Moots: Ancient Rome Paper

As to sample 850 (650 BC), it seems to be, as I said, a Neolithic line in Europe. The mtDna is found in Central Europe and Iran. The paper finds it to be half local Copper Age, and half Anatolian/Armenian Late Bronze/Iron Age. Cumae, near Capua and Naples, was founded by Greeks in the 8th century.

The conclusions of the paper make sense.

Sample 437 has a U-152 yDna. Unremarkable for a Latin tribe. The mtdna is H10:
"H10[edit]

Haplogroup H10 is subclade which came into existence between 6,300 and 10,900 years ago. Its descendant branches are H10a H10b H10c H10d H10e H10f H10g and H10h.[37]
Haplogroup H10e has been found at a neolithic site, namely the Bom Santo cave near Lisbon. This is the oldest sample of H10 which has ever been found and it has been dated to 3735 BCE (+- 45 years).[38] "

The paper models the sample as half "Iron Age Croatian", which means one of the samples mta calls "Illyrian" or local Copper Age and half, again, Anatolian Bronze/Iron whatever.

Again, it makes sense.

The paper didn't find any "Phoenician", and none of the data we have would support that.

As for 475, no doubt there's some North African in her, but using Ibero-Maurisian to model her is silly.

Per Carlos' post, is it so surprising that trade centers like Civitavecchia picked up some foreign ancestry? What's the big deal here??? That makes all Etruscans Carthaginians or Phoenicians?


YK2MOfl.png
 
Is that Mbuti suppose to be African?
How come Albania and slavic countries dont have it, but every other country does?

Extended Data Figure 6: Modeling present-day and ancient West-Eurasians. Mixture364 proportions computed with qpAdm (Supplementary Information section 4). The proportion of365 ‘Mbuti’ ancestry represents the total of Deep’ ancestry from lineages that split prior to the366 split of Ust’Ishim, Tianyuan, and West Eurasians and can include both ‘Basal Eurasian’ and367 other (e.g., Sub-Saharan African) ancestry. (a) ‘Conservative’ estimates. Each population368 cannot be modeled with fewer admixture events than shown. (b) ‘Speculative’ estimates. The369 highest number of sources (≤5) with admixture estimates within [0,1] are shown for each370 population. Some of the admixture proportions are not significantly different from 0371 (Supplementary Information section 4).

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/09/20/423079.full.pdf

Also,

Do you not see the red in the Slavic countries? Because it is there:
0gHNs9u.png
 
how siceliot is posting in anthrogenica
and i am not allowed
go figure ..... :LOL:

There are many good users who have been banned on Anthrogenica for no real reason, many bad users on Anthrogenica who are allowed to continue to post.
 
how siceliot is posting in anthrogenica
and i am not allowed
go figure ..... :LOL:

Anthrogenica is a garbage dump of lies. There is no shortage of stupidity in the world, and anthrogenica is a shining example of that. The only place with a lower-average IQ must be on Eurogenes.

Now let's get back on topic. We don't have to be concerned with insignificant actors, trying to obfuscate the facts.
 
Extended Data Figure 6: Modeling present-day and ancient West-Eurasians. Mixture364 proportions computed with qpAdm (Supplementary Information section 4). The proportion of365 ‘Mbuti’ ancestry represents the total of Deep’ ancestry from lineages that split prior to the366 split of Ust’Ishim, Tianyuan, and West Eurasians and can include both ‘Basal Eurasian’ and367 other (e.g., Sub-Saharan African) ancestry. (a) ‘Conservative’ estimates. Each population368 cannot be modeled with fewer admixture events than shown. (b) ‘Speculative’ estimates. The369 highest number of sources (≤5) with admixture estimates within [0,1] are shown for each370 population. Some of the admixture proportions are not significantly different from 0371 (Supplementary Information section 4).

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/09/20/423079.full.pdf

Also,

Do you not see the red in the Slavic countries? Because it is there:
0gHNs9u.png

One of the amusing things about the graphic is that Sicilians get less than Spaniards (or North Italians). Do you remember the unlamented Spanish Stormfront Nordicists from a few years ago who used to post here? Oh dear. :)

This may be related to Neolithic gene flows into Europe.
 
