Moots: Ancient Rome Paper

Angela why are you so rage /mad
On polako ...
he is not my cup of tee also
But it his own blog(eurogenes) and can write
Whstever he wants.....
In the end of the day we know the truth....
 
People can say what they want because even what we know least about all this we do not believe anything and well they are countries that already have a great international prestige and have changed the course of humanity having a deserved position in History with capital letters, a country could get the genetic value of an elf that wasn't going to change my idea about that country, say, Italy, Spain, France, England, Portugal, etc. Be criticized by one or the other there are the facts and that can not be erased by anyone.
 
i now notice that i joked about r1a before the paper
went out it turn out
in the imperial remains
R154827 BCE - 300 CEImperialImperialRoman ImperialH2aR-F1345Monterotondo
R-1548 imperial 27bc-300ad MONTEROTONDO R-F1345
 
One of the most interesting takeaways from this study is the presence of our first L51(xL11) found in ancient DNA. Of all the groups, I am not terribly surprised that it was found in Italy, among the Latins, as that country is most certainly a hotspot for it today.

Some food for thought thought. How could the Etruscans and Latins truly derive from the same groups? Is there anything in the Etruscan mythos that would suggest they derived from the steppes, or the CWC/BB cultures? At least with the Latin language there is a connection to the Celtic groups which would place them in a hypothetical central European homeland. It would also fit the R1b haplogroup as central Europe was most definitely a bifurcation point during the Bronze Age. That said, the similarity could be the results of centuries of mixing between Etruscan and Latins, or alternatively that one group of Latins adopted a preceeding Neolithic culture of what would become the Etruscans. This has been hypothesized for the Basque and Iberian languages, and what may be considered proto-Gauls or proto-Celtiberians moving south from adjacent France.
 
Last edited:
I neither forgive nor forget insults against me, my family, my friends, or my country. I make the best and most loving and loyal friend in the world, but I make a terrible enemy.

You think I would forgive someone writing that we're mongrels who should be kicked out of Europe? That we're all descendants of slaves and are untermenschen? This, about a country and a people which have given so much to Europe and the world? I could make some comparisons, but I won't stoop to his level.

He also had the effrontery to come on this site and tell me to shut up or I'd be sorry. What, I'm supposed to forget that he threatened me with his East European White Nationalist Goons? A prior moderator here had to call the authorities because they somehow found out his address and phone number.

Well, I've never released enough info for them to find me. Plus, I don't scare easy, and I have my own contacts, legitimate ones, and let them try. How these Storm Front type people think they're invisible to the FBI is beyond me.

He's also the one who had better watch out. I've saved tons of screenshots from the bad old days. He threatens me again and I'll publish them all. We'll see who leaks data to him then to protect him from egregious errors like the ones he made about the Mycenaeans.

That's all over and above the fact that his mispredictions and misstatements are enough to fill the directory of a small city, and that in the bad old days he used to actually post how you can massage the data.

So, now you had me repeat it, when I'm sure you already knew it. Fine.

Now, back to the paper, and the remarkable about face we've now seen.

Whatever will you guys at anthrogenica do now?
 
The Villanovan is an Etruscan, the Proto-Villanovan is a Proto-Italic (eastern Italics).

fFs2UUS.png
 
Well, well, the Reich Lab must be leaking like a sieve.

It must be nice, Polako, to have someone in your pocket who's willing to talk to a White Nationalist Skinhead like yourself and also has contacts in the right places.

So, ergo, the guy who told me he was going to prove to me that all Italians were descendants of slaves from North Africa and the Levant is now posting this:

"The Germanic and East Med admixtures were definitely important factors in the formation of the modern Italian gene pool, but I feel that they were overstated in the paper, which, in my mind, made it out as if there were a couple of total population replacements in the Italian Peninsula since the Bronze Age.

I think it's obvious that modern Italians largely derive from the Iron Age and even Bronze Age peoples of the area just by looking at their Y-haplogroups."

Somehow, when I mention y lineages it's irrelevant, but when the Reich Lab think they're important, they're important.

Oh, and he somehow has a nice new PCA too.

"
Update 13/11/2019: Here's another, similar PCA. This one, however, is based on genotype data, and it also highlights many more of the samples from the Antonio et al. paper. Considering these results, I'm tempted to say that the present-day Italian gene pool largely formed in the Iron Age, and that it was only augmented by population movements during later periods. The relevant datasheet is available here."

My oh my, perhaps it's time to retire Archi and some of the other mouthpieces on eurogenes.

