Moots: Ancient Rome Paper

michaelis anthrogenica

quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by Yupi
Try modeling Imperial Romans with Levantines, MLBA Syrians, Classical Greeks and West Med Italic people and see what happens.



Wait until Hellenistic Pompeiians, Greeks, and Western Anatolians are released and you can try the same thing. The East Med profile in Southern Italy will predate the Roman Empire. I'm telling you guys you need to prepare for this inevitability because it's coming at you like a bullet train.

5bd84e2748eb12165e182822




p.s
we will see time will tell not that i personally care
that much if they would have east med ancestery yes or no :unsure:


I like your sense of humor. Nice pic. Some people take the field of population genetics, archaeogenetics, etc. too seriously and too personally, thus they can't handle unpleasant outcomes. Surely, we all want to be as close to our ancestors as we can get. However, sometimes things are a bit complicated and quite messy. The genetic ancestry of some populations sometimes does reveal the complicated intersection of genetics, history, and ethnicity.
 
Yes, Tuscans and Romans of the Modern Era are more southern shifted than the Etruscans and the Latins. No one is denying it. However, to say that there was this massive migration of Levantines to Etruria followed by a big German migration makes no sense. The y Dna doesn't support it, for one thing, and neither do the samples they're using, as Jovialis has pointed out. This is what comes of averaging a small number of samples to model historical genetic change. Hell, even the authors waffle, saying they don't know whether the admixture was Levantine or Anatolian. That's a pretty big difference.

I missed this one. Where was the massive migration of Levantines in Tuscany even suggested by me? Modern Tuscans are closer to IA Etruscans than to Imperial Romans. I only modelled Imperial Romans as mix of Middle Easterners and West Med Ancient Italians, showing the Italian ancestry at 30%. A model that is not meant to be taken literally. But still I think that the overall cluster of Imperial Romans is coincidental.

The Northern African admixture in some Iberians post 100BC reaches 10%. Considering Northwestern African admixture causes a greater pull, so I think it's about the same percentage in Tuscany maybe add 5% in it. But with different sources.
 
I missed this one. Where was the massive migration of Levantines in Tuscany even suggested by me? Modern Tuscans are closer to IA Etruscans than to Imperial Romans. I only modelled Imperial Romans as mix of Middle Easterners and West Med Ancient Italians, showing the Italian ancestry at 30%. A model that is not meant to be taken literally. But still I think that the overall cluster of Imperial Romans is coincidental.

The Northern African admixture in some Iberians post 100BC reaches 10%. Considering Northwestern African admixture causes a greater pull, so I think it's about the same percentage in Tuscany maybe add 5% in it. But with different sources.

I'm having great difficulty understanding your meaning in this post; AGAIN. Perhaps you should only post earlier in the day when you're not as tired. I realize it is difficult discussing such dense and complicated material in a language not your own.

The bolded sentence was the model showed by the authors in the body of the paper, although in the Supplement they waffle and point toward Bronze/Iron Age Anatolia. I didn't direct it specifically at you, but it seemed to me you had accepted that model since you were essentially trying to recreate it.

You took their handful of samples, averaged them, and came up with modeling which I think is beyond faulty, particularly if you're trying to say that modern Tuscans only have 30% ancient Italian ancestry. I am half Tuscan and I can be modeled as 60-70% Latin and Etruscan, so something is wrong with your "modeling".

If your modeling wasn't meant to be taken seriously, why do it? I suggested some alternative scenarios you could explore, but it seems you're not interested.

I have the results of 100% modern Tuscans. 10-15% Northwest African is ludicrous. Nothing like that has ever shown up in their results from reputable testing companies. Even Sicilians who were under the domination of the Moors for 200 years don't have results like that. Certainly other Southern Italians don't, and I know because I've seen their results. Yet, Tuscans have 10-15%? Get serious.
 
You took their handful of samples, averaged them, and came up with modeling which I think is beyond faulty, particularly if you're trying to say that modern Tuscans only have 30% ancient Italian ancestry. I am half Tuscan and I can be modeled as 60-70% Latin and Etruscan, so something is wrong with your "modeling".
My quote:

"Modern Tuscans are closer to IA Etruscans than to Imperial Romans. I only modelled Imperial Romans as mix of Middle Easterners and West Med Ancient Italians, showing the Italian ancestry at 30%."

I said Tuscans are closer to IA Etruscans than to Imperial Romans, whereas I modelled Imperial Romans as +30% Ancient Italian. Logically considering Tuscans are closer to IA Etruscans than to Imperial Romans this would imply that modern Tuscans are waaaaay more than just 30% Italic and Etruscan.
Right?

About this one:
The Northern African admixture in some Iberians post 100BC reaches 10%. Considering Northwestern African admixture causes a greater pull, so I think it's about the same percentage in Tuscany maybe add 5% in it. But with different sources.





Look at bolded part. If Iberians have 10% Northern African admixture with similar distance to IA Iberians that Tuscans have to IA Etruscans. Wouldn't it make sense that Modern Tuscans have around 10% Eastern Mediterranean ancestry but not Northwestern African. (Hence I said different source.)
 
My quote:

"Modern Tuscans are closer to IA Etruscans than to Imperial Romans. I only modelled Imperial Romans as mix of Middle Easterners and West Med Ancient Italians, showing the Italian ancestry at 30%."

I said Tuscans are closer to IA Etruscans than to Imperial Romans, whereas I modelled Imperial Romans as +30% Ancient Italian. Logically considering Tuscans are closer to IA Etruscans than to Imperial Romans this would imply that modern Tuscans are waaaaay more than just 30% Italic and Etruscan.
Right?

About this one:
The Northern African admixture in some Iberians post 100BC reaches 10%. Considering Northwestern African admixture causes a greater pull, so I think it's about the same percentage in Tuscany maybe add 5% in it. But with different sources.





Look at bolded part. If Iberians have 10% Northern African admixture with similar distance to IA Iberians that Tuscans have to IA Etruscans. Wouldn't it make sense that Modern Tuscans have around 10% Eastern Mediterranean ancestry but not Northwestern African. (Hence I said different source.)

Ok. Thanks for the explanation.

Fwiw, as I said, I'm half Tuscan like (including the La-Spezia ancestry), and I get about 3-4% East Med depending on the calculator.
 

This thread has been viewed 357894 times.

Back
Top