Anthrogenica is a garbage dump of lies. There is no shortage of stupidity in the world, and anthrogenica is a shining example of that. The only place with a lower-average IQ must be on Eurogenes.

Now let's get back on topic. We don't have to be concerned with insignificant actors, trying to obfuscate the facts.

Indeed. Let's do the analysis! :)
 
vl8tToO.png


Not to mention all of the Anatolian BA found in Iberia. By the time the Romans colonized Iberia, it must have been transformed genetically, partly by these Latins who can be modeled as half ABA-like, like 850.


We assembled genome-wide data from 271 ancient Iberians, of whom 176 are from the largely unsampled period after 2000 BCE, thereby providing a high-resolution time transect of the Iberian Peninsula. We document high genetic substructure between northwestern and southeastern hunter-gatherers before the spread of farming. We reveal sporadic contacts between Iberia and North Africa by ~2500 BCE and, by ~2000 BCE, the replacement of 40% of Iberia’s ancestry and nearly 100% of its Y-chromosomes by people with Steppe ancestry. We show that, in the Iron Age, Steppe ancestry had spread not only into Indo-European–speaking regions but also into non-Indo-European–speaking ones, and we reveal that present-day Basques are best described as a typical Iron Age population without the admixture events that later affected the rest of Iberia. Additionally, we document how, beginning at least in the Roman period, the ancestry of the peninsula was transformed by gene flow from North Africa and the eastern Mediterranean.

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/363/6432/1230.abstract
 
Latins (including 850, and 437) did not have Bronze-Age Levantine admixture.

i know
this is for davidski
if he read it
since angela said he is obsessed with levant :)
just to show that levant ancestry started in roman period in south east iberia .....

p.s
i understand that near eastern ancestry in the outlier latins is not levant bronze age but Anatolian bronze age which is different
 
As a person whose E-V13 ydna comes from Trevi nel Lazio, I'd like to know how such dna arrived in such a small town, in the mountains. We thought E-V13 arrived in Italy with bell beakers, but the first E-V13 samples are from imperial age.

Did southern people migrate from Magna Graecia to small towns in Lazio too? Or is it more likely that such small towns were populated after Rome got sacked by fleeing people, or something similar
 
i know
this is for davidski
if he read it
since angela said he is obsessed with levant :)
just to show that levant ancestry started in roman period in south east iberia .....

p.s
i understand that near eastern ancestry in the outlier latins is not levant bronze age but Anatolian bronze age which is different

I heard you the first time, but didn't think it worthwhile responding.

If it is indeed there, I don't know why, with all the Carthaginians around, it would need to have been brought by Romans.

Carthaginian Spain before the First Punic War.
237px-Carthage_Holdings.png



Then, of course, we have all the Greek influence along the Mediterranean coast. Wasn't the Empuries sample very Mycenaean like?

I'm sure somebody could figure out a way to make him part Levant Bronze Age. :)

fig31.jpg


Plus, my husband, who is very Southern Italian indeed, and extremely proud of it, gets ONE match on mta with someone from Spain. I'm the one with half my matches still coming from Spain, even with all these new Italian samples, which indicates to me that maybe a lot of them came from Rome north. Perhaps Southern Italians would have been closer to and more inclined to go to Greece, the Balkans etc.

Indeed, the first legions that went to Spain were the following. You should know that after serving their time, legionnaires were given land. A lot of them do seem to have liked Spain, though not precisely "Southeast" Spain from what I can see.

400px-Romancoloniae.jpg



The Victris or “Victorious Sixth Legion” and its "twin" "Ferrata Legion) were founded by the general Octavian (who later went on to become Emperor Augustus). They were recruited in Cisalpine Italy. Those are my stomping grounds. :)

"The Victrix then went on to assist Augustus in his war against the Cantabrians that continued for almost 10 years starting in 29 BC. By 19 BC, imperial Rome had conquered the whole of Hispania, and the Iberian peninsula was also now under Roman rule. The legion was then stationed in freshly conquered contemporary Spain where it stayed for nearly a century. During this time, the city of Legio was founded (known as Leon in the present day)."