Oh, and "Rob", whoever you are, who never wanted to admit he was from the Balkans, was banned and had to do who knows what to get to post again on eurogenes, now wants to brag about "Balkan" Emperors, the ones too incompetent to keep the Empire united, would you have the guts to make this statement to an Italian face to face, maybe someone who had ancestors who died or were maimed in those mountains, or do you only have the guts to do it anonymously from a computer?

"
But then heaps of Germanics (esp Goths) would have died of during Justinians ”reconquista”
Even if some Italian patricians were allied with them; they did little fighting; and often readily joined whomever was winning
... kinda like WW1 :)"

You miserable excuse for a man.

IMG_3951.jpg

From what I saw in this picture, the population change from the fathers of the Roman Republic seems drastic. Is this correct or you have a different opinion about it. Here the discussion is Rome not Italians.


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum
 
he doesn't act like nazi in his site
there was a member who cursed jews
and he expelled him

i don't believe he is nazi
he has an agenda for sure on this i agree ...........

p.s
and even if he was
people can change over the years ......
i am sorry if he offended your country
 
View attachment 11575

From what I saw in this picture, the population change from the fathers of the Roman Republic seems drastic. Is this correct or you have a different opinion about it. Here the discussion is Rome not Italians.


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum

Blevins, I've gone over this and over this, with analogies to modern western cities.

Why don't you read my posts again, and if I wasn't clear about something I'll try to clear it up.
 
Whatever will you guys at anthrogenica do now?

i don't think anthrogenica guys are really that much against italians or more precise against near easterners. looking through the threads there, it's actually not that bad, considering that such genetics sites are a magnet for racism, and people who try to find a piece of identity in their genes.
for those who thought that possible near eastern ancestry in italians and other europeans is something bad, did the fact that most europeans derive from EEF/CHG from near east stop hating them on other people from near east and north africa? nope. they just started to make a difference between these people from near east and those other people from near east. hating a group of people/population is always irrational and ignorant. you can't do something against this with rational arguments.
 
i don't think anthrogenica guys are really that much against italians or more precise against near easterners. looking through the threads there, it's actually not that bad, considering that such genetics sites are a magnet for racism, and people who try to find a piece of identity in their genes.
for those who thought that possible near eastern ancestry in italians and other europeans is something bad, did the fact that most europeans derive from EEF/CHG from near east stop hating them on other people from near east and north africa? nope. they just started to make a difference between these people from near east and those other people from near east. hating a group of people/population is always irrational and ignorant. you can't do something against this with rational arguments.

Your bolded comments are wise indeed.
 
I neither forgive nor forget insults against me, my family, my friends, or my country. I make the best and most loving and loyal friend in the world, but I make a terrible enemy.

You think I would forgive someone writing that we're mongrels who should be kicked out of Europe? That we're all descendants of slaves and are untermenschen? This, about a country and a people which have given so much to Europe and the world? I could make some comparisons, but I won't stoop to his level.

He also had the effrontery to come on this site and tell me to shut up or I'd be sorry. What, I'm supposed to forget that he threatened me with his East European White Nationalist Goons? A prior moderator here had to call the authorities because they somehow found out his address and phone number.

Well, I've never released enough info for them to find me. Plus, I don't scare easy, and I have my own contacts, legitimate ones, and let them try. How these Storm Front type people think they're invisible to the FBI is beyond me.

He's also the one who had better watch out. I've saved tons of screenshots from the bad old days. He threatens me again and I'll publish them all. We'll see who leaks data to him then to protect him from egregious errors like the ones he made about the Mycenaeans.

That's all over and above the fact that his mispredictions and misstatements are enough to fill the directory of a small city, and that in the bad old days he used to actually post how you can massage the data.

So, now you had me repeat it, when I'm sure you already knew it. Fine.

Now, back to the paper, and the remarkable about face we've now seen.

Whatever will you guys at anthrogenica do now?

I did not see anyone insulting you in this Rome forums. But even if somebody does the best way to counter it is politeness and hard facts. Of course would be provocateurs, disrupters but insulting anyone would not change the minds of one who think differently, or have an agenda. Its not that I am teaching you something you don't know, but I felt obligated to comment in relation to comments you directed to the person that was arguing about J2b presence in Etruscans. He had a valid point of partial connections of Etruscans with Illyrians based on common J2b clade. He was not been disruptive, or anthrogenics, he had an opinion. If we all had the same opinions would be no need for discussions.
Peole try to
 
Blevins, I've gone over this and over this, with analogies to modern western cities.

Why don't you read my posts again, and if I wasn't clear about something I'll try to clear it up.

