Moots: Ancient Rome Paper

I can see that 1 individual latin in the iron age period was in cluster c4 eastern med that is cool...

I think you may be confusing 45, for 850. He is Mycenaean-like (C6 Mediterranean). Also, C5 is eastern Mediterranean, C4 is Near Eastern.

XwOyW8B.png
 
DxCpI2Q.png
PaLWI64.png
t5gaaMf.jpg



The near eastern tail had been severed after the end of the Imperial era. However, other than some peripheral urban enclaves, this study cannot determine how much of a fixture it was throughout Roman Italy. However, the extinction of these people in Italy, should logically indicate that their presence was not prevalent.


r5urnqH.png


The study itself models the surviving native population around Rome as as 40% "European C7" + 60% "Mediterranean C6"; who plotted mainly around Central to South Italians.

Just in case it is not clear enough, Mediterranean C6 cluster is right on top of South Italians. As the Neolthic Italians from Rome, are on the same axis on the PCA:

8PdsFvY.png


BQ5EoGy.png


A medieval re-peopling of the Central-to-South with ancestry from C7 (Iron Age Romans) and C6 (Mycenaean/Greek-like) makes absolute sense to me:

OxVpmQ0.png
 
It is unbelievable how many users on Eurogenes insist on the eastern origin of the Etruscans when DNA evidence is all in favour of the western origin of the Etruscans. How can Davidski tolerate some comments that only look like low-level trXolling?
 
I think you may be confusing 45, for 850. He is Mycenaean-like (C6 Mediterranean). Also, C5 is eastern Mediterranean, C4 is Near Eastern.

XwOyW8B.png

yes you are correct my mistake
 
I think they are ancient clusters from the study, organized by broard ethnic grouping.

ah i see. that is confusing. is this still really usefull? i mean, imperial rome can be modeled best with the samples from imperial rome, while early modern and medieval can be modeled best with samples from early modern, medieval. and those samples/clusters probably resemble modern pops. those clusters aren't source populations, or am i wrong?
 
It is unbelievable how many users on Eurogenes insist on the eastern origin of the Etruscans when DNA evidence is all in favour of the western origin of the Etruscans. How can Davidski tolerate some comments that only look like low-level trXolling?

You won't have to worry about low-level t-rolling on this site. Thanks to the superior diligence of the moderation staff.
 
ah i see. that is confusing. is this still really usefull? i mean, imperial rome can be modeled best with the samples from imperial rome, while early modern and medieval can be modeled best with samples from early modern, medieval. and those samples/clusters probably resemble modern pops. those clusters aren't source populations, or am i wrong?


what if south italy was like minoans, somewhere between modern south italy and ABA, roughly were the east med/near east cluster is located? the C6 cluster started to exist later because those south italians mixed with the central/north italians and a bit from more north? italy might have been a cline from latin-like to minoan/ABA like.

this "near east tail", individuals south of modern south italians, was maybe only partially caused by migrants from near east during imperial age.
 
what if south italy was like minoans, somewhere between modern south italy and ABA, roughly were the east med/near east cluster is located? the C6 cluster started to exist later because those south italians mixed with the central/north italians and a bit from more north? italy might have been a cline from latin-like to minoan/ABA like.

this "near east tail", individuals south of modern south italians, was maybe only partially caused by migrants from near east during imperial age.


maybe syrian /Lebanese merchants/ traders
who came to rome
 
It is unbelievable how many users on Eurogenes insist on the eastern origin of the Etruscans when DNA evidence is all in favour of the western origin of the Etruscans. How can Davidski tolerate some comments that only look like low-level trXolling?

It's because he wants that to be out in the public domain, as it aids in his Storm Front like endeavor to trash Italians, and make them look as untermenschen as he possibly can, and any additional "Near Eastern" ancestry does that from his warped world view. My God, are you people all newcomers to this? Does no one remember the atrocious stuff he published in the old days?

He does the Nazis even one better. He wants to prove they were wrong in viewing the Slavs as untermenschen scheduled to be next on the chopping block. He wants to prove the Slavs are the most "steppe" like, and therefore the most ubermensch, and therefore should have been the official allies of the Germans. I believe he mentioned that his father was one of the turncoats who fought for them.

We spoil his plan, because the Romans weren't highly steppe people at all, and the Renaissance Italians even less so.

It's a real bummer when history proves you're a jerk and your theories are crap.

I wonder if it ever occurs to these numbskulls that the people they called untermenschen and put into gas chambers had, on average, a higher IQ and more talent than they had? They barely had a Berlin Philharmonic during the War because more than half the players were carted off to gas chambers. What also would have been the fate of their U2 rockets if they hadn't killed or exiled all those Jewish physicists? Maybe it would have worked in time to save them. So who were the untermenschen in that scenario? It's one of the great ironies of that period.

