ihype02;633285]I have said before that some East Med Greek people probably did exist in Magna Graecia just like some Italic outliers too. I was wrong about dismissing him immediately as a Greek but the probability of finding a Cretan-like Greek in Rome by the time of 500BC to 800BC is slim. I doubt these genetic profiles were even common in Crete and Aegean Islands by time of 500BC-800BC.
There's no way you can possibly know that. We have no idea what the people of Crete were like in the Iron Age. You think they also were massively settled by people from the Levant? My God, how were there any people left to rebel against the Romans?
Again I do not know the timing aside from the fact that they are from Imperial Rome. "Not all" is a vague saying. 98% is not all too. But how was the Southern Italian cluster formed in Imperial Rome/Late Antiquity? Ancient Greeks mixed with Italic people in Campania as we have seen in the leaked PCA does not match it. And why are Central Italians significantly more southern shifted than Latins and Etruscans even after some negligible Germanic admixture? Of course the amount of genetic influence is debatable.
Yes, Tuscans and Romans of the Modern Era are more southern shifted than the Etruscans and the Latins. No one is denying it. However, to say that there was this massive migration of Levantines to Etruria followed by a big German migration makes no sense. The y Dna doesn't support it, for one thing, and neither do the samples they're using, as Jovialis has pointed out. This is what comes of averaging a small number of samples to model historical genetic change. Hell, even the authors waffle, saying they don't know whether the admixture was Levantine or Anatolian. That's a pretty big difference.
As to the Roman paper which is the subject of this thread, as Jovialis has pointed out again and again, only a quarter of the Imperial samples are from the Near East. Then there are two C3 samples. How many times do people need to see the authors' own words before it sinks in?
"
Instead, two-thirds of Imperial individuals (31 out of 48) belong to two major clusters (C5 and C6) that overlap in PCA with central and eastern Mediterranean populations, such as those from southern and central Italy, Greece, Cyprus, and Malta (Fig. 4B). An additional quarter (13 out of 48) of the sampled Imperial Romans form a cluster (C4) defined by high amounts of haplotype sharing with Levantine and Near Eastern populations, whereas no pre-Imperial individuals appear in this cluster (Fig. 4AC)."
To a certain extend yes. Also that rural zones are more likely to get hit by plagues and wars. Rome was sacked by Visigoths after all.
You mean "urban", but I think everyone understood.
Well, that seems to be the subtext for so many of these discussions. It makes my skin crawl. Maybe it is true for some Italians. There are lots of strange people in this hobby. I can't imagine any Italian-American, or someone like me, who has spent decades here, feeling like that. Lord, there's so much inter-marriage between the two groups, despite the huge difference in religion.
No it does not, they are shifted in three direction towards Anatolia and Armenia, some few towards Northern Africa and the bulk seem towards Levant for whatever reason.
Where the heck are you getting that?
ONLY 1/4 of the Imperial Samples were from the Near East. Then, that "tail into the Levant" disappears. How many times does it have to be repeated??? Maybe they're saying that in the Etruscan paper, but they certainly didn't say it in Antonio et al. It's just the anthrogenica types who are saying it.
When I said most Imperial Romans are South of Southern Italians I was talking for the 2019 Imperial Rome paper that I quoted. I haven't run yet the samples (expect the Greek ones).
I want you to run them, although I already have, and Jovialis already has, but
MOST IMPORTANTLY, the authors already have. Only 1/4 are from the Near East (including Anatolia), and two more samples are C3.
I honestly don't get this. Maybe you have been brainwashed by the anthrogenica people or your fellow Albanians so that you don't absorb what the authors of Antonio et al pointed out, and the inconsistencies in the Etruscan paper.
You're worn me out. Believe what you want.
What is true of politics today is also now true of genetics, I guess. There's no search for objective truth; there's just different groups with different agendas.