PDA

View Full Version : How much impact did slavery have on ancient gene pools in Europe ?



Maciamo
26-03-16, 17:08
I have long wondered how much of the modern Italian and Greek population descend from slaves imported from other countries. We have no idea at present if their genetic impact was minor (few slaves left descendants), moderate (e.g. 10% or 20% of modern genomes come from foreign slaves) or major (e.g. over half of the modern gene pool was inherited from slaves).

The only evidence we have of how much DNA ancient slaves contributed to modern gene pools is from Iceland. There, it looks like about 20% of male lineages and about 50% of female lineages today came from Irish and Scottish slaves brought by the Vikings. Looking at admixtures, modern Icelandic people are actually closer to the Irish than to the Swedes, so the maternal proportion (very difficult to assess from mtDNA haplogroups) could be even higher than 50%.

How would ancient Greek and Rome compare ? Considering that both the ancient Greeks and Romans relied much more on slaves to run their economy (mines, farms, road building, household work, entertainment), I would expect an even higher proportion.

Of course the Celts also kept slaves, but mostly other enslaves Celtic tribes. The Romans had such a large empire that they brought slaves from a great variety of regions and ethnic groups. The Greeks would have brought slaves mostly from the Balkans, Anatolia and Libya (before the Hellenistic period, at least).

It has been argued that slaves didn't procreate much as they weren't free. But that's nonsense. Slaves were valuable commodities, sold on markets. If you owned slaves, having them breed together created more wealth. So the more children they had the better. Additionally there is now ample evidence that the Romans liked to acquire beautiful female slaves (especially exotic blondes and redheads) for the purpose of sex, and that they often had children with them. These children were typically freed once their reached adolescence or adulthood. In fact, most of the freed slaves in ancient Rome could have been the offspring of Roman patricians with their slaves.

If that is the case, that genetic contribution of slaves wouldn't show up on the Y-DNA line, but nevertheless contributed a big share of the total admixture. However things are surely more complicated as there is a very clear north-south gradient for genetic admixtures in Italy. It is possible that northern Italy imported more slaves from Gaul, Germania, Pannonia and other northern regions, while southern Italy brought more slaves from North Africa and the eastern Mediterranean. But there is surely more to the story. That's why I am awaiting with great interest any data from ancient Rome and Greece.

It would be very interested to compare the genomes (and Y-DNA) of elite Greeks/Romans vs Greek/Roman slaves, and see the evolution over time. It is very doubtful that the Mycenaean elite was genetically close to the elite of Classical Greece, and I also suspect considerable regional variations between, say, Athens, Sparta, Ionia, etc.

LeBrok
26-03-16, 17:57
I'm not sure if we are going to see any noticeable changes in Greece. Most Greek slaves were from close by regions and genetically very similar to Greeks. I'm always looking forward to ancient samples.

Angela
26-03-16, 19:08
I have no idea any more. I used to think that getting ancient dna from the appropriate time periods would provide rather definitive answers, but I'm no longer so sure.

The context in which the remains were found is very important, but also, it seems to me, probably subject to a number of interpretations. A good example of the difficulties can be seen from this paper recently published by Kristina Killgrove.

It's discussed in this Eupedia thread:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31969-2-000-year-old-skeletons-reveal-migration-to-Rome-during-the-imperial-era?highlight=slaves+Rome

An isotope analysis was done of the remains, revealing more migration in people buried in areas where the poor were buried compared to the ones where the more well to do were buried. Most of the migration seems to have been from within the peninsula, but one set was from a "hotter", drier, climate.

So far, so good, but how do we know the percentage, or more importantly which specific set of remains were from slaves versus just from the poorer classes? Unless it's a specifically "slave" cemetery, it would be difficult to be definitive in one's conclusions. Were slaves even always buried? How many were just tossed out with the trash? So, there would be some ambiguity as to whether the remains found are representative of the whole period.

Then, of course, there's the fact that isotope analysis gives you only the origin of that particular set of remains. That person could have parents who were born elsewhere.

So, obviously, uniparental dna would be very important. In that regard, though, how would you know if a set of remains from a burial site for the poor carrying, say, R1b, who was from the Alps in terms of isotopes, was a "Celtic" slave, an Italic farmer who moved to Rome for work, or even someone of Italic "background" who sold himself, or was sold into slavery? The same would go for G2a or E-V13. We would need extremely finely resolved ydna analysis, and a better picture than we have at present of the yDna found in all of these groups across a broad span of time. At some point there might be more clarity, but I don't think we're at the point yet where we can be certain of very much.

Autosomal analysis might take us further, but my faith in Admixture analyses is now pretty low, and even formal stats have their problems, as does IBD analysis given the problems with dating.

In general terms, I've read dozens of textbooks and I don't even know how many papers on the subject and there isn't even any agreement as to how many slaves there were in Italy, to use one example, or what their "ethnic" breakdown might have been. We do know there was a big influx after each conquest, but that covers a lot of territory...Gaul, Britain, Spain, Germania, Pannonia, Dacia, Greece, Anatolia (Seleucid Empire) Egypt, Carthage. I would think the slaves from a particular conquest were scattered throughout the Empire, wherever there was the need and the wealth to acquire them. In the earlier stages that probably meant more went to the Italian peninsula, but as time passed I'm sure there were many who became imperial slaves for latifundia, mines, the galleys, business enterprises, and then for the rather international senatorial class.

Also, I don't know why it is nonsense to question whether the majority of slaves had progeny. How long would latifundia or mine or galley slaves have survived? How long did prostitutes last? Educated and highly skilled slaves perhaps, like the highly prized Greek slaves, but the rest? Even for the favored ones, manumission usually came after decades of service. Having a child with one's female slave probably happened, I'm sure, but what percentage of the population was wealthy enough to have lots of slaves. Again, I'm not saying it didn't happen. We have an SSA woman's remains in York, and all indications are that she was well to do, and I'm sure the same sort of thing happened in Rome. We just don't know the scale.

Certainly, there's no indication that the Romans had "slave breeding" farms. We can't just assume they must have existed. Even in the southern U.S., where such disgusting practices did indeed exist, most scholars believe that it was mostly because of the closing down of the slave trade in the early 19th century. Rome, on the other hand, had periodic conquests which kept supply high, and therefore prices low. Also, it's clear that the percentage of the men in the American south who would have been in a position to take advantage of their slaves in this way was very small.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_breeding_in_the_United_States

@LeBrok.

It depends how you're defining ancient Greece. After Alexander, it stretched very far indeed.
http://bible-truth.org/dividedgreekempire.gig.gif

A. Papadimitriou
26-03-16, 19:38
The slaves weren't imported only from neighbouring areas. I'll repost this.


The first slaves may have been pre-IE or IE-Anatolian or both but that's speculation. During historical times they may have been Greek hostages from other Greek city states or prisoners of war. A form of slave trade must have existed with the Scythians. "Scythian archers" acted as police forces in Athens altough the term 'Scythian" might mean something else here. There were Thacian, Illyrian mercenaries. The Greeks also interacted with the Phoenicians, the Egyptians, the Persians etc

About Graeco-Scythian slave trade: http://www.pontos.dk/publications/bo..._Gavriljuk.pdf (http://www.pontos.dk/publications/books/bss-1-files/BSS1_08_Gavriljuk.pdf)
Possible origin of many foreign slaves (one of many) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernoles_culture

If we assume that all pre-proto-Greeks were for example R1b they must have come to Greece through the Balkans. A first admixture might have happened outside of Greece somewhere in the Balkans for example with a E-V13 population and a second admixture might have happened later with a J2 population in southern Greece. Non-indoeuropeans had cultures which may have been more advanced in certain areas, so it's not safe to assume that the pre-proto-Greeks enslaved all the peoples they came across.

