How much genetic impact did the Italic migration have on the local population?

[Francesco]

Don't know the lore behind this Genoshistoria, just wanted to share the "news" despite being pretty skeptical about it

 

[torzio]

I'd remain skeptical considering the source is unverified. Even if the guy is on "the inside" and has access the the samples, there's no certainty he alone is qualified to properly access the samples to a standard that's acceptable.
At any rate, 28% seems to be about as much steppe as modern Northerner have. At least by my calculations:

I thought geneticists/people gave up on the site that used the term TSI ( Toscani ) and the closest neighour eastwards of TSI is an indian marker ( india )
Dodecad TSI30 ..............people still accept this void ?


what others are there...BIB, GIH, ITU .......and others

 

[Jovialis]

These are the standard Dodecad K12b modern populations.

 

[Poxy]

Given the poor genetic heritage of the Celts in northern Italy, how can the dominance of R-Z36 be explained? Could it have already been the dominant patrilineal line among the inhabitants prior to the Celtic invasion? Or a demographic change in a later era?

 

[Aaron1981]

The Iran_Neo introduction is interesting and suggests migration from the Balkans and/or Anatolia who most certainly had this Iran_Neo component. Even still it is pretty sporadic and many IA Italians still resemble their BA counterparts. Also, I would point out that 4 samples with 1 N.African outlier isn't a very large sample. Are ancient Sardinians represented here? Is 5 samples enough to rule out that no BA Italians had the Iran_Neo component, give 20% of them in this sample are outliers?

Intuition would suggest Italic and Celtic go back to the same BB roots. What's to say that the Etruscans weren't responsible for the intrusion of Iran_Neo? I think the jury is still out on the Etruscans, simply exhuming graves from the Tuscan province would not make them ethnic Etruscans.

 

[Jovialis]

The Iran_Neo introduction is interesting and suggests migration from the Balkans and/or Anatolia who most certainly had this Iran_Neo component. Even still it is pretty sporadic and many IA Italians still resemble their BA counterparts. Also, I would point out that 4 samples with 1 N.African outlier isn't a very large sample. Are ancient Sardinians represented here? Is 5 samples enough to rule out that no BA Italians had the Iran_Neo component, give 20% of them in this sample are outliers?

Intuition would suggest Italic and Celtic go back to the same BB roots. What's to say that the Etruscans weren't responsible for the intrusion of Iran_Neo? I think the jury is still out on the Etruscans, simply exhuming graves from the Tuscan province would not make them ethnic Etruscans.

Actually Aneli et al. 2021 said IA Republican Romans require extra Anatolian_N+CHG/IN in addition to WHG and Steppe (which also has CHG within and of itself of course):

Together with Minoans and Roman Republicans, this component can be broadly modeled as a Pan-Mediterranean population (constituted by AN and IN/CHG components) with the addition of WHG and Steppe-related ancestry in Roman Republicans. When modeled also with Minoans and Amhara_NAF, which roughly proxies the same ancestral signature, the majority of the samples required an additional CHG/IN contribution (two-way admixtures in supplementary fig. 7B and C, Supplementary Material online) as well as Steppe-related and WHG. We further observed that, as previously seen, the WHG contribution is less clear in those samples stretching downward in the PCA. Although the CHG/IN additional contribution may simply proxy the presence of Steppe-related ancestry in IAA, the absence of which in Minoans has already been reported (Lazaridis et al. 2017), the same cannot be said about Roman Republicans (two-way admixtures in supplementary fig. 7D, Supplementary Material online), which harbored a considerable amount of Steppe component (Antonio et al. 2019). However, this signature is not confirmed with f4 analyses (supplementary fig. 8B and C, Supplementary Material online), where just Mycenaean groups report less CHG ancestry than our samples.

https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/39/2/msac014/6509524

But also, neolithic Central Italian samples already show some extra non-steppe-related CHG/IN in Antonio et al. 2019

 

[Francesco]

The Iran_Neo introduction is interesting and suggests migration from the Balkans and/or Anatolia who most certainly had this Iran_Neo component. Even still it is pretty sporadic and many IA Italians still resemble their BA counterparts. Also, I would point out that 4 samples with 1 N.African outlier isn't a very large sample. Are ancient Sardinians represented here? Is 5 samples enough to rule out that no BA Italians had the Iran_Neo component, give 20% of them in this sample are outliers?

Intuition would suggest Italic and Celtic go back to the same BB roots. What's to say that the Etruscans weren't responsible for the intrusion of Iran_Neo? I think the jury is still out on the Etruscans, simply exhuming graves from the Tuscan province would not make them ethnic Etruscans.

Iran_Neo starts entering Italy at least in the late bronze age from the aegean area, probably due to a minoan and mycenaen expansion and gets more common in the iron age with the Greek colonization (altough as Jovialis said, we have calcolithic samples from central Italy wich seem to already show a little bit of that ancestry). That's why the iron age samples from other parts of Italy, like Latium and Etruria (the only regions in Italy where we have samples from the iron age other than Himera in Sicily), already show traces of it. Nothing to do with a supposed Lydian origin of the etruscans, who if anything were quite genetically similar to latins.

