Moots: Ancient Rome Paper

B]Neolithic[/B] : typical Anatolian farmer autosomal DNA / Y-haplogroups G2a-L91, but also R1b and J2a1-L26 (first Neolithic J2a1 in Europe, I believe)

Imo, I think one of the bigger developments in this paper, is iran-like ancestry in the Neolithic.

Also the resurgence of WHG in Italy, due to mixing with farmers that retained more WHG.

I wonder if that is why I get relatively higher WHG in that ancient calculator by geneplaza, but low levels of steppe.
 
The J2b2-L283 that is found in Civitavecchia is from 700-600BC, and most likely has origin from the Croatian coast as it is under the same branch despite being near 1000 years younger.

Aeneas was a Dardanian, they are connected with Trojans, but not the same thing, so don't go discounting just yet. There could have been truth in the myth.

Jesus H. Christ. How do you know there even WAS an AENEAS? Was there a Hercules too, and an Atlas? You think there was an actual man named Ulysses who went to the Land of the Cyclops and had to pass two monsters barring entrance to a sea channel? I could go on and on.

When will people get that MYTHS are just that: MYTHS, and usually for self aggrandizement.

The Scots thought they were descended from Trojans too. Were they right as well?

Honestly, you're too smart for this.
 
You consider this a significant amount of Morocco HG, leaving aside the fact that's a hell of a sample to use as reference? Perhaps you'd like to compare the amount of Morocco HG which remained and remains in Spain and Portugal.

where did you read the word "significant"?

on average it was never significant but it was not present in copper age and appears first during iron age here in these samples. it is still present in late antiquity and medival times
htoOaiV.png

so if we assume that it was introduced through migrants who went to rome during roman times this would speak against the theory that the ancestry of imperial rome just disappeared because of depopulation.

why should we compare it to morocco HG in Portugal and Spain?
 
Jesus H. Christ. How do you know there even WAS an AENEAS? Was there a Hercules too, and an Atlas? You think there was an actual man named Ulysses who went to the Land of the Cyclops and had to pass two monsters barring entrance to a sea channel? I could go on and on.

When will people get that MYTHS are just that: MYTHS, and usually for self aggrandizement.

The Scots thought they were descended from Trojans too. Were they right as well?

Honestly, you're too smart for this.

I don't believe that specific individuals like aneas existed, but if an entire community is being mentioned arriving in italy and specific sites are attributed to being built by them, this is a different category of myth and not comparable with myths that are possibly allegory of some natural phenomena.
 
I don't believe that specific individuals like aneas existed, but if an entire community is being mentioned arriving in italy and specific sites are attributed to being built by them, this is a different category of myth and not comparable with myths that are possibly allegory of some natural phenomena.

If these trojans did arrive at rome in the 1100bc , they would be the minority....there was people already living there....it was not like some red-indian type of moving from one camp to another camp
 
where did you read the word "significant"?

on average it was never significant but it was not present in copper age and appears first during iron age here in these samples. it is still present in late antiquity and medival times
htoOaiV.png

so if we assume that it was introduced through migrants who went to rome during roman times this would speak against the theory that the ancestry of imperial rome just disappeared because of depopulation.

why should we compare it to morocco HG in Portugal and Spain?

Do you see it in the Mesolithic, or Neolithic, or Copper Age?

So, can we ASSUME it came in the Republican Era, Imperial Age, and perhaps in Late Antiquity?

If it's this insignificant, and it is, why are you so interested in it? In the midst of all these important questions, this is your main focus? Unless you're t-rolling, of course, which you so often do.

Did I ever say or even imply that these people left NO trace of their sojurn in Rome? That would be stupid, and no one has ever accused me of being stupid. Just so that there is no question, I have no doubt that there was probably some intermarriage and traces of their dna remain. Do some "white" New Yorkers marry Puerto Ricans? Yes, they do. Do some marry East Asians? Yes, they do. Do a few marry African-Americans? Some, but even less. What would happen if there was no more migration of Puerto Ricans, East Asians and African Americans, and a lot of the population of New York City died or scattered?

Christ, it took 1000 years for the Anatolian farmers in Europe to really start intermarrying with the hunter-gatherers.