The Legio IX Hispana, which also served in Spain, was already formed before the Empire, fighting as early as the Social Wars, so I would think mostly "Italic", although perhaps with a bit of more "southern" influence.

The Legio Germanica served in Spain. The troops were from the Italian peninsula. It's unclear where precisely the troops were recruited, but I'm sure some from Cisalpine Gaul were included. The same is true of the Augusta, formed in 26 BC.

So, it escapes me why these troops, formed so early on any part of the Italian peninsula from free citizens, would be awash with Levantine ancestry.


Some more "creative" modeling, I guess. :) Does it ever occur to some people to check the history and context before doing the "modeling"?
 
As a person whose E-V13 ydna comes from Trevi nel Lazio, I'd like to know how such dna arrived in such a small town, in the mountains. We thought E-V13 arrived in Italy with bell beakers, but the first E-V13 samples are from imperial age.

Did southern people migrate from Magna Graecia to small towns in Lazio too? Or is it more likely that such small towns were populated after Rome got sacked by fleeing people, or something similar


E-V13 exists everywhere in Italy, even in northern Italy. We need more ancient samples analyzed to draw conclusions.
 
I heard you the first time, but didn't think it worthwhile responding.

If it is indeed there, I don't know why, with all the Carthaginians around, it would need to have been brought by Romans.

Carthaginian Spain before the First Punic War.
237px-Carthage_Holdings.png



Then, of course, we have all the Greek influence along the Mediterranean coast. Wasn't the Empuries sample very Mycenaean like?

I'm sure somebody could figure out a way to make him part Levant Bronze Age
. :)

fig31.jpg


Plus, my husband, who is very Southern Italian indeed, and extremely proud of it, gets ONE match on mta with someone from Spain. I'm the one with half my matches still coming from Spain, even with all these new Italian samples, which indicates to me that maybe a lot of them came from Rome north. Perhaps Southern Italians would have been closer to and more inclined to go to Greece, the Balkans etc.

Indeed, the first legions that went to Spain were the following. You should know that after serving their time, legionnaires were given land. A lot of them do seem to have liked Spain, though not precisely "Southeast" Spain from what I can see.

400px-Romancoloniae.jpg



The Victris or “Victorious Sixth Legion” and its "twin" "Ferrata Legion) were founded by the general Octavian (who later went on to become Emperor Augustus). They were recruited in Cisalpine Italy. Those are my stomping grounds. :)

"The Victrix then went on to assist Augustus in his war against the Cantabrians that continued for almost 10 years starting in 29 BC. By 19 BC, imperial Rome had conquered the whole of Hispania, and the Iberian peninsula was also now under Roman rule. The legion was then stationed in freshly conquered contemporary Spain where it stayed for nearly a century. During this time, the city of Legio was founded (known as Leon in the present day)."

The Legio IX Hispana, which also served in Spain, was already formed before the Empire, fighting as early as the Social Wars, so I would think mostly "Italic", although perhaps with a bit of more "southern" influence.

The Legio Germanica served in Spain. The troops were from the Italian peninsula. It's unclear where precisely the troops were recruited, but I'm sure some from Cisalpine Gaul were included. The same is true of the Augusta, formed in 26 BC.

So, it escapes me why these troops, formed so early on any part of the Italian peninsula from free citizens, would be awash with Levantine ancestry.


Some more "creative" modeling, I guess. :) Does it ever occur to some people to check the history and context before doing the "modeling"?


but what i posted is from the paper
not calculation by davidski
have little faith angela ....... :)

have a look

https://i.imgur.com/hGkJRjB.png
 
In the municipal district of Ubrique there are vestiges of the Roman road, from the 1st century BC, which linked Lacilbula (Grazalema), Ocuri (Ubrique), Iptuci (Prado del Rey) and Acinipo (Ronda la Vieja).

