Talk:Genetic history of Italy

Needs to be re-written by an expert

"The ancestors of Italians are mostly Indo-European speakers..."
It is a major-major-major fallacy to relate cultural/language groups to genetic groups. There may be correlation between but not causation. Not understanding this indicates that the author is an amateur.

"It is generally agreed that the invasions that followed for centuries after the fall of the Roman Empire did not significantly alter the local gene pool..."
In science, there is no room for 'agreement'. It is either Yes/No/Don't know. State the relevant study and the outcome. Not following this pattern indicates amateurism.
I'm sure, there is much more but I won't read this article for it is useless, nothing can possibly trusted.

I agree that equating genetic groups and cultural-linguistic groups is an all-too-frequent error. Just for a start there is no proof for example that 'Steppe' people spoke Indo-european, though it seems likely. Redabyss1 (talk) 02:26, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Influence on genetic history

I read "The genetic history of current Italians is greatly influenced by geography and history."
Are you sure? NO! You must be kidding! REALLY??
As against ALL other peoples' genetic history that were NEVER influenced by geography and history. I knew, i can learn something new from wikipedia every day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.29.185 (talk) 06:40, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Have you seen maps about genetic clustering

Have you seen maps about genetic clustering? have a look: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_xpkMgKYA7g8/SLxhFUYq2YI/AAAAAAAAAwI/VEkU6xPTlKo/s400/Europegenetics.jpg http://scienceblogs.com/gnxp/jewpc3.jpg http://www.taiwandna.com/germanchart1.png Italians happen to clusters between Iberians and Greeks, othetr population that are genetically similar with italians are romanians, macedonians, ashkenazi jewish... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giuggiola90 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

@ 69.142.241.118, I would notice the Marche region is surely part of central italy, as some areas of Tuscany also populated by the gallic/celtic immigrants another point is the deletion of the Alpine region which is walso wrong being that a different geographical region then the Po valley and the Emilian-Romagnol-Tuscan Apennine about Sicily and Southern Italy I guess the 14% R1 haplogroup estimations are related to minimums registered in the areas when the regional average is higher, probably the phrasing also in the original text wasn't accurate Cunibertus (talk) 10:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Where are you getting your information? Italians do not cluster with Askenazi Jews. The only people who cluster similar to them are Sicilians. I don't where you got this information from but its innacurate. Ashkenazi Jews cluster more with other Mid East populations than they do anyone in Europe. Contrary to popular belief Ashkenazi Jews did not do much intermixing with European populations, and still retain homogenity and distinctiveness from all European populations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C4EA:CA0:5DE7:F6A3:1FED:38E2 (talk) 23:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Useless and Nonsense Maps

this article speaks about genetic history of italy, not about physical aspects of italians. phenotypes are not correlated with genotypes! maps that describe the percentage of light or dark hair and eyes are part of anthropological researches realised in 19th century (they are outdated), and not concernig an article about the genetics —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.10.223.33 (talk) 22:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

but isn't fair simply delete maps or inforamations when you do not like them, and lying about the reasons you did it

The regions with the highest Haplogroup R1b concentration are Emilia-Romagna, and Lombardy. The regions with the lowest concentration are Sardinia, Campania, Calabria, and Sicily.

without mentioning the rest of the damage a a couple of vandals (or only one ?) have done to the article Cunibertus (talk) 17:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

apparently there is only one in violation of NPOV rule so I have to apologize with the other user. about the article is not about anthropology that can be easily changed with a specific minor section, but it isn't really iportant.

about more genetic issue related figures I would suggest to those interested in it: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mappageneticaitalia.jpg http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:R1bItalia.png http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/it/archive/d/da/20090720180158%21R1bItalia.png http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:J2%2BE3bItalia.jpg this one is specifically about sardinia http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sardinia_haplogroups.jpg Cunibertus (talk) 19:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

"USELESS and NONSENSE MAPS" how are you so sure about that ? Cunibertus (talk) 19:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

btw, why didn't you remove also the cephalic index map of Sardinia ? wasn't it also a 19th century thing ? Cunibertus (talk) 06:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

ok remove also cephalic index of sardinia, i haven't seen it! 62.10.236.105 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC).

Personally, I hadn't any problem with it Cunibertus (talk) 18:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

"phenotypes are not correlated with genotypes". This is the most idiotic thing I have read on these genetics talkpages in a while. --dab (𒁳) 18:54, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Eastern adriatic

Tyrrhenian Sea.

Changing the generic phrase "Eastern Mediterranean" (intended as Basin) to "Eastern Adriatic" is scientifically an unsupported claim, or a geographical mistake. Considering that the limits of the Adriatic sea are fixed on the Strait of Otranto now we have to read correctly the whole section as that the J haplogrous too developed and are characteristic of Albania (or entered in Italy through Albania). Till now I didn't know the borders of Great Albania encompassed both Kurdistan and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. A significant part of the J haplogroup in Italy, but probably not ALL, is indoubtably due to the greek contributions, but Greece isn't located in the Eastern Adriatic. Cunibertus (talk) 06:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism or POV

I personally adjusted part of the uncorrected editings, apparently there is only one possible vandal here. Someone who doesn't like the mixed nature of the italian genetics apparently. Cunibertus (talk) 18:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Because Italians aren't "mixed". Italy's been pretty much the same for 2000 years and genetics shows this. The genetic gap between Northern and Southern Italy is smaller than in most European countries.

italy is not mixed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.50.113.62 (talk) 07:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Ho exactly would 'genetics' show that Italy has been pretty much the same for 2000 years? Redabyss1 (talk) 02:30, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Some details about italian ethnicities

Linguistic borders according to Def. 1 (Northern Italian in gold/ green).