They may have left the steppes, for example, at 2800 BC and have entered Greece 800 years later. Many things may happen during 800 years. Mycenean Greek civilization is dated 400 years later. At the time it seems that there were slaves but we don't know their condition, their origines and their number.

Eitherway, I think that the main advantage of Classical Greece was the interaction with other advanced cultures (more advanced in certain arenas), namely the Phoenicians and the Egyptians and maybe some Anatolian IE and non-IE populations.

Herodotus for example had Karian origin so his ancestors spoke Luwian.

Sile
26-03-16, 19:41
medieval and renaissance times by Italian trading empires was still going on

the Genoese in Kaffa ( crimea ) took tatar slaves to liguria and barcelona to be sold until 1477

the venetians in Azov took slaves and on-sold them to the visconti's of Milan and even the many german merchants in Venice until 1435
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=Khm0W0nUtIwC&pg=PA95&lpg=PA95&dq=venetian+slaves+from+Azov&source=bl&ots=cw_up8MUq7&sig=TaFRefUqUD0yqix6C2crecKnh3g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjzwPOJ9N7LAhULnZQKHQy_A5EQ6AEIJzAB#v=on epage&q=venetian%20slaves%20from%20Azov&f=false

Even Venetians captains took west-africans to Portugal in the services of the king of Portugal...........like Alvise da Mosto ( read his journals)

Tomenable
27-03-16, 00:24
In Ancient Greek city-states like Athens or Sparta, only a minority of population were free citizens. The majority were either half-free people with some limited rights but not equal status, or unfree slaves. Of course some/many of those could be of local origin, genetically the same as free citizens. So question is how many of them were of foreign origin, and how many were locals. Also - when it comes to those half-free ("second class" or "third class") and unfree people of local origin - I actually wonder if they were genetically more Non-Indo-European (descended to a larger degree from Pre-Greek aboriginals) than the free population? Today in India there are still genetic differences between castes, with Upper Castes having reportedly a higher percent of Indo-European ancestry. Greece - like India - was also seized by Indo-European newcomers, who in both places established themselves as new dominant ruling classes.

A. Papadimitriou
27-03-16, 03:00
Well, the first slaves may have been from the local population. Let's assume that the locals were predominately J2 and E-V13. But we cant' be sure that all the let's say.. indigenous population was non-Indoeuropean. A part of them may had been Anatolian Indo-European. So even if all slaves were from non-Greek populations and all proto-Greeks were stereotypically Indo-European in the beginning, it's possible, for example, that a master and his slave belonged to the same Haplogroup (let's say R1b). That probably didn't happen a lot but I say that to avoid possible generalizations of the type "The haplogroups of the slaves were this and that"

It has been proposed that a major source of slaves may have been the Black sea. But the Scythians or the Kolchians who were possibly selling slaves wouldn't sell people from their own people obviously but from their neighbouring tribes and cultures. These tribes might have been Indoeuropean, might not have been.

On Athenian art we have names of potters and painters like Sikelos, Thrax, Kolchos, Skythes, Brygos, Lydos. Someone can assume that they were slaves from Sicily, Thrace, Kolchis, Scythia, Phrygia, Lydia but that's unproveable. Even if they were slaves their name may have signified the place where they were sold and not their origin. But, they may have been immigrants also. Not all craftsmen were slaves. "Metoikoi" were neither citizens nor slaves and some of them were qutite rich especially those involved with trade. Who knows? It's better not to make that kind of assumptions. A little later also, during Hellenistic times a rich metic could purchase citizenship.

I'll restate that one of the major advantages of the Greek civilazation was the interaction with other advanced non-Indoeuropean (the Egyptians, the Phoenicians etc) and Indoeuropean cultures.

I also have to note that I don't necessarily accept the stereotypes fabout the haplogroups of the proto-Indo-Europeans. Because they probably didn't belong to a single culture but to an horizon of cultures and different groups left from the homeland at different times so even if R1b and R1a were the predominant haplogroups, a culture with a partly or mostly different origin may have entered the horizon at some point. Other groups may have accepted them as neighbours because they brought something that they didn't have e.g. advanced knowledge about agriculture or pottery or something else. And from the interaction of the different groups a new culture may have been formed.

Maciamo
27-03-16, 08:03
I would think the slaves from a particular conquest were scattered throughout the Empire, wherever there was the need and the wealth to acquire them. In the earlier stages that probably meant more went to the Italian peninsula, but as time passed I'm sure there were many who became imperial slaves for latifundia, mines, the galleys, business enterprises, and then for the rather international senatorial class.

That's because you only consider male slaves. Hardly any women worked in mines or in galleys. Women often became either prostitutes or domestic slaves, and they are the ones who would have passed most of the slaves' genes to posterity.



Also, I don't know why it is nonsense to question whether the majority of slaves had progeny. How long would latifundia or mine or galley slaves have survived? How long did prostitutes last? Educated and highly skilled slaves perhaps, like the highly prized Greek slaves, but the rest? Even for the favored ones, manumission usually came after decades of service. Having a child with one's female slave probably happened, I'm sure, but what percentage of the population was wealthy enough to have lots of slaves. Again, I'm not saying it didn't happen. We have an SSA woman's remains in York, and all indications are that she was well to do, and I'm sure the same sort of thing happened in Rome. We just don't know the scale.

Exactly, we don't know the scale, and this is why it is so interesting to study the question by gathering ancient Roman DNA. Too bad that Romans practised cremation and that it won't be easy to get many relevant samples for the elite.

A. Papadimitriou
27-03-16, 08:19
One question is, the mythical Danaus, his brother Aegyptus, the Danaids etc were Indo-Europeans? Also did the Greek Indoeuropeans had any knowledge about shipping? They had horses, chariots possibly, some weapons, cattle. What else?

They wouldn't be able to create the civilization they created without coming across to a non Indo-European advanced culture, possibly related to some of the Sea Peoples.

Tomenable
27-03-16, 08:20
We have an SSA woman's remains in York, and all indications are that she was well to do

Yes, she had a comfortable life and was surrounded by luxuries.

