Moots: Ancient Rome Paper

[Carlos]

I think that the Basque language would come from WHG and the Etruscan language from NorthEastEuropeHG.



I found this map. A rough way is a little what I want to say about the HG origin of the Basque and the Etruscan, I had no idea that the thing was like that, but look where it is good to stage my hypothesis. The Basques in a matter of language would have been the redoubt of the orange color on the map and the Etruscans the redoubt of the green color, as an idiomatic trunk because there would have been a multitude of derived dialects.

[Jovialis]

Indeed, and as you have said in previous threads, modern day Italians really are formed in the medieval era. The paper confirms that the true ethnogenisis of the modern day Italians emerged out of the rural people taking back the cities.

Towns like my father's being re-settled after 300 years of abandonment in the 1200s, under Federico II Di Svevia. Perhaps with people who owe much of their ancestry to groups that preceded the Romans; who were closer to Bronze-Age groups in Southern Italy (i.e. this "Mediterranean C6" group).

Also, the 850, and 437 are considered "Mediterranean C6", at least according to their grouping in the chart above. These kind of people would surely have been part of the re-settlement in the South, considering me, Salento, and your husband get 850 in our results. As well as the Center, considering the the chart is actually of that (40%/60%).

The people that lived in Italy during the Renaissance, have their origins in a genetic-renaissance.

[Dianatomia]

Indeed, and as you have said in previous threads, modern day Italians really are formed in the medieval era. The paper confirms that the true ethnogenisis of the modern day Italians emerged out of the rural people taking back the cities.

If the rural people took back the cities, then how can this be considered a genetic ethnogenesis? The genes were there, in the rural area. Perhaps Rome had many immigrants, but this in itself would say little about Italy as a whole.

[Nik]

someone posted it in anthrogenica
don't know which calculator he used :

results look logic by shortest distance :)

1. ---

   Distance to:	ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR37
   0.03472320	Spanish_Soria

   
   
   

   ---

   Distance to:	ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR38
   0.03236586	Cypriot

   
   
   

   ---

   Distance to:	ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR39
   0.01990150	Greek_Kos

   
   
   

   ---

   Distance to:	ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR40
   0.02753859	Greek_Kos

   
   
   

   ---

   Distance to:	ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR41
   0.01886577	Romaniote_Jew

   
   
   

   ---

   Distance to:	ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR42
   0.02329748	Lebanese_Christian

   
   
   

   ---

   Distance to:	ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR43
   0.03473337	Greek_Kos

   
   
   

   ---

   Distance to:	ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR44
   0.03783763	Greek_Kos

   
   
   

   ---

   Distance to:	ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR45
   0.03371377	Italian_Jew

   
   
   

   ---

   Distance to:	ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR47
   0.01862262	Italian_Campania

   
   
   

   ---

   Distance to:	ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR49
   0.01958219	Italian_Basilica

   
   
   

   ---

   Distance to:	ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR50
   0.02653126	Greek_Crete

   
   
   

   ---

   Distance to:	ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR51
   0.03052100	Sicilian_East

   
   
   

   ---

   Distance to:	ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR66
   0.04277771	Cypriot

   
   
   

   ---

   Distance to:	ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR67
   0.02938263	Georgian_Jew

   
   
   

   ---

   Distance to:	ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR68
   0.02375481	Iraqi_Jew

   
   
   

   ---

   Distance to:	ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR69
   0.03778518	Greek_Kos

   
   
   

   ---

   Distance to:	ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR70
   0.02694747	Cypriot

   
   
   

   ---

   Distance to:	ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR71
   0.03685558	Greek_Central_Anatolia

   
   
   

   ---

   Distance to:	ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR72
   0.03173555	Cypriot

   
   
   

   ---

   Distance to:	ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR73
   0.03195050	Romaniote_Jew

   
   
   

   ---

   Distance to:	ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR75
   0.02542093	Cypriot

   
   
   

   ---

   Distance to:	ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR76
   0.03396961	Cypriot

   
   
   

   ---

   Distance to:	ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR78
   0.04106184	Cypriot

   
   
   

   ---

   Distance to:	ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR80
   0.03542737	Moroccan_Jew

   
   
   

   ---

   Distance to:	ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR81
   0.02347214	Greek_Kos

   
   
   

   ---

   Distance to:	ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR111
   0.03250955	Italian_Umbria

   
   
   

   ---

   Distance to:	ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR113
   0.03530855	Italian_Apulia

   
   
   

   ---

   Distance to:	ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR114
   0.02672989	Greek_Crete

