Rome as a genetic melting pot: Population dynamics over 12,000 years.

Status
Not open for further replies.
i think this romans had a very large gentic diverstiy
he orginal romans thought they werr on the Y DNA haplogroups RL2 and EV13 and RM269 and EL618 and RU152 and G2a and IL801 and mybe I1 and some branch R1a
In The imperial era However there often a hreat diversitt maybe Y DNA haplougroup EPF2431 and EM183 and EV65 and EV22 and LM20 and T and RYP1276 and Q and N
 
Gosh, seems like anthrogenica around here all of a sudden. You know, everybody has a crystal ball that can look both into the distant past and the future.

Who needs ancient samples and statistical analysis?
 
I was reading the comments of eurogenes, and apparently Davidski has seen the paper. While I take strong exception to the interpretation that he presents for the paper (recalling his claim of ABA "being just a few sailors" for Raveane et al); it seems the leaked PCA is in fact part of the Moots paper.
 
drip... drip... drip ...

At this point, if anyone has it, just lick everything and get it over with.

thanks :)
 
I was reading the comments of eurogenes, and apparently Davidski has seen the paper. While I take strong exception to the interpretation that he presents for the paper (recalling his claim of ABA "being just a few sailors" for Raveane et al); it seems the leaked PCA is in fact part of the Moots paper.

His modus operandi is to somehow get hold of unpublished papers and to then put out his own spin on the contents in order to try to mold perception of it. It's a common public relations ploy. He's done it with a lot of papers and with his own blogs as well: put out something outrageous and count on the fact that most people won't read the whole thing and realize the heading is a distorted view.

I don't read his blog, so I don't know what he's saying this week, but I can tell you that anyone who thinks they're getting unvarnished truth from him is a few Fridays short a month.

You know, Mary McCarthy once said of the communist Lillian Hellman that everything she said was a lie, and that included "a" and "the". :) That applies to a lot of people. It's a case of buyer beware.
 
I was reading the comments of eurogenes, and apparently Davidski has seen the paper. While I take strong exception to the interpretation that he presents for the paper (recalling his claim of ABA "being just a few sailors" for Raveane et al); it seems the leaked PCA is in fact part of the Moots paper.


Are we talking about this leaked PCA? This PCA is contradictory to the rumors about the Romans analyzed by Moots. That Stanford analyzed the Etruscans is absolutely probable, since they have already done so at least 4 years ago.

bNZThgz.png



This PCA is 4 years old and the three Etruscans were analyzed just by Stanford.


etruscans.jpg
 
Are we talking about this leaked PCA? This PCA is contradictory to the rumors about the Romans analyzed by Moots. That Stanford analyzed the Etruscans is absolutely probable, since they have already done so at least 4 years ago.

bNZThgz.png



This PCA is 4 years old and the three Etruscans were analyzed just by Stanford.


etruscans.jpg

My assumption is based on this post he made in the R1a comments:

Davidski:
@zardos

Yeah, the abstract describes pretty well the results that I've seen from the paper.

Expect a lot of the Romans to cluster well south of the early Italic individuals, even from south central Italy (Samnites), and basically among modern Cretans, Sicilians and Cypriots. Quite a few of the Romans, especially the late ones, also cluster with Middle Eastern groups.

The one thing I don't get is why so few of the Romans overlap with Mycenaeans. Most of them are shifted east/northeast compared to Mycenaeans, and so overlap strongly with modern Greeks. But of course modern Greeks have a lot of Slavic ancestry.

I'm hoping that the paper explains this in some detail, instead of simply claiming that many Romans were of Greek descent because they cluster with modern Greeks.
 
Here is another one they are doing:

PgmNr 2304: Exploring health, disease, and diet in Ancient Rome through paleogenomics.

https://eventpilotadmin.com/web/page.php?page=IntHtml&project=ASHG19&id=1923459

Good to see they did isotope analysis.

As for the genetics paper, I would have expected more from a paper supervised by Pinhasi.

My major objection stands: analyzing the inhabitants of a port and the capital of an international empire is not the way of going about investigating the genetic history of a people. If you want to examine the disparate inhabitants of a "global" city in the heydey of its empire, great. If you want to investigate the prehistory of a people, great. Don't make a mishmash by combining the two.

It almost seems as if they're surprised that the population was heterogeneous. Is New York homogeneous genetically? Is Paris? Is London? Is Rio, even after hundreds of years? What would be the reaction of geneticists digging in NYC in 4019? I think it might be the same. New York is heterogeneous because the level of intermarriage between Asians and whites or blacks and whites is small. It happens, but far less often than the media might have you believe, and the studies document it.
 
Especially since the population of Rome dropped down to a mere 30,000. The urban centers were de-populated, and these exotic populations were not supplemented with continuous waves of migration.

We have to wait to see if the paper confirms it, but one of the leaks floating around stated that the "signal", i.e. samples from the Levant disappeared. The dates would have to be examined. Rome had an ancient Jewish population. At one point all Jews were exiled. Might that explain the disappearance of that "signal"? Or might it have something to do with the arrival and then departure of people from the Levant fleeing the revolts or fleeing the repercussions? There's a lot we don't know about that period.
 