We don't know if she was free or a slave, but thinking that being a slave was always terrible is wrong. Many slaves in the Ancient world enjoyed in many respects better lifes than poor classes of free people. For example educated Greeks who worked as teachers of children of rich Romans were usually owned as slaves by those Romans. Gladiators were also slaves by definition, yet we even know instances of people who were volunteering to become gladiators (which meant giving up your personal freedom and becoming a slave). Such gladiator could become a celebrite, and if he won enough fights, he could later regain his personal freedom. On the other hand, forced labourers who worked in Athenian mines had very harsh conditions and very low life expectancy. All of this shows that we should not generalize because differences between various types of slaves were almost as large as between various classes of free population.

bicicleur
27-03-16, 09:45
Well, the first slaves may have been from the local population. Let's assume that the locals were predominately J2 and E-V13. But we cant' be sure that all the let's say.. indigenous population was non-Indoeuropean. A part of them may had been Anatolian Indo-European. So even if all slaves were from non-Greek populations and all proto-Greeks were stereotypically Indo-European in the beginning, it's possible, for example, that a master and his slave belonged to the same Haplogroup (let's say R1b). That probably didn't happen a lot but I say that to avoid possible generalizations of the type "The haplogroups of the slaves were this and that"

It has been proposed that a major source of slaves may have been the Black sea. But the Scythians or the Kolchians who were possibly selling slaves wouldn't sell people from their own people obviously but from their neighbouring tribes and cultures. These tribes might have been Indoeuropean, might not have been.



Would that be like the Afro-American slaves? Most Afro-Americans are E1b1a (Bantu). They were probably captured and sold by other E1b1a tribes.
A lot of them now have European DNA because of masters having children from female slaves.

Hauteville
27-03-16, 10:22
Iceland was uninhabited while Roman empire isn't, for example Roman Italy in the first empire of Augusto had 10-12 millions inhabitants.

Tomenable
27-03-16, 11:42
What is genetics of the Yazidis like? - they are now getting enslaved by Arabs:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/32165-5000-Yazidi-slavegirls-being-bought-and-sold-even-for-no-price?p=477708#post477708

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yazidis

MOESAN
27-03-16, 13:23
Iceland was uninhabited while Roman empire isn't, for example Roman Italy in the first empire of Augusto had 10-12 millions inhabitants.


good point - that said, concerning Iceland I'm not sure a part of the Celtic imput among them was not volontary - look at the Gal-Gaedhil or Gaedhil-Gal warriors, mix of Vikings and Irish or Scottish men; the question remains: what % ???

Hauteville
27-03-16, 13:43
So the slaves in Iceland were celts?

Maciamo
27-03-16, 13:50
For the record, I am also interested in assessing the genetic impact of imported slavery in the whole Roman Empire. Reversing the point of view, I think that Roman slave masters living outside of Italy would also have spread their genes relatively fast by impregnating their female house slaves, thus spreading Roman Y-chromosomes (R1b-U152, J2 and E-M34 being the three more common Roman patrician haplogroups, IMHO) around the empire, and particularly in Gaul, southern England, Iberia and Grece where the ethnic Roman citizens migrated in the largest number (judging by the number of Roman colonies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonia_%28Roman%29) and farms).

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3f/Romancoloniae.jpg/500px-Romancoloniae.jpg


The case of African-American slaves can also help us estimate how frequent it was for slave masters to have children with their female slaves. I couldn't find much data on African-American Y-DNA. The Black Belt of Alabama DNA Project has over 400 members from all the former Confederate states, and among them only about 150 carry African Y-DNA (haplogroups A, B, E-M2). So this data suggests that over 60% of the African-American lineages are of European origin. That's huge considering, but relatively consistent with the 23andMe study (Bryc et al. 2014) (http://www.cell.com/ajhg/abstract/S0002-9297(14)00476-5), which found that an average African-American has 24% of European DNA in his/her genome. Since Y-DNA only represents the paternal side, it is normal to find that the genome-wide impact is less than half. It would be exactly half looking at the first generation of hyrbids. But there is a good chance that these half-White slaves became freed more frequently (as was the case with Thomas Jefferson's children), prospered more in American society and consequently also left more descendant themselves with Black slaves, thus diluting their European genes again.

The Romans were not encumbered with Christian values and taboos (at least not until the 4th century) and were known for their promiscuity. In the 1st century Roman wives would typically allow their husbands to have sex with slaves and prostitutes, and some would even buy beautiful slaves for their husbands. It was clearly a very different culture from the Christian and post-Christian ones. That could also mean that a sizeable percentage of Western European men who carry Roman Y-chromosomes descend from master-slave relationships. Anyway all of us descend from ancient slaves. Whether slaves's children represented 5% or 50% of all the births between the Bronze Age and the Roman Empire, slavery lasted for so long and genes have mixed so much since then that statistically it is impossible that anyone doesn't have (millions of) slaves in their ancestors.

Yetos
27-03-16, 14:04
@Maciamo

what about the Legionairies?
at that time behind 2-3 legionairies there was a "woman", wine sellers, gamblers, merchants etc.
so in many places we consider as Roman, majority coulb be non Romans, but Roman citizens.

Maciamo
27-03-16, 15:01
@Maciamo

what about the Legionairies?
at that time behind 2-3 legionairies there was a "woman", wine sellers, gamblers, merchants etc.
so in many places we consider as Roman, majority coulb be non Romans, but Roman citizens.

I think that slave masters left far more illegitimate children than legionaries. That's because slave masters typically had many female slaves for one man, while legionaries shared prostitutes.

Slave girls would accept pregnancies from their master because 1) they didn't have the choice and 2) carrying the master's offspring would generally lead to better conditions for the mother as well, and perhaps even being freed. Rich masters would feed and take good care of their children with slaves, and so their progeny survived to adulthood and normally had children themselves too.

Prostitutes serving legionaries tried to avoid at all costs getting pregnant, as prostitutes have always done, because it's bad for business (can't work while pregnant) and since prostitutes came from poor backgrounds, they couldn't afford to feed children. So even if they got pregnant, they would either have an abortion or kill/abandon the baby at birth. That's just the way it was.

Likewise raped girls in conquered regions would often abort, abandon the baby, or even commit suicide in some cases. Very few would take care of a child of rape on their own. It's very different from the situation of Bronze Age Indo-European kings taking dozens of women from conquered lands into their harems (à la Genghis Khan) and taking care of their offspring with them.

Anyway military conquests and chances of rapes for legionaries were short-lived, while master-slave relationships happened on a daily basis for most of a slave's lifetime. So a master had hundreds of opportunities to impregnate his female slaves, while soldiers only got one shot with rapes (which did not necessarily coincide with the fertile period of the month anyway).

So statistically, slave masters were at least 100 times more likely to leave descendants that reached adulthood than legionaries through prostitutes and occasional rapes.

Yetos
27-03-16, 17:48
But from the society of Pompei we see that prostitudes were considered more elite than slaves,
and 'adultery' with slaves inside the house was crime for Roman society and punished by law.
from Pompei we know that rich Romans had the 'woman' there, and the wife at Rome,
besides although it was unspeakable for a Roman lady, they also had a slave, cause most Roman marriages were done due to 'political bargains'
we know that many of them might slept with their husband few times.
'wolfs den' was the most central house at Pompei,
besides Romans used to marry their slaves among them, although that could be to throw ashes.

the prices of silphium σιλφιον are well known.
Romans and Greek knew SIlphium, they colonise Cyrene.
Phoenicians and Minoans merchant it.
and I ask which Roman who could afford a slave, would not buy a few grams in order to avoid scandal,
on controversary where you could find silphium outside Cyrene and Roman elite?
I mean which is more easy,
1) to have a 'slave' and give her silphium, to avoid scandal in the Roman society?
2) to hide her at Pompei and feed her and the kid, with a possible reveal which could be even lethal.

but could Legionairies afford silphium?