   
   
   

   ---

   Distance to:	ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR115
   0.02004098	Greek_Kos

   
   
   

   ---

   Distance to:	ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR116
   0.01809474	French

   
   
   

   ---

   Distance to:	ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR123
   0.02300978	Greek_Kos

   
   
   

   ---

   Distance to:	ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR125
   0.03049942	Greek_Kos

   
   
   

   ---

   Distance to:	ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR126
   0.02337482	Cypriot

   
   
   

   ---

   Distance to:	ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR128
   0.03250066	Greek_Central_Anatolia

   
   
   

   ---

   Distance to:	ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR131
   0.02333972	Italian_Campania

   
   
   

   ---

   Distance to:	ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR132
   0.06779557	Libyan_Jew

   
   
   

   ---

   Distance to:	ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR436
   0.02568965	Greek_Kos

   
   
   

   ---

   Distance to:	ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR835
   0.02058905	Italian_Campania

   
   
   

   ---

   Distance to:	ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR836
   0.02718180	Italian_Apulia

   
   
   

   ---

   Distance to:	ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR1543
   0.02213186	Sephardic_Jew

   
   
   

   ---

   Distance to:	ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR1544
   0.02345995	Italian_Campania

   
   
   

   ---

   Distance to:	ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR1545
   0.03406077	Cypriot

   
   
   

   ---

   Distance to:	ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR1547
   0.02958786	Lebanese_Christian

   
   
   

   ---

   Distance to:	ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR1548
   0.02598342	Greek_Crete

   
   
   

   ---

   Distance to:	ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR1549
   0.03439954	Italian_Abruzzo

   
   
   

   ---

   Distance to:	ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR1550
   0.02256962	Palestinian_Beit_Sahour

   
   
   

   ---

   Distance to:	ITA_Rome_Imperial_RMPR1551
   0.03413629	Greek_Trabzon

   
   
   

   ---

   Distance to:	ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_RMPR30
   0.02191906	Italian_Calabria

   
   
   

   ---

   Distance to:	ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_RMPR31
   0.03159048	Welsh

   
   
   

   ---

   Distance to:	ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_RMPR32
   0.02463914	Italian_Campania

   
   
   

   ---

   Distance to:	ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_RMPR33
   0.01759383	Italian_Bergamo

   
   
   

   ---

   Distance to:	ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_RMPR34
   0.01876256	Greek_Kos

   
   
   

   ---

   Distance to:	ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_RMPR35
   0.01836963	Italian_Campania

   
   
   

   ---

   Distance to:	ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_RMPR36
   0.02130072	Italian_Marche

   
   
   

   ---

   Distance to:	ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_RMPR104
   0.02236527	Sardinian

   
   
   

   ---

   Distance to:	ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_RMPR105
   0.02504601	Italian_Trentino-Alto-Adige

   
   
   

   ---

   Distance to:	ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_RMPR106
   0.02623729	Belgian

   
   
   

   ---

   Distance to:	ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_RMPR107
   0.02414862	Italian_Apulia

   
   
   

   ---

   Distance to:	ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_RMPR108
   0.02438511	French_Provence

   
   
   

   ---

   Distance to:	ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_RMPR109
   0.02528145	Spanish_Baleares

   
   
   

   ---

   Distance to:	ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_RMPR110
   0.02577841	Italian_Trentino-Alto-Adige

   
   
   

   ---

   Distance to:	ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_RMPR117
   0.02349091	Italian_Calabria

   
   
   

   ---

   Distance to:	ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_RMPR118
   0.02794022	Italian_Umbria

   
   
   

   ---

   Distance to:	ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_RMPR120
   0.02765728	Italian_Marche

   
   
   

   ---

   Distance to:	ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_RMPR121
   0.02694788	Italian_Marche

   
   
   

   ---

   Distance to:	ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_RMPR122
   0.01962059	Sicilian_East

   
   
   

   ---

   Distance to:	ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_RMPR130
   0.02602672	Cypriot

   
   
   

   ---

   Distance to:	ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_RMPR133
   0.02726685	Greek_Kos

   
   
   

   ---

   Distance to:	ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_RMPR134
   0.02090265	Romaniote_Jew

   
   
   

   ---

   Distance to:	ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_RMPR136
   0.01626674	Italian_Campania

   
   
   

   ---

   Distance to:	ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity_RMPR137
   0.02620622	Greek_Kos

   
   
   

   ---

   Distance to:	ITA_Rome_Latini_IA_RMPR1016
   0.03957103	Spanish_La_Rioja

   
   

Guys, I would appreciate your opinion on these calculations. How reliable do you think they are?

