Moots: Ancient Rome Paper

Jovialis said:
Tell me Azzurro, how is looking at an arbitrary construct known as ITA_Imperial_Rome supposed to tell you anything? You have the floor.
Click to expand...

I am laughing because you are so predictable, I have nothing to discuss with you. All the concerns you have have been discussed by several people at Anthrogenica over the years. If you wouldn't immediately go hostile people would discuss with you.
 
Azzurro said:
I am laughing because you are so predictable, I have nothing to discuss with you. All the concerns you have have been discussed by several people at Anthrogenica over the years. If you wouldn't immediately go hostile people would discuss with you.
Click to expand...

That's not sufficient, do not dodge the question. Why are you hung up on haplogroups, yet think it is perfectly fine to lump in all of these people in one aggregated group for analysis. The study shows that these people did not leave a lasting legacy. But it seems that people like you do not seem to care about that.
 
The haplogroups are still very prevalent in the area, it would hard pressed to ignore it.
 
Azzurro said:
I am laughing because of how predictable you are. All the concerns you brought brought up have already been answered by several people at Anthrogenica, is it my fault you come in all hostile and get negative responses?
Click to expand...

Come to grips with the fact that you are wrong:

Late Antiquity and the fall of Rome

Late Antiquity was characterized by deep demographic changes and political reorganization, including the split of the Roman Empire into eastern and western halves, the movement of the capital from Rome to Byzantium (later Constantinople), and the gradual dissolution of the Western Roman Empire (maps in Fig. 3, C and D) (1, 3).

The average ancestry of the Late Antique individuals (n = 24) shifts away from the Near East and toward modern central European populations in PCA (Fig. 3D). Formally, they can be modeled as a two-way mixture of the preceding Imperial individuals and 38 to 41% ancestry from a late Imperial period individual from Bavaria or modern Basque individuals (table S24). The precise identity of the source populations and the admixture fractions should not be interpreted literally, given the simplified admixture model assumed and the lack of data for most contemporaneous ancient populations (7). This ancestry shift is also reflected in ChromoPainter results by the drastic shrinkage of the Near Eastern cluster (C4), maintenance of the two Mediterranean clusters (C5 and C6), and marked expansion of the European cluster (C7) (Fig. 4C).

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/366/6466/708
Click to expand...
 
Jovialis said:
That's not sufficient, do not dodge the question. Why are you hung up on haplogroups, yet think it is perfectly fine to lump in all of these people in one aggregated group for analysis. The study shows that these people did not leave a lasting legacy. But it seems that people like you do not seem to care about that.
Click to expand...

Autosomal dna is not my forte, I focus on Uniparental data, I would say when 30-55% of the Y dna came from these people as you put it, it is quite a lasting genetic legacy.
 
Jovialis said:
Come to grips with the fact that you are wrong:
Click to expand...

This paper if anything did the exact opposite of what your saying, it proved me right along with other like minded individuals. It killed the whole everything is Neolithic crowd.
 
Azzurro said:
Autosomal dna is not my forte, I focus on Uniparental data, I would say when 30-55% of the Y dna came from these people as you put it, it is quite a lasting genetic legacy.
Click to expand...

Please read this article:

[FONT=&quot]This is a public service announcement. If you are a user of direct-to-consumer personal genomics services, please do not pay any attention to your mtDNA and Y chromosomal haplogroups. Why? Because they hardly tell you anything about your individual ancestry. What do I mean by this? Your mtDNA comes down from your mother’s-mother’s-mother’s-mother… and similarly for your Y chromosomal lineage if you are a male. These few individuals are not any more likely to contribute to your ancestry than all those multitudes and multitudes who do not contribute to your mtDNA or Y lineages; also known as almost all your ancestors! What you should pay attention to are your autosomal results. Inferences made from most of your genome. These results may be more difficult to parse, but difficulty is no sin, and elegant ease is no virtue, in this case. That’s because you are interested in your ancestry, not a convenient interpretable story.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Of course I am not saying that mtDNA and Y chromosomal haplogroups are useless. They are useful for population scale phylogeography. But please don’t make inferences about yourself from one data point. At least in most cases.[/FONT]

https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/please-ignore-mtdna-and-y-chromosomal-haplogroups
Click to expand...
 