If anyone doesn't notice it Italy is the home of an infinite variety of ethnic populations (G. Devoto). 1. The high percentages of R1b in Marche is due to the high level of celticization by gaulish celts around 400 BC. Marche at least the northern part = Ager Gallicus, see the linguistical map here enclosed, the gallo-italic Italy is in gold. 2. Liguria despite being a northern region, and now speaking a Gallo-italian language was the home of the non-indoeuropean Ligurians and that's the reason it shares so many genetical similarities with the Mediterranean areas of the south. then no more generalizations in the voice Cunibertus (talk) 19:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Cunibertus seems to be adding his own revisionism based on using paternal haplogroups as a proxy for ethnicity. R1b in Italians most likely comes from the Villanovan peoples, as the Cisalpine Gauls were largely destroyed and their genetics likely did not carry on through paternal lines in Italy, at least not at the rate of R1b in Italy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:161D:6361:20BD:FB13:EF36:6900 (talk) 21:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

References

E3b is not E3a

I guess when someone inserted the genetic data about Sardinia also changed E3b in E1b1a (Y-DNA), I may be wrong about sardinians (and I believe not) but I also believe that the rest of the italians are more related to the E1b1b (Y-DNA) group from Albania and the Balkans then to a characteristic haplogroup from sub-saharan africa Cunibertus (talk) 22:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Btw, and in the thumb you also need to mention you added Sardinia, as the region is so divergent that it is usually excluded from the genetic data collection for Italy, differently che data would be useless. have you ever read somethig by Cavalli-Sforza ? Cunibertus (talk) 22:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

never mind, may be it was an old mistake Cunibertus (talk) 22:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

A Newer Study on northern and southern Italian samples

First of all, I am not a geneticist lol, but being part Italian I am interested in Italian genetics. I recently stumbled upon a map created by Dutch geneticist Manfred Kayser in 2008 that sort of seems to blur this statement in this article: "South Italian samples clustered with South east and south central European samples (so basically the Balkans), and Northern groups with West Europe (i.e. the French and Spaniards etc.)

In his study (MAP here: [1]) there are two Italian samples. A north-central sample (labelled IT2) from the looks of it in the Marche region of Italy and a second sample, which to me seems a bit south of Rome, more or less straddling the southern Italian region of Campania labelled IT1.

To me I found it obvious that the southern sample almost totally subsumes the north-central Italian sample and heavily overlaps the Spaniards, and Portuguese, and touches France. The southern sample also touches the Romanians which makes sense since all these groups mentioned were heavily influenced by Rome. Other populations with relative genetic closeness to the southern sample were the countries of former Yugoslavia, Greeks, Austrians and Swiss. Another study if I read it right seemed to suggest the northern and southern Italians have a genetic variation of 27% which is significant but it is not enough to differentiate two populations. Find here [2].

So to me I find it just slightly annoying when even people of south-Western European descent point out that somehow southern Italians are somehow Balkan but concede their relatedness to northern Italians. I completely understand that perhaps if the southern example was taken from Puglia perhaps a more Balkan influence would be seen, but at the end of the day to me, I would consider the Romans in general to have had the greatest influence on the Italian people, and I dont see much a HUGE genetic difference between someone from Piemonte to Molise or Emilia Romagna to Abruzzo. The Italian peninsula is not THAT big after all... Galati (talk) 04:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

To Galati: "In Europe and in Italy the phenomenon of Romanization has made ​major contributions to the cultural, political and historical populations, however, did not reveal a role at the genetic homogenization" (Cavalli Sforza Luigi L.; Menozzi Paolo; Piazza Alberto, The History and Geography of Human Genes - Abridged paperback edition)

This page needs to be refreshed with newer genetic studies. There is not a significant gap between northern and Southern Italy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:161D:6361:20BD:FB13:EF36:6900 (talk) 22:00, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Historical population

"... the Beaker culture, which probably represents the western branch of the Corded Ware culture, ..." is idiosyncratic nonsense, and, to my humble knowledge, not the opinion of a single archaeologist. I thus altered the sentence. HJJHolm (talk) 08:11, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Genetic composition

The sentence, "and R1a arrived in the Chalcolithic with the migrations of the Proto-Indo-Europeans." urgently needs a reliable source. It appears to be mere phantasy in different extensions. HJJHolm (talk) 09:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Remove the Map of languages in Italy

I don't see any kind of relation about genetics and language spoken by a population. Are Congolese people and the People of Quebec from Canada the same from a genetic and ethnic point of view because they speak the same language? In this map is shown a map that shows that in Sardinia was spoken the Punic, the Punics were Phoenicians from Middle East, but all modern genetic surveys show that Sardinians have some of the lowest west asian and south west asian admixtures among europeans, much lower than italian average, so that map is out of place! http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/4/4a/20120924005000%21Iron_Age_Italy.svg ?!?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_UOHFTxL-bOA/TOYpHMIrsVI/AAAAAAAAAOE/on63ho681uI/s1600/ADMIXTURE10.jpeg http://i619.photobucket.com/albums/tt279/german24/West-Asian-admixture.gif

Melting point

"Melting point" is a temperature! 'Melting pot' or 'meeting point'? Heavenlyblue (talk) 01:36, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

______________________

"Biasutti map"

I think this map's reliability is questionable. Not only is it outdated, if you pay attention to some little details, even the source must have been eiter misreported or it's literally a fake. It's not possible that something like the National Conscription Service would ever cite Corsica, given the fact that the island was not even part of Italy in the XIX° century, nor is it now for that matter.--Dk1919 (talk) 18:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

