https://i.imgur.com/F1mBTj1.pngQuote:
Originally Posted by Johane Derite
https://i.imgur.com/F1mBTj1.pngQuote:
Originally Posted by Johane Derite
:) .....Quote:
Originally Posted by Jovialis
https://i.imgur.com/aS2ZiDP.jpg
Thanks for the heads up!Quote:
Originally Posted by Alyan
Quote:
Originally Posted by kolgeh
Iron age Italian populations - including Etruscans and Italic tribes - were very homogeneous and predominantly R1b-U152+. Romans on the other hand autosomally were closer to Aegean populations and Y dna wise were very diverse including R1b-U152, R1b-P312(xU152), R1b-U106, T, G2a, I1, E1b, J2a, J2b and J1 haplogroups.
Italics have some G2a2b2a.
G2a2b2a appears in central Italy. E and J appear mainly in Romans from southern Italy.
First confirmed Italian R1b-U152 sample appears in early bronze age and predates urnfield culture.
At least two Roman samples are J2a.
Two Roman samples are J1. One of them is J1a2a1a-Y2293.
The same guy on Anthrogenica who posted the leaked PCA is saying that the Etruscans and the Italics were R1b-U152+. Romans on the other hand autosomally were closer to Aegean population.
Does it make sense?
https://i.imgur.com/HM671qo.png
I'm asking Eupedia users for their opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alyan
It's impossible to have a rational discussion about this without the paper in front of us.
If, by "Romans" being more "Aegean" like they mean some samples from Ostia, Rome's biggest port, then that conclusion is just plain stupid.
I can't put it any more clearly than that.
I mean, I know not everybody has a PHD or an IQ of 140+, but for crying out loud if some people don't have the mental capacity to examine these kinds of claims with some degree of intelligence they should just shut up.
Of course, then there are those with agendas or mental health issues who muddy up the waters as well.
Sorry to be so blunt, but I'm losing patience, not, I hasten to add, with you, but with the general level of stupidity and agenda driven content in the hobby as a whole.
You have to define your freaking terms to make sense of all of this. If you don't, even having the samples in hand won't help. The people who built the first huts on the seven hills of Rome are not necessarily exactly the same people who belonged to the various tribes of the Republic, and those people are not necessarily completely similar to the inhabitants of Imperial Rome as defined as the city of Rome itself in the time of Augustus and after.
To think that samples from Ostia, which more than likely might have been mostly merchants or sailors from lots of different parts of the empire, but predominantly perhaps from the east, should serve as the standard genetically for "Romans" is a whole different level of absurdity.
All of that will have to be kept in mind when we have the actual samples, see their isotope values, their burial contexts, where they were found, and their dates.
That isn't to say that I don't think there was steady gene flow from southern Italy north, because I think there was.
I'll post later about some other findings from my book on Northern Italy during Roman times.
It may depend on the Period :) Pre or Post Roma Imperiale.
I turned that Map around, now it’s easier to make sense of Italy. imo and others too.
https://i.imgur.com/o3hTwEJ.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/3qzJiSZ.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/HbGHTEd.jpg
Nice! :grin:
Man, they're really geniuses over there at anthrogenica.
"G2a2b2a appears in central Italy. [I presume in addition to the U-152] E and J appear mainly in Romans from southern Italy."
DUH!!!!
Romans in a general, imperial sense, people.
Have these people ever read a single, even popularized and dumbed down book on the Romans???? That was a rhetorical question. The answer is no.
Good idea. I put in the labels inspired by the other PCAs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Salento
https://i.imgur.com/9Vrkv5S.jpg
I would suggest waiting, unlike "Generalissimo" until, as I said above, we have definite and precise information about where each sample was found, the date, the burial context, and the isotope analysis.
I don't know how many of those samples, if any, come from places like Ostia, but if they do they're not terribly informative about Italian genetics as a whole.
In terms of Italian genetics in general and Southern Italian/Sicilian genetics in particular it's the late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age which interests me more. Did most of the gene flow into Southern Italy/Sicily during that period come by way of the Balkans and Greece, or did some come directly from Anatolia or other places, or both? When did it start to arrive and in what numbers? What were Southern Italians/Sicilians like in the beginning of the first millenium BC before Greek colonization, and what were they like afterwards? Once we know the answers to those questions we'll be in better shape to understand precisely what was going on during the empire and after.
I agree. The studies have not yet come out, we do not know where the samples come from. In short, there are still no conditions for drawing conclusions.
imho We already know the Main Conclusion.