If they are indeed reliable, what's with all the fuss people are making and the "shocking discoveries" and Near Eastern signal and this significant genetic shift of Italy and coastal Spain and France in comparison to the Republican samples?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as the Roman Republic grew larger into becoming an empire and giving citizenship to more and more subdued/allied nations, it's obvious that the probability to encounter foreigners in cemeteries near Rome and other metropolitan areas are logically way higher.

Any of you actually calculated approximately this "Near Eastern signal" that actually managed to survive past Late Antiquity and Early Middle Ages in Latium and Italy in general? What percentage are we talking about?

I believe my opinion on the matter is obvious, but I'm trying hard to see it also from the perspective of people who don't agree with me and have a completely different take on the matter. What's "justifying" their views if that's even the correct word to use. Or plain racism?

[Pax Augusta]

@Pax about Burial 6 at Campo del Fico

Do you a know if they’re talking about R850 or someone else ???

... Dated to the 3rd Lazio Era, of an adult male accompanied by a Cannon Spear, a Precious Sword with an ivory-bone handle and bronzed sheath ...

Salento, I don't know. The page comes from a book published in 2003 and talks about the Campo del Fico necropolis. It is difficult to understand to which burials it refers and which of these are those analyzed in the paper.

https://books.google.it/books?id=W7-EjeOnQqwC

Why are certain people from Nazi sites pushing for a west Asian origin for etruscans? Wouldn't they instead want them to be indo European? Lol it kinda boggles my mind bc the etruscans were very influential

There is a really unhealthy obsession with the Etruscans and especially with the question of origins.


Here the responsibility is also due to the many non-Etruscologist scholars, especially the Indo-Europeanist linguists and some Orientalists, who have supported over time the most unlikely hypotheses about the Etruscans, even against the archaeological evidence.


Stories of eastern origins in the Greek writers also exist for the Latins and the ancient Veneti, but nobody has ever taken them seriously.


However, the Lydians spoke an Indo-European language. So if the Etruscans had been of Lydian origin, they would have spoken an Indo-European language. Instead, the Etruscans spoke a pre-Indo-European language, like the Basques still today (although Etruscan language and Basque do not seem related).


Speaking a pre-Indo-European language in the Iron Age does not imply that one was genetically pre-Indo-European. This is demonstrated by the fact that these analyzed Etruscans all have more steppe ancestry than the Mycenaeans. Although it is necessary to remember, the former live in the Iron Age, the latter in the Bronze Age.

[Salento]

Thanks Pax :)

[Leka]

For those who haven't got to the supplement yet: Ardea was part of the Latin League, but it was NOT Rome, and in fact at times was allied AGAINST Rome.


Only two samples are from Ardea.

Anything on the ANAS, Angela?

[Jovialis]

If the rural people took back the cities, then how can this be considered a genetic ethnogenesis? The genes were there, in the rural area. Perhaps Rome had many immigrants, but this in itself would say little about Italy as a whole.

It is the entho-genesis of new regional identities, who make up the modern Italian people. The native re-settlers who converged from the surrounding countryside; created their own unique traditions, dialects, cusine, artistic patrimony, etc. They were unified under Roman Catholicism.

[Pax Augusta]

Anything on the ANAS, Angela?

Do you know what ANAS is? ANAS is this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANAS

[Jovialis]

It is the entho-genesis of new regional identities, who make up the modern Italian people. The native re-settlers who converged from the surrounding countryside; created their own unique traditions, dialects, cusine, artistic patrimony, etc. They were unified under Roman Catholicism.

[Angela]

Indeed, and as you have said in previous threads, modern day Italians really are formed in the medieval era. The paper confirms that the true ethnogenisis of the modern day Italians emerged out of the rural people taking back the cities.

Towns like my father's being re-settled after 300 years of abandonment in the 1200s, under Federico II Di Svevia. Perhaps with people who owe much of their ancestry to groups that preceded the Romans; who were closer to Bronze-Age groups in Southern Italy (i.e. this "Mediterranean C6" group).

Also, the 850, and 437 are considered "Mediterranean C6", at least according to their grouping in the chart above. These kind of people would surely have been part of the re-settlement in the South, considering me, Salento, and your husband get 850 in our results. As well as the Center, considering the the chart is actually of that (40%/60%).