Azzurro said:
This paper if anything did the exact opposite of what your saying, it proved me right along with other like minded individuals. It killed the whole everything is Neolithic crowd.
Click to expand...

No, you are wrong, for example it showed that J2 has been in Italy since the Neolithic. Also, J1 disappears after the imperial era, in the data set.

Now isn't this nice, we can go man to man, on these topics without the zerg-rush of stupidity.
 
Jovialis said:
Please read this article:
Click to expand...

I don’t care, like I said i’m not an expert on autosomal dna, there was a significant change in autosomal structure, pre Iron Age Italians were more Sardinian like, whatever your saying doesn’t make sense for the way how Italians plot today. For us in the South the major genetic impact was from the Greek colonies not the Italic tribes. Then obviously Italic tribes is second followed by Near Eastern input, I can’t tell exactly what % it is, but its there. Its not that complicated and we have the supporting Haplogroup data to show all of this.
 
Jovialis said:
No, you are wrong, for example it showed that J2 has been in Italy since the Neolithic. Also, J1 disappears after the imperial era, in the data set.

Now isn't this nice, we can go man to man, on these topics without the zerg-rush of stupidity.
Click to expand...

There is over 102 sub branches of J2 that exist, over 80% of the J2 in Italy dates to the Iron Age, I have a thread on AG for the history of J2. Which all ancient samples have been looked and chronologically dated. The most common group of J2 in Italy J-L283 (under J2b) comes from a Balkan source, has been found in Nuragics and Etruscans, this group was part of Caucasus Chalcolithic and migrated into Balkans in EBA, anyways point being each branch has there own specific history. Also, J1 like J2 is diverse and not all of it has the same origin, there was J1 in EHG, the one your thinking of J1-Z2331 which is the chief Semitic marker represents a little over half to 75% of all J1 in modern Italians.
 
Azzurro said:
I don’t care, like I said i’m not an expert on autosomal dna, there was a significant change in autosomal structure, pre Iron Age Italians were more Sardinian like, whatever your saying doesn’t make sense for the way how Italians plot today. For us in the South the major genetic impact was from the Greek colonies not the Italic tribes. Then obviously Italic tribes is second followed by Near Eastern input, I can’t tell exactly what % it is, but its there. Its not that complicated and we have the supporting Haplogroup data to show all of this.
Click to expand...

Well, the person who wrote that was an expert, and you should appreciate his insight.

Also, not all Italians were just Sardinian-like, the study shows that CHG has been trickling into Italy since the Neolithic. In fact, the authors suggest the central Italian farmers could have come from Greece, or Anatolia, rather than central European farmers, due to that CHG in them. There was a resurgence of WHG in the copper age, and then there was steppe influence there after in the bronze age. The steppe component, albiet important, was always a minority component, even among the Latini and Etruscans.

I6ZWkwE.png
 
Jovialis said:
Well, the person who wrote that was an expert, and you should appreciate his insight.

Also, not all Italians were just Sardinian-like, the study shows that CHG has been trickling into Italy since the Neolithic. In fact, the authors suggest the central Italian farmers could have come from Greece, or Anatolia, rather than central European farmers, due to that CHG in them. There was a resurgence of WHG in the copper age, and then there was steppe influence there after in the bronze age. The steppe component, albiet important, was always a minority component, even among the Latini and Etruscans.

I6ZWkwE.png
Click to expand...

Yeah they were part of the Adriatic Neolithic package, which had some J2 and Iran Neo, as you can see from the graph you love to post, Iran Neo decreased after Neolithic and only started to remerge during the Iron Age for the most part, there was a small move in EBA Sicily from the Castelluccio Culture (I predicted this years ago and on here btw), although the majority of it came in Iron Age with Greeks, Anatolians and people from the Levant, I don't see anyway around it.
 
