The Genomic portrait of the Picene culture: new insights into the Italic Iron Age

[Cascio]

Forgot to add that coverage for most samples is awful.

So do you believe that the paper is of little account apart from the uniparental DNA information?

[Manofthehour]

A genetics paper on the Picenes was done in years past, which reported on Mtdna and excluded Y-dna. This might explain why the Mtdna placements are more refined, perhaps being the same samples from that paper.

I just hope they are able to refine the Y-dna placements at some point?

[R.Rocca]

On p18, they suggest that five of the R1b-L23 samples were 'basal' L23, that's not something you often see, if its not P312 or Z2103 maybe PF7589,
well, let's see what the data will tell us. Probably more refinement is possible.

PF7589 is below L51, so it cannot be that. Either way, I doubt this "basal" thing holds up when the samples come out.

[alexfritz]

Dear researchers that work on Roman history and ancient DNA, I have a few questions for you. If Pompeii early imperial samples (79CE) were already significantly more shifted towards the the Near East compared to medieval and modern Southern Italy (let alone Central Italy), why do you think that during high imperial era (especially after 79CE) there was significant genetic influence in Italy from Eastern Mediterranean populations? Wouldn't that process result in a late antiquity and medieval Italy that is more shifted towards the Near East than Pompeii? Contrary to your claims, in late antiquity roman samples we don't have an increase of Near Eastern ancestry, basically early imperial and late imperial samples from Italy and Rome are very similar. If anything, the Late Antiquity roman samples are shifted North, towards Central Europe but especially towards the Western Mediterranean, and not towards the east-med, doesn't that imply that from the first century to the fourth century you had less east-med genetic influence in general? And if the east-med shift is basically completely driven by these "outliers", why does Pompeii had seemingly no locals (with Iron Age profile) and a large amount of intermediate samples (and few or no true Near Eastern samples)? Are we supposed to believe that these intermediate groups did form instantly or maybe we should believe that the process took some generations (and maybe started some centuries earlier)?

My guess is that with more data it will be proven that at first coastal, harbor, city and large plantations showed the greatest shift towards the Near East, whereas in later periods the admixture was more widespread throughout the country. The migrants, both free and slaves, landed on specific spots first. Therefore you get at specific sites many completely Near Eastern individuals, whereas in some countryside places it is likely the admixture wasn't arriving at that point in time with the same intensity. Yet it kind of "seeped through" over time, with many of the slaves becoming free, moving around and many free soldiers and others settling down in various places etc.

When looking at Pompeii, and if they are indeed intemediate, we have to assume the process started in this place earlier, some generations before at least. And again it would be logical to assume, that this pattern of freed slaves and settled down migrants which mix with locals started in a place like Pompeii earlier than in some village in the inner countryside.

if im looking at this correclty then we will only get access come march next year unless someone already has

i think for smth as broad and thourogh as a popualtion-wide shift and def atleast completed by the 2nc c. (still heyday) we need smth much more systematic than smth random and coincidental; and the Romans had a pretty good system with manumission; a system where ult the citizens chose who got to be a new/fellow citizen; a system where everyone benefitted from the state who got new citizens plus a tax paid per manumission, the dominus who needed cheap labor and then became a patronus and lastly the person who did (on avg) five years of servitute and then got all the rights and privileges of the Roman world with the civitas (plus in italy everyone was tax exampt) a good reason to stay; some figs and stats regarding manumission

the fact that it all gears towards the Hellenistic east amd chiefly Anatolia (cf Viminatium) is a real data surprise it could have also been all over the empire but obv the folks from the Hellenistic east had the skills the Romans needed and most deemed worthy of citizenship; pre Claudius manumission was also the only way to obtain the civitas on a mass scale (well used); it is thus not a surprise that the 'southern-arc' paper identified the major cluster C5 'East Med' in Rome and Latium from Antonio 2020 as indeed falling into the Anatolian cluster and indeed being a real overlap with TUR_RomByz

[Pylsteen]

On p18, they suggest that five of the R1b-L23 samples were 'basal' L23, that's not something you often see, if its not P312 or Z2103 maybe PF7589,
well, let's see what the data will tell us. Probably more refinement is possible.

PF7589 is below L51, so it cannot be that. Either way, I doubt this "basal" thing holds up when the samples come out.

Bit hasty interpretation by their side it seems then.. looking forward to the samples indeed,
and curious to see how much they will resemble or differ from (Italic) samples from west of the Appenines.

[alanarchae]

On p18, they suggest that five of the R1b-L23 samples were 'basal' L23, that's not something you often see, if its not P312 or Z2103 maybe PF7589,
well, let's see what the data will tell us. Probably more refinement is possible.

PF7589 is below L51, so it cannot be that. Either way, I doubt this "basal" thing holds up when the samples come out.

