Moots: Ancient Rome Paper

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 ...

jKaTyuG.png
 
someone from eurogenes blog i think it is nmonte :unsure::
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:
XwOyW8B.png
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Like I said, the sample is in the C6 grouping. Not near eastern, or even eastern Mediterranean.

Also:
XwOyW8B.png
ok so he doesn't know how to use nmonte .......
 
someone from eurogenes blog i think it is nmonte :unsure::

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

Total B.S.

Here's a novel idea. :)

There were two samples found in Ardea, same time period.

How about modeling sample 850 with the genes from the other Ardean and see what else has to be added?

OH, WAIT! They already did that in the paper.

The clique at anthrogenica just doesn't like that result. :( Too bad, so sad.

The problem, Ironside, whoever you are, is that the paper shows that the change in the Italian gene pool was from "added" ancestry from Anatolia, and the Caucasus, not the Levant. It also shows the "LEVANT TAIL" disappeared from the gene pool of modern Central Italians. I'm sure Sikeliot/Azzurro, and maybe Agamemnon and all their socks are devastated, but there it is.

These two "outliers" show that ancestry from that part of the world arrived in Central Rome very early; it didn't need to wait for hordes of Syrians or Jews who came as slaves in the Empire. My bet is that they either came from Greeks as prized artisans and teachers, or migrated up from Southern Italy.

Not that I would have had a problem with the Levant ancestry staying, God knows. From my own subjective world view better Levantine craftsmen and merchants than marauding Goths and Langobards from whose depredations it took us almost 2000 years to recover.

Facts are sometimes inconvenient things, but they have to be accepted to keep your own sense of honor intact and to be respected by those whom you yourself respect.

Honestly, anyone with any intellectual honesty should boycott that thread on anthrogenica. How can people support such blatant dishonesty in analysis?
 
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.

Exactly right.
 
Total B.S.

Here's a novel idea. :)

There were two samples found in Ardea, same time period.

How about modeling sample 850 with the genes from the other Ardean and see what else has to be added?

OH, WAIT! They already did that in the paper.

The clique at anthrogenica just doesn't like that result. :( Too bad, so sad.

The problem, Ironside, whoever you are, is that the paper shows that the change in the Italian gene pool was from "added" ancestry from Anatolia, and the Caucasus, not the Levant. It also shows the "LEVANT TAIL" disappeared from the gene pool of modern Central Italians. I'm sure Sikeliot/Azzurro, and maybe Agamemnon and all their socks are devastated, but there it is.

These two "outliers" show that ancestry from that part of the world arrived in Central Rome very early; it didn't need to wait for hordes of Syrians or Jews who came as slaves in the Empire. My bet is that they either came from Greeks as prized artisans and teachers, or migrated up from Southern Italy.

Not that I would have had a problem with the Levant ancestry staying, God knows. From my own subjective world view better Levantine craftsmen and merchants than marauding Goths and Langobards from whose depredations it took us almost 2000 years to recover.

Facts are sometimes inconvenient things, but they have to be accepted to keep your own sense of honor intact and to be respected by those whom you yourself respect.

Honestly, anyone with any intellectual honesty should boycott that thread on anthrogenica. How can people support such blatant dishonesty in analysis?

i also think so
regards
adam
 
I thought it was a settlement within Rome based on that map. No?


Yes, ANSA is the owner of the land where this necropolis was discovered, near Acilia in the southern suburb of Rome. Often archaeological finds in Italy (and I imagine that it happens abroad as well) are found by accident during public works or road building.


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. :)


There are too many necropolises in Rome, I can not find a scientific publication avalaible that explains in detail the necropolis of Campo del Fico. The page previously posted comes from a book that costs only 250 euros :), and the information continued on the following pages.

https://www.amazon.it/Sepolture-principesche-Lazium-Vetus-orientalizzante/dp/B01K058CRM


According to a booklet, the Campo del Fico necropolis dates from 11th century BC (end of the bronze) to the 6th century B.C. It is necessary to see if there have been any updates. While in this paper evidently only skeletal materials from two individuals dated VIII (700 B.C) and VI century BC (500 BC) have been analyzed.
 
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?


In one matter, I am in complete agreement with the paper, as the data is unambiguous: The "tail into the Levant" ( and yDna J1, btw) which was seen in the Imperial Age is GONE by Late Antiquity (contrary to a "theory" pushed by these same people that whole bunches of Levantine Christians and Anatolian Christians came flooding into Italy precisely during Late Antiquity; right, they left the relative safety of the east for the war zone that was Italy) and the Early Middle Ages and the Modern Era. What remains in Central Italy is more CHG/Iran Neo than was seen in the Etruscans and most early Latins.

So the only question is why that is the case. I think a good chunk of it is ancestry flowing north from Southern Italy with perhaps some directly from Greece and the Aegean and perhaps some from Asia Minor. Some of it was even there in the Neolithic, perhaps partly by way of Northern Greece.

It's as simple and unarguable as that. There is no wiggle room which the denizens of anthrogenica/theapricity can use to prove masses of Levantine ancestry in Central Italy.

If someone can show me lots of Northern European yDna in Central Italy I'll believe that's what erased the signal.

I really couldn't care less if that's a disappointment to some people.
 
