Population structure in Italy using ancient and modern samples

Eric Hamp's mature position was that the "North-West IE" (Italic-Celtic-Phrygian according to him) were the first inhabitants of the Hallstatt. He was a specialist of Celtic and one of the most renowned linguists of the 20th and 21st Century.

pBkGKNX.jpg

cB2JpnK.png

F1mBTj1.png
 
Accroding to Anthrogenica, the Stanford Roman paper already has had samples in it uploaded to a academic database and the paper should be coming soon enough.
 
Wait, the page is gone. Removed at the submitter's request.
 
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?

HM671qo.png
 
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.

o3hTwEJ.jpg



3qzJiSZ.jpg


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.
 
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
 
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.
what is the main conclusion ?

Sent from my SM-G977B using Tapatalk
 
what is the main conclusion ?

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.

The: who else, why, when, how much, how, ... we will wait for the study to confirm the details.
 
The Etruscans are closer to the Northern Italians, and the Romans are closer to the Central and Southern Italians.

The: who else, why, when, how much, how, ... we will wait for the study to confirm the details.
what do you think ?

Sent from my SM-G977B using Tapatalk
 
what do you think ?

Sent from my SM-G977B using Tapatalk

There will be Romans shifting North, South, and South/East.

I think that regardless of the findings, the study will be challenged by some.
 

This thread has been viewed 326355 times.

Back
Top