Legio X Equestris military camp


mwo,x1000,ipad_2_snap-pad,750x1000,f8f8f8.u5.jpg

There was no other image.


Founding

The Tenth was created in Hispania by César in 61 a. C

When Gaius Julius Caesar arrived as Governor in the province of Baetica or Hispania Ulterior (modern Andalusia), as it was in 61 BC, he immediately decided to subdue the west and northwest areas (modern day Portugal). He already had two legions based in the province, the 8th and 9th Legions, which had been enlisted by Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus (Pompey the Great) in 65 BC. Caesar needed a third legion for his planned campaign and so he immediately enlisted a new legion, the 10th Legion. Enlisted in March, the legion took as its emblem the bull,[4] an emblem which proved popular with other legions such as Legio V Alaudae (Larks), Legio XI, Legio XII Victrix, and Legio XIII Gemina.
The campaign in the summer of 61 BC was very successful and the 10th Legion showed itself to be brave and loyal to Julius Caesar.

Legio X saved the day in the battle of the Sabis in 57 a. C. Together with the IX Hispanic, the Tenth defeated the ababates, moved back against the Belgians on the other side of the river and captured the enemy camp. From that position, the Tenth could see how desperate the situation was for the XII Victrix as well as the VII. So they quickly loaded down the hill, crossed the river and attacked the nerves from behind, trapping them so that there was little hope of survival.

In 45 a. C. the legion was licensed, and veterans obtained land in Narbonne, southern Gaul.

The Tenth was formed in Hispania, what is known today by Andalusia, but neither English or Spanish wikipedia makes it clear that it was native, it is understood, but they do not say it clearly. Does anyone know more exactly?

If so, I see that a tactic or modus operandis perhaps for security was to retire in other lands, not in those of origin, so it would have been a great mechanism of genetic exchange in Europe or the colonies without it having been a long-term risk for the Empire itself.


 
In the municipal district of Ubrique there are vestiges of the Roman road, from the 1st century BC, which linked Lacilbula (Grazalema), Ocuri (Ubrique), Iptuci (Prado del Rey) and Acinipo (Ronda la Vieja).

Legio X Equestris military camp


mwo,x1000,ipad_2_snap-pad,750x1000,f8f8f8.u5.jpg

There was no other image.


Founding

The Tenth was created in Hispania by César in 61 a. C

When Gaius Julius Caesar arrived as Governor in the province of Baetica or Hispania Ulterior (modern Andalusia), as it was in 61 BC, he immediately decided to subdue the west and northwest areas (modern day Portugal). He already had two legions based in the province, the 8th and 9th Legions, which had been enlisted by Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus (Pompey the Great) in 65 BC. Caesar needed a third legion for his planned campaign and so he immediately enlisted a new legion, the 10th Legion. Enlisted in March, the legion took as its emblem the bull,[4] an emblem which proved popular with other legions such as Legio V Alaudae (Larks), Legio XI, Legio XII Victrix, and Legio XIII Gemina.
The campaign in the summer of 61 BC was very successful and the 10th Legion showed itself to be brave and loyal to Julius Caesar.

Legio X saved the day in the battle of the Sabis in 57 a. C. Together with the IX Hispanic, the Tenth defeated the ababates, moved back against the Belgians on the other side of the river and captured the enemy camp. From that position, the Tenth could see how desperate the situation was for the XII Victrix as well as the VII. So they quickly loaded down the hill, crossed the river and attacked the nerves from behind, trapping them so that there was little hope of survival.

In 45 a. C. the legion was licensed, and veterans obtained land in Narbonne, southern Gaul.

The Tenth was formed in Hispania, what is known today by Andalusia, but neither English or Spanish wikipedia makes it clear that it was native, it is understood, but they do not say it clearly. Does anyone know more exactly?

If so, I see that a tactic or modus operandis perhaps for security was to retire in other lands, not in those of origin, so it would have been a great mechanism of genetic exchange in Europe or the colonies without it having been a long-term risk for the Empire itself.