Maciamo
27-03-16, 20:11
But from the society of Pompei we see that prostitudes were considered more elite than slaves,
and 'adultery' with slaves inside the house was crime for Roman society and punished by law.
from Pompei we know that rich Romans had the 'woman' there, and the wife at Rome,
besides although it was unspeakable for a Roman lady, they also had a slave, cause most Roman marriages were done due to 'political bargains'
we know that many of them might slept with their husband few times.

We seem to have different sources. Here is an excerpt from Matt Ridley's amazing book The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature (http://smile.amazon.com/Red-Queen-Evolution-Human-Nature/dp/0060556579/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1459101380&sr=8-1&keywords=red+queen+ridley) (pages 200-201):

"Betzig investigated imperial Rome and found the distinction between monogamous marriage and polygamous infidelity extending, from the top to the bottom of Roman society. Roman emperors were famous for their sexual prowess, even while marrying single empresses: Julius Caesar's affairs with women were"commonly described as extravagant" (Suetonius). Of Augustus, Suetonius wrote, "The charge of being a womanizer stuck, and as an elderly man he is said to have still harbored a passion for deflowering girls—who were collected for him by his wife:" Tiberius's "criminal lusts" were "worthy of an oriental tyrant" (Tacitus). Caligula "made advances to almost every woman of rank in Rome" (Dio), including his sisters. Even Claudius was pimped for by his wife, who gave him "sundry housemaids to lie with" (Dio) : When Nero floated down the Tiber, he "had a row of temporary brothels erected on the shore"(Suetonius). As in the case of China, though not so methodically, breeding seems to have been a principal function of concubines.
[...]
"Ordinary" Roman nobles kept hundreds of slaves: Yet, while virtually none of the female slaves had jobs around the house, female slaves commanded high prices if sold in youth: Male slaves were usually forced to remain celibate, so why were the Roman nobles buying so many young female slaves? To breed other slaves, say most historians. Yet that should have made pregnant slaves command high prices; they did not: If a slave turned out not to be a virgin, the buyer had a legal case against the seller: And why insist on chastity among the male slaves if breeding is the function of female slaves? There is little doubt that those Roman writers who equate slaves with concubines were telling the truth: The unrestricted sexual availability of slaves "is treated as a commonplace in Greco-Roman literature from Homer on; only modern writers have managed largely to ignore it.

Moreover, Roman nobles freed many of their slaves at suspiciously young ages and with suspiciously large endowments of wealth. This cannot have been an economically sensible decision: Freed slaves became rich and numerous: Narcissus was the richest man of his day. Most slaves who were freed had been born in their masters' homes, whereas slaves in the mines or on farms were rarely freed. There seems little doubt that Roman nobles were freeing their illegitimate sons, bred of female slaves."

Yetos
27-03-16, 20:25
we must make a difference among peasants and slaves,
peasant was a class equal to slave, but tottaly different, they were free,
they did not have land, so Nobility allow them to cultivate the land in order to give a % of the corp,
the system of peasants even today exists,
working slaves were different, and even among them were 2 kinds,
1 was the ones who lived inside the house, musicians trainers etc
2 was the ones who produce materials or guard, like blacksmiths gladiators etc

now about silphium Romans used to say "worth its weight in denarii (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denarius)"
Silphium was the easiest way to abortion, a medicine that even modern doctors or pharmacy industry would envy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silphium

Ceasars codexes, were destrict to how a wife should look, wonder why?
and a baby was something 'bad, but sex was not,

this was the sexual face of Pompei,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mLKnvnej40

anyway Romans 'loved' sex industry, and it is possible some rich plebes to deflorate girls, and then send them to a 'house'
as you will see at the 2nd part of video, High political level of Roman family was a strange bond, but laws were district about that,

how much Neron earned from the last cargo of silphium,
and Nero was after AD, much after Roman raising,

It might be a coincidence, but silpium ends, Rome burns

on controversary. outside a legion camp there are villages, inside houses are families of legionaires,
a prisoner slave, Alexander forced his men to marry local women, so to forget Makedonia,
Romans knew that, so they build camps as big as cities,
A married with a local wife legionaire does not think to flee, cause his family is there
and does not frop the shield, cause he knows the enemy is cruel,

Legionairies can not afford silphium

LeBrok
27-03-16, 21:51
Good analysis Maciamo.







@LeBrok.

It depends how you're defining ancient Greece. After Alexander, it stretched very far indeed.
http://bible-truth.org/dividedgreekempire.gig.gif Definitely it broadened the scope after advances of Alexander. However most of the genome of Greeks and Near Easterners is EEF based, therefore same wide genetic base. It would be a different impact, much stronger change, on Greeks if their slaves were mostly from Northern Europe, Indians or SSA.

Yetos
28-03-16, 06:28
to make my shelf more clear,

Nis Serbia build by Romans, Flavian Felix, Nobility left to Nova Roma, but left behind the legions and the camps,
4rth Legio, from Makedonia went to France and Germany and return to disband at Thessaly, were today more than 25 villages are land given to them at their disband
each had a Gaulish or a German woman, and many from them were gauls or german who were recruited at the wars,

big number of Aromani population comes from Legions, not from Nobles, who went to Nis/Thessaloniki/Dacia while Nobility left to Con/polis.
termination Cinqueari still exist for Vlach among Slavic populations of Balkans, meaning the sons of 5 Legion,

Aromani populations estimated more than 2-3 millions at 1800-1900 spread across old Egnatia road (Con/polis-Dyrrachium), and axis AlbaGreca(Belingrad)-Nis-Thessaloniki-Central/South Greece.
a good percentage of them comes from legionairies.

south Bulgaria, south Serbia, Fyrom (slavoMakedonia) Albania Kossovo Montenegro and Greece has population from Roman legions

at Netherlands if remember correct found Ydna J from Roman legions

Greying Wanderer
28-03-16, 13:08
Personally I don't think this is very likely due to varying TFR (total fertility rate) by class.

Say for the sake of argument you divide a population into three classes: poor, middle and rich then (pre-welfare) would they have had the same TFR?

I don't think so, say for the sake of argument it was
- poor 1.8
- middle 2.2
- rich 2.4
(where 2.1 is the replacement rate)

then over multiple generations the percentage of poor descended people would gradually decline (except those who managed to jump into the middle or rich classes).

#

It might partly depend on the culture. In a polygamous culture a man might have high status wives and slave wives but if all the children were equally legitimate then it wouldn't matter but in a culture like Rome although they might have lots of slaves only the wife's children were legitimate.

Although if it was common for men to set up their slave mistresses in some kind of trade so their children were in the middle class that might be different.

#

It's like the legionary question. I know what barracks towns are like, especially overseas and yes there are a lot of babies born but very often in very bad circumstances as the soldiers leave. There are an awful lot of prostitutes around the world whose mother went for a soldier.

So yeah I think legionaries had an awful lot of children but on average I don't think their TFR over multiple generations would have been that great.

The exception might (ought imo) to be actual colonia where ex-legionaries were given farms and thus their children born into the middle class. I wouldn't be at all surprised if there were local clusters of Roman era descended DNA around colonia.