The Biasutti map author stated that the data are collected from Ridolfo Livi on Italian military duty servicemen from 1859 to 1863 ("Dati raccolti da Ridolfo Livi sulle classi di leva 1859-1863, da "Renato Biasutti - Razze e popoli della Terra - UTET, 1941") and that those data appeared on the Renato Biasutti book edited in 1941. That means that the XIX century data of National Conscription Service were ADDED to those of Biasutti, when he wrote his book Razze e popoli della Terra in 1941. And in 1941 Corsica was considered part of Italy and so it was included (also data from Swiss Ticino). Of course the original Biasutti data from Istria/Venezia Giulia don't appear because the map is related to contemporary Italy! IMHO the map is totally reliable....So, I reinstate it...B — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.96.25.156 (talk) 20:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok, if that's the case, I suppose we should keep it. Thank you for the reply!--Dk1919 (talk) 13:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Neither in 1800 Corsica was part of Italy, Biasutti chart is fake. Biasutti wasn't an anthropologist but a geographer, or better a criminal, who signed the Italian Racial Laws. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.39.125.36 (talk) 13:33, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Genetic history of Italy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110728091255/http://vetinari.sitesled.com/meso.pdf to http://vetinari.sitesled.com/meso.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121116090339/http://www.biology-direct.com:80/content/5/1/57 to http://www.biology-direct.com/content/5/1/57

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:48, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Genetic history of Italy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090306191441/http://arheologija.ff.uni-lj.si/documenta/pdf33/rootsi33.pdf to http://arheologija.ff.uni-lj.si/documenta/pdf33/rootsi33.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402102624/http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0096074%2F to http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0096074%2F
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.biology-direct.com/content/5/1/57
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402102624/http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0096074%2F to http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0096074%2F

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

If a proper unaltered genetic study has been done in Italy then undoubtedly majority of the population will have a lot of South Asian and Southwest Asian ancestry. Its too obvious to deny as a lot of Italians share features of people of those regions. Some have so strong of those features that if you change the why they dress they will perfectly mingle in those crowds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:112F:8068:D8F3:F935:E8D3:85C7 (talk) 11:50, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Haplogroups europe.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:47, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Edits by "BeltranSP"

Some user named "BeltranSP" is removing cited content from expert sources and studies on this topic. This user is POV pushing and entering their own original research that is not supported or taken from any of the studies. AnthroVeritas (talk) 20:18, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@AnthroVeritas: Your additions do seem to be sourced and, from what I can tell, do not seem to be original research (e.g. the sources do mention that the population of Rome strongly declined after the fall of Rome and that the migrant descendants present would have left little legacy among later inhabitants of the area - the rest also seems to be sourced). But do be careful to avoid edit warring. Hopefully, the other user will discuss and reach consensus before removing again.Skllagyook (talk) 20:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@BeltránSP: From what I can tell, the edits of User:AnthroVeritas seem to be reliably sourced (see WP:RS) nor does it seem to be a case of WP:OR. You should discuss before removing them. Simply describing them as original research without explaining why, would be an insufficient justification for removing sourced material. Please discuss here and reach WP:CONSENSUS before removing again. And you are both edit warring, which is against Wikipedia's policies.Skllagyook (talk) 20:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I mainly just wanted to add new content directly from the 2019 study by Raveane et al on structure in the Italian population, which has been the most extensive to date (it specifically outlines in enormous detail the complex regional differences), as well as the Sardinian studies from 2020, which have more detail on the arrival of Iranian/Caucasus-related ancestry. I am not sure what the issue was from the opposing editor, as the studies clearly states North African admixture is virtually absent in northern Italy (especially when excluding Tuscany). "Middle Eastern" ancestry in the disputed sentence actually refers to recent Middle Eastern ancestry. The studies Beltran were showing were dated, and the "Near Eastern" ancestry in those have been shown by numerous studies since (including Raveane et al) to be Caucasus/Iranian-related ancestry of Anatolian Bronze Age or Chalcolithic origin. Actual recent (historical) Middle Eastern ancestry is very rare in Italy, and confined to southern Italy, and mostly to Sicily, as the Raveane et al study states. My other edits about the ancient DNA from Rome just sought to be in line with what they again state (i.e. the major shifts that occurred after the early and late Imperial periods, with the migrants of earlier Imperial periods not leaving a major lasting genetic impact; medieval and modern central Italians are most similar to and fairly continuous to the Iron Age population). AnthroVeritas (talk) 20:56, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@AnthroVeritas: I would agree with you regarding the above; your edits indeed seem to be improvements. As for the other user's objection, I am not sure, but they seem to have been a sock puppet of a blocked user with a history of disruptive and biased editing, and have also just been blocked.Skllagyook (talk) 21:07, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

If the issue comes up again, they should refer to this specific content from the Raveane et al., 2019 study:

"The profile of inferred sources varied across Italy. Clusters from the Caucasus and North-West Europe were identified for many Italian clusters as best proxies for the admixing sources in agreement with previous studies, while Middle Eastern and African groups were detected for Southern Italy and Sardinia...The timing of the admixture events and the sources involved differ between Northern and Southern Italian clusters, pointing to different admixture histories for the two areas... Historical events possibly involving continental groups at the end of the Roman Empire and African contributions following the establishment of Arab kingdoms in Southern Europe around 1300 to 1200 ya played a role in further shaping the ancestry profiles and population structure of Italians (Fig. 3). In particular, African contributions might have contributed to the increased diversity detected among clusters in Southern Italy and Sardinia (Fig. 3 and data file S2)." Raveane et al., 2019. "Population structure of modern-day Italians reveals patterns of ancient and archaic ancestries in Southern Europe"