Its known fact that Rome imported many people from middle east to construct their projects. Middle east was known for having world class architects for the time, or artisans, or engineers, shipbuilders and they were brought to Rome to advance Rome. Most were from Greece but Syrians were not far behind. I always think that genetic history of Rome made Italy a powerhouse of art and architecture
 
One of the most interesting takeaways from this study is the presence of our first L51(xL11) found in ancient DNA. Of all the groups, I am not terribly surprised that it was found in Italy, among the Latins, as that country is most certainly a hotspot for it today.

Some food for thought thought. How could the Etruscans and Latins truly derive from the same groups? Is there anything in the Etruscan mythos that would suggest they derived from the steppes, or the CWC/BB cultures? At least with the Latin language there is a connection to the Celtic groups which would place them in a hypothetical central European homeland. It would also fit the R1b haplogroup as central Europe was most definitely a bifurcation point during the Bronze Age. That said, the similarity could be the results of centuries of mixing between Etruscan and Latins, or alternatively that one group of Latins adopted a preceeding Neolithic culture of what would become the Etruscans. This has been hypothesized for the Basque and Iberian languages, and what may be considered proto-Gauls or proto-Celtiberians moving south from adjacent France.

The Etruscan sample from Veio (R1015, date range: 900 BCE - 800 BCE), which is labeled as Villanovan, already shows a similarity between Etruscans and Latins. So if there was a mix between the two populations, it is plausible that it happened much earlier, during the Bronze age. Before Iron Age ethnos were formed.

Archaeologically, there are no significant differences in the processes that then lead to the formation of the two ethnos, the Etruscan and the Latin. Only the former speak a pre-Indo-European language and the latter a Indo-European one. The most marked differences emerge later and are cultural (an orientalising phase exists in both Etruria and Latium Vetus, but in Etruria it has a stronger impact, especially in southern Etruria). But this is true, to some extent, even if you compare Rome with the rest of Italy.

Myths about the origins were born much later and are influenced by the Greeks and the Greek mindset and culture.

Some Roman authors report that the Etruscans dated the birth of the "Etruscan nation" to the eleventh or tenth century BC, which coincides with the archaeological hypothesis based on very long research, which was made from the '70s and '80s, and which was discussed throughout the '90s, that the Proto-Etruscans emerge right around the eleventh century BC within a local facies of Protovillanovan culture in Etruria.

It is important to underline that there are no chronological differences in the formation of the Etruscans, the Latins, Osco-Umbrians and even the ancient Veneti. The formation of all these ethnos takes place in parallel. The difference is due to the contacts with the Greeks of southern Italy. And those who had more contacts, especially initially, with the Greeks were the Etruscans, followed by the Latins who later became Romans.

To complete the picture, we must also mention the role of the Phoenicians, who were the link between the Levant, North Africa, Italy (including Sardinia) and the Iberian world, and also the role of the Nuragics of Sardinia, who had long and prolonged commercial relations with the eastern Mediterranean as far as Cyprus, should also be remembered and their cultural contribution to the early stages of Etruscan civilization.
 
@Tutkun

No one in their right mind would deny any of that. The Imperial Era samples plot where they plot; their autosomal make up is what it is. I don't find it at all surprising.

What doesn't seem to make an impression on Blevins or your mind is that there is no way of knowing who these Imperial Age people were. Were they Southern Italians already impacted by Bronze Age and Iron Age migrations perhaps mostly by way of Greece and the Balkans? Were they temporary traders from all over the Empire, but mostly from the East and, say, Egypt, because that was where the wealth was? Did they stay, maybe even for a few generations and then leave, or did they stay forever and intermingle? Even if they stayed, what happened to all these urban inhabitants?

Do many of them look rather similar to the samples we have of ancient Greeks because they were Southern Italians who moved north and who not only had CHG/Iran Neo from the Neolithic, but from the Greeks of Magna Graecia, whom, one would assume, would still have the CHG/Iran Neo found in Mycenaeans. Did some of that ancestry perhaps come from Bronze Age movements, not forgetting that this would have arrived in combination with more Anatolian Neo, only the ratios being different?

On the other hand, could some of them have been actual Greeks? Of course they could. They were the most prized slaves in the empire, certainly more prized than Illyrian gladiators, and those who were not enslaved still were given commissions, came to trade, etc. The same would have been true to some extent of the people of Asia Minor.

Would some of them, living cheek by jowl in the huge crowded urban centers, and particularly Rome, or in port cities, have married? I'm sure some did.

So, how many were just Southern Italians and how many came from Greece and the Greek islands or perhaps parts of Asia Minor under and not under Greek influence? Will we ever be able to tell the difference?

