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:
 
ihype02;633285]I have said before that some East Med Greek people probably did exist in Magna Graecia just like some Italic outliers too. I was wrong about dismissing him immediately as a Greek but the probability of finding a Cretan-like Greek in Rome by the time of 500BC to 800BC is slim. I doubt these genetic profiles were even common in Crete and Aegean Islands by time of 500BC-800BC.

There's no way you can possibly know that. We have no idea what the people of Crete were like in the Iron Age. You think they also were massively settled by people from the Levant? My God, how were there any people left to rebel against the Romans?

Again I do not know the timing aside from the fact that they are from Imperial Rome. "Not all" is a vague saying. 98% is not all too. But how was the Southern Italian cluster formed in Imperial Rome/Late Antiquity? Ancient Greeks mixed with Italic people in Campania as we have seen in the leaked PCA does not match it. And why are Central Italians significantly more southern shifted than Latins and Etruscans even after some negligible Germanic admixture? Of course the amount of genetic influence is debatable.

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.

As to the Roman paper which is the subject of this thread, as Jovialis has pointed out again and again, only a quarter of the Imperial samples are from the Near East. Then there are two C3 samples. How many times do people need to see the authors' own words before it sinks in?

"Instead, two-thirds of Imperial individuals (31 out of 48) belong to two major clusters (C5 and C6) that overlap in PCA with central and eastern Mediterranean populations, such as those from southern and central Italy, Greece, Cyprus, and Malta (Fig. 4B). An additional quarter (13 out of 48) of the sampled Imperial Romans form a cluster (C4) defined by high amounts of haplotype sharing with Levantine and Near Eastern populations, whereas no pre-Imperial individuals appear in this cluster (Fig. 4AC)."



To a certain extend yes. Also that rural zones are more likely to get hit by plagues and wars. Rome was sacked by Visigoths after all.

You mean "urban", but I think everyone understood.


I never implied so.

Well, that seems to be the subtext for so many of these discussions. It makes my skin crawl. Maybe it is true for some Italians. There are lots of strange people in this hobby. I can't imagine any Italian-American, or someone like me, who has spent decades here, feeling like that. Lord, there's so much inter-marriage between the two groups, despite the huge difference in religion.


No it does not, they are shifted in three direction towards Anatolia and Armenia, some few towards Northern Africa and the bulk seem towards Levant for whatever reason.

Where the heck are you getting that? ONLY 1/4 of the Imperial Samples were from the Near East. Then, that "tail into the Levant" disappears. How many times does it have to be repeated??? Maybe they're saying that in the Etruscan paper, but they certainly didn't say it in Antonio et al. It's just the anthrogenica types who are saying it.

When I said most Imperial Romans are South of Southern Italians I was talking for the 2019 Imperial Rome paper that I quoted. I haven't run yet the samples (expect the Greek ones).

I want you to run them, although I already have, and Jovialis already has, but MOST IMPORTANTLY, the authors already have. Only 1/4 are from the Near East (including Anatolia), and two more samples are C3.

I honestly don't get this. Maybe you have been brainwashed by the anthrogenica people or your fellow Albanians so that you don't absorb what the authors of Antonio et al pointed out, and the inconsistencies in the Etruscan paper.

You're worn me out. Believe what you want.

What is true of politics today is also now true of genetics, I guess. There's no search for objective truth; there's just different groups with different agendas.
 
R437 - K36 map: Modern Apulian

gNFMlG1.gif
 
R437 - K36 map: Modern Apulian

gNFMlG1.gif

Salento: How are you? Thanks for the R437 K36 heat map. R437 looks pretty damn Southern Shifted to me here which is in line with Dodecad 12B and my own Distances with that one (yours and Jovialis as well).
 
Salento: How are you? Thanks for the R437 K36 heat map. R437 looks pretty damn Southern Shifted to me here which is in line with Dodecad 12B and my own Distances with that one (yours and Jovialis as well).

I'm OK PT, thank you,
R437 (y R1b) and R850 (y T) although a little different from each other are Iron-Age Italians, and that's it !!! :)
 
I'm OK PT, thank you,
R437 (y R1b) and R850 (y T) although a little different from each other are Iron-Age Italians, and that's it !!! :)

R1b and T (your Y Haplogroup). R437 is also really close to the Basilicata samples from 600 to 800 AD reported in the Estruscan paper in Dodecad 12B, I put those distances in an earlier post.
 
R1b and T (your Y Haplogroup). R437 is also really close to the Basilicata samples from 600 to 800 AD reported in the Estruscan paper in Dodecad 12B, I put those distances in an earlier post.