 

[Pygmalion]

Iran_Neo starts entering Italy at least in the late bronze age from the aegean area, probably due to a minoan and mycenaen expansion and gets more common in the iron age with the Greek colonization (altough as Jovialis said, we have calcolithic samples from central Italy wich seem to already show a little bit of that ancestry). That's why the iron age samples from other parts of Italy, like Latium and Etruria (the only regions in Italy where we have samples from the iron age other than Himera in Sicily), already show traces of it. Nothing to do with a supposed Lydian origin of the etruscans, who if anything were quite genetically similar to latins.

Exactly, although I think that the spread of the Iran N component probably had more to do with the spread of the Cetina culture during the Late Eneolithic - Early Bronze Age, than with either the Minoans or the Mcyenaeans.

 

[Jovialis]

Iran_Neo starts entering Italy at least in the late bronze age from the aegean area, probably due to a minoan and mycenaen expansion and gets more common in the iron age with the Greek colonization (altough as Jovialis said, we have calcolithic samples from central Italy wich seem to already show a little bit of that ancestry). That's why the iron age samples from other parts of Italy, like Latium and Etruria (the only regions in Italy where we have samples from the iron age other than Himera in Sicily), already show traces of it. Nothing to do with a supposed Lydian origin of the etruscans, who if anything were quite genetically similar to latins.

Indeed, this component doesn't lend support to a Lydian origin. In fact it was a region wide phenomenon, which actually further negates the theory.

Exactly, although I think that the spread of the Iran N component probably had more to do with the spread of the Cetina culture during the Late Eneolithic - Early Bronze Age, than with either the Minoans or the Mcyenaeans.

That's also a strong possibility too. If anything they could have contributed a portion of it that is present there today.

 

[Riverman]

A lot depends on the identity of the Protovillanovans and those seem to have had strong Carpatho-Balkan relations and being inside of Italy rather multi-ethnic in character, like not able to fully turn the local population, but just "convert it", to put it that way. I think Protovillanovan has closest ties with the Veneti and related people, rather than the Italics, but that's at this point conjecture.

Here again the old problem of the cremation horizon might complicate everything, because their remains can't be easily tested on a larger scale like those from inhumation practising cultures.

 

[torzio]

A lot depends on the identity of the Protovillanovans and those seem to have had strong Carpatho-Balkan relations and being inside of Italy rather multi-ethnic in character, like not able to fully turn the local population, but just "convert it", to put it that way. I think Protovillanovan has closest ties with the Veneti and related people, rather than the Italics, but that's at this point conjecture.

Here again the old problem of the cremation horizon might complicate everything, because their remains can't be easily tested on a larger scale like those from inhumation practising cultures.

we can say the etruscans are villanovan culture ...but are they also Proto-Villanovan culture ( Urnfield culture ) ? ...............I think not

Etruscans seems to me more westward in origin , like the liguri are

Protovillaovan , apart from Veneti, would have Histrians and Liburnians as a minimum

 

[Francesco]

A lot depends on the identity of the Protovillanovans and those seem to have had strong Carpatho-Balkan relations and being inside of Italy rather multi-ethnic in character, like not able to fully turn the local population, but just "convert it", to put it that way. I think Protovillanovan has closest ties with the Veneti and related people, rather than the Italics, but that's at this point conjecture.
Here again the old problem of the cremation horizon might complicate everything, because their remains can't be easily tested on a larger scale like those from inhumation practising cultures.

Veneti were italics from the Iron Age (supposedly from the latin-faliscan branch). Protovillanovian is an archeological culture unifying all late bronze age Italy, giving rise to the villanovan culture in Iron Age Etruria (it can get a bit confusing). It is currently speculated it may have been brought to the peninsula by proto italic tribes or at least by some of them (Osco-Umbrian). Osco-Umbrian may indeed have had a stronger Balkan connection than the Latin-faliscan ones, hopefully new studies will clarify that.

 

[torzio]

Veneti were italics from the Iron Age (supposedly from the latin-faliscan branch). Protovillanovian is an archeological culture unifying all late bronze age Italy, giving rise to the villanovan culture in Iron Age Etruria (it can get a bit confusing). It is currently speculated it may have been brought to the peninsula by proto italic tribes or at least by some of them (Osco-Umbrian). Osco-Umbrian may indeed have had a stronger Balkan connection than the Latin-faliscan ones, hopefully new studies will clarify that.

Veneti with the roman Latin-faliscan in a minor linguistic association...they also have linguistic ties to histrians and liburnians

which protovillanovian sample do you refer to .............I only know of a female ( id ...R1 ) who is linked with the liburnians

other papers have her ydna as O2a2




do you associate Villabruna ( from Feltre Veneto ) in this mix ?