Then there's the fact of the disappearance of this "tail" into the Levant. A related question is why, during Late Antiquity, did J1 disappear, but not J2? Lack of subsequent migrations might be one reason. Another reason might be that a lot of them were Jews who were periodically expelled. A third reason is that a lot of them were perhaps merchants and entrepreneurs, and toward the end of the Empire Rome and other cities like it began to decline terribly.

The larger reason is that the cities of the Western Empire began to decline, partly because of disease, which spreads quicker in crowded urban centers when systems start to fail, partly because the Western Emperors weren't as good at buying off the barbarians as the Eastern Emperors were. Trade moved elsewhere, and traders of foreign descent moved elsewhere. In terms of Rome, in particular, it had declined so much that the capital of the western Empire was moved to Ravenna. That later emperors never set foot in Rome. Then, came the plague and the sacks by the Goths, and then the Gothic War with the Byzantines. They tried to take back at least Italy, even if the rest of the West was gone, but they couldn't, for reasons too complicated to explain here, but the result was an even more devastated Italy.

Those who stayed in the cities were the poor, and they died.

Then, who repopulated Rome and the other major cities? When someone shows me all this Germanic and British y Dna in Central Italy in Late Antiquity, and the Early Medieval period and then in Modern Central Italy, I'll believe the paper that there was a mass migration to Central Italy. Oh, and be sure to show me all the evidence for Northwestern and North/Central European migration into the depths of Calabria and Basilicata.

Hell, there wasn't even a mass migration to Northern Italy. How much freaking I1 and U-106 is there???? That's a rhetorical question. The answer is not much. I'm sure there were more Gauls from the first millennium BC than from the Germanics of the invasions period.

You people have always treated everything posted at eurogenes as gospel: well, now you have it from your apostle: Italian genetics was mostly complete in the Bronze and Iron Age, which Ralph and Coop said YEARS ago.

]
Rbbmt4B.png


Oh, and the new PCA posted at the eurogenes site:
6UODm0I.png
 
Last edited:
Some of it is pure, outright racism against any Europeans who carry CHG/Iran Neo which arrived at the wrong time for their liking, and with the wrong people, i.e. not with steppe people, but from Neolithic, Bronze and Iron Age people who went to Greece, the Balkans, Italy, and further west in the Mediterranean from the east. Do I have to repeat that Polako said Southern Italians should be kicked out of Europe, or that he permits racist posts on his site from maniacs who say they're not "European" because they have too much of that ancestry? What, precisely, is too much ancestry from the Near East? If you add up all the Anatolian Neo and CHG and Iran Neo in Europe, even northern Europe is at 50=60%. Is that going to be the cut off?

Elementary question. Isn't Steppe ancestry itself roughly 50% CHG/Iran Neo, with the balance Ancient North Eurasian and EHG? And isn't ANE found in Native Americans?

My impression is that the only thing that distinguishes Southern Italians and Greeks from other Europeans is that they--or to speak in the first-person, "we"--carry more CHG and only a small fraction of EHG and ANE. And perhaps "we" also have some small percentage of North African admixture. But for the most part, all Europeans, including Southern Italians, are comprised of Anatolian Neolithic, CHG/Iranian Neolithic, and WHG.

Do I at least have the fundamentals correct?

And in reference to Angela's comments elsewhere in this thread, it would be nice if 23andme and other testing companies used the same nomenclature as academic scientists to describe various genetic components. So rather than say that Calabrians have lots of Middle Eastern ancestry (which is very vague and confusing), they should use terms like Anatolian Neolithic and CHG/Iranian Neolithic.
 
@Tutkun

No one in their right mind would deny any of that. The Imperial Era samples plot where they plot; their autosomal make up is what it is. I don't find it at all surprising.

What doesn't seem to make an impression on Blevins or your mind is that there is no way of knowing who these Imperial Age people were. Were they Southern Italians already impacted by Bronze Age and Iron Age migrations perhaps mostly by way of Greece and the Balkans? Were they temporary traders from all over the Empire, but mostly from the East and, say, Egypt, because that was where the wealth was? Did they stay, maybe even for a few generations and then leave, or did they stay and intermingle? Even if they stayed, what happened to all these urban inhabitants?

Do many of them look rather similar to Greeks because they were Southern Italians who moved north and who not only had CHG/Iran Neo from the Neolithic, but from the Greeks of Magna Graecia, whom, one would assume, would still have the CHG/Iran Neo found in Mycenaeans. Did some of that ancestry perhaps come from Bronze Age movements, not forgetting that this would have arrived in combination with more Anatolian Neo, only the ratios being different.

