I think this makes sense:
Only one Roman individual plots in the southernmost area of the TSI cluster in the leaked PCA
In my opinion the average of the northernmost Romans would plot in the SCItaly1 cluster (Raveane paper).
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I think this makes sense:
Only one Roman individual joins the TSI cluster in the leaked PCA.
In my opinion the average of the northernmost Romans would plot in the SCItaly1 cluster (Raveane paper).
Thanks very much, Pax.
The comment you made about the relationship between Etruscans, Latins and Romans (which I bolded) should be repeated every time people discuss the genetics of the "Romans". Well put.
Indeed, it's the same story which happened all over Europe, with Indo-European males and "local" women mixing, although in northern and central Europe we see more steppe mtDna, but the percentages are different in Southern Europe for that and other reasons we've discussed often. The yDna and mtDna reflect that. The Etruscans and, indeed, the Latins, if the reports are correct, and if the PCA reflects other analyses, have even a bit less steppe ancestry than the modern day Spanish and Northern Italians/Tuscans.
That Etruscan mtDna was always an important clue, but a lot of people refused to see the implications. Was it Barbujani who came to that conclusion? I always thought he was more on point than Piazza and his crew.
It will be interesting to compare the Etruscans and Latins to other ancient samples from Italy, like the Parma Beakers, for example, or even Otzi. For goodness sakes', if the Reich Lab and/or Johannes Krause is indeed working on Etruscan samples I hope they, unlike these shoemakers, have the sense to make some comparisons, and hopefully get some Terramare and other ancient dna as well so we can get a look at the changes over time.
This can help to understand who the Romans are in the PCA, although it is updated to May 23, 2018. It comes from Hannah Moots' Prezi account.
One Roman sample is dated 9th century BCE Iron Age, when the Latial culture (the archeological facies of the proto-Latins) flourished in Latium vetus (the land of the Latins) and the Etruscans are in the Villanovan period. Four Romans samples are immediately after the mythical "founding" of Rome, other five belong to the Roman Republic. A much larger number of samples comes from the imperial age and after the fall of Rome.
https://prezi.com/p/nybrerw9_l2d/rome-time-series/
Thanks, Pax. Now we'll just have to see what the proto-Latin, "founder" Roman, and Republic Roman samples are like and compare them to the later samples, both "probably Roman", and perhaps "foreign".
There seem to be a lot more samples than appear on that PCA.
What exactly is Razib khan saying?
1) No difference between Etruscans and Latins.
Are the Etruscans South-Shifted (Center-Italy), or are the Latins North-Shifted (Tuscany)?
2) Massive shift toward ‘Eastern’ affinity during the Imperial Period.
“Massive” meaning that many plotted more East or South-East than South-Italians and Sicilians?
3) shift ‘back’ after the Late Antique Period.
Basically, I think it is in line with work which suggests large fractions of non-natives in *cities*. When cities declined this genetic imprint diminished and Medieval cities were repopulated from rural areas ...
Is he talking about only the big Cities, or the entire Italian Peninsula?
I haven't seen what he's seen, so I can't be sure, but in the PCA we have the Etruscan samples plotting near southern Spaniards, northern Italians, and northern Tuscans (a bit more toward the Sardinians than those samples).
There are no academic samples of northern Tuscans, those are the usual HGDP and TSI. The rumours said there was no difference between the Etruscans and the Italics. Perhaps Razib deliberately used Latins instead of Romans. We just need to wait that papers are out.
I'm aware, but they don't all plot in the same precise spot. The Tuscan cluster covers quite a bit of area.
What exactly is Razib khan saying?
1) No difference between Etruscans and Latins.
Are the Etruscans South-Shifted (Center-Italy), or are the Latins North-Shifted (Tuscany)?
2) Massive shift toward ‘Eastern’ affinity during the Imperial Period.
“Massive” meaning that many plotted more East or South-East than South-Italians and Sicilians?
3) shift ‘back’ after the Late Antique Period.
Basically, I think it is in line with work which suggests large fractions of non-natives in *cities*. When cities declined this genetic imprint diminished and Medieval cities were repopulated from rural areas ...
Is he talking about only the big Cities, or the entire Italian Peninsula?
Caveat: I read rumors that some Samnites were Cypriot like, if that's true founding Romans may be more mixed or even more Southern like.
the Latins are the main founding tribe of Rome
but the other founding tribes, the Samnites et al were probably genetically similar to the Latins
Razib says the shift happened later in Rome, mainly during the imperial period
the shift back is probably due to admixture coming from the north
The other founding tribes of Rome were the Sabines, not the Samnites. They are two distinct tribes located in two different areas (the Sabines lived near Rome, east of Rome, the Samnites in the region known as Sannio, in southern Italy) although it is believed that their names derive from the original ethnonym -Safin, assumed to be the oldest name of all the Osco-Umbrian speaking tribes.
More wisdom from anthrogenica?
Problem is that the amount of U-106 and I1 of the German variety is tiny.
This thread has been viewed 56496 times.