I just find it extraordinary that the authors of the paper spent all that time, as evidenced in the Supplement, modeling later samples in Central and Southern Italy as mixtures of Copper/Iron Age people and Germans, Scandinavians etc., but never bother to model them using Iron Age samples.

In what history or archaeology of the period do they see mass migration of Goths and Lombards to the depths of Calabria???? Where is all the y dna which would show that??? There would have to have been a lot of it to explain this amount of change.

They go to the effort of finding the ydna but then never incorporate it into their analysis? Maybe you could make an argument for Sicily and some Normans, although given how few they were in number they must have each fathered fifty children to explain it, but Calabria? And Calabria not near Sicily I might add.

Listen, it's fine with me either way. I accept the data whatever it shows. They just should have tested it.

I wonder if some of these researchers worked with Piazza, he who was so completely wrong about the Etruscans, by the way. His disciples couldn't even tell the difference between Linearbandermilk Neolithic dna and Iron Age Anatolian dna. Notice how the paper doesn't dwell on how these results make mincemeat of the "Etruscans from the East" hypothesis. :)

[Leka]

Do you know what ANAS is? ANAS is this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANAS

I thought it was a settlement within Rome based on that map. No?

[kingjohn]

someone from eurogenes blog i think it is nmonte :

The outlier from IA Ardea
looks interesting:


[1] "distance%=3.8939"

ITA_Ardea_Latini_IA_o

Anatolia_EBA_Isparta,60.6
Yamnaya_Samara,13.5
Natufian,11.8
Barcin_N,11.1
Ganj_Dareh_N,1.6
Han,0.8
WHG,0.6
Anatolia_EBA_Ovaoren,0
Morocco_Iberomaurusian,0
Yoruba,0

Predominantly Anatolia_BA with some Natufian!









The outlier from Praeneste
has also a lot of Anatolia_BA:

[1] "distance%=1.6679"

ITA_Prenestini_tribe_IA_o

Barcin_N,37.6
Anatolia_EBA_Isparta,25.1
Yamnaya_Samara,17.6
Anatolia_EBA_Ovaoren,16.9
WHG,2.3
Natufian,0.5
Ganj_Dareh_N,0
Morocco_Iberomaurusian,0
Han,0
Yoruba,0

[Jovialis]

someone from eurogenes blog i think it is nmonte :

The outlier from IA Ardea
looks interesting:


[1] "distance%=3.8939"

ITA_Ardea_Latini_IA_o

Anatolia_EBA_Isparta,60.6
Yamnaya_Samara,13.5
Natufian,11.8
Barcin_N,11.1
Ganj_Dareh_N,1.6
Han,0.8
WHG,0.6
Anatolia_EBA_Ovaoren,0
Morocco_Iberomaurusian,0
Yoruba,0

Predominantly Anatolia_BA with some Natufian!









The outlier from Praeneste
has also a lot of Anatolia_BA:

[1] "distance%=1.6679"

ITA_Prenestini_tribe_IA_o

Barcin_N,37.6
Anatolia_EBA_Isparta,25.1
Yamnaya_Samara,17.6
Anatolia_EBA_Ovaoren,16.9
WHG,2.3
Natufian,0.5
Ganj_Dareh_N,0
Morocco_Iberomaurusian,0
Han,0
Yoruba,0

I wouldn't trust it, users on that website seem to have issues with the paper. For example, the user known as "Samuel Andrews" is unable to find Iranian-like admixture in the samples. Despite the fact that it is clearly listed in the in the admixture chart. Perhaps that is why Razib Khan admonished him for being a manipulator in the comment section of brownpundits.

[Angela]

Salento, I don't know. The page comes from a book published in 2003 and talks about the Campo del Fico necropolis. It is difficult to understand to which burials it refers and which of these are those analyzed in the paper.

https://books.google.it/books?id=W7-EjeOnQqwC





There is a really unhealthy obsession with the Etruscans and especially with the question of origins.


Here the responsibility is also due to the many non-Etruscologist scholars, especially the Indo-Europeanist linguists and some Orientalists, who have supported over time the most unlikely hypotheses about the Etruscans, even against the archaeological evidence.


Stories of eastern origins in the Greek writers also exist for the Latins and the ancient Veneti, but nobody has ever taken them seriously.


However, the Lydians spoke an Indo-European language. So if the Etruscans had been of Lydian origin, they would have spoken an Indo-European language. Instead, the Etruscans spoke a pre-Indo-European language, like the Basques still today (although Etruscan language and Basque do not seem related).