Also, please refer to Fig. 3 on historical admixture from the study, which clearly shows that recent (historical) Middle Eastern ancestry ("Levant-Middle East", in red) was only detected in the "Sicily1" cluster, while "Northern Africa" ancestry (in grey) was only found in the "SItaly1" and "SItaly2" clusters. Raveane et al., 2019. AnthroVeritas (talk) 21:16, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

AnthroVeritas and Skllagyook, users BeltránSP and Leonbicha have been blocked as sockpuppets of banned user JamesOredan. The IP 46.222.93.140 (talk) is also obviously theirs. According to WP:BANREVERT and WP:BMB, the presumption is that all of their edits can and should be reverted if possible, regardless of whether they improve the article, so that they have no impact on Wikipedia. Because of all the back-and-forth editing though, it's difficult to tell if any of their edits still remain - it's a bit like unscrambling an egg. One suggestion would be to revert the article to the version of 18:14, 11 September 2020, and then you both could go ahead with whatever changes you'd like. Any other ideas of how to deal with it? --IamNotU (talk) 01:45, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I was only involved in contesting their edits in the past two days. It appears as Skllagyook was aware and had reverted their previous edits in the past few weeks. AnthroVeritas (talk) 05:18, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Northern European ancestry

I refer to the following text from the lead:

"It is generally agreed that the invasions that followed for centuries after the fall of the Roman Empire did not significantly alter the local gene pool, because of the relatively small number of Germanics, or other migrants, compared to the large population of what constituted Roman Italy.[3][4][5][6] Molecular anthropology found no evidence of significant Northern European geneflow into the Italian peninsula over the last 1500 years; DNA studies show that only the Greek colonization of Southern Italy (Magna Graecia) has had a lasting effect on the local genetic landscape, and also find evidence of deep regional genetic substructure and continuity within Italy dating to the pre-Roman and early Roman periods.[7][8][9][10]

All sources cited failed to verify, particularly [4] (Science, 2019) which offers a radically different conclusion:

"In the Medieval and early modern periods (n = 28 individuals), we observe an ancestry shift toward central and northern Europe in PCA (Fig. 3E), as well as a further increase in the European cluster (C7) and loss of the Near Eastern and eastern Mediterranean clusters (C4 and C5) in ChromoPainter (Fig. 4C). 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, with potential sources including many ancient and modern populations in central and northern Europe: Lombards from Hungary, Saxons from England, and Vikings from Sweden, among others (table S26)."

Furthermore, see the following image from the study:

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/366/6466/708/F1.large.jpg

Full-text link to study:

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/366/6466/708

It is difficult to understand how material can be cited on Wikipedia in support of statements that it directly contradicts. - Hunan201p (talk) 11:03, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

@Hunan201p: It seems that statement regarding the lack of post-Roman Germanic admixture was (possibly) sourced from sources that it is difficult to find online in their entirety: some are books; the Cavalli Sforza source is on Google Books, but the cited page cites (295) is not included for free. But the statement may indeed be supported by the sources (I'll try to find them, or some of them, to verify) But if it is not sourced, it should not be included, and I will see if I can find any reliable/verifiable sources supporting the statement. I was under the impression that that claim was generally supported, and I do believe there are sources supporting the claim that the number of Germanic people were relatively small, but of course, it must be sourced and verifiable.

I also re-included some sourced material that was removed (regarding ancient Greek admixture in Southern Italy, and ancient genetic structure/continuity in Italy generally - with links in the edit summary). That does not fail to verify, and I am sure why you removed it. It is supported by Ralph and Coop as well as Capocasa et al and Raveane et al. (substantial ancient genetic structure in Italy - predating the Imperial Roman or Medieval periods), and Gaetano et al. and Sarno et al. support substantial Greek admixture in Southern Italy and Sicily (the Gaetano ref contains a quote).

From Ralph and Coop:

"In addition to the very few genetic common ancestors that Italians share both with each other and with other Europeans, we have seen significant modern substructure within Italy (i.e., Figure 2) that predates most of this common ancestry, and estimate that most of the common ancestry shared between Italy and other populations is older than about 2,300 years (Figure S16). Also recall that most populations show no substructure with regards to the number of blocks shared with Italians, implying that the common ancestors other populations share with Italy predate divisions within these other populations. This suggests significant old substructure and large population sizes within Italy, strong enough that different groups within Italy share as little recent common ancestry as other distinct, modern-day countries, substructure that was not homogenized during the migration period. These patterns could also reflect in part geographic isolation within Italy as well as a long history of settlement of Italy from diverse sources." (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3646727/)

From Raveane et al. 2019 (also suggesting the survival of ancient regional structure in modern Italy, with Bronze Age samples clustering with/showing affinities to their modern regional counterparts), from the section titled "Modeling the ancestry composition of ancient Italian samples": "To obtain temporal insights into the emergence of the differences between Northern and Southern Italy in relation to SBA and ABA ancestries, we performed the same qpAdm analysis on post-Neolithic/Bronze Age Italian individuals... "Differences across ancient Italian samples were also supported by their projections on the PCA of modern-day data (Fig. 2I). Remedello and Iceman clustered with European Early Neolithic samples, together with one of the three Bell Beaker individuals from North Italy, as previously reported (23), and modern-day Sardinians. The other two Bronze Age North Italian samples clustered with modern North Italians, while the Bell Beaker sample from Sicily was projected in between European Early Neolithic, Bronze Age Southern European, and modern-day Southern Italian samples (Fig. 2I). These results suggest a differentiation in ancient ancestry composition between different areas of Italy, dating at least in part back to the Bronze Age." (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6726452/)