Makes sense, … Venosa (Basilicata), according to AncestryDNA is part of the Genetic Community of Puglia.

pagXhy1.jpg
 
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:
We can see from the Olalde et al. 2021 paper that Anatolian during the Imperial era could be modelled as Anatolian_ChL+Iran_N.

The Greeks of IA Campania were similar to Aegean BA, and in between R437 and R850, of which R850 forms a clade with Anatolia_ChL.

Raveane et al. 2018 demonstrates a possible Anatolian_BA-like movement in the EBA, in Italy.

Daunian pre-print demonstrates Anatolian_n+CHG is a main feature of the Mediterranean Genetic Continuum.

To me, the evidence points to Anatolian influence that impacted not only south Italy, but also the Balkans, and as far as the west Mediterranean.
 
It is surprising to me to see how heated a simple discussion about archeogenetics have turned, since I am not used to see them here, but for what it is worth, what I've come to believe is that whatever later augmentations might have been before drawing any conclusions one must wait for samples from all Italy from the relevant time periods, and I suspect that the overwhelmingly majority of the "east med" gene flow came from within Italy, that is from the region of south Italy, which might have been inhabitated by people on a cline between north italy_BA/IA and Sicily_BA/IA, with a steeper gradient south of Latium.
Whatever later gene flows might have played a role, I think that a priori the likeliest source of it would be the Balkans, simply for geographic proximity, and then other places farther away; other possibilities aren't impossible but as long as there's a lack of evidence of those scenarios' being real then the safest bet is to hold a simple geographical paradigm.
The only time I've been more "vocal" was when I argued against one holding that G25 Italian samples were so reliable that one could even draw results contradicting results from the then available papers (suggesting that "G25 results gave just a more detailed picture"), a position I still hold, but if the evidence points to X's being the genetic make up of Italy, I honestly do not give a damn: many people that are on this "hobby" just want to "LARP" as ancient ethnicity x, and/or find a sense of identity in what paper X says about their genetic make up; I have just historical curiosity.
Even if X's being the genetic make up of Italy somewhat turns out to coincide with what the "anthro community" claimed, I shouldn't say they "knew" it since it would be akin a charlatan repeating every day prophecies and a day one of them becomes reality.
 
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:

Agamemnon has moved from South Italians were nearly completely replaced by Greeks and also Phoenicians in Sicily inland and in the coast to the "overcrowded cities of Magna Greacia carried most of the population of Southern Italy". After the Campania and Apulia native people were revealed.

I have told them that Carthaginians were wiped of Sicily before they came as Northern African and native in Sardinia genetically. Trust history a little bit more. Imperial Rome was not Syracuse deluxe 2.0.
 
The Anatolia_ChL/Iran_N genetic profile from the Imperial era, like the Latins, and Etruscans, no longer exist.

Wasn't there a recent paper that shows the ancestors of contemporary Near Easterners descend from what ultimately sourced as Sidon_BA? Levant_BA is not too different from the Ancient Egyptian genetic profile. Clearly Anatolia_ChL/Iran_N is different from ancient Egypt. Ancient Egyptians, and Levant_BA is only Half-Anatolian/Iran_N.
 
Agamemnon has moved from South Italians were nearly completely replaced by Greeks and also Phoenicians in Sicily inland and in the coast to the "overcrowded cities of Magna Greacia carried most of the population of Southern Italy". After the Campania and Apulia native people were revealed.
I have told them that Carthaginians were wiped of Sicily before they came as Northern African and native in Sardinia genetically.I have told them that Carthaginians were wiped of Sicily before they came as Northern African and native in Sardinia genetically. Trust history a little bit more. Imperial Rome was not Syracuse deluxe 2.0.

For the first time ever, probably, I partially agree with him. Of course most of the population would have lived in the cities. That's true in the U.S. today, and England, and Germany, and Italy. Why is that surprising? More importantly, why does the important Greek influence on Italy seem to upset you and other Albanians so much? I sense a subtext here?

As for this statement, sorry, but I can't respond because I don't understand it.
"I have told them that Carthaginians were wiped of Sicily before they came as Northern African and native in Sardinia genetically.

As to the Carthaginians, their foothold on Sicily was only in the northwest section. It is true that eventually they ruled all of Sicily, but the facts are well known that a vast majority of their troops were mercenaries, some my own Ligures, a lot of Spaniards etc. Everyone should read more history.