Hell, that crazy poster may be one of his socks, or one of the people who fund his research. He sure doesn't seem to have a day job if you get my drift.
 
R116 the "outlier" with high Steppe dated to 0-200 CE. Maybe he was a Gallic immigrant to Rome?:

(this sample has the highest level of Steppe admixture out of all Imperial samples, so not "typical")

His Y-DNA haplogroup: https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-Z631/

K36 results:

Arabian 0.67
Armenian 0.63
Basque 5.90
Central_Euro 3.24
East_Balkan 6.25
East_Central_Euro 3.07
East_Med 0.02
Eastern_Euro 3.92
Fennoscandian 4.08
French 7.39
Iberian 25.17
Italian 16.47
Near_Eastern 0.74
North_Atlantic 7.52
North_Sea 12.29
Volga-Ural 1.36
West_Med 1.29

https://gen3553.pagesperso-orange.fr/ADN/similitude.htm

9y6eJMs.png
 
what if south italy was like minoans, somewhere between modern south italy and ABA, roughly were the east med/near east cluster is located? the C6 cluster started to exist later because those south italians mixed with the central/north italians and a bit from more north? italy might have been a cline from latin-like to minoan/ABA like.

this "near east tail", individuals south of modern south italians, was maybe only partially caused by migrants from near east during imperial age.

It wasn't a Near Eastern Tail, it was called a "Levant Tail". I will be surprised if there was a lot of it in Southern Italy during the first Millennium BC, although there may have been some. What was probably there was a tail into Anatolia, if you like, so pretty Mycenaean like. The Mycenaeans are pretty damn close to those Imperial Samples anyway, the ones that aren't part of the tail into the Levant.

I still think there was a large community in Rome, and probably in other Italian port cities, and port cities like Massalia, if they ever check them, and more to be found in ports in Spain, of Jews, Phoenicians/Syrians, and others who were there as craftsmen and merchants, people who had their own ethnic enclaves and burial sites. Did some intermarry with their hosts and leave descendants behind? Probably, as happens in New York City with its own ethnic enclaves. Most, however, probably largely did not, again if we take our lessons from history. How much intermarriage is there in London between Muslims and "local" British people? Religion is a huge barrier to integration, as are vastly different customs. As I said, it took 1000 years for the WHG and EEF to start to mingle. How many local Romans do you think would have been willing to undergo adult male circumcision in order to marry a Jewish bride. Jewish girls were barely let out of the house by themselves.

Largely, they just disappeared as historical conditions changed. Once again, just look at what happens to yDna "J1". Trade moved, craft worked died out. Then there was the 6th century plague and just the general destruction of the cities.

Did, as Khan now opines, some change come from movement from the north? Yes, a bit, but if the change came from Northern movement, it was mostly northern Italians, not some mythical movement from western Europe, not even Central Eastern Europe as one would expect from Goths and Lombards.

We've been down this road before. Hellenthal et al, including that dunderhead Christian Capelli, from whom I expected better things, was convinced the "mixing" he saw was from a mass migration during Antiquity and Early Medieval times into Italy from the Near East. The dunderheads at anthrogenica eagerly jumped onto the bandwagon. I argued at the time until I was blue in the face that there was NO evidence in history or archaeology of any such movement. Like wise, there is no indication of any movement post Imperial Age of masses of people from Spain and France moving into Italy. It just didn't happen.

If Polako tries to prove it through his usual massaging of the data, it's just plain crap.

In that regard, regard with extreme caution anything based on his K-36 data. For goodness' sakes, it's like bringing in an art forger to authenticate art for you. How can you possible trust him?

People involved in this hobby should spend a year in a criminal prosecution bureau. It would cure the incredible naivete I see on constant display.

Our discussion of the wrong headed Hellenthal et al paper. Never do population genetics based on modern samples, especially when you don't have a clue about archaeology or history.
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threa...ddle-age-admixture-event?highlight=Hellenthal
 
R116 the "outlier" with high Steppe dated to 0-200 CE. Maybe he was a Gallic immigrant to Rome?:

(this sample has the highest level of Steppe admixture out of all Imperial samples, so not "typical")

His Y-DNA haplogroup: https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-Z631/

K36 results:

Arabian 0.67
Armenian 0.63
Basque 5.90
Central_Euro 3.24
East_Balkan 6.25
East_Central_Euro 3.07
East_Med 0.02
Eastern_Euro 3.92
Fennoscandian 4.08
French 7.39
Iberian 25.17
Italian 16.47
Near_Eastern 0.74
North_Atlantic 7.52
North_Sea 12.29
Volga-Ural 1.36
West_Med 1.29

https://gen3553.pagesperso-orange.fr/ADN/similitude.htm

9y6eJMs.png

If I bought the complete validity of anything based on Eurogenes work, I might say he was a partial or complete descendant of Gallic tribesmen who came into Northern Italy and then moved to Rome for whatever reason.