In Greece, you couldn't legally marry non-citizens, and a child produced with a non-citizen, even one resident in the city-state, had no citizenship rights. If people go around digging up Classical Greeks, are all the samples they'll find going to be the ancestors of modern day Greeks in large proportions?

Ashkenazi Jews lived alongside Slavs for 6-700 years and never intermarried.

Barely 70 something years ago, northern Italians like my paternal grandfather wouldn't allow their children to marry Southern Italians.

I could go on and on.

Human behavior doesn't change all that much. Only our toys do.

However, it's absolutely clear from the data that the "trail" to the Near East, all those kinds of people who plotted south and southeast of Southern Italians are gone relatively quickly. That kind of thing happens when you have a wave that stops, i.e. no replenishment, and the population is killed or is scattered.

There has to be a reason, and some Goth and Vandal tribesman are not the answer. There's just not enough of their y dna around. Hell, 70% R1b where I come from, and we still plot as North Central Italians.

If you're sincerely interested in this and not just t-rolling, go back and read the Supplement. The authors state over and over again that the populations were HETEROGENEOUS, and remained so over time, and were not HOMOGENEOUS.
 
Last edited:
Great! I am glad this paper is finally out.

In summary, what we can see at first sight is:

Mesolithic : typical HG autosomal DNA / Y-haplogroups I2a2-M436, I2a2a-M223

Neolithic : typical Anatolian farmer autosomal DNA / Y-haplogroups G2a-L91, but also R1b and J2a1-L26 (first Neolithic J2a1 in Europe, I believe).

Iron Age : Italic and Etruscan have very similar autosomal DNA, close to modern NW Italians but also French and Spaniards. Roman/Italic Y-DNA is all R1b-M269 or the Proto-Italo-Celtic R1b-P312 (most probably U152, IMHO). A single T1a1 is an autosomal outlier (unlikely to be of Italic origin). The only Etruscan Y-DNA is J2b1-L283 (big news, as the origins of this haplogroup remained relatively mysterious).

Interestingly no E1b1b before the Imperial Age, not even the pan-European E-V13.

imho y T is not an outlier, y T is rare, but proportionally and coincidentally it’s the only non y R Haplogroup among the Iron-age Roman-Italics.

Proportionally, there are probably many more y T.

‘cause of low %s distributions in Europe and other places, y T is often considered unimportant or an outlier.
 

Sorry, It's Roman genetic history for dummies.

Unless they know what the samples from southern Italy look like for the Bronze and Iron Age, they have no way of knowing where this Near Eastern shift came from. Did some come directly from the Near East? Yes. Did all of it come from the Near East? I doubt it.

Likewise, I don't see anything in the yDna showing a mass migration into Rome and central Italy from the north/northwest of Europe, i.e. as compared to northern/northwestern Italy, not, at least, in Late Antiquity, or the Medieval Era. You have to take some account of the history and archaeology. This was the problem all along with some of the Etruscan analyses.

If someone can show it to me, with actual facts, fine. I always follow the data. I don't follow interpretation by Polako and his socks over at Eurogenes, or Sikeliot and his socks at anthrogenica.

Same with the Etruscans. If the overall picture of Etruscan autosomal genetics changes when we have lots more samples, fine, I'll modify my interpretation. Until then, Herodotus is a non-starter. Go back to the other Greek writers on Etruscan origins. Jesus, you'd think he's the only one who ever wrote about it. Talk about selective choice of sources.
 
Last edited:
I think that R1b in the Mesolithic may turn out to be V88. The authors point out that the sample which carried it had unusually high percentages of WHG.
Ooh, that's interesting. Yes, according to poster ArmandoR1b, who looked at the BAM, R6 (~5200 BC) belongs to the R1b-Y8451 branch of V88. Contemporary Early Neolithic farmers from 2 sites in Spain as well as a Late Neolithic Sardinian also belong to this branch, which is the parent to both Sardinian R1b-V35 and mostly-African R1b-Y8447. YF estimates R1b-Y8451's TMRCA at about 5-7000 years and its parent's around 7-10 000 years, so these guys could potentially have been pretty close to the ancestor of almost all modern R1b-V88.