On the other hand, could some of them have been actual Greeks or Anatolians? Of course they could. They were the most prized slaves in the empire, certainly more prized than Illyrian gladiators and those who were not enslaved still were given commissions, came to trade, etc.

Would some of them, living cheek by jowl in the huge crowded urban centers, and particularly Rome, have married? I'm sure some did.

So, how many were just Southern Italians and how many came from Greece and the Greek islands? Will we ever be able to tell the difference?

Then there's the fact of the disappearance of this "tail" into the Levant. A related question is why, during Late Antiquity, did J1 disappear, but not J2? Lack of subsequent migrations might be one reason. Another reason might be that a lot of them were Jews who were periodically expelled. A third reason is that a lot of them were perhaps merchants and entrepreneurs, and toward the end of the Empire Rome and other cities like it began to decline terribly.

The larger reason is that the cities of the Western Empire began to decline, partly because of plague, which spreads quicker in crowded urban centers. Partly because the Western Emperors weren't as good at buying off the barbarians as the Eastern Emperors were. Trade moved elsewhere, and traders of foreign descent moved elsewhere. In terms of Rome, in particular, it had declined so much that the capital of the western Empire was moved to Ravenna. That later emperors never set foot in Rome.

Those who stayed were the poor, and they died.

Then, who repopulated Rome and the other major cities? When someone shows me all this Germanic and British y Dna in Central Italy in Late Antiquity, and the Early Medieval period and Modern Central Italy, I'll believe the paper that there was a mass migration to Central Italy.

Hell, there wasn't even a mass migration to Northern Italy. How much freaking I1 and U-106 is there???? That's a rhetorical question. The answer is not much. I'm sure there were more Gauls from the first millennium BC than from the Germanics of the invasions period.

You people have always treated everything posted at eurogenes as gospel: well, now you have it from your apostle: Italian genetics was mostly complete in the Bronze and Iron Age, which Ralph and Coop said YEARS ago.

]
Rbbmt4B.png


Oh, and the new PCA posted at the eurogenes site:
6UODm0I.png

Never read eurogenes, but to tell you the truth I never expected this huge change from Roman Republic to Imperial Rome. It seems that based on this study the former citizens of Rome have become a minority considering also the sample limitations mentions by Angela.


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum
 
Last edited:
Sorry, it seems to me you haven't read the post all that closely, or prior ones in this thread. Also take a look at the newest PCA, and see where modern Italian samples fall, where Iron Age samples fall, and where some of the Imperial samples fall.

For someone who has lived in and near an international city for a few decades, the "internationality" of the Imperial Age samples is not a surprise at all. Half the people walking down the street around me are speaking a language I don't understand and don't look anything like me. Yet, someday, some archaeologists may dig up their bones and try to understand what the heck was going on.

Let's see the genetic make-up of southern Italy in the Bronze and Iron Age and what that tells us.
 
Elementary question. Isn't Steppe ancestry itself roughly 50% CHG/Iran Neo, with the balance Ancient North Eurasian and EHG? And isn't ANE found in Native Americans?

My impression is that the only thing that distinguishes Southern Italians and Greeks from other Europeans is that they--or to speak in the first-person, "we"--carry more CHG and only a small fraction of EHG and ANE. And perhaps "we" also have some small percentage of North African admixture. But for the most part, all Europeans, including Southern Italians, are comprised of Anatolian Neolithic, CHG/Iranian Neolithic, and WHG.

Do I at least have the fundamentals correct?

And in reference to Angela's comments elsewhere in this thread, it would be nice if 23andme and other testing companies used the same nomenclature as academic scientists to describe various genetic components. So rather than say that Calabrians have lots of Middle Eastern ancestry (which is very vague and confusing), they should use terms like Anatolian Neolithic and CHG/Iranian Neolithic.

Indeed, you do have it right.

So, what's the big deal you might say, to put it another way?

Why does it matter if some parts of Europe have more of some WHG/EHG ancestry than others?

It isn't a big deal. It's only a big deal to people with warped minds full of unscientific and illogical nonsense. Don't ask me to explain it. I don't understand minds like that. I don't know how some people can look at data and just refuse to see it's relevance because it interferes with some racist rigamarole dreamed up by "writers" of the past to explain why they're superior to all other people on earth because they're fairer.

Worse still, what kind of person would distort data to prove some unscientific point? I don't know what kind of mind can come up with something as stupid and even evil as that. Yet, we see it all around us. Paper after paper being retracted, especially in the social sciences, where "scientists" distorted the data to prove some theory dear to their hearts.

It's really disillusioning.
 

This thread has been viewed 357894 times.

Back
Top