We’ve been staring at it for months.
The map is the Central Piece of the Study.
Once they publish their findings, everything else will be details.
... and the debate will continue to go on.
sorry but can someone make any type of conclusion in regards to the 664 replies ?
i suspect ancient northern romans were heavily celtic, judging by the roman busts anyway.
prior to the celtic invasions/migrations there was the calcolitic invasions/migrations. now as italians are heavily R1B paternally and it seems they are maternally J2......is E hiding within J2. forexample did the calcolithic men took the E women ?
Sent from my SM-G977B using Tapatalk
what is the main conclusion ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Salento
Sent from my SM-G977B using Tapatalk
The Etruscans are closer to the Northern Italians, and the Romans are closer to the Central and Southern Italians.Quote:
Originally Posted by lynxbythetv
The: who else, why, when, how much, how, ... we will wait for the study to confirm the details.
what do you think ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Salento
Sent from my SM-G977B using Tapatalk
There will be Romans shifting North, South, and South/East.Quote:
Originally Posted by lynxbythetv
I think that regardless of the findings, the study will be challenged by some.
Spot-on questions, that's exactly what we need to know. Do we know when the paper (related to the leaked PCA) is due to get published? By the way, this is not the Moots paper we are awaiting any time now, correct?Quote:
Originally Posted by Angela
Quote:
Originally Posted by Salento
Romans in that PCA are definitely closer to Southern Italians. Abruzzesi are genetically Southern Italians even if more northern shifted than southern Italian average. Of course assuming that PCA is accurate.
I don't know for sure but I don't think so. The Moots paper, from the little information I have, is centered only on the environs of Rome itself, and doesn't include Etruscans. I think the PCA may be from the paper that I think is coming from Stanford.Quote:
Originally Posted by Demetrios
My point throughout this discussion has been that people want to talk about what "Romans" were or were not like without defining what they mean by "Roman". I keep trying to get through to them that it has a different meaning through time, and applies to people from different genetic clusters through time. By the end of the Empire practically everyone within its borders would have considered themselves "Romans". The Byzantines considered themselves "Romans" for centuries after that. At what point does the term become meaningless for population genetics purposes, and especially as concerns Italian genetics?
In terms of Republican Era Romans I would be quite surprised if the Republican Era "Romans" were "Aegean" like. I would expect them to be like other members of the Latin League and related groups, which is NOT to say that they were "Gaulish" like. I don't expect even northern Italians of the Republican period to be the same as the Gauls, of, well, Gaul. :)
I wouldn't be at all surprised if inhabitants of many parts of southern Italy were "Aegean like" already during the Roman Republican Era period. I would expect Imperial Era Italians, which is the more appropriate term, in my opinion, even in the northern reaches of the peninsula, to be different from what they were like during the Republic, but the question is, how different? Did the cline still exist, even if less defined? Were the "Collegno" Italians of the late Empire the norm or was there variation? Although even there, not all were "Aegean" like. I'm extremely close to one, and I am not "Aegean" like.
I would remind people that the "leaks", if accurate, say that in Republican Rome the "Romans" were split into two groups, one more "northern" Italian like, and one more "southern" Italian like. Note that none of them are Germanic like. So much for much of 19th and early 20th century anthropology. None plotted with Central Italians. If the papers show I'm on the wrong track, fine. I have no problem with being "slightly" wrong. :)
The darkest red is the "original" Rome.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...t_of_Italy.PNG
Note that even the bright red is Rome and her "allies", not considered Romans by the Romans themselves.
Timeline of the conquest of Italy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8B0e5BIoBg
That's why the dates for each sample are crucial.
@lynxbythetv (Could you people pick shorter, more recognizable "names"? Sometimes I don't address people by their names just because it's too annoying to reproduce them.)
You think these people look "Celtic", do you?
https://i.pinimg.com/564x/ab/a5/74/a...e9c425cc19.jpg
http://media.web.britannica.com/eb-m...4-8393CE1A.jpg
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angela
An archaeologist friend of mine confirmed to me that Etruscan samples were sent to various laboratories for autosomal analysis.
And then certainly Stanford has already analyzed some Etruscan samples 4 or 5 years ago.
There are more than one university right now, so I'm guessing more than one study.
So it would appear from the PCA. However, that doesn't square with the supposed "leak" that in Republican Rome there were "two" groups: one more Northern Italian like and one more Southern Italian like.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pax Augusta
The question is which to believe, if any.