I find the whole L51xL151 branch(es) interesting. When L52 was found in that lateras  SE Polish CW group of c.2500B, it suggested a reservoir or L51 still existed in Ukraine several centuries after the early CW L51 thrust. That made me feel that a small amount of L51xL11 might have taken the Danube route west too. Perhaps entering Italy from the extreme NW or the Balkans or through Tyrol towards the Veneti area in the bronze age. I remember the old L51* maps that were posted on Anthrogenica having a north/cebtral  Italy/south France kind of distribution. I’d like to see more recent and better resolved maps if they exist. I also recall a very high % found in east Tyrol in one study.  My own feeling is this is a post-beaker wave in terms of its distribution. I can’t help but think they were holed up somewhere like the east Alpine zone or NW Balkans and have routes in some non beaker steppe group. 

I wish someone would bring together in one thread all that we know about non-L151 L51 from ancient and modern DNA.

[Pylsteen]

I find the whole L51xL151 branch(es) interesting. When L52 was found in that lateras  SE Polish CW group of c.2500B, it suggested a reservoir or L51 still existed in Ukraine several centuries after the early CW L51 thrust. That made me feel that a small amount of L51xL11 might have taken the Danube route west too. Perhaps entering Italy from the extreme NW or the Balkans or through Tyrol towards the Veneti area in the bronze age. I remember the old L51* maps that were posted on Anthrogenica having a north/cebtral  Italy/south France kind of distribution. I’d like to see more recent and better resolved maps if they exist. I also recall a very high % found in east Tyrol in one study.  My own feeling is this is a post-beaker wave in terms of its distribution. I can’t help but think they were holed up somewhere like the east Alpine zone or NW Balkans and have routes in some non beaker steppe group. 

I wish someone would bring together in one thread all that we know about non-L151 L51 from ancient and modern DNA.

Took a quick look at the FTDNA discover tree (consisting only of BigY and study samples).
L23 is clearly divided in L51 and Z2103. No single branches outside of the two.

 R-L51 outside of R-L151 consists out of PF7589 and P310(xL151).

• PF7589 has a fairly modest distribution across Europe, in most countries below 1%, in Belgium, Switzerland it reaches 1%, in Luxembourg 2% (although low amount of data for Luxembourg), so perhaps slightly higher along the Rhine.
  Lots of ancients, such as in Cetina (EBA), Dutch LBA, throughout Italy, La Tene. Not a really clear pattern.
  
• P310(xL151) has three downstream branches, FT186340, which is really small (found in Albania, and medieval Hungary), FT377377 (no samples in the tree though) and FT123498, found in modern France, Germany and Bronze Age Serbia, but also very small, so not very clear.
  

[GHurier]

• PF7589 has a fairly modest distribution across Europe, in most countries below 1%, in Belgium, Switzerland it reaches 1%, in Luxembourg 2% (although low amount of data for Luxembourg), so perhaps slightly higher along the Rhine.
  Lots of ancients, such as in Cetina (EBA), Dutch LBA, throughout Italy, La Tene. Not a really clear pattern.
  

For Z2118, considering spatial distribution of desendents and that the TMRCA is similar to L52, I suspect they took the same path.
Looks like a Corded-Ware related lineage to me.
Some later diffusion seems to be linked with Bell-Beakers, at least for PF7592.

[Moeca]

On p18, they suggest that five of the R1b-L23 samples were 'basal' L23, that's not something you often see, if its not P312 or Z2103 maybe PF7589,
well, let's see what the data will tell us. Probably more refinement is possible.

Another Picene individual (PN62) belongs to the R1-L23/Z2106 subclade, which has been previously interpreted as a genetic link between Yamnaya, Balkans and Southern Caucasus [19]. Finally, five Picenes and two
Etruscans are placed at the basal portion of the R1-L23 branch, together with other ancient Yamnaya,
Balkan and Southern Caucasic samples (Additional file 2: Fig. S10)

At least one of them is Z2103>Z2106.

On the other hand, it is worth noting that the trans-Adriatic distribution of the internal branches of J2-M172/M12 was previously interpreted as a clue of a BA expansion from the Balkans in the Italian area and a link between BA Balkans and BA Nuragic Sardinia, possibly with peninsular Italian intermediates that were not observed before [19,49]. Interestingly, two out of three of our J2-M12 Picene samples (PN91 and PN101), due to their phylogenetic position (Additional file 3: Fig. S10) in between the BA Nuragic and the BA Balkan clusters,
could represent the descendants of the aforementioned Italian intermediates[/color][/align]