I've never been able to find anything on where he raised the troops for the Legio Equestris. From what I can tell, he didn't trust certain of his Gallic allies. Whether it was formed partly from Spaniards, partly from other Gallic troops, or from his other favorites, the Cisalpine Italians, or a combination of all three I don't know. I would think there would have been some Spaniards definitely, as he made allies there.

A great legion, without question. I've read it was his favorite legion.

It's difficult to know from the naming. For example, The Legio Germanica was all Italian, but named for its victories in Germania.
 
but what i posted is from the paper
not calculation by davidski
have little faith angela ....... :)

have a look

https://i.imgur.com/hGkJRjB.png

You're making quite a leap there which is not at all supported by the facts.

Yes, there's a bit of Levant there. So what?

There was African y and mtDna (by way of North Africa) in Iberia before the Romans arrived, which would have contained some Levant like ancestry and some arrived after as well.

Where does it say it came from Roman legionnaires and settlers from Italy? Most particularly, how could people from Cisalpine Italy or around Rome have brought it, since most of them would have been attached to the legions and they didn't have Levantines in those legions. Where's the EVIDENCE for that?

What we have are samples found in Spain at certain periods. They're not labeled 100% Roman legionnaire or settler. The ancestry could come from various groups and eras and filtered down.

For crying out loud, didn't you read my post? Southeast Iberia in the Classical Age is Carthaginian territory, and partly Greek territory, and it's right across the strait from Morocco. I'd have to check it but mounted troops from North Africa did serve there for a time, as well as in Britain. I'd have to check it.

Now, some of it could have come from later settlers from all over the Roman world. Who says it all or even mostly came from the Italian peninsula?

That conclusion is YOURS, not the paper's.

You're going to have to do a lot better than that, Azzurro or Sickeliot or whoever you are.
 
You're making quite a leap there which is not at all supported by the facts.

Yes, there's a bit of Levant there. So what?

There was African y and mtDna (by way of North Africa) in Iberia before the Romans arrived, which would have contained some Levant like ancestry and some arrived after as well.

Where does it say it came from Roman legionnaires and settlers from Italy? Most particularly, how could people from Cisalpine Italy or around Rome have brought it, since most of them would have been attached to the legions and they didn't have Levantines in those legions. Where's the EVIDENCE for that?

What we have are samples found in Spain at certain periods. They're not labeled 100% Roman legionnaire or settler. The ancestry could come from various groups and eras and filtered down.

For crying out loud, didn't you read my post? Southeast Iberia in the Classical Age is Carthaginian territory, and partly Greek territory, and it's right across the strait from Morocco. I'd have to check it but mounted troops from North Africa did serve there for a time, as well as in Britain. I'd have to check it.

Now, some of it could have come from later settlers from all over the Roman world. Who says it all or even mostly came from the Italian peninsula?

That conclusion is YOURS, not the paper's.

You're going to have to do a lot better than that, Azzurro or Sickeliot or whoever you are.


lol
i never said he was a a roman
i only assumed :unsure:and some of the roman auxiliaries were in fact syrian units
the romans were not such a great archers
and they used syrians as archers in many of there campaigns against barbarian tribes
the last thing you said is so funny i can't breath from laugh:LOL:
 
One of the amusing things about the graphic is that Sicilians get less than Spaniards (or North Italians). Do you remember the unlamented Spanish Stormfront Nordicists from a few years ago who used to post here? Oh dear. :)

This may be related to Neolithic gene flows into Europe.
why Albanians dont have mbuti?
we are suppose to be similar with Greeks and south Italians
or the data are not that accurate?
 
why Albanians dont have mbuti?
we are suppose to be similar with Greeks and south Italians
or the data are not that accurate?

Indeed you are, and to Tuscans to some extent; all the genetic analyses agree with that.

Isolated populations experience drift, with some minority alleles or slivers of ancestry drifting out of the gene pool. I think that's probably the most likely explanation.

It makes sense that it's something to do with Basal Eurasian. It's just too old for the calculators. They can't compare it to anything except a very old lineage.
 

This thread has been viewed 357910 times.

Back
Top