Azzurro said:
Yeah they were part of the Adriatic Neolithic package, which had some J2 and Iran Neo, as you can see from the graph you love to post, Iran Neo decreased after Neolithic and only started to remerge during the Iron Age for the most part, there was a small move in EBA Sicily from the Castelluccio Culture (I predicted this years ago and on here btw), although the majority of it came in Iron Age with Greeks, Anatolians and people from the Levant, I don't see anyway around it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I will post it 100,000 times, if that's what it takes.

Actually, I had suggest back thread that the increase in CHG/IN has come from the merging of the Greek colonies with Rome. However, I am not sure how you can connect Levantine influence with that.

Geneticists have more recently suggested that there has been a pulse of CHG/IN in the Mediterranean during the BA. Clearly there is an overlap with ABA in all of these areas, it doesn't suggest it came from the Levant, but probably Anatolia. Which by the way, did not have Natufian admixture in it. Perhaps some of the marginal Natufian admixture may have come by way of Phoenicians, in some cases. However, I would bet the majority came from Berber admixture via the moors.
 
Last edited:
Azzurro said:
Yeah they were part of the Adriatic Neolithic package, which had some J2 and Iran Neo, as you can see from the graph you love to post, Iran Neo decreased after Neolithic and only started to remerge during the Iron Age for the most part, there was a small move in EBA Sicily from the Castelluccio Culture (I predicted this years ago and on here btw), although the majority of it came in Iron Age with Greeks, Anatolians and people from the Levant, I don't see anyway around it.
Click to expand...

I wonder when this 'neolithic' Iran Neo arrived in the Adriatic.
Remember Diros cave and Franchthi cave neolithic had this Iran Neo as well.
There is some archeological evidence of some ceramic neolithic herders from the eastern Taunus range moving westward 9-8,8 ka without interaction with Central Anatolian neolithic crossing the Aegean.
This predates the 8,6 ka Barcin neolithic with supposedly Central Anatolian neolithic roots.
As a matter of facts, those herders from the eastern Taunus range allready had cattle and got ceramics ca 9 ka, both of them did not exist in Central Anatolian neolithic prior to 8,6 ka.

Another hint : Sardinian mesolithic mtDNA was not WHG mtDNA at all.
 
Jovialis said:
Yeah, I will post it 100,000 times, if that's what it takes.

Actually, I had suggest back thread that the increase in CHG/IN has come from the merging of the Greek colonies with Rome. However, I am not sure how you can connect Levantine influence with that.

Geneticists have more recently suggested that there has been a pulse of CHG/IN in the Mediterranean during the BA. Clearly there is an overlap with ABA in all of these areas, it doesn't suggest it came from the Levant, but probably Anatolia. Which by the way, did not have Natufian admixture in it. Perhaps some of the marginal Natufian admixture may have come by way of Phoenicians, in some cases. However, I would be the majority came from Berber admixture via the moors.
Click to expand...

The last part doesn't explain how it made through out all of the mainland, even Northern Italians have small amounts of Natufian, like I was saying we see Levantine Y markers in Southern Italians, Central Italians and even Northern Italians. The Phoenicians is not enough to explain it all, since they only had three colonies and some trading colonies throughout the coast. I think we should wait for Greek speaking samples from the Seleucid and Ptolemaic empires in the Eastern Mediterranean, because it seems likely there was a constant flow from there.
 
Jovialis said:
I6ZWkwE.png


I knew the modeling for this paper was kind of bizarre. Moroccan Hunter-Gatherer ancestry in Copper Age and Bronze Age Northern Europe, and Iron Age Ukraine?
Click to expand...

At first sight, it seems strange to have Morrocan HG as one of the 4 building blocks.
I guess they tried several proxys and found out this gave the best fittings.
If northern Afirca was depopulated - as it looks like - before Ibero-Maurisians arrived there some 26 ka, and if they came from the Levant after mixing with Dzudzuana DNA as I suspect, then Morrocan HG is in fact late paleolithic Levantine (some 30 ka).
That would mean Levantine mesolithic is in fact Anatolian mesolithic mixed with some paleolithic Levantine.
 