Last edited:
In one matter, I am in complete agreement with the paper, as the data is unambiguous: The "tail into the Levant" ( and yDna J1, btw) which was seen in the Imperial Age is GONE by Late Antiquity (contrary to a "theory" pushed by these same people that whole bunches of Levantine Christians and Anatolian Christians came flooding into Italy precisely during Late Antiquity; right, they left the relative safety of the east for the war zone that was Italy) and the Early Middle Ages and the Modern Era. What remains in Central Italy is more CHG/Iran Neo than was seen in the Etruscans and most early Latins.

So the only question is why that is the case. I think a good chunk of it is ancestry flowing north from Southern Italy with perhaps some directly from Greece and the Aegean and perhaps some from Asia Minor. Some of it was even there in the Neolithic, perhaps partly by way of Northern Greece.

It's as simple and unarguable as that. There is no wiggle room which the denizens of anthrogenica/theapricity can use to prove masses of Levantine ancestry in Central Italy.

I really couldn't care less if that's a disappointment to some people.

I pointed it out to these yo-yos repeatedly for years, just from what I knew from archaeology and history, and even from what public testing companies like 23andme showed. It was obvious from the latter that Southern Italians (and parts of Lazio today are indeed Southern Italian) have an excess of "Near Eastern" in the 23andme analysis, what they now call "West Asian", but that ancestry is, if you looked up their definition, which I did for them numerous times, Iranian and Caucasus and Anatolian ancestry, in other words, a mix of Anatolian Neolithic plus CHG/Iran Neo, and the reference samples for it were the Caucasus countries, Iran, and Turkey. Their proportion of what 23andme calls North African and where Southerners get MAYBE 2 % as a maximum, and Sicilians maybe a bit more, includes JORDAN AND PALESTINE.

When people ignore things like this, you know they're not being honest.

Heck, if you go back to the old calculators Dienekes did, mainland Greeks get the same or more of that "West Asian" ancestry. No wonder, looking at the make up of the Mycenaeans. Are the Mycenaeans, the heroes of one of the greatest western epic prose poems now not European? Only Beowulf qualifies? Tell that to the western European intelligentsia; Homer and Livy is what was drilled into the brains of the western elites, not Beowulf.

One other thing: One reason J1 and the Levantine signal may have disappeared, besides the fact that real trade and business moved out of Rome, either to Ravenna, the new capital, or to Constantinople, might be because the Roman Emperors periodically exiled all Jews from Rome, both during the Imperial Era and later, and into the Middle Ages. Unfortunate, but true.
 
I'm going to steal this. It's from Razib Khan, and goes for pop gen sites too:

"the democratization enabled by twitter of many voices means the really stupid get to talk too. my model for why online discourse is dumb: the dumb are online now."
 
Well, well, the Reich Lab must be leaking like a sieve.

It must be nice, Polako, to have someone in your pocket who's willing to talk to a White Nationalist Skinhead like yourself and also has contacts in the right places.

So, ergo, the guy who told me he was going to prove to me that all Italians were descendants of slaves from North Africa and the Levant is now posting this:

"The Germanic and East Med admixtures were definitely important factors in the formation of the modern Italian gene pool, but I feel that they were overstated in the paper, which, in my mind, made it out as if there were a couple of total population replacements in the Italian Peninsula since the Bronze Age.

I think it's obvious that modern Italians largely derive from the Iron Age and even Bronze Age peoples of the area just by looking at their Y-haplogroups."

Somehow, when I mention y lineages it's irrelevant, but when the Reich Lab think they're important, they're important.

Oh, and he somehow has a nice new PCA too.

"
Update 13/11/2019: Here's another, similar PCA. This one, however, is based on genotype data, and it also highlights many more of the samples from the Antonio et al. paper. 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. The relevant datasheet is available here."

My oh my, perhaps it's time to retire Archi and some of the other mouthpieces on eurogenes.

Oh, and "Rob", whoever you are, who never wanted to admit he was from the Balkans, was banned and had to do who knows what to get to post again on eurogenes, now wants to brag about "Balkan" Emperors, the ones too incompetent to keep the Empire united, would you have the guts to make this statement to an Italian face to face, maybe someone who had ancestors who died or were maimed in those mountains, or do you only have the guts to do it anonymously from a computer?

"
But then heaps of Germanics (esp Goths) would have died of during Justinians ”reconquista”
Even if some Italian patricians were allied with them; they did little fighting; and often readily joined whomever was winning
... kinda like WW1 :)"

You miserable excuse for a man.
 
I'm going to steal this. It's from Razib Khan, and goes for pop gen sites too:

"the democratization enabled by twitter of many voices means the really stupid get to talk too. my model for why online discourse is dumb: the dumb are online now."

This is too much.


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum
 
I'm going to steal this. It's from Razib Khan, and goes for pop gen sites too:

"the democratization enabled by twitter of many voices means the really stupid get to talk too. my model for why online discourse is dumb: the dumb are online now."

Some people just cant handle different point of view, with arguments, As such they use vulgarity to despise the other. Of course online you have disrupters, provocateurs and demagogues but no one can monopolize the truth. An argument with facts will be more helpful.
 

This thread has been viewed 357966 times.

Back
Top