R1b-V88 or pre-V88 was also found in Mesolithic Serbia and Ukraine. We'll need more ancient DNA to find out whether it was already present in Italy, or whether it was brought by early farmers from elsewhere (maybe across the Adriatic). If Mesolithic it would agree with Roy King's idea of R1b-V88 spreading with Castelnovian culture, which has connections to both Ukraine and Tunisia (and could have ultimate origins in either direction depending who you ask).
 
Please have mercy. I‘m not stating my opinion but bringing up all the diverse interpretations, conclusions and claims concerning this important study on Roman DNA, to discuss all that in this forum. I have no intention to ***** in any form, shape or fashion. It‘s interesting to examine how people analyze the same information from this study so differently and controversial. In my humble opinion, I don‘t think that the “imperial Romans that were tested in this study reflect the genetics of the original Romans or the patrician class. I can assure you I'm not Drago, etc.
 
Ooh, that's interesting. Yes, according to poster ArmandoR1b, who looked at the BAM, R6 (~5200 BC) belongs to the R1b-Y8451 branch of V88. Contemporary Early Neolithic farmers from 2 sites in Spain as well as a Late Neolithic Sardinian also belong to this branch, which is the parent to both Sardinian R1b-V35 and mostly-African R1b-Y8447. YF estimates R1b-Y8451's TMRCA at about 5-7000 years and its parent's around 7-10 000 years, so these guys could potentially have been pretty close to the ancestor of almost all modern R1b-V88.

R1b-V88 or pre-V88 was also found in Mesolithic Serbia and Ukraine. We'll need more ancient DNA to find out whether it was already present in Italy, or whether it was brought by early farmers from elsewhere (maybe across the Adriatic). If Mesolithic it would agree with Roy King's idea of R1b-V88 spreading with Castelnovian culture, which has connections to both Ukraine and Tunisia (and could have ultimate origins in either direction depending who you ask).

Thanks for that interesting information. Yes, all that WHG in that R1b sample sort of sealed the deal for me.

Well, that's another bit of confirmation, if anyone still needs it, that R1b of the M-269 variety was not in Central and Western and Southern Europe until quite late, and is somehow connected to the steppe people.
 
The Messapi were also very influential in stopping, clearing, and minimizing to Taranto the impact of the Spartan Colonies in Puglia / Salento.
Yes correct...but the landing of these 3 tribes , led by dauni arrived south of foggia, they then started marching south kicking out the greeks in the heel of italy
Btw, the dauni are the only ones to have chariots matching the chariots of the iapodes of the north adriatic

.
If i was to make a call on these messapic tribes i would say dalmatian or liburnian with a umbri mix once arriving in italy....then a "roman " mix
 
Liburnians were originally Illyrian.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Are you so sure? The Liburnian language shows more ties to a proto-Italic or archaic Italic language close to Venetic than to Illyrian. Even the maps about Illyrian ethny put their borders a bit too far north, i think.
 
Are you so sure? The Liburnian language shows more ties to a proto-Italic or archaic Italic language close to Venetic than to Illyrian. Even the maps about Illyrian ethny put their borders a bit too far north, i think.

Some sense at last.
 
Yes correct...but the landing of these 3 tribes , led by dauni arrived south of foggia, they then started marching south kicking out the greeks in the heel of italy
Btw, the dauni are the only ones to have chariots matching the chariots of the iapodes of the north adriatic

If i was to make a call on these messapic tribes i would say dalmatian or liburnian with a umbri mix once arriving in italy....then a "roman " mix

If so, there must have been more the one Iapygian base migration towards Puglia, because by the time the Greeks showed up, the Messapi had been in Puglia for over a 1000 years.
 
Roman soldier FN_2 from Monachium dated to ca. 300-500 CE plots in the PCA just like Republican Romans several centuries before him.

Or is it just my impression?

Another question - why didn't the authors in Table S24 include more mixture models with fully ancient sources? Only one ancient model.
 
edit.. DeL...
point made
 
Last edited:

This thread has been viewed 357901 times.

Back
Top