Regarding ancient Greek admixture in Southern Italy and Sicily:

Sarno et al. conclude that (as is quoted in the ref): "The genetic contribution of Greek chromosomes to the Sicilian gene pool is estimated to be about 37% whereas the contribution of North African populations is estimated to be around 6%." (from the abstract)

They also state that: "These data are compatible with the hypothesis that the largest historical demographic impact on Sicilian population was by the Greek settlers. ...the Greek colonies of Sicily alone accounted for 1.5 million people, of which more than 10% (about 200 000) were of Greek origin.34, 35 To these Greek inhabitants of Sicily may be added at least another 100 000 Greek colonizers in southern Italy, so that before the Roman period, one in every 10–13 inhabitants in southern Italy was Greek." (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2985948/)

From Gaetano et al. (re Greek admixture in southern Italy):

"In the whole area, the Greek-language was well represented before the spread of Latin, and this Greek substratum has influenced the local Romance varieties in various respects. In fact, contacts between Greek and Romance speakers have been frequent and systematic27. Accordingly, historical and linguistic data suggest that this area was characterized by a pervasive multilingualism at least from the antiquity27, 37, 38, thus showing that both cultural transmission and genetic admixture may have played an important role in the formative process of these groups since the very beginning. In this light, the tight genetic similarity between Salentino Greeks (GRI_SAL) and Italian neighbours (particularly from the province of Lecce-LE; Fig. 3, Supplementary Table S5, Supplementary Information), may be explained both as the result of extensive admixture events (coupled with lesser geographic isolation) or as the result of cultural transmission of Greek languages to Italian local populations. Importantly, these scenarios are not mutually exclusive, on the contrary the most recent syntheses tend to hypothesize a long-term Greek presence in Southern Italy, starting from the classical period and subsequently reinforced by continuous genetic and cultural interactions (e.g. during the Byzantine period) at least until medieval times - and even later." (Greek affinities were found in both Romance and Greek-speaking southern Italians, and suggest early Greek admixture, predating later events that influenced the genetics of much of mainland Greece - along with/as well as with older common Eastern Mediterranean affinities shared with Greeks dating to the Neolithic.) (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5434004/)

Fiorito et al. (2016) also refer to Greek ancestry in Southern Italy. They say, regarding Middle Eastern admixture/affinities: "According to previous studies on the Y chromosome and mtDNA, the Middle Eastern ancestry in Southern Italians most likely originated at the time of the Greek colonization and, with a smaller percentage, of the subsequent Arabic domination,7 whereas in Central-Northern Italy it is possibly because of the admixture of the indigenous residents with Middle Eastern populations spreading from the Caucasus to Central Europe." And they also cite Sarno regarding greek admixture in Sicily. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5070887/)

or (alternate link) (https://www.nature.com/articles/ejhg2015233#:~:text=According%20to%20previous%20studies%20on,possibly%20because%20of%20the%20admixture)

Regarding the interpretation that there is substantial Germanic admixture in Italy, the Antonio 2019 study finds a shift in Medieval Rome (specifically in Rome) back toward Central Europe (and away from the Middle Eastern/Greek/East Mediterranean-shifted population of city in the the Imperial era, which was substantially descended from Imperial-era migrants from the east, and which had declined due to war and disease). This could be interpreted as caused by a substantial influx of Germanic ancestry (and there surely would have been some) but Medieval-modern Romans (and modern North Italians and Tuscans/Central Italians) also cluster close to Iron Age/Republican/pre-Imperial Romans - Fig 2 of study and Fig S15 of supplements - (though not identically to them), and it could also be interpreted (at least in part) as resulting from the migration of less Near-Eastern-admixed (and thus more European/northern-shifted) native Romans/North-Central Italians from outside of Rome repopulating (helping to repopulate) the city after the population declines of late antiquity. This latter interpretation is, of course, not at all explicit (or really made) in the source, so adding it based on that source would certainly be WP:OR. A similar interpretation is however made by the geneticist Razib Khan in his blog, but since it is a personal blog, I am not sure whether it is WP:RS - though it could be RS, since, though it is "self-published", it is seemingly by an expert in the field (of genetics/population genetics), as explained here: [[3]].

(See links below.)

https://www.gnxp.com/WordPress/2019/11/07/syrian-orontes-has-long-since-dried-up-to-be-replaced-by-the-tiber-once-more/

https://www.gnxp.com/WordPress/2019/11/09/city-air-makes-you-less-fecund/

Skllagyook (talk) 15:07, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: Your edits regarding the genetic impact of the Germanic invasions of Italy are not verified and appear to be a case of WP:SYNTH. Not a single one of the references you've posted support the viewpoint you are pushing in the lead, which is that it is generally believed that the invading Germanic tribes had minimal gentic impact. The Cavalli-Sforza quote, which you mentioned in an edit summary, speaks of the invasion of Europe by many different peoples, such as Scythians and Sarmatians, not just Germanics. The only mention of a Germanic group on 295 of that reference is of the Goths, and it does not refer to them in a context of the fallen Roman Empire. It reads:

Another group, the Goths, were located at some time in their history near the peak of the seventh PC synthetic map. They started applying pressure on the eastern Roman Empire in the fourth and fifth centuries A.D., were given land to settle within the boundaries of the Empire in later centuries. Their numbers, even if not precisely known, are likely to have been too small to influence the genetic picture. The same is true of most, if not all, of the barbarian invasions at the end of the Roman Empire, because they settled in very densely populated areas, and were therefore genetically diluted. In a few cases, one might be able to recognize their distinct genetic origin, when they maintained high endogamy, probably an infrequent event.

