Angela
Elite member
- Messages
- 21,823
- Reaction score
- 12,329
- Points
- 113
- Ethnic group
- Italian
A plausible model could be this. nMonte with G25 is not very precise although and if inappropriate models are used the results can be very misleading.
All the samples from Rome and the surrounding area, from Proto-Villanovan to the Renaissance period.
The ancient Greek samples. The first two are two Greeks found at Empuries.
What Anatolia? Anatolia BA?
all samples from Bronze Age Anatolia
The non-Imperial samples look pretty reasonable, with a few exceptions, don't you think?
I don't know what's up with the Renaissance Roman sample, however: 41% Yamnaya? Maybe it's just an individual aberration, or someone with an origin in more northern places.
That's an awful lot of steppe in Proto-Villanovan. I'm quite close to that sample, and my highest steppe is about 25-30%. I don't know why Villanovan might be pulling so much more WHG. The lower Yamnaya, slightly higher WHG in Spaniards might account for the Spanish matches with some of the Spaniards/Portuguese?
Maybe they're pretty close, maybe they're not. I don't know.
Of course, those are far from proximate sources, but they have the advantage of clarity because of that.
Much better than a lot of the stuff people have been throwing at the wall to see what sticks.
I think there's a real problem using an average for the Imperial samples. It's the same problem I've been pointing out since the first leaks about this paper came out.
The whole point about these Imperial samples is that some of them may have been descendants of people moving up from Cumae to Rome, or Calabria to Rome, etc. and already "perhaps" heavily admixed with "additional" CHG/Iran Neo i.e. in addition to that which arrived with the Italics. The Greek colonization had already taken place by this time, after all, as well as Neolithic and Bronze Age migrations. Until we know what those people looked like this is too much like shooting darts in the dark imo.
Other samples might be directly from Anatolia or places in the Levant who arrived twenty years before. Not all the samples were tested to see if they were born and raised locally. Some of them might be Syrians or Jews, merchants temporarily in the city or not. How the hell would we know???
You can't, imo, average samples from the capital city of what was for its time an international empire, and then make predictions about changes or not in the genomes of people living there 2,000 years later.
Why don't we average out some Chinese and Koreans from Flushing, some Puerto Ricans from the Bronx, some Hasidic Jews from Brooklyn, some Italians from Bay Ridge, some Irish people from Bayside, and some WASPS and JEWS from the upper east side and come up with a prediction for what future inhabitants of this area will look like in 2000 years, and after a near apocalyptic collapse to a population of about 100,000.
It just doesn't work.
The Greek samples are very interesting, especially the "Iranian" percentages of 17%-24%. So, some additional input to the mainland after the Mycenaeans, or are these Greeks from the Islands, Ionia? It will be very interesting to compare them to Greek Colonization Era samples in Southern Italy and Sicily. Very interesting, indeed, Brick.
The Anatolian samples are interesting too. I've been saying for years now that part of Anatolia would have had "Levant" type admixture, and so if migration was from Anatolia, it might pick up Levant-ish admixture as well, and there it is. You can see it in the people of Hatay province in Turkey today, the Cilicia of the Classical World, with its capital of Antioch, even after the "Turkic" migrations. St. Paul knew it well.
I hope I can find a lead to that "Tuscan like" sample from the Iron Age Balkans, and maybe you could try it.
Have you ever done this for the more "Italian" like samples from the Langobard paper?
It's cheeky of me, I know, but it would be interesting.
Maybe they're pretty close, maybe they're not. I don't know.