Speaking a pre-Indo-European language in the Iron Age does not imply that one was genetically pre-Indo-European. This is demonstrated by the fact that these analyzed Etruscans all have more steppe ancestry than the Mycenaeans. Although it is necessary to remember, the former live in the Iron Age, the latter in the Bronze Age.

I have to go back and check, but doesn't the excerpt I published indicate the rich hoard was Bronze Age? Aren't the samples we're discussing from a later period as per your graphic?

Excellent information in this post, btw, but I'm out of ammunition. :)

[kingjohn]

I wouldn't trust it, users on that website seem to have issues with the paper. For example, the user known as "Samuel Andrews" is unable to find Iranian-like admixture in the samples. Despite the fact that it is clearly listed in the in the admixture chart. Perhaps that is why Razib Khan admonished him for being a manipulator in the comment section of brownpundits.

it is not samuel
anyway get your point

last example they did :

The Etruscan outlier looks weird, as though he had North African admixture:

[1] "distance%=2.954"

ITA_Etruscan_o

Barcin_N,65.6
Yamnaya_Samara,14.7
Morocco_Iberomaurusian,11.4 :)
WHG,6
Yoruba,1.3
Natufian,1
Anatolia_EBA_Isparta,0
Anatolia_EBA_Ovaoren,0
Ganj_Dareh_N,0
Han,0

[Jovialis]

That's strange, I just ctrl-f searched the comments there, and nothing came up. Who made that?

[kingjohn]

That's strange, I just ctrl-f searched the comments there, and nothing came up. Who made that?

it is simon_w

[Jovialis]

"Considering these results, I'm tempted to say that the present-day Italian gene pool largely formed in the Iron Age, and that it was only augmented by population movements during later periods"

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/

[Angela]

If the rural people took back the cities, then how can this be considered a genetic ethnogenesis? The genes were there, in the rural area. Perhaps Rome had many immigrants, but this in itself would say little about Italy as a whole.

I'm sure a lot of port cities would have had immigrants and immigrant remains in their cemeteries. What will future archaeologists say about the cemeteries of Marseilles, or Hamburg?

Most of the large cities of the Empire were probably similar to some degree. Look at London today, or NYC, or some cities in Germany or France. How would they look to future archaeologists?

With time, with human nature being what it is, would there have been some admixture with "locals", with the probably exception of the Jews? Yes, I'm sure there would have been.

The issue is, what happened to the people in the cities? Cities get destroyed in times of war, and pestilence, i.e. Justinian's Plague, take a greater toll in crowded cities. People die or flee.

Even before the worst of it, the actual sacking(s) of Rome and most major cities throughout the Empire, the depredations of the "Barbarians" were taking their toll on the Western Empire. Everything started shifting to the east, to the "New Rome", Constantinople, and thank God for it, because they were able to maintain the culture and learning for longer.

Those who still had connections in the East, from where they could continue their mercantile and "industrial" activities, undoubtedly left for greener pastures. The poor, as is always the case, are the ones who have to just wait to die.

I by no means mean to imply that the more heavily Iran Neo/CHG ancestry didn't remain in Central Italy. We had it in the Neolithic. I'm convinced it moved into Southern Italy in greater numbers in the Bronze Age, and particularly in the Iron Age with Greek colonization. That ancestry moved northwards. We have it already appearing in very early Latins in Ardea.

What I am talking about is this "tail" into the Levant with which the people at anthrogenica are so enamored. It disappeared. I think the authors should have considered the possibility that it disappeared because the migration from that area ceased, and those who carried it might either have been transients, or after a generation or two left for other regions, or, just were more impacted by the calamities which befell the Western Empire because they were congregated in the cities which were hit the hardest.

[Salento]

I have to go back and check, but doesn't the excerpt I published indicate the rich hoard was Bronze Age? Aren't the samples we're discussing from a later period as per your graphic?

I read it like that :) :

Sample 6 = III Periodo Laziale (Iron Age) and could be IIIA (800 - 750 BC), or IIIB (750 - 725 BC)

it could Match R850

The “Exceptional” Final Bronze Burial is someone else.

... Dated to the 3rd Lazio Era, of an adult male accompanied by a Cannon Spear, a Precious Sword with an ivory-bone handle and bronzed sheath ...

An “exceptional“ burial, from the end of the Bronze Age ...