Jovialis, honestly, I don't see the point of arguing with someone like this, or posting at anthrogenica. When you boil it down there are probably very few actual individuals posting. Most of the posts are from socks. I find the very idea of engaging them disgusting

Anyone who believes you can deduce the amount of a certain ancestry from y dna statistics at this point in the study of genetics other than to say that many times autosomal percentages are going to be a fraction of the yDna signature is beneath engaging in discussion.

My God, practically every man in the northern Apennines carries R1b and usually U-152, and yet they're at most 25% steppe.

These are ludicrous assertions imo.

You'll never convince them because they're not interested in objective facts. They staked out their positions based on agendas long ago and they will approach every new dna sample with that in mind and try to twist the facts to suit their a priori position. What can possibly be gained from engaging in discussion with them.

They'll never see the nuances because it would disturb their world view.

Oh, and he hasn't taken off his "mask". Who the hell knows who he really is? He once sent me a photoshopped picture supposedly of "him", or maybe it was a facebook page, where this little Southern Italian or Southern Italian and other Southern European mixed guy was posted against a Canadian scene. That was it for me. It was as bad as when one of these jokers sent me an obvious photoshop of him against an Italian scene to prove he was a "real" Italian. That's all you need to know about their IQ and reasoning ability.
 
Angela said:
Jovialis, honestly, I don't see the point of arguing with someone like this, or posting at anthrogenica. When you boil it down there are probably very few actual individuals posting. Most of the posts are from socks. I find the very idea of engaging them disgusting

Anyone who believes you can deduce the amount of a certain ancestry from y dna statistics at this point in the study of genetics other than to say that many times autosomal percentages are going to be a fraction of the yDna signature is beneath engaging in discussion.

My God, practically every man in the northern Apennines carries R1b and usually U-152, and yet they're at most 25% steppe.

These are ludicrous assertions imo.

You'll never convince them because they're not interested in objective facts. They staked out their positions based on agendas long ago and they will approach every new dna sample with that in mind and try to twist the facts to suit their a priori position. What can possibly be gained from engaging in discussion with them.

They'll never see the nuances because it would disturb their world view.

Oh, and he hasn't taken off his "mask". Who the hell knows who he really is? He once sent me a photoshopped picture supposedly of "him", or maybe it was a facebook page, where this little Southern Italian or Southern Italian and other Southern European mixed guy was posted against a Canadian scene. That was it for me. It was as bad as when one of these jokers sent me an obvious photoshop of him against an Italian scene to prove he was a "real" Italian. That's all you need to know about their IQ and reasoning ability.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you're right, it is sort of like the playing chess with a pigeon meme.
 
Jovialis said:
Tell me Azzurro, how is looking at an arbitrary construct known as ITA_Imperial_Rome supposed to tell you anything? You have the floor.
Click to expand...


Republican-Roman ethnicity is far far different than Imperial-Roman ethnicity ...................you need to separate the two ..................this is the main issue, people are merging the two and thinking it has always been like what the Imperial Roman one is
 
torzio said:
Republican-Roman ethnicity is far far different than Imperial-Roman ethnicity ...................you need to separate the two ..................this is the main issue, people are merging the two and thinking it has always been like what the Imperial Roman one is
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as Imperial-Roman ethnicity, or Republican-Roman ethnicity. There are Latins & various Italics, Greeks, Etruscans, Illyrians, Celts, etc...

But more importantly, the point I am making is that you cannot take a bunch of disparate samples from one time period, and make an aggregate of it, and use it as a viable construct to deduce ethnicity. As I was saying, the haplotype sharing clusters are better for that, and make sense. But apparently some people think that is over-complicated. It is almost as if they are feigning stupidity to protect their arguments.

I can think of countless examples of how this is idiotic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 362733 times.

Back
Top