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

Status
Not open for further replies.
qebGKhr.png


https://twitter.com/razibkhan/status/1184555324289757184
 
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.
It's stuff like this that makes me ignore autosomal interpretations. Everything is simplified to an extend that it sounds stupid. Everything North-Eastern is Slavic and everything North-Western is Celtic.

Thank God nobody said ancient Romans were ancient Greeks with a bit of Slavic in them.
 
"This tweet is unavailable". What happened?
I think that might be a twitter user that replied, who has their account set to private. I don't have a twitter account to log-in to, however, to see.

I took the screen shot 5 mins after it was posted.
 
but where is the link to the paper ?
or razib just posted the words
ancient rome 2358 poster wow
 
Wow it's great or wow it's stupid?

If it's the former, I beg leave to doubt.

Interpretation is everything, and this group of young people seems to know nothing of ancient history. It might as well have been done by the "experts" at anthrogenica. :)
 
He was probably browsing a forum like this, and He was surprised by the number of people who are interested in Ancient Rome ....

that’s it.

edit: we’re obviously way better than the others :)
 
Razib's post saying "wow" without showing a picture of the poster or hinting what's on it is a bad sign
 
Razib's post saying "wow" without showing a picture of the poster or hinting what's on it is a bad sign

I bet you just can't wait.
 
It's stuff like this that makes me ignore autosomal interpretations. Everything is simplified to an extend that it sounds stupid. Everything North-Eastern is Slavic and everything North-Western is Celtic.

Thank God nobody said ancient Romans were ancient Greeks with a bit of Slavic in them.

Thankfully, because that would be ludicrous.

North-East of Mycenaeans is exactly where I plot, and I have no traceable Slavic ancestry.

H072Ynz.png


Of all Europeans, with the exception of Sardinians and Finno-Ugric people; I have the least in common with Slavs, generally.

pCzDawG.png
 

Thanks, Jovialis. Now, that makes sense, but then Khan has assiduously pursued his interest in ancient history and particularly Roman history, just showing that STEM people don't need to be morons when it comes to everything but math and science. He can put the information into historical context, which I don't think the authors themselves did.

As to the Etruscans,I really want to see if the bozos at anthrogenica will admit they were completely and utterly wrong about them, and, if they have the decency to apologize about the constant playing of the "race card" against anyone who argued against the whole migration from Anatolia in the first millenium fantasy.

I won't be holding my breath, however. :)

Oh, and their fantasy that the genetics "changed back" because of the Germanic invasions is bunk as well. All the Lombard dna we've seen is U106. Add in I1 for other Germanics and you still have a very small percentage of Italians descending from them in the male line. There just weren't enough Germanics for big changes, just as there weren't enough Indo-Europeans for big changes before that, and, of course. the migrations of the Indo-Europeans were matched by Bronze Age migrations from the east. All as I've always said.
 
Thanks, Jovialis. Now, that makes sense, but then Khan has assiduously pursued his interest in ancient history and particularly Roman history, just showing that STEM people don't need to be morons when it comes to everything but math and science. He can put the information into historical context, which I don't think the authors themselves did.

As to the Etruscans,I really want to see if the bozos at anthrogenica will admit they were completely and utterly wrong about them, and, if they have the decency to apologize about the constant playing of the "race card" against anyone who argued against the whole migration from Anatolia in the first millenium fantasy.

I won't be holding my breath, however. :)

Oh, and their fantasy that the genetics "changed back" because of the Germanic invasions is bunk as well. All the Lombard dna we've seen is U106. Add in I1 for other Germanics and you still have a very small percentage of Italians descending from them in the male line. There just weren't enough Germanics for big changes, just as there weren't enough Indo-Europeans for big changes before that, and, of course. the migrations of the Indo-Europeans were matched by Bronze Age migrations from the east. All as I've always said.

Indeed :)

zsoqbYl.png
 
Thankfully, because that would be ludicrous.

North-East of Mycenaeans is exactly where I plot, and I have no traceable Slavic ancestry.

H072Ynz.png


Of all Europeans, with the exception of Sardinians and Finno-Ugric people; I have the least in common with Slavs, generally.

pCzDawG.png

Also, as I have previously mentioned by the late Republic/ Early Imperial era, the mixing of primarily these two groups possibly created a genetic synthesis, which enriched Europe, during colonization of conquered lands.

cqGHsjI.gif
 
Also, as I have previously mentioned by the late Republic/ Early Imperial era, the mixing of primarily these two groups possibly created a genetic synthesis, which enriched Europe, during colonization of conquered lands.

cqGHsjI.gif

I think that's absolutely correct.

All of the hallmarks of higher, more sophisticated civilizations came from the East, often via the Greeks, but perhaps directly as well, and in the Bronze Age came along with people, as had the innovations of the Neolithic period.

By the time of the Etruscans, we have a people who opened their culture to influences from Greece, Anatolia, even the Levant, while clearly not admixing genetically. Perhaps it had to do with more trade routes, easier transport of merchants, artisans etc.

Very little in high Etruscan culture came from Central Europe, which may explain why the thinking of even honest people without an agenda was that there must have been a migration of people bringing all this new knowledge.

That wasn't what the archaeology showed, and it seems the genetics will fall in line with the archaeology.

Instead, we have a people who transformed themselves and their culture in a very short time. The only corollary I can think of is the Japanese after the arrival of Perry. However, I would submit that the Etruscans, and their neighbors and cousins the Romans, also made a lot of innovations of their own. It's really a remarkable story of a remarkable people.

I feel vindicated for having always been fascinated by them. One of my earliest memories is of clambering around their "cemeteries of the dead". That's how long back it goes. That, and my memories of Luna.
 
F5YKAdA.png


So I guess it is:

-Etruscans and early Latins, more North Italian-like

-Imperial Romans, more Central and South Italian-like

At least as far as my speculation, based on these developments go. We will have a better picture by next month.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

This thread has been viewed 55812 times.

Back
Top