We have to wait to see if the paper confirms it, but one of the leaks floating around stated that the "signal", i.e. samples from the Levant disappeared. The dates would have to be examined. Rome had an ancient Jewish population. At one point all Jews were exiled. Might that explain the disappearance of that "signal"? Or might it have something to do with the arrival and then departure of people from the Levant fleeing the revolts or fleeing the repercussions? There's a lot we don't know about that period.

Like NYC or Paris or London, it absolutely wasn't a melting pot. Rather, it was more like a stew! :)
 
Also Sardinia which gets Iran-like ancestry in late antiquity, and IA.
I don't see how that would support the hypothesis of a prehistoric migration from Anatolia to Mainland Italy or Sardinia during the bronze age considering that's a sample from the Late Punic/Early Roman period not an early iron age sample, so a sample dating to a period when Phoenicians and North Africans had been living in Sardinia for several centuries, and when Romans and other Italics were also starting to settle.
The site where that sample comes from became in fact a Roman colony. The other samples were from Caralis and the context is not really clear, apparently they are dated to the Late antiquity period and during antiquity Caralis had been for centuries one of the bases of the Roman imperial fleet, in fact in Caralis there are cemeteries of sailors from all nationalities including people of Egyptian, Syrian and Dacian descent. There are late bronze age samples from Sardinia dating to the last few centuries of the second millennium bc both from the study you mentioned and the other one which was published in the same month and the samples from both of those studies lack Iran N ancestry.
 
OK, not Sardinia in the Bronze Age.

Are you willing to wager that "Iranian like" ancestry was present in Sicily in the middle Bronze Age but not right across the straits in, say, Calabria, or Apulia, where you can see the land across the Adriatic Sea???

Please see:
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threa...rranean?highlight=Reich-western+Mediterranean

" In Sicily, Iranian-related ancestry also arrived by the Middle Bronze Age, thus revealing that this ancestry type, which was ubiquitous in the Aegean by this time, also spread further west prior to the classical period of Greek expansion."

We discuss the paper at length.
 
I don't see how that would support the hypothesis of a prehistoric migration from Anatolia to Mainland Italy or Sardinia during the bronze age considering that's a sample from the Late Punic/Early Roman period not an early iron age sample, so a sample dating to a period when Phoenicians and North Africans had been living in Sardinia for several centuries, and when Romans and other Italics were also starting to settle.
The site where that sample comes from became in fact a Roman colony. The other samples were from Caralis and the context is not really clear, apparently they are dated to the Late antiquity period and during antiquity Caralis had been for centuries one of the bases of the Roman imperial fleet, in fact in Caralis there are cemeteries of sailors from all nationalities including people of Egyptian, Syrian and Dacian descent. There are late bronze age samples from Sardinia dating to the last few centuries of the second millennium bc both from the study you mentioned and the other one which was published in the same month and the samples from both of those studies lack Iran N ancestry.

Hence the time periods I mentioned in the quote you made of me. Also, the quote from the paper that Angela provided is point I was making. If it was verified in Sicily, I would strongly suggest it was also in the mainland, especially the south, where it is most strongly detected in modern populations.
 
FYI

I have written Moots about the abstract, and inquired about the Anatolian Bronze-Age-like ancestry, and this was her response to my inquiry:

Thank you for your email. Yes, that is an abstract one of my colleagues submitted for a poster at an upcoming conference (the American Society of Human Genomics).

Most of our data is from the last 3,000 years, so the project focuses more on the genetics of the rise and fall of the Roman Empire more than the prehistoric transitions.

We collaborate with some of the people on the Raveane paper, their work is really impressive.

Looking forward to being about to share our results, hopefully soon!


All the best,
Hannah
 
FYI

I have written Moots about the abstract, and inquired about the Anatolian Bronze-Age-like ancestry, and this was her response to my inquiry:

[FONT=&]Thank you for your email. Yes, that is an abstract one of my colleagues submitted for a poster at an upcoming conference (the American Society of Human Genomics). [/FONT]

[FONT=&]Most of our data is from the last 3,000 years, so the project focuses more on the genetics of the rise and fall of the Roman Empire more than the prehistoric transitions. [/FONT][FONT=&]
[/FONT]

[FONT=&]We collaborate with some of the people on the Raveane paper, their work is really impressive. [/FONT][FONT=&]
[/FONT]

[FONT=&]Looking forward to being about to share our results, hopefully soon![/FONT]
[FONT=&]
[/FONT]

[FONT=&]All the best,[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Hannah[/FONT]

IMO it is about 3000 years ago when Italic speaking tribes entered Italy.
I wonder whether we'll get a glance at that.
 
FYI

I have written Moots about the abstract, and inquired about the Anatolian Bronze-Age-like ancestry, and this was her response to my inquiry:

Thank you for your email. Yes, that is an abstract one of my colleagues submitted for a poster at an upcoming conference (the American Society of Human Genomics).

Most of our data is from the last 3,000 years, so the project focuses more on the genetics of the rise and fall of the Roman Empire more than the prehistoric transitions.

We collaborate with some of the people on the Raveane paper, their work is really impressive.

Looking forward to being about to share our results, hopefully soon!


All the best,
Hannah

Well, if they wanted to show the rise and fall of the Roman Empire, why go back 12,000 years for a sample, and why include samples from the early Bronze Age at all?

It just confuses the whole picture, especially if you don't also include the later Bronze Age and Iron Age, and other areas of Italy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

This thread has been viewed 55622 times.

Back
Top