Maybe it's time for people to review the history of Northern Italy:
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threa...-Roman-Era?highlight=Northern+Italy+Roman+Era

Too bad the authors didn't read it before writing their paper.
 
K36 needs to get updated with new samples, from Lecce too (the cause for a lack of dark red)

I don’t mind, but to be realistic, it shouldn’t make a South Pugliese like me Roman, or Half Roman and Half Cyclades.
(unless I’m wrong and is what it is)

23:
7ZGuN0s.jpg


AncestryDNA or Combined
Ksd7CKM.jpg
 
i prefer eurogenes k13 :)
 
It is unbelievable how many users on Eurogenes insist on the eastern origin of the Etruscans when DNA evidence is all in favour of the western origin of the Etruscans. How can Davidski tolerate some comments that only look like low-level trXolling?

All of it? There are some dissenting studies. I doubt the question has been put to bed, and it may never be.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1852723/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2189563/

https://www.nature.com/articles/ejhg2008224

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25230205

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0119242

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0192567
 
An incredible paper! So the Latins were South European after all and identical to the Etruscans. The other Italic tribes?

Who agrees with this analysis of Anthrogenica? Does the Etruscan language then come from the fertile crescent?


Just a quick note as I see many people trying to discuss the origins of the Etruscans, well autosomally they are of course EFF and Steppe, but I would like to add that if the Etruscan language is the survival of the Neolithic language of Central Italy being those from Le Marche, it is clearly that they can from a Fertile Crescent source, and would actually tie some of the religious aspects of the Etruscans which are identical to Mesopotamian and Anatolian groups. Its very possible at this point to speculate that Impressed Ware Neolithic could be the pre cursor to the Tyrrhenian languages and the other Neolithic Anatolian communities we see in the Balkans, Central Europe and Iberia can represent the Ibero-Sardinian languages.

This is of course a major speculation and something I would have never considered before seeing R17 and R19, as I personally believed the Eastern migration theory and it seems to be majorly refuted or flat out wrong.
 
If I bought the complete validity of anything based on Eurogenes work, I might say he was a partial or complete descendant of Gallic tribesmen who came into Northern Italy and then moved to Rome for whatever reason.

Maybe it's time for people to review the history of Northern Italy:
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threa...-Roman-Era?highlight=Northern+Italy+Roman+Era

Too bad the authors didn't read it before writing their paper.

Actually he is also modelled as French in study's Table S28, check:

wKAr0O3.png


^^^
So just like this similarity map shows (highest similarity to France):

9y6eJMs.png
 
It wasn't a Near Eastern Tail, it was called a "Levant Tail". I will be surprised if there was a lot of it in Southern Italy during the first Millennium BC, although there may have been some. What was probably there was a tail into Anatolia, if you like, so pretty Mycenaean like. The Mycenaeans are pretty damn close to those Imperial Samples anyway, the ones that aren't part of the tail into the Levant.

.

sry, i called it near east tail because the study mentines a "near eastern" "east med" source probably because the levant is near east. i'll call it levant tail from now on.
see figure S18 in the supplements, it's a tail to levant, but also bronce age anatolia. and while the myceneans are indo europeans, living closer to steppe, south italy might not have been indo-european at the beginning of the iron age. i know, as it stands there is this tail probably from migration from east.

anyways, i have some concerns regarding your comparison with HG's and farmers and also new york city. HG's didn't live together with farmers in the same cities, they also were culturally and probably also visually way more different from each other than mediterranean populations in the roman period.

in new york city, the migrant groups increased fast in a relatively short amount of time and many are first generation migrants. that might not be comparable with ancient rome were migration was probably slower and the people with migrant background who lived there might have lived there already for several generations. also those were mostly people from other mediterranean populations from within the same empire.

i don't know about the intermarriage rate of muslims and local british people. what are the numbers? how does it change from first generation to second generation migrants? in france it changes drastically but there the data sadly only gives the spouses french nationality and no indication for a possible migration background. how does it change based on location and education level? is it the same in all countries?
what about the intermarriage rate of other religions or non-european but also european ethnicities with local british people?
 
Last edited:

This thread has been viewed 357894 times.

Back
Top