Maciamo
28-03-16, 13:48
Personally I don't think this is very likely due to varying TFR (total fertility rate) by class.

Say for the sake of argument you divide a population into three classes: poor, middle and rich then (pre-welfare) would they have had the same TFR?

I don't think so, say for the sake of argument it was
- poor 1.8
- middle 2.2
- rich 2.4
(where 2.1 is the replacement rate)

then over multiple generations the percentage of poor descended people would gradually decline (except those who managed to jump into the middle or rich classes).


I use the same logic to justify that male masters had a lot of children with female slaves, because they could afford to take care of the children. The richer a Roman citizen was, the more household slaves he usually had, and the more illegitimate children with them.

Hauteville
28-03-16, 13:52
I really doubt that Roman Italy was like an old Brazil or Colombia. Sorry...

Angela
28-03-16, 15:09
The case of African-American slaves can also help us estimate how frequent it was for slave masters to have children with their female slaves. I couldn't find much data on African-American Y-DNA. The Black Belt of Alabama DNA Project has over 400 members from all the former Confederate states, and among them only about 150 carry African Y-DNA (haplogroups A, B, E-M2). So this data suggests that over 60% of the African-American lineages are of European origin. That's huge considering, but relatively consistent with the 23andMe study (Bryc et al. 2014) (http://www.cell.com/ajhg/abstract/S0002-9297%2814%2900476-5), which found that an average African-American has 24% of European DNA in his/her genome. Since Y-DNA only represents the paternal side, it is normal to find that the genome-wide impact is less than half. It would be exactly half looking at the first generation of hyrbids. But there is a good chance that these half-White slaves became freed more frequently (as was the case with Thomas Jefferson's children), prospered more in American society and consequently also left more descendant themselves with Black slaves, thus diluting their European genes again.



The highest figure for European origin yDna lines among African Americans I've ever seen is about 28%, with about 6-8% carrying European origin mtDna.

J.M. Lind et al, "Elevated male European and female African contributions to the genomes of African American individuals

Hum.Genet. 120 (2007), pp. 713-72 Abstract.

"The differential relative contribution of males and females from Africa and Europe to individual African American genomes is relevant to mapping genes utilizing admixture analysis. The assessment of ancestral population contributions to the four types of genomic DNA (autosomes, X and Y chromosomes, and mitochondrial) with their differing modes of inheritance is most easily addressed in males. A thorough evaluation of 93 African American males for 2,018 autosomal single nucleotide polymorphic (SNP) markers, 121 X chromosome SNPs, 10 Y chromosome haplogroups specified by SNPs, and six haplogroup defining mtDNA SNPs is presented. A distinct lack of correlation observed between the X chromosome and the autosomal admixture fractions supports separate treatment of these chromosomes in admixture-based gene mapping applications. The European genetic contributions were highest (and African lowest) for the Y chromosome (28.46%), followed by the autosomes (19.99%), then the X chromosome (12.11%), and the mtDNA (8.51%). The relative order of admixture fractions in the genomic compartments validates previous studies that suggested sex-biased gene flow with elevated European male and African female contributions. There is a threefold higher European male contribution compared with European females (Y chromosome vs. mtDNA) to the genomes of African American individuals meaning that admixture-based gene discovery will have the most power for the autosomes and will be more limited for X chromosome analysis. © Springer-Verlag 2006."
The study can be downloaded at researchgate. Samples were taken from four disparate American locations.

Sims et al found the exact same percentage (28%) for the non-E and non A/B yDna lines.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Lynn_Sims/publication/6645653_Sub-populations_within_the_major_European_and_African_ derived_haplogroups_R1b3_and_E3a_are_differentiate d_by_previously_phylogenetically_undefined_Y-SNPs/links/0fcfd4ff43121ec5fd000000.pdf

There's a graphic of the breakdown.
7660

This is obviously different from the situation in Latin America, where the majority of the y lineages are indeed West Eurasian, but that's because until recently most migration to the New World in those places was mostly male. Every situation is different and has its own dynamics.

Oh, the European female lines are estimated to have entered the gene pool during the early days when the African people were still treated more or less as indentured servants, and the best research on the subject I've seen speculates it involved female European indentured servants around the Virginia area where the first slaves were used.

Tomenable
28-03-16, 15:42
I wonder how common was light hair (blond, red, light brown) in Ancient Greece.

It is well-known that in Greek mythology good deities and heroes are often light-haired.

But there were also blond historical figures, as well as blond evil villains from Greek mythology.

For example Lycus from Euripides's Heracles - a villain who usurped power in Thebes - was blond-haired:

"Were I but young and still a man of my hands, I would have seized my spear and dabbled those blonde locks of his with blood, so that the coward would now be flying from my prowes beyond the bounds of Atlas." - Amphitryon about Lycus

There are many pigmentation SNPs causing blond hair - for example rs12821256(C), rs1805005(T) and rs1393350(A).

Such and other SNPs responsibble for light pigmentation are present at high frequencies in ancient DNA samples from Indo-Iranian and some other steppe cultures such as Potapovka, Sintashta-Petrovka-Arkaim, Andronovo, Srubna, Tagar, Pazyryk, Tashtyk, etc.

Not just DNA shows this, but also mummies such as Ukok Princess from Pazyryk culture, or Xiaohe mummies, often have light hair.

According to one theory, Proto-Greeks split from Proto-Indo-Iranians, so their phenotypes could be similar:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graeco-Aryan

Tomenable
28-03-16, 15:58
Sims et al found the exact same percentage (28%) for the non-E and non A/B yDna lines.

Many African slaves transported to the Americas had Non-E/A/B already upon arrival, for example:

"Genome-wide ancestry of 17th-century enslaved Africans":

Full article here: http://www.pnas.org/content/112/12/3669.full

Supplementary info:

http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2015/03/05/1421784112.DCSupplemental/pnas.1421784112.sapp.pdf

The male slave was determined to belong to R1b-V88 haplogroup.

Maciamo
28-03-16, 16:13
The highest figure for European origin yDna lines among African Americans I've ever seen is about 28%, with about 6-8% carrying European origin mtDna.

J.M. Lind et al, "Elevated male European and female African contributions to the genomes of African American individuals

Hum.Genet. 120 (2007), pp. 713-72 Abstract.

"The differential relative contribution of males and females from Africa and Europe to individual African American genomes is relevant to mapping genes utilizing admixture analysis. The assessment of ancestral population contributions to the four types of genomic DNA (autosomes, X and Y chromosomes, and mitochondrial) with their differing modes of inheritance is most easily addressed in males. A thorough evaluation of 93 African American males for 2,018 autosomal single nucleotide polymorphic (SNP) markers, 121 X chromosome SNPs, 10 Y chromosome haplogroups specified by SNPs, and six haplogroup defining mtDNA SNPs is presented. A distinct lack of correlation observed between the X chromosome and the autosomal admixture fractions supports separate treatment of these chromosomes in admixture-based gene mapping applications. The European genetic contributions were highest (and African lowest) for the Y chromosome (28.46%), followed by the autosomes (19.99%), then the X chromosome (12.11%), and the mtDNA (8.51%). The relative order of admixture fractions in the genomic compartments validates previous studies that suggested sex-biased gene flow with elevated European male and African female contributions. There is a threefold higher European male contribution compared with European females (Y chromosome vs. mtDNA) to the genomes of African American individuals meaning that admixture-based gene discovery will have the most power for the autosomes and will be more limited for X chromosome analysis. © Springer-Verlag 2006."
The study can be downloaded at researchgate. Samples were taken from four disparate American locations.