So what Cavalli-Sforza is doing here is speculating that the Goths probably did not have a large genetic impact on the Roman Empire, during their legal settling within its borders, because they probably did not have the numbers to do so.

That doesn't have any relevance to the statement in the lead, "It is generally agreed that, overall, the number of Germanic migrants that arrived after the fall of the Roman Empire was small compared to the large population of what constituted Roman Italy..."

However, the proceeding sentence is the closest you can get to relevance. In Cavalli-Sforza's estimation, "most, if not all" of the barbarian invasions in the end stages of the Empire probably did not have a genetic contribution to Italy, because they were "diluted", although it's possible if they were endogamous, which Cavalli-Sforza imagines as "rare". That says nothing about Germanics, but it would include them along with other groups, such as Huns, and the Indo-Iranian Alans.

So, this is a personal musing of Cavalli-Sforza's, which is not based on any data or experiments. A personal musing that is nearly 30 years old, and does not reflect a widespread academic consensus. Sforza also does not tell us which of the invading groups, in his personal estimation, were more likely than others to leave a genetic impact.

Neither this source, nor any of the others, support your POV that there is a general agreement among scholars that the invading Germanic people left little or no genetic material in Italy after the batbarian invasions. Even the sole source which vaguely hypothesizes a small genetic impact, is now contradicted by direct fossil evidence.

For you to synthesize this outdated and unverified material to support your POV edits, as if they are on equal footing with the aDNA evidence from our era, is arguably tendentious editing. I am asking you to stop the POV editing and to make it clear here on the talk page where a source says that it is generally agreed upon that the Germanic barbarian invasions had no impact on Italy, preferably a high quality up-to-date source.Hunan201p (talk) 16:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

@Hunan201p: Please be civil. There is no need for aspersions or assumptions/accusations of bad faith. I was not only basing the addition (mostly restoring it - as it was not originally added by me) on Cavalli-Sforza, but also on Santosuosso, where he explains that the number of Lombards (the largest Germanic group to invade Italy during the migration period) could have made up only a small percentage of the overall population.

As I wrote in an edit summary (with quotes):

Santosuosso, on page 44, estimates that the Lombards may have numbered at most about 100,000 "compared to roughly 4 million people in Italy." and "constituted, after crossing the Alps, about 4.5 persons for every 1,000 members of the local population."

I never edited the article to state that "it is generally agreed upon that the Germanic barbarian invasions had no impact on Italy"

That is an inaccurate characterization. I wrote that it is generally agreed that their impact was small overall, which seems to be supported by both Cavalli Sforza and Santosuosso (and other sources that argue that their numbers were small proportionally). But I see no problem with modifying the text (that I added) to more closely follow Cavalli-Sforza's language (as you have quoted it above and elswhere on the Talk page), and that of Santosuosso, and removing (or rather not re-adding) any refs that do not support the statement(s).

Also, as explained earlier, the Antonio et al. source concerns the city of Rome, while the others concern Italy generally. It would be WP:OR to extrapolate the conclusions of Antonio et al. to the Italian peninsula (or even necessarily the greater Latium region). Thus the findings/statements of Antionio et al. and those of Cavalli-Sforza and Santosuosso would not necessarily be in conflict.

Skllagyook (talk) 16:37, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your timely response, Skllagyook. Regarding Santosuosso, his estimations about the population sizes of Lombards and Romans aren't genetic evidence (or a lack thereof). The reference doesn't support the position that there is widespread consensus of little-to-no genetic contribution to medieval Italy. Hedging Santosuosso with Cavalli-Sforza and the others is a synthesis of of references to support a conclusion that wasn't stated by any of them (that there is widespread agreement of no/little genetic contribution from Germanics to Romans).

There can be seismal shifts in popultion ancestry initiated by small groups of people, particularly if whatever group they are mixing with is declining. The actual genetic sources in this article indicate a Roman population much smaller than Santosuosso.Hunan201p (talk) 16:56, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

@Hunan201p: Antonio suggests a declining/declined population in the City of Rome, which could indeed be a reason for Germanic migrations having a substatial impact there. This is not a statement about all of Italy, and does not contradict Santosuosso's estimates regarding the porportion of Lombards in the general Italian population, nor the idea/statement that their genetic impact on Italy was small or minor overall (I would agree that something like "little to no impact" would be an unsupported overstatement)

I propose a re-edit and reintroduction of the material you removed to read closer to the sources (e.g. Cavalli-Sforza and Santosuosso). Possibly somewhat as follows:

"It is generally agreed that, overall, the number of Germanic migrants that arrived after the fall of the Roman Empire was small compared to the large population of what constituted Roman Italy, and is suggested that, in general, their contribution to the Italian gene pool was minor." (possibly also adding that it may have been often "dilluted" to us Cavalli-Sforza's term). Skllagyook (talk) 17:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

None of the sources support the statement that it is generally agreed upon that there was only a small genetic contribution to Italy. What you are doing is a systhe sis of material to support "an idea" that they don't support, which is the definition of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH Because none of them offer a testable hypothesis, and at least one of them (Cavalli-Sforza) acknowledges this, they are all unfiltered information and therefore not admissable by Wikipedia's standards.