[Jovialis]

someone from eurogenes blog i think it is nmonte :
The outlier from IA Ardea
looks interesting:
[1] "distance%=3.8939"
ITA_Ardea_Latini_IA_o
Anatolia_EBA_Isparta,60.6
Yamnaya_Samara,13.5
Natufian,11.8
Barcin_N,11.1
Ganj_Dareh_N,1.6
Han,0.8
WHG,0.6
Anatolia_EBA_Ovaoren,0
Morocco_Iberomaurusian,0
Yoruba,0
Predominantly Anatolia_BA with some Natufian!
The outlier from Praeneste
has also a lot of Anatolia_BA:

[1] "distance%=1.6679"
ITA_Prenestini_tribe_IA_o
Barcin_N,37.6
Anatolia_EBA_Isparta,25.1
Yamnaya_Samara,17.6
Anatolia_EBA_Ovaoren,16.9
WHG,2.3
Natufian,0.5
Ganj_Dareh_N,0
Morocco_Iberomaurusian,0
Han,0
Yoruba,0

Like I said, the sample is in the C6 grouping. Not near eastern, or even eastern Mediterranean.

Also:

[Jovialis]

Like I said, the sample is in the C6 grouping. Not near eastern, or even eastern Mediterranean.

Also:

[Angela]

Guys, I would appreciate your opinion on these calculations. How reliable do you think they are?

If they are indeed reliable, what's with all the fuss people are making and the "shocking discoveries" and Near Eastern signal and this significant genetic shift of Italy and coastal Spain and France in comparison to the Republican samples?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as the Roman Republic grew larger into becoming an empire and giving citizenship to more and more subdued/allied nations, it's obvious that the probability to encounter foreigners in cemeteries near Rome and other metropolitan areas are logically way higher.

Any of you actually calculated approximately this "Near Eastern signal" that actually managed to survive past Late Antiquity and Early Middle Ages in Latium and Italy in general? What percentage are we talking about?

I believe my opinion on the matter is obvious, but I'm trying hard to see it also from the perspective of people who don't agree with me and have a completely different take on the matter. What's "justifying" their views if that's even the correct word to use. Or plain racism?

My friend, some of it is clearly Levanticism, or Levantism, i.e. some people with history from the Levant who want to attach themselves to the glory of Rome and the accomplishments of the Italian people. Is there such a word? :) It's nice to be admired, or maybe it's sort of like pay back by the conquered, in their minds, but we have to stick to the facts.

Some of it is pure, outright racism against any Europeans who carry CHG/Iran Neo which arrived at the wrong time for their liking, and with the wrong people, i.e. not with steppe people, but from Neolithic, Bronze and Iron Age people who went to Greece, the Balkans, Italy, and further west in the Mediterranean from the east. Do I have to repeat that Polako said Southern Italians should be kicked out of Europe, or that he permits racist posts on his site from maniacs who say they're not "European" because they have too much of that ancestry? What, precisely, is too much ancestry from the Near East? If you add up all the Anatolian Neo and CHG and Iran Neo in Europe, even northern Europe is at 50=60%. Is that going to be the cut off?

Then, there's the old "Portuguese Princess" and her socks, who is an absolute racist against Italians as proved by tens of thousands of posts on theapricity, who now under the name "Sikeliot", and perhaps Azzurro, pretends to be a Levanticist and even a quasi Jew. Gosh, I thought anthrogenica had a policy against multiple accounts, even if they were because passwords were forgotten.

What a bunch of disgusting hypocrites.

It's like trying to debate with someone in a hall of mirrors.

Meanwhile, anthrogenica gives him and others like him free rein, and bans anyone with a contrary opinion.

It's unreal.

[Ailchu]

If the rural people took back the cities, then how can this be considered a genetic ethnogenesis? The genes were there, in the rural area. Perhaps Rome had many immigrants, but this in itself would say little about Italy as a whole.

that graphic with the "admixtures" over time doesn't give you the ancestry based on real modern or old populations, so it isn't really usefull if you want to understand the ethnogenesis. i mean just look at the farmers admixture.
you could make the assumption that the cluster C6 was always present and roughly always corresponded to the same population in italy. then you could say something about ethnogenesis, but it's just an assumption and you could miss out a lot of possible details.
and surprise, if you try to model for example the imperial samples with samples of the exact same study they will probably be modeled by themselves.
i think based on this graphic you can only say that early modern rome can be modeled as a mix of a theoretical population that looks modern north italian and a theoretical population that looks modern south italian.