Sims et al found the exact same percentage (28%) for the non-E and non A/B yDna lines.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Lynn_Sims/publication/6645653_Sub-populations_within_the_major_European_and_African_ derived_haplogroups_R1b3_and_E3a_are_differentiate d_by_previously_phylogenetically_undefined_Y-SNPs/links/0fcfd4ff43121ec5fd000000.pdf

There's a graphic of the breakdown.
7660

This is obviously different from the situation in Latin America, where the majority of the y lineages are indeed West Eurasian, but that's because until recently most migration to the New World in those places was mostly male. Every situation is different and has its own dynamics.

Oh, the European female lines are estimated to have entered the gene pool during the early days when the African people were still treated more or less as indentured servants, and the best research on the subject I've seen speculates it involved female European indentured servants around the Virginia area where the first slaves were used.

This studies' sample sizes are tiny (93 and 118 African Americans in each study) and may not be representative. The best proof it is not representative is that, in the Sims et al. study, White Americans were found to have 25.5% of I1 (more than anywhere but Nordic countries) and 14.5% of R1a (higher than anywhere in Western Europe as far as east West Germany), which I think in much too high.

The Lind et al. study only tests Y-haplogroups E, F, I and R, so they don't distinguish between European E1b1b and other (African) subclades of E. Likewise they only test mtDNA L, M and N and assume that M and N are European, even though M isn't found in Europe and N includes subclades found in West Africa (H1, J1b1a, U5, U6, V) as well as Europe. So they overestimate European mtDNA.

Anyway you can't have only 28% of European Y-DNA in African Americans if 24% of their autosomal genes of of European origin (as the 23andMe study found, with a sample size of 5,269 African Americans). Y-DNA should be about twice higher than autosomal genes as European mtDNA is negligible in African Americans.

Yetos
28-03-16, 16:19
@ Greying Wanderer

well the fertility rates, yes,
I wonder are they rates from inside family, or general rates,
more clear, prosper family has 2,4 or just a prosper man?

now lets see some other factors, factors about death,
1) honour crimes,
2) political enemies,

1) honour crimes,
there are 2 kinds of step brothers from same father, they are all legal, they are legal and bastards,
at the second case even today we have crimes due to honour,
A roman wife to protect her children, if found something, surely she would act like a devil to kill the 'intruder' at family,
and believe me, volunteers could be many, for a few denarii,
and what when the bastard grows old and strong? does he plan to revenge his 'brothers' and the father he never knew? possible yes, and many made that a plan for a life,
'Honor' is something, and a bastard dream to restore mother pride,

2) the political enemies,
hm just consider 2 senate men, a patrician and a pleveian, and one of them, holds by hand a young man, and say the other,<<this is your son, with your slave Xyz>>
or see your bastard grow among your enemies?
many politicians from that era search for such things, and pay good money for such, and slaves are always untrustable, cause as easily you buy them, same easily they can sell you,

so my point at this post, is that a bastard could also destroy a noble family, and death has one more reason to come, that might not had at poor families,

Romans knew that,

Tomenable
28-03-16, 16:30
This studies' sample sizes are tiny (93 and 118 African Americans in each study) and may not be representative. The best proof it is not representative is that, in the Sims et al. study, White Americans were found to have 25.5% of I1 (more than anywhere but Nordic countries) and 14.5% of R1a (higher than anywhere in Western Europe as far as east West Germany), which I think in much too high.

The Lind et al. study only tests Y-haplogroups E, F, I and R, so they don't distinguish between European E1b1b and other (African) subclades of E. Likewise they only test mtDNA L, M and N and assume that M and N are European, even though M isn't found in Europe and N includes subclades found in West Africa (H1, J1b1a, U5, U6, V) as well as Europe. So they overestimate European mtDNA.

Anyway you can't have only 28% of European Y-DNA in African Americans if 24% of their autosomal genes of of European origin (as the 23andMe study found, with a sample size of 5,269 African Americans). Y-DNA should be about twice higher than autosomal genes as European mtDNA is negligible in African Americans.

Hammer et. al. 2005 had a large sample of 651 African-American Y-DNA haplogroups:

https://www.familytreedna.com/pdf/HammerFSIinpress.pdf

E --------------------- 69,7%
B --------------------- 2,3%
A --------------------- 1,4%
R1b-V88 ------------- 0,5%
J ---------------------- 0,8%
O --------------------- 0,3%
K --------------------- 0,3%
P --------------------- 0,3%
Q --------------------- 0,2%
G --------------------- 0,9%
I ---------------------- 5,3%
R1a ------------------ 1,1%
R1b-M269 ---------- 17,3%

Detailed territorial origin of those 651 African-American samples within the USA:

Arizona-Phoenix (AZ1) ---- 76
Arizona-Mesa (AZ2) ------- 52
Connecticut (CT) ----------- 89
Florida (FL) ----------------- 20
North Carolina (NC) ------- 84
New York City (NYC) ------ 42
Ohio (OH) ------------------ 103
South Dakota (SD) -------- 57
Virginia (VA) ---------------- 77
Vermont (VT) -------------- 51

Tomenable
28-03-16, 16:41
in the Sims et al. study, White Americans were found to have 25.5% of I1 and 14.5% of R1a

Hammer et al. 2005 found European-Americans to have just 11.7% of I1 and just 7.2% of R1a.

However, I think that these are too low frequencies. The reality must be somewhere in between.

There are differences between ancestry groups. For example Polish-Americans have lots of R1a.

============

Hammer 2005 sample of European-American males was not proportional to state population.

For example 20.5% of his Whites were from Vermont, which has just 0.2% of U.S. population.

We need a sample that is proportional to population size of states and of ancestry groups.

Tomenable
28-03-16, 17:12
Here is a breakdown of African-American E from Hammer et al. 2005:

E-P1 --------------------- 62,0%
E-SRY4064* ------------- 5,1%
E-P2* -------------------- 0,6%
E-M35* ------------------ 0,9%
E-M78 ------------------- 1,1%

Total of haplogroup E - 69,7%

Angela
28-03-16, 17:32
This is another study with about 500 samples, and again shows about a 30% West Eurasian yDna level.

http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchObject.action?uri=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0029687&representation=PDF

I think the relationship to autosomal dna is a complicated issue partly because there's a lot of substructure in the African-American community. Much of this traces back to the old "class" distinctions between the minority group of "house slaves" versus the "field slaves" who were the majority of the population. That 20% figure for European autosomal dna is just an average. There are African-Americans with very low levels of European ancestry (Oprah Winfrey is one example) and self-defined African Americans who are much more than 50% European.

This is why I think it's hard to draw parallels between slave societies that are 2000 years apart and in very different cultures. There are even differences between the North American versus South American slave societies. In South America there just weren't all that many European women ever, and low numbers of Europeans in total, so virtually everyone has Amerindian and SSA mtdna.

