathieson_2018
3.74988000Hungary_BA:I7043:Olalde_2018
4.09436198Croatia_EMBA:I4331:Mathieson_2018
4.73285326Szolad43:Amorim_2018
4.75513407C7-Villa_Magna_MA:R55:Antonio_2019
5.13872552Collegno23:Amorim_2018
5.14213963Szolad28:Amorim_2018
5.21295502Vucedol:I3499:Mathieson_2018
5.43897049Collegno36:Amorim_2018
5.48600036I3593:Olalde_2018
5.55054051Hungary_BA:I7041:Olalde_2018
5.55906467Burgweinting–Nord-West_II_(ADH)_388-532calADA_Female:NW54:Veeramah_2018
5.56696506Helladic_Logkas_MBA:Log04:Clemente_2021
5.80672024Croatia_LBA:I3313:Mathieson_2018
6.35463610Szolad31:Amorim_2018
6.35757029La_Tène_IA:ERS88:Brunel_2020
6.40659036Thraco-Cimmerian:MJ-12:Jarve_2019
6.54488350MOK13:Zegarac_2021
6.64578062MOK31:Zegarac_2021
6.84447222CSN009:Etruscan_Pre-Print_2021
6.86396387ETR007:Etruscan_Pre-Print_2021
6.98428951Collegno49:Amorim_2018
6.99671351I7040:Olalde_2018
7.35485554Etruscan_IA:R474:Antonio_2019


68hqRhy.png




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.

Maybe you should actually read what I wrote in the first post of the thread, instead of claiming what I said makes no sense.
 
Impurities, wtf are you saying?
Your ancestors are closer to Southern Italians than they are to you, which is why you disapprove. Deal with it.

They are not closer to southern Italians and I have already mentioned why. It divides you time and space, you have not been formed as an ethnic group yet.
quote: "most European farmers
are genetically closer to Central and Northwestern (NW) Anatolian farmers than to Pre-Pottery
Neolithic (PPN) farmers of the Southern Levant or the Zagros region of Western Iran, who
were genetically well differentiated. "
You have more in common with other Western Europeans plus a lot of Semitic blood, so you are quite far from us both in time and place of formation.
You have a mixture that accidentally puts you closer to a Balkan population that has obviously undergone a genetic change over time and there is no way
today the same people to coincide with you or the ancestors of that time. In other words, the Balkans are at a crossroads, the locals have also undergone changes like the whole of Europe, but the locals have obviously not disappeared. Their influence has spread far and wide in all directions.
You speak a language from the IE group today only thanks to the cultural influence of my ancestors.
You want to have something in common, and I know I have, that's the difference between us. I am a direct descendant of the locals culturally, historically, linguistics, genetically , regardless of the assimilated new ones, because here we have continuity at every point, including parallels with the oldest Balkan writing which show parallels with the later linear A and B and with Glagolitic and Old Bulgarian runes. Mycenaean inscriptions have interesting names mentioned and they are neither Italian nor Greek.
 

This thread has been viewed 39099 times.

Back
Top