Please don't add this material to the article. Either find a source that explicitly states it is generally agreed upon that there was limited contribution from Germanics to the genetic history of Italy, or stop. Synthesis of material to harness a personal viewpoint on Wikipedia is against policy guidelines. Hunan201p (talk) 12:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@Hunan201p: I see now that you have responded, after a long delay. I initially thought you had not responded at all. I notice that you reverted before I coukd reply and without consensus. I do not see you the statement is synthesis. Cavalli-Sforza explicitly states:

"Their numbers, even if not precisely known, are likely to have been too small to influence the genetic picture. The same is true of most, if not all, of the barbarian invasions at the end of the Roman Empire, because they settled in very densely populated areas, and were therefore genetically diluted."

And Santosuosso calculates (as quoted earlier) that the number of Lombards was a small fraction of the overall population of Italy (the statemen that Germanic migrants were a small porportion of the Italian population overa is supported). (Whether or not that was true of Rome in partular at the time, as explained, is another issue.) You have not explained how this is WP:SYNTHESIS or filtered, why it is not supported by the sources, and why it should be removed. Please discuss here so we can reach consensus before reverting me again. Thank you. Skllagyook (talk) 15:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

It's synthesis because neither one of the sources claims that this is the prevailing consensus among scholars, and because the authors do not test their own hypotheses. These sources represent the passing opinions of two different authors, without any hard evidence: one that most of the incoming barbaric tribes probably did not have a large impact in Italy (Cavalli-Sforza), and the other that the incoming Germanic tribes were small in number (Santosuosso). That's it. Neither source claims that this is the predominant view, and Santosuosso doesn't even make a claim on the genetic inpact of the barbarian invasions.

By combining them to support the statement that there is a peevailing academic consensus that there was no genetic impact, you're engaging in synthesis and original research. A secondary source could be used to support your idea if you can find one, but these sources can't. Don't add them back to the article again. It is clearly tendentious editing. The sources don't say what you're claiming. Hunan201p (talk) 16:36, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Skllagyook, you have to prove that a statement says exactly what you're saying it says before you add it to the article. Until you can do this, consensus is an afterthought. Combining the opinions of primary research to claim academic consensus is the definition of WP:SYNTH. If you start an edit war I will get the administrators invovled. You're clearly involved in a tendentious editing spree that seeks to emphasize the genetic purity of Italians, while minimizing the facts. Hunan201p (talk) 16:47, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@Hunan201p: My edit did not state that it was the prevailing consensus that barbarian invasions did not have a significant genetic impact on Italy. It stated that it was generally agreed that their numbers were small compared to the overall population of Italy (which is supported). It then stated that it was "suggested" that their genetic impact was generally minor (as was suggested). Again. I did not state that the consensus was that the genetic impact was minor (I would agree that stating that, or something similar, would be synthesis). I still do not understand your objection to my edit. Your seem to have again inaccurately characterized what I wrote and what the edit said. (And I noticed you reverted it again without consensus). And I never said or implied anything about purity, nor an I "clearly" attempting to emphasize such. I am asking you again to please stop assuming bad faith and assuming my motives. Your tone seems, as earlier, needlessly/unwarrantedly hostile and aggressive. Skllagyook (talk) 17:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Actions speak louder than words. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you initially cited the Antonio 2019 paper to support the lead that there was little genetic contribution from Germanic tribes to Italy, which is probably a deliberate falsification, as it makes the exact opposite claim. That was strike one.

After adding the opinions of Cavalii-Sforza and Santosuosso to support your claim that it is "generally agreed" that there was minimal Germanic contribution to Italy, twice, thst was strike three.

You are clearly engaged in tendentious editing to emphasize the genetic purity of Italians, and to minimize actual evidence thst contradicts this ethno-nationalist viewpoint. The "asssume good faith" guideline does not mean people can't notice trends in another user's repetitive behaviors.

You have to demonstrate that a source specifically says it is "generally agreed" that the genetic contribution to Italians from Germanic people was small. Combining 2 or 3 sources is original resesrch synthesis, and not allowed. This may seem "hostile" but we can't be having WP:SYNTH violated so blatantly. Hunan201p (talk) 17:20, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@Hunan201p: First of all, I am not an "ethonationalist" and I do do have an "ethnonationalist viewpoint". That accusation is extremely inappropriate and out of line.

Secondlyn, no, it was not me who "initially cited the Antonio 2019 paper to support the lead that there was little genetic contribution from Germanic tribes to Italy". That edit was made by another user back in May of 2020, here: [[4]]. I do not think that source should be used to support a statement like that, and I have never proposed using it that way and would never.

You wrote:

"You have to demonstrate that a source specifically says it is "generally agreed" that the genetic contribution to Italians from Germanic people was small." And: "After adding the opinions of Cavalii-Sforza and Santosuosso to support your claim that it is "generally agreed" that there was minimal Germanic contribution to Italy..."

That is not what I wrote and that is not what the edit said. The edit, as I already explained, does/did not state that. And I am not proposing adding that statement (did you read my last reply?). My edit stated that it was "generally agreed" that the number of Germanic migrants was a relatively small part of the overall population, and that it was SUGGESTED (not "generally agreed") that their genetic contribution was minor overall (i.e. generally, but perhaps not univermsally). Please read what I actually have written. You have mischaracterized my replies and edits more than once now. I am asking you to please have a civil discussion (based on what I actually wrote) without accusations, and I would like to know what your objections are to the edit I accually made/proposed. (And if you have any ideas on how to better word the material based on the sources, I cwmertainly welome any suggestions) Skllagyook (talk) 17:49, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Neither source supports the statement that it is "generally agreed" that the incoming Germanics were small, and the injection of the "suggested" element is WP:WEASEL. The inclusion of these outdated and opinionated sources is clearly tendentious and supports ethno-nationalist views of Italian ancestry that are contradicted by the genetic research conducted by Antonio, et al. (2019). Don't add the weasel words synthesis to the article. The best suggestion I can offer is to just drop yourinsistence on including this viewpoint in the article because you are not demonstrating the ability to provide a source that actually supports these ststements. Hunan201p (talk) 18:18, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Y-DNA introduced by historical immigration -- original research, WP:VER, WP:UNDUE, WP:DATE