They should also read more genetics papers. My reading of the one on the Phoenicians and the Carthaginians in Sardinia is that their influence was pretty localized to the southwestern section, although in modern times there has been more movement there as everywhere. The genetic landscape of La Spezia, where generations of the men in my family worked, is very different now than it was even when I was born and growing up there.

The Phoenicians and Carthaginians after them established emporia, and farms to feed them, and mines. They were not families forced out of their homes by famine or young men cast out for their politics and searching out new lands to colonize for themselves and their descendants, as was the case with the Greeks.
 

I am not sure if it was this documentary or not, but I recall that the people of Carthage were not so warm to Hannibal upon his return. Basically claiming he had more to do with foreigners in Iberia and abroad from his exploits; basically calling him a sellout.
 

I am not sure if it was this documentary or not, but I recall that the people of Carthage were not so warm to Hannibal upon his return. Basically claiming he had more to do with foreigners in Iberia and abroad from his exploits; basically calling him a sellout.

@28:49, they say Hannibal was shunned by Carthage as a foriegner.

Around @23:24 they talk about how his father Hamlicar was distrusted by the old Carthage, and was basically creating a rouge state in Spain.

In between that time, as they talk about Hannibal's march towards Rome, he had to constantly stop to recruit mercenaries from Iberia and Gaul.
 
For the first time ever, probably, I partially agree with him. Of course most of the population would have lived in the cities. That's true in the U.S. today, and England, and Germany, and Italy. Why is that surprising? More importantly, why does the important Greek influence on Italy seem to upset you and other Albanians so much? I sense a subtext here?

As for this statement, sorry, but I can't respond because I don't understand it.
"I have told them that Carthaginians were wiped of Sicily before they came as Northern African and native in Sardinia genetically.

As to the Carthaginians, their foothold on Sicily was only in the northwest section. It is true that eventually they ruled all of Sicily, but the facts are well known that a vast majority of their troops were mercenaries, some my own Ligures, a lot of Spaniards etc. Everyone should read more history.

They should also read more genetics papers. My reading of the one on the Phoenicians and the Carthaginians in Sardinia is that their influence was pretty localized to the southwestern section, although in modern times there has been more movement there as everywhere. The genetic landscape of La Spezia, where generations of the men in my family worked, is very different now than it was even when I was born and growing up there.

The Phoenicians and Carthaginians after them established emporia, and farms to feed them, and mines. They were not families forced out of their homes by famine or young men cast out for their politics and searching out new lands to colonize for themselves and their descendants, as was the case with the Greeks.

Sorry, forgot to post the map. Terrible what has happened to most of Southern Italy; it wasn't like this in the days of Magna Graecia, or even under the Muslims. Parts of the center and north have suffered the same fate too. The rural villages where my ancestors lived for at least 1000 years, and probably more, are almost ghost towns except for August and a few holidays. They've all moved for work, to other cities in Italy, to other countries in Europe, to the U.S. and Canada and Latin America and Australia. We've always been too many people for the terrain, for the amount of food we can produce. We haven't been able to feed ourselves, have been dependent on imports, since the Roman Era.

518px-Map_of_population_density_in_Italy_(2011_census)_alt_colours.jpg


The vast majority of the white areas are mountains. The only "flat" areas with good soil are the Po Plain, a small plain around La Spezia and the area around Napoli. Puglia (and nearby Basilicata) and the area of Toscana from the sea to Firenze isn't bad either. Some parts of Sicily were once a bread basket for Italy until foreign rulers after the Muslims despoiled it. That's why I've never understood how some Southern Italians/Sicilians pine for their Spanish Bourbon kings; just more foreign parasites, imo, but then I was born and raised in a hot bed or anarchism, where every other folk song curses our noble families and/or celebrates revolution. In the old days the guillotine would have gone over really big had we been organized enough, and had not Austria Hungary always been breathing down our necks, or the French once in a while for a change of pace. Napoleon was admired because he took away the power of the nobles and the church, and promulgated and enforced "The Rights of Man". There's even a big festival in his honor in Sarzana. Not that I support murder, you understand, but I understand the impulse.
 
For the first time ever, probably, I partially agree with him. Of course most of the population would have lived in the cities. That's true in the U.S. today, and England, and Germany, and Italy. Why is that surprising? More importantly, why does the important Greek influence on Italy seem to upset you and other Albanians so much? I sense a subtext here?
He said Greek cities not all cities. Do you believe majority of people in Southern Italy were in Greek cities? Do you think majority of people of Apulia lived in 3 Greek cities?
It does not upset me 100%, it does however upset me that you think that way. It's just that I vocalize myself too much and it looks that way to ... you.
I will probably not talk about this topic anymore.
Who are those other Albanians you speak of?
 