Greying Wanderer
29-03-16, 10:55
I use the same logic to justify that male masters had a lot of children with female slaves, because they could afford to take care of the children. The richer a Roman citizen was, the more household slaves he usually had, and the more illegitimate children with them.

Yes. I think what you say is possible but it requires the fathers putting their slave-descended offspring into the middle class somehow.

edit: by middle class i mean farmers and artisans

bicicleur
29-03-16, 12:53
Yes. I think what you say is possible but it requires the fathers putting their slave-descended offspring into the middle class somehow.

edit: by middle class i mean farmers and artisans

even legitimate children were considered property of the father

he could do with them as he pleased

Tomenable
29-03-16, 17:39
Sims et al. in her sample of 125 has proportions of U106 to P312 like 33:67 (19:39).

In the American centric FTDNA R1b project these proportions are 28:72 (897:2352):

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?5795-R1b-of-European-Americans&p=119363&viewfull=1#post119363

Greying Wanderer
30-03-16, 11:12
even legitimate children were considered property of the father

he could do with them as he pleased

sure, my point is did they end up in the middle class or among the poor because it's their and their descendant's future TFR over generations that would decide the percentage among the modern population

For example if Rome in 500 AD had
- 10% mostly Roman descent upper class
- 30% mostly Roman descent middle class (farmers and artisans)
- 60% mostly non-Roman slave descent lower class

then in 1000 AD the percentages might be
- 10% mostly Roman descent upper class
- 30% mostly Roman descent middle class (farmers and artisans)
- 30% mostly Roman descent lower class
- 30% mostly non-Roman slave descent lower class

due to different TFR by class and
- excess upper class drop into the middle class
- excess middle class drop into the lower class

on the other hand if it was standard practice for them to set their slave kids up in the middle class then the impact would be much greater (which happened in the Caribbean a lot but I don't know about other times and places)

Angela
30-03-16, 17:16
sure, my point is did they end up in the middle class or among the poor because it's their and their descendant's future TFR over generations that would decide the percentage among the modern population

For example if Rome in 500 AD had
- 10% mostly Roman descent upper class
- 30% mostly Roman descent middle class (farmers and artisans)
- 60% mostly non-Roman slave descent lower class

then in 1000 AD the percentages might be
- 10% mostly Roman descent upper class
- 30% mostly Roman descent middle class (farmers and artisans)
- 30% mostly Roman descent lower class
- 30% mostly non-Roman slave descent lower class

due to different TFR by class and
- excess upper class drop into the middle class
- excess middle class drop into the lower class

on the other hand if it was standard practice for them to set their slave kids up in the middle class then the impact would be much greater (which happened in the Caribbean a lot but I don't know about other times and places)

I've never seen any proposed figure of 60% for the slave population. In fact, the highest percentage I've ever seen is about 35%. Then lower that percentage by all the slaves in mines, galleys and being worked to death on the latifundia who either weren't procreating at all, or died before they'd have very many offspring. Then take out the female prostitutes, since from the mass graves of aborted fetuses and newborns that have been found it seems that rearing the children produced by prostitutes wasn't part of the economic equation.

Of the remaining percentage, consisting of female house slaves who bore children to their masters and more skilled male slaves who might be manumitted later on in life, what happened to those offspring? I think some might have indeed made it into the middle classes, but were all masters so benign? Thomas Jefferson had numerous slave children with Sally Hennings, some of whom were white enough to "pass". Estimates are that they were either quadroons or octoroons. Yet he didn't free them or help them during his lifetime. All he did for them was not set the dogs on them when they ran away. He did free the two still at Monticello when he died, but not their cousins, aunts etc. They had trades, but I don't remember any indication that anything was left to them. There are reports of some who sent their children north or left them some land, but many slave masters happily even sold their offspring south into the sugar cane fields if we are to believe the many slave narratives.

Things were a bit different in New Orleans with the French settlers, and in the Caribbean. Alexandre Dumas père was the grandson of a French landowner and an African slave woman in Haiti. The son of the union was taken to France, educated, and became a general. The other children weren't treated in the same way. They were sold to another plantation owner in Haiti, along with the mother. Was it because he was male, because he was unusually bright and talented? Those are only guesses. So, I don't know how one would calculate percentages.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandre_Dumas

When looking at the genetics things get even more complicated. In the Republican era, many of the people who were enslaved were other inhabitants of the Italian peninsula and islands, so how would one distinguish them genetically from the "free" population? As I've said before, how similar might the Italics of Cis-Padania have been to the hundreds of thousands of Gaulish slaves taken by Caesar? There were probably differences, but how easy would it be to distinguish them from one another? How different would the Greek slaves have been from the "locals", especially from the more southern areas, given there had already been Greek colonization in at least the coastal zones? Were the Illyrians and the Messapi all that different from one another? I don't know. Even when going further afield, slaves from Anatolia or Syria, from a period before the Muslim invasions and the slave trade from East Africa and West Africa, would have had a lot of Anatolian Neolithic in them and have carried the uniparental markers to match.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-t95jNCR6cUk/UupmvQ5ldvI/AAAAAAAAAgc/RyE69UHvRNA/s1600/Gallia_cisalpina_-_Shepherd_png.png

http://www.libercogitatio.org/wp-content/uploads/image/storia/gallia_cisalpina2.jpg
I'm not saying there's no way of figuring it out; I'm just saying it's going to take a lot of resolution of uniparental subclades, as was done in that fine mtDna U6 paper, and lots and lots of ancient dna from very specific contexts, and even then we're not going to know how that translates precisely into autosomal percentages.

http://bmcevolbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2148-14-109

Greying Wanderer
31-03-16, 12:41
@Angel


I've never seen any proposed figure of 60% for the slave population. In fact, the highest percentage I've ever seen is about 35%.

Sure, I was just illustrating that even if the percentage was huge at the time then if they mostly stayed in the lower class segment the percentage may have declined greatly over centuries.

(assuming there was differential TFR by class)

Angela
31-03-16, 15:21
[COLOR=#333333]@Angel



Sure, I was just illustrating that even if the percentage was huge at the time then if they mostly stayed in the lower class segment the percentage may have declined greatly over centuries.

(assuming there was differential TFR by class)

Oh, ok, got it. Good point.

It's all really complicated, because we have to do so much speculation. I guess my main point is that even with aDna it may be hard to unravel the genetics once you move into the Late Bronze Age or Iron Age and you have the intrusion of populations which are themselves admixtures (in different proportions) of older populations.

MOESAN
31-03-16, 23:24
This is another study with about 500 samples, and again shows about a 30% West Eurasian yDna level.

http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchObject.action?uri=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0029687&representation=PDF

I think the relationship to autosomal dna is a complicated issue partly because there's a lot of substructure in the African-American community. Much of this traces back to the old "class" distinctions between the minority group of "house slaves" versus the "field slaves" who were the majority of the population. That 20% figure for European autosomal dna is just an average. There are African-Americans with very low levels of European ancestry (Oprah Winfrey is one example) and self-defined African Americans who are much more than 50% European.

This is why I think it's hard to draw parallels between slave societies that are 2000 years apart and in very different cultures. There are even differences between the North American versus South American slave societies. In South America there just weren't all that many European women ever, and low numbers of Europeans in total, so virtually everyone has Amerindian and SSA mtdna.