The following text was removed from the article by myself:

Barbarian invasions that occurred on Italian soil following the fall of the Western Roman Empire have not significantly altered the gene pool of the Italian people. These invasions generally consisted of relatively small groups of people that either did not remain on the peninsula or settled in densely populated areas of Italy, therefore becoming genetically diluted and assimilated into the predominant genetic population within a relatively short amount of time. Despite the lengthy Goth and Lombard presence in Italy, the I1 haplogroup associated with the Norsemen is present only among 6–7% of mainland Italians, peaking at 11% in the northeast (20% in Udine and 30% in Stelvio). An average frequency of 7% I1 has been detected in Sicily, 12% in the western part and 5% in the eastern.

• The Cavalli-Sforza reference (1994) does not specifically state that there was no genetic contribution from Germanic people, but merely speculates that there might not have been, based on no credible evidence or figures. This is merely his passing opinion, and not a conclusion reached by any testable hypothesis. It is also contradicted by more recent reports.
• To quote Cavalli-Sforza, "Another group, the Goths, were located at some time in their history near the peak of the seventh PC synthetic map. They started applying pressure on the eastern Roman Empire in the fourth and fifth centuries A.D., were given land to settle within the boundaries of the Empire in later centuries. Their numbers, even if not precisely known, are likely to have been too small to influence the genetic picture. The same is true of most, if not all, of the barbarian invasions at the end of the Roman Empire, because they settled in very densely populated areas, and were therefore genetically diluted. In a few cases, one might be able to recognize their distinct genetic origin, when they maintained high endogamy, probably an infrequent event." Cavalli-Sforza, p.295
• The Boattini, Di Gaetano, Brisighelli and Pichler references do not appear to be making the hypothesis or conclusions in the passage I removed from the Wikipedia article. These sources summarise the haplogroup frequencies in modern Italians, but do not predict their origins or cultural associations. They do not hyoothesize, for example, that haplogroup I in Italy is linked to Germanic invasions, and that its presence or absence in Italy reflects a genetic contribution, or lack thereof, from barbarians. This appears to be the interpretation of whoever wrote this passage to the Wiki article, which is a huge leap of assumption, and WP:OR.Hunan201p (talk) 16:21, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

References

New study on the genetic history of Italy (Cell/Elsevier, 2021)

A recent article was published in 2021 with new results on the genetic history of Italy:

https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(21)00535-2

189.122.57.144 (talk) 02:48, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Another study on the genetic history of the Etruscans: 189.122.57.144 (talk) 14:21, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB42866

Antonio, et al (2019)

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aay6826

https://www.science.org/cms/10.1126/science.aay6826/asset/17e1bdd9-a47d-40b3-97e2-0f7d9ea3dbfa/assets/graphic/366_708_f1.jpeg

Quoting figure:

Late Antiquity - Substantial ancestry shift towards Central and Northern Europeans and away from Near Eastern populations. Continued high variability in ancestry Medieval & Early Modern - Continued ancestry shift toward Central and Northern Europeans

Thanks for reading. - Hunan201p (talk) 19:23, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

The etruscan page says something different

Thanks for everyones work Just a fyi that the etruscan page says that the etruscans are close to germans

“Allele sharing between the Etruscans and modern populations is highest among Germans (seven haplotypes in common), the Cornish from South West England (five haplotypes in common), the Turks (four haplotypes in common), and the Tuscans (two haplotypes in common).”

I hope i am helping 111.220.109.253 (talk) 10:44, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Southern Italians are closest to the Modern Greeks, while Northern Italians are closest to Spaniards and Southern French? WTF?

I've read through citations 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of this article and not ONE of them confirms any proof, mtDNA BS or otherwise, that Southern Italians are closest to Modern Greeks, while Northern Italians are closest to the Spanish and Southern French.

True, many Southern Italians have Greek ancestry. But they got conquered by the Norse and others throughout history since the Greeks. I know because I've visited Sicily. The friends I met there had red, blond, light brown and dark brown hair. Yet, they had very Italian faces.

Northern Italians do not look like Spaniards. Spain was Latino-ized by Julius Caesar during the Roman Empire. Since then Spain has gone through Germanic invasions and, especially, Middle Eastern and North African invasions; Berbers, North African Moors, Sephardic Jews, Mosaics Arabs. Al-Andalus left Spain looking like the least European country in the EU.

Southern France is a hodgepodge of Latino (Roman), Celtic, German, etc. Nimes, France is called the most Latino city outside of Roma, Italia. However, the Southern French people do not look like Northern Italians. Napoleon (who was Latino, himself) did not make Northern Italy look french when he conquered it in the 18th century.

Northern Italians are a mix of Latino from the Roman Empire, Celtics, Germans, Austrians, and the multitudes of Southern Italians who fled Southern Italy owing to WWII. The brown eyed and haired Northern Italians have a Latino face like Robert De Niro. They do not look Moorish like Antonio Banderas. And the other Northern Italian types like Celtics, Germans and Austrians, who mixed with the De Niro types, are quite lovely to look at. Sofiamagnotte (talk) 20:04, 17 December 2023 (UTC)