Agamemnon has moved from South Italians were nearly completely replaced by Greeks and also Phoenicians in Sicily inland and in the coast to the "overcrowded cities of Magna Greacia carried most of the population of Southern Italy". After the Campania and Apulia native people were revealed.
I have told them that Carthaginians were wiped of Sicily before they came as Northern African and native in Sardinia genetically. Trust history a little bit more. Imperial Rome was not Syracuse deluxe 2.0.


Carthage was founded in 810BC from Phoenicians from Tyre

they began to settle in sicily circa 500BC

It had a Thalassocracy system the same system as the Liburnians ( liburnians actually first traded with carthage from 730BC for pottery mainly )

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalassocracy

within 2 generations in sicily ......they where fighting the indigenous people of sicily

they even fought Phyrhus of Epirus after he attacked Italy as he demanded sicily from the Carthagians

I doubt the carthagians had much luck in sicily......they seem to have better fortunes in sardinia and Spain
 
He said Greek cities not all cities. Do you believe majority of people in Southern Italy were in Greek cities? Do you think majority of people of Apulia lived in 3 Greek cities?
It does not upset me 100%, it does however upset me that you think that way. It's just that I vocalize myself too much and it looks that way to ... you.
I will probably not talk about this topic anymore.
Who are those other Albanians you speak of?


the only Greeks I know about in Apulia was early bronze-age trade with Myceneans

The Mycenaeans and Apulia. An Examination of Aegean Bronze Age Contacts with Apulia in Eastern Magna Grecia.

by Elizabeth A. Fisher


then after the Dalmatians/Iagypes arrived circa 1000BC ....the only Greek city was Taranto under Corinthians Greeks and later became a spartan city around 400BC
 
He said Greek cities not all cities. Do you believe majority of people in Southern Italy were in Greek cities? Do you think majority of people of Apulia lived in 3 Greek cities? Why Calabria has only 7% E-V13 ( around 5-10% like the rest of Italy from the Northern to the South) and Peloponnese 25%? Given the Greek colonization was at least slightly male biased.

It does not upset me 100%, it does however upset me that you think that way. It's just that I vocalize myself too much and it looks that way to ... you.
I will probably not talk about this topic anymore.
Who are those other Albanians you speak of?

OK., I'll take you at your word as far as letting any possible agendas affect you. You seem a reasonable man most of the time.

As to the cities of Southern Italy and Sicily, I'll have to go back and check my books and maps, but until the coming of the Greeks and then later the Roman Era, I don't think there "were" any "cities" as we would understand them with the exception of the large settlements in northern Puglia.

Are you aware of any? I'm always willing to learn new things.

Why does it seem so improbable to you that a few cities might concentrate most of the population of a whole province? Did you look at the map I posted? Where is the majority of the population of Campania? How about Piemonte, or Lazio, or Liguria? The Po Plain is slightly different because it's fertile. Puglia might have been different too because it is flatter. The only fertile areas of Calabria are on a strip of coastline circling it. Yes, I think probably the majority of the people of Calabria at that time lived in cities on that coast, and yes, I think they were Greek city-states. What were they supposed to eat, only ficchi d'india and whatever wild game they can kill and berries they can find? People gravitate to where the living is easier. Campania has its very fertile areas on the fertile volcanic soil from Vesuvius. They plant all the way up the volcano almost to the crater. The population congregated there because that's where you can produce the most food.

It's been like this throughout human history. Large concentrations of people form where there is fresh water and fertile soil and access to transportation. Even before farming it was like this. The largest human settlements of the "Western World" were in the Levant, because after the Last Glacial Maximum, the soil and climate supported so much flora and fauna for the taking that it could support a large group of HGs who didn't have to trek miles every day just to find something to eat. No wonder they had a memory of a place they called "The Garden of Eden".

Note that before the Romans drained it, much of the now green Po Plain was marshland; that's why the Roman built cities line the southern rim of it.

7bae2388fefbbe229063ff6d7c313b04.jpg
 
the only Greeks I know about in Apulia was early bronze-age trade with Myceneans
The Mycenaeans and Apulia. An Examination of Aegean Bronze Age Contacts with Apulia in Eastern Magna Grecia.
by Elizabeth A. Fisher

then after the Dalmatians/Iagypes arrived circa 1000BC ....the only Greek city was Taranto under Corinthians Greeks and later became a spartan city around 400BC


Apulia might have become more Greek/Epirote after Phyrhus of Epirus invasion ..............I am not sure
 

This thread has been viewed 357966 times.

Back
Top