From an archaeological perspective, the extensive connections across the two peninsulas throughout the BA and IA are well-characterized. Strong commercial trans-Adriatic routes were already present from the 3rd millennium BCE [7]. During the Early BA the Cetina culture, although rooted in the Dalmatian coast, spread throughout the Adriatic, eventually reaching Sicily, Malta and Western Greece hese contacts persisted throughout the BA [43] and during the IA they were strongly consolidated. Indeed, the extensive presence of shared cultural traits across the two sides of the Adriatic Sea has allowed some authors to describe an “Adriatic koiné” (Adriatic culture) to emphasize this circulation of goods and perhaps individuals [44–46]. Similarly, the possible genetic relationship between Northern/Central Europe and the Middle Adriatic region could be supported by the observed material connections between the Hallstatt culture along the Danube River and Northern-Central Italy, already starting from the Late BA

you need all 3 maps

[Moeca]

A genetics paper on the Picenes was done in years past, which reported on Mtdna and excluded Y-dna. This might explain why the Mtdna placements are more refined, perhaps being the same samples from that paper.

I just hope they are able to refine the Y-dna placements at some point?

Antonio 2019 paper had Ydna percentages for the picenes

62.5% was R1b
6.5% was I2a

I cannot recall others , but I think it was J2 and a minor I1

[alanarchae]

On p18, they suggest that five of the R1b-L23 samples were 'basal' L23, that's not something you often see, if its not P312 or Z2103 maybe PF7589,
well, let's see what the data will tell us. Probably more refinement is possible.

Another Picene individual (PN62) belongs to the R1-L23/Z2106 subclade, which has been previously interpreted as a genetic link between Yamnaya, Balkans and Southern Caucasus [19]. Finally, five Picenes and two
Etruscans are placed at the basal portion of the R1-L23 branch, together with other ancient Yamnaya,
Balkan and Southern Caucasic samples (Additional file 2: Fig. S10)

At least one of them is Z2103>Z2106.

On the other hand, it is worth noting that the trans-Adriatic distribution of the internal branches of J2-M172/M12 was previously interpreted as a clue of a BA expansion from the Balkans in the Italian area and a link between BA Balkans and BA Nuragic Sardinia, possibly with peninsular Italian intermediates that were not observed before [19,49]. Interestingly, two out of three of our J2-M12 Picene samples (PN91 and PN101), due to their phylogenetic position (Additional file 3: Fig. S10) in between the BA Nuragic and the BA Balkan clusters,
could represent the descendants of the aforementioned Italian intermediates[/color][/align]

From an archaeological perspective, the extensive connections across the two peninsulas throughout the BA and IA are well-characterized. Strong commercial trans-Adriatic routes were already present from the 3rd millennium BCE [7]. During the Early BA the Cetina culture, although rooted in the Dalmatian coast, spread throughout the Adriatic, eventually reaching Sicily, Malta and Western Greece hese contacts persisted throughout the BA [43] and during the IA they were strongly consolidated. Indeed, the extensive presence of shared cultural traits across the two sides of the Adriatic Sea has allowed some authors to describe an “Adriatic koiné” (Adriatic culture) to emphasize this circulation of goods and perhaps individuals [44–46]. Similarly, the possible genetic relationship between Northern/Central Europe and the Middle Adriatic region could be supported by the observed material connections between the Hallstatt culture along the Danube River and Northern-Central Italy, already starting from the Late BA

you need all 3 maps

Have we not already had Celina testedexokwon  in another ancient DNA paper and coming out as mostly J2b and low steppe? httpsery://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cetina_culture#:~:text=(2022)%20examined%20these%2018%20samples,%2C%20N1a1a1%2C%20T1a1%20and%20U5a1a.

Could explain the J2b but unlikely to explain the raised steppe. I think the origin of raised steppe in the Picenes probably will only be possible to guess at once those L23’s are resolved better.

[Moeca]

On p18, they suggest that five of the R1b-L23 samples were 'basal' L23, that's not something you often see, if its not P312 or Z2103 maybe PF7589,
well, let's see what the data will tell us. Probably more refinement is possible.

Another Picene individual (PN62) belongs to the R1-L23/Z2106 subclade, which has been previously interpreted as a genetic link between Yamnaya, Balkans and Southern Caucasus [19]. Finally, five Picenes and two
Etruscans are placed at the basal portion of the R1-L23 branch, together with other ancient Yamnaya,
Balkan and Southern Caucasic samples (Additional file 2: Fig. S10)

At least one of them is Z2103>Z2106.