Agree for the most, but every South-American country has its global and regional historIES; we cannot compare Argentina or Uruguay to Peru or Bolivia.
Concerning the Y haplos of European origin in the USA, we have to keep in mind the weight of the diverse countries of origin of immigrants has dramatically changed over time; the British-Irish-German-Scandinavian Yankee of the first times is loosing weight today; You have only to look at the marines and at the second hand movies series actors and actresses. The wheel is turning on.

Ailchu
22-06-17, 22:20
Additionally there is now ample evidence that the Romans liked to acquire beautiful female slaves (especially exotic blondes and redheads) for the purpose of sex, and that they often had children with them. These children were typically freed once their reached adolescence or adulthood. In fact, most of the freed slaves in ancient Rome could have been the offspring of Roman patricians with their slaves.



there are several roman sources which glorify barbaric women so this thaught is not far away but is there actual evidence for this?

Jovialis
24-07-17, 01:18
It has been argued that slaves didn't procreate much as they weren't free. But that's nonsense. Slaves were valuable commodities, sold on markets. If you owned slaves, having them breed together created more wealth. So the more children they had the better. Additionally there is now ample evidence that the Romans liked to acquire beautiful female slaves (especially exotic blondes and redheads) for the purpose of sex, and that they often had children with them. These children were typically freed once their reached adolescence or adulthood. In fact, most of the freed slaves in ancient Rome could have been the offspring of Roman patricians with their slaves.


Perhaps this is a reason for my mtdna H6a1b ending up in Italy, and account for some of the northern European autosomal admixture.


http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_H_mtDNA.shtml


H6 was absent from Europe before the Bronze Age and has such a wide distribution across the continent nowadays that it would likely have been spread both by R1a and R1b branches of the Indo-Europeans. Indeed, H6 was found in ancient remains from most Indo-European Bronze Age cultures, including Yamna (H6a1b), Corded Ware (H6a1a), Unetice (H6a1b, H6a1b3), Poltavka (H6a2), Okunevo (H6a1b), Srubnaya (H6a1a) and Andronovo (H6). Actually H6 was the only H samples identified so far in the Andronovo culture in Central Asia.

Fire Haired14
24-07-17, 02:59
Additionally there is now ample evidence that the Romans liked to acquire beautiful female slaves (especially exotic blondes and redheads) for the purpose of sex, and that they often had children with them. These children were typically freed once their reached adolescence or adulthood. In fact, most of the freed slaves in ancient Rome could have been the offspring of Roman patricians with their slaves.

Are you able to provide that evidence? Evidence that acquiring female slaves for sex, especially northern European ones, was popular. And that the children usually were freed?

Of course we need lots of ancient DNA from Italy to know for sure, but if the north Euro-like ancestry in Italy is all recent(Celtic, German, Slaves) then that would probably mean Romans and early Iron age Italians were an intermediate between Sicilians and Sardinians. And if most north Euro-like ancestry in Balkans is recent(Slavs) that would mean ancient Greeks and Ilyrrians were like Greek Islanders. I'm just throwing that at out there.

ThirdTerm
24-07-17, 08:31
The presence of Africans in Britain has been recorded since Roman times, but has left no apparent genetic trace among modern inhabitants. Y chromosomes belonging to the deepest-rooting clade of the Y phylogeny, haplogroup (hg) A, are regarded as African-specific, and no examples have been reported from Britain or elsewhere in Western Europe. We describe the presence of an hgA1 chromosome in an indigenous British male; comparison with African examples suggests a Western African origin. Seven out of 18 men carrying the same rare east-Yorkshire surname as the original male also carry hgA1 chromosomes, and documentary research resolves them into two genealogies with most-recent-common-ancestors living in Yorkshire in the late 18th century. Analysis using 77 Y-short tandem repeats (STRs) is consistent with coalescence a few generations earlier. Our findings represent the first genetic evidence of Africans among 'indigenous' British, and emphasize the complexity of human migration history as well as the pitfalls of assigning geographical origin from Y-chromosomal haplotypes.
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v15/n3/abs/5201771a.html


This 2007 study identified British men who carry Y-DNA haplogroup A1 that closely matches the one identified in men presently living in West Africa, which suggests that their black ancestor arrived in Britain within the past few thousand years. A1 possibly entered the gene pool in northern England 1800 years ago when Africans were brought into the region by the Roman Empire. These men have the Yorkshire surname and a typical European appearance, indicating that Africans were fully integrated in ancient British society.

bicicleur
24-07-17, 08:40
This 2007 study identified British men who carry Y-DNA haplogroup A1 that closely matches the one identified in men presently living in West Africa, which suggests that their black ancestor arrived in Britain within the past few thousand years. A1 possibly entered the gene pool in northern England 1800 years ago when Africans were brought into the region by the Roman Empire. These men have the Yorkshire surname and a typical European appearance, indicating that Africans were fully integrated in ancient British society.

the same goes for a British male with an African subclade of R1b-V88.
his British line goes back to the 17th century

Dianatomia
25-07-17, 22:25
I think Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome were different regarding the slaves. Greece was a microcosmos, where slaves usually were fellow Greeks or people from adjecent areas who ended up being slaves for any particular reason. Usually war booty. Slaves were part of Ancient Greek society, except for politics. In Athens for example, if you were a slave from Thebes, you were not an Athenian and not an equal citizen. But you were able to hold important positions. Even political advisers, artisans, etc. The Parthenon has been build by hands of slaves as well as free men. Though usually slaves were used for agriculture. Taking everything into account though, it is kind of a on oxymoron to argue what percentage of the Greek gene pool was from slaves. Since the gene pool might have been similar. One has to prove that slaves were different from free men to begin with. There is no evidence I have seen for this. Someone argued that there must be a difference between Mycenean Greeks and Classical Greeks (since Mycenean Greeks had slaves), but all evidence so far points to the fact that Mycenean Greeks are similar to classical Greeks. There is some evidence that there have been some changes between Bronze Age Greece and Mycenean Greece though. This is probably due to the arrival of the proto-hellenes. Lastly, there were certainly non-Greek slaves in Hellenistic Greece. But there is no evidence that these slaves were imported to Greece in serious numbers. I.e. a Greek from Alexandria, Egypt could hold a slave of any origin, but this hardly has any impact on the gene pool of the people of Greece.

Ironically, many Greeks were Roman slaves during the Roman empire. The Roman empire was somewhat different compared to Ancient Greece. Many slaves were imported from other parts of 'mostly' Europe. Yet, by far the largest percentage of slaves was from local Italian peoples. However, due to Rome's imperial nature, it is undeniable that a larger variety of people were imported into Italy than in Greece for example.

Dianatomia
25-07-17, 22:32
And if most north Euro-like ancestry in Balkans is recent(Slavs) that would mean ancient Greeks and Ilyrrians were like Greek Islanders. I'm just throwing that at out there.

I don't buy that. Logically Indo-Eurpeans settled in mainland Greece, mixed with locals, then also migrated to islands, then to Asia Minor. The rule is that the North Euro like ancestry is deluded in every step. So the Ancient Greek islanders would have had less north Euro ancestry than the Ancient Greek mainlanders to begin with.