 

[Francesco]

Veneti with the roman Latin-faliscan in a minor linguistic association...they also have linguistic ties to histrians and liburnians
which protovillanovian sample do you refer to .............I only know of a female ( id ...R1 ) who is linked with the liburnians
other papers have her ydna as O2a2

do you associate Villabruna ( from Feltre Veneto ) in this mix ?

As far as I know (wich is very little anyway, so take my words with caution) Histrians (and maybe even Liburnians) are indeed connected, linguistically at least, with Veneti, and that would make Histrians the eastern most italic speaking tribe.
I don't know why, but I somewhat feel this might be some kind os sensitive topic, so take my opinion with levity

 

[Riverman]

As far as I know (wich is very little anyway, so take my words with caution) Histrians (and maybe even Liburnians) are indeed connected, linguistically at least, with Veneti, and that would make Histrians the eastern most italic speaking tribe.
I don't know why, but I somewhat feel this might be some kind os sensitive topic, so take my opinion with levity

Histrians and Liburnians are surely connected with Veneti, all three having various Urnfield practises in common and were using cremation, unlike neighbouring Illyrian groups, and still different from the Fr?g and other Eastern Hallstatt groups to the North. Another peculiarity is the stronger Thraco-Cimmerian and pastoralist influence on Veneti, which were known to be the prime horsebreeders in Italia. Another distinctive feature in comparison to the rest of the peninsula.

 

[Pax Augusta]

Histrians and Liburnians are surely connected with Veneti, all three having various Urnfield practises in common and were using cremation, unlike neighbouring Illyrian groups, and still different from the Fr�g and other Eastern Hallstatt groups to the North. Another peculiarity is the stronger Thraco-Cimmerian and pastoralist influence on Veneti, which were known to be the prime horsebreeders in Italia. Another distinctive feature in comparison to the rest of the peninsula.

What does connected mean? They were geographically close, so of course they can have had relations. But this does not imply that they were the same people.

Urnfield practises are common to a large part of the peoples of Europe between the end of the Bronze and the beginning of the Iron Age. The problem is that one continues to confuse material culture practices with ethnicities.

Taking the example of the Etruscans, because to date they remain genetically the pre-Roman people of whom we have the most information, the uniparental markers suggest that they may have derived from the Bell Beaker culture of central Europe and the local Neolithic western European, a pattern that could also be valid for the Latins. If we take the two J2b-L283, a very small minority but still found in the Etruscans, which have matches in the northern Balkans, they might suggest the arrival of some human element right towards the end of the Bronze Age, i.e. during the Urnfield culture, as among other things suggested by the archaeologists themselves.

In essence, almost all the peoples of pre-Roman Italy could have several different sources, even chronologically, although ethnogenesis is then in situ, and one cannot speak of already ethnically formed peoples arriving in Italy from the outside and it is more correct to speak of prehistoric migrations.

 

[Riverman]

Sure. The real problem is the cremation horizon limits our ability to actually test it out. Because more than once things looked different when getting aDNA results. Not all people survived or continued to exist, some got pushed back or replaced and this might be hidden under this horizon.

 

[torzio]

Histrians and Liburnians are surely connected with Veneti, all three having various Urnfield practises in common and were using cremation, unlike neighbouring Illyrian groups, and still different from the Fr�g and other Eastern Hallstatt groups to the North. Another peculiarity is the stronger Thraco-Cimmerian and pastoralist influence on Veneti, which were known to be the prime horsebreeders in Italia. Another distinctive feature in comparison to the rest of the peninsula.

yes, most have cremation , but with amber found as well .................another tribe next to them with same practice is the Japodes

 

[torzio]

As far as I know (wich is very little anyway, so take my words with caution) Histrians (and maybe even Liburnians) are indeed connected, linguistically at least, with Veneti, and that would make Histrians the eastern most italic speaking tribe.
I don't know why, but I somewhat feel this might be some kind os sensitive topic, so take my opinion with levity

I feel that the roman connection of Latin-Faliscan with the venetic people only seems to have began after the Roman-Venetic alliance against Hannibal .................IIRC , by 100BC the Venetics have already lost their language and became part of the Latin-Faliscan linguistical group ..................with the Oscar Linguistical sabellic, sabines, etc splitting them geographically

 

[Francesco]

I feel that the roman connection of Latin-Faliscan with the venetic people only seems to have began after the Roman-Venetic alliance against Hannibal .................IIRC , by 100BC the Venetics have already lost their language and became part of the Latin-Faliscan linguistical group ..................with the Oscar Linguistical sabellic, sabines, etc splitting them geographically

I'm not a linguist, but I'm fairly sure a language can't simply change from one branch in to another depending on socio-political events.

Anyway, the first inscriptions of the venetic laguage should be from around the VI century BC, so well before the the led to the loss of independence of the venetic tribes, and I believe they are all generally classified under the italic branch.

Romans and Veneti themselves felt some kind of commonship, expecially when facing the cisalpine celtic tribes and the assimilation of the Venetic tribes under the Roman Republic was pretty peaceful (at least for the roman standards:embarassed.