On the other hand, it is worth noting that the trans-Adriatic distribution of the internal branches of J2-M172/M12 was previously interpreted as a clue of a BA expansion from the Balkans in the Italian area and a link between BA Balkans and BA Nuragic Sardinia, possibly with peninsular Italian intermediates that were not observed before [19,49]. Interestingly, two out of three of our J2-M12 Picene samples (PN91 and PN101), due to their phylogenetic position (Additional file 3: Fig. S10) in between the BA Nuragic and the BA Balkan clusters,
could represent the descendants of the aforementioned Italian intermediates[/color][/align]

From an archaeological perspective, the extensive connections across the two peninsulas throughout the BA and IA are well-characterized. Strong commercial trans-Adriatic routes were already present from the 3rd millennium BCE [7]. During the Early BA the Cetina culture, although rooted in the Dalmatian coast, spread throughout the Adriatic, eventually reaching Sicily, Malta and Western Greece hese contacts persisted throughout the BA [43] and during the IA they were strongly consolidated. Indeed, the extensive presence of shared cultural traits across the two sides of the Adriatic Sea has allowed some authors to describe an “Adriatic koiné” (Adriatic culture) to emphasize this circulation of goods and perhaps individuals [44–46]. Similarly, the possible genetic relationship between Northern/Central Europe and the Middle Adriatic region could be supported by the observed material connections between the Hallstatt culture along the Danube River and Northern-Central Italy, already starting from the Late BA

you need all 3 maps

Have we not already had Celina testedexokwon  in another ancient DNA paper and coming out as mostly J2b and low steppe? httpsery://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cetina_culture#:~:text=(2022)%20examined%20these%2018%20samples,%2C%20N1a1a1%2C%20T1a1%20and%20U5a1a.

Could explain the J2b but unlikely to explain the raised steppe. I think the origin of raised steppe in the Picenes probably will only be possible to guess at once those L23’s are resolved better.

does not the paper have the new has a steppe migration or was it Antonio 2019 paper

[Awood]

Finally, are you aware that your studies are used as racist propaganda on social media?

Alternatively, you could argue that implying that a "East Mediterranean" origin as the indigenous group in Italy could also be argued as "racist" (as it trivializes the local element), rather than common sense conclusion that the local groups must have been some combination of C. European + W. Mediterranean. It's easy to flip the script.

[RBHeadge]

I find the whole L51xL151 branch(es) interesting. When L52 was found in that lateras  SE Polish CW group of c.2500B, it suggested a reservoir or L51 still existed in Ukraine several centuries after the early CW L51 thrust. That made me feel that a small amount of L51xL11 might have taken the Danube route west too. Perhaps entering Italy from the extreme NW or the Balkans or through Tyrol towards the Veneti area in the bronze age. I remember the old L51* maps that were posted on Anthrogenica having a north/cebtral  Italy/south France kind of distribution. I’d like to see more recent and better resolved maps if they exist. I also recall a very high % found in east Tyrol in one study.  My own feeling is this is a post-beaker wave in terms of its distribution. I can’t help but think they were holed up somewhere like the east Alpine zone or NW Balkans and have routes in some non beaker steppe group. 

I wish someone would bring together in one thread all that we know about non-L151 L51 from ancient and modern DNA.

A thread like this?:
https://genarchivist.com/showthread.php?tid=358

It doesn't touch on L52xL151 though.
Yes, PF7589 probably took a Danubian path. TBD if the other L52xL151 branches travelled with it (FT377377 did not). Nothing indicates it was beaker related. Generally it was located in the general vicinity of Transdanubia Hungary circa 1600 BCE, with a couple of branches elsewhere. It got crushed by the spread of Tumulus Culture into Hungary. A few centuries later it rebounded and spread into western Europe - probably with the spread of Urnfield.

[elflock]

Have we not already had Celina testedexokwon  in another ancient DNA paper and coming out as mostly J2b and low steppe? httpsery://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cetina_culture#:~:text=(2022)%20examined%20these%2018%20samples,%2C%20N1a1a1%2C%20T1a1%20and%20U5a1a.

Could explain the J2b but unlikely to explain the raised steppe. I think the origin of raised steppe in the Picenes probably will only be possible to guess at once those L23’s are resolved 

First, it's not just "J2b", it's J2b-L283. Second, let's accept the data for what it is. J2b-L283 dominant Cetina-Dinaric has more Steppe than the IA Italian averages, as far as I know. Not sure what logic you're following with your argumentation. J2b-L283 first appears in Southeast Europe during the Early Bronze Age coupled with Steppe aswell as non-Adriatic Neolithic admixture. 

In what way is the question R1b-(L23>)L51>>>P312>U152+ vs R1b-(L23>)Z2103+ relevant when it comes to the increase of Steppe auDNA in well established BA-IA communities? Are you claiming some R1b-Z2103 came straight out of Yamnaya to West Adriatic Italy to raise the Steppe auDNA levels of the Picenes? That is rather an example of what you called "unlikely" and doesn't make any sense with regards to the time frame too.

Long story short, the deviation of the auDNA in the Picenes from other IA Italian pops is due to substantial BA-IA West Balkan ancestry. They aren't the only such occurrence, we've seen that in the West Adriatic Italian samples further South too (Daunians, BA Apulian sample). J2b-L283 appears there too and has, as the authors of the paper rightfully highlighted, a migration pathway originating in the Western Balkans.