Moots: Ancient Rome Paper

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:

Anyone who "assumes" that Levantine ancestry only started arriving in Iberia after the Romans took over doesn't know very much about Iberia's history.

As I said, perhaps you should re-read my post.

There are at least two, no three, groups with which it could have arrived.
 
By the way, is there any proof of a mass migration from the Levant into Italy during the Iron Age? Or is it that many lede cannot but think that all the northern samples were northerner übermenschen whereas the samples who cluster with southern italians were just the result of miscegenation of the former and pesky semites that flocked into Italy, if not pesky semites themselves?


This paper doesn't state there was a mass migration from the Levant into Italy during the Iron Age.
 
This is how the paper models 850. It seems that some people are more into the hobby of propaganda, instead of reading and discussing facts from the actual source material:

pqU2Zem.png
 
At this point in the movie someone can make an accurate, concise and quasi-schematic description of how the thing is or only Manciamo knows how to do it?
 
Here is situation within G2a:


G2a2a5607-5485 BCEG-Z42565PF3147>PF3148>PF3177>L91>Z42565Neolithic
G2a2a1070-1150 CEG-Z6228PF3147>PF3148>PF3177>L91>Z6484>Z6128>PF3239>Z6802>Z6228Medieval
G2a2a1280-1430 CEG-Z6228PF3147>PF3148>PF3177>L91>Z6484>Z6128>PF3239>Z6802>Z6228Medieval
G2a2b3500-900 BCEG-PF3378PF3359>F1193>PF3369>F872>PF3378Chalcolithic/BA
G2a2b2950-2880 BCEpre-G-F807PF3359>F1193>PF3369>F872>F2572>F2214>pre-F807Chalcolithic
G2a2b0-200 CEG-L14* Z45043- FGC5185-M406>M3317>FGC5089>FGC5081>L14*Imperial Rome
G2a2b232-333 CEG-S9591M406>M3317>PF3293>PF3316>Z6029>S9591Imperial Rome
G2a2b100-300 CEG-P303P303*Imperial Rome
G2a2b300-700 CEG-L140 PF3346- (Z31254- Z31256- Z3125:cool:P303>L140*Late Antiquity
G2a2b136-326 CEG-Z6434* (Z3571- FGC295- Z6993- Z6994- Z6996-)CTS342>Z724>Z1903>CTS7045>Z3408>Z3428>YP4752>Z6434Imperial Rome
G2a2b1-400 CEpre-G-Z6764U1>L13>Z2022>Z6759>pre-Z6764Imperial Rome
G2a2b400-600 CEG-S2808 S23438- Y31000- S18765-L497>Z1815>Y7538>Z1816>Z1823>Z726>CTS4803>S2808Late Antiquity
G2a2b1280-1430 CEG-S2808 S23438- Y31000- S18765-L497>Z1815>Y7538>Z1816>Z1823>Z726>CTS4803>S2808Medieval
G2a2b1480-1490 CEG-S18765L497>Z1815>Y7538>Z1816>Z1823>Z726>CTS4803>S2808>S23438>S18765Renaissance

Hi Dema -- Thanks for the G2a info. A few remarks.

First, I am surprised to see the U1 branch represented in Rome (circa 1-400 CE). Although Pip was banned, I found his discussion of the L140 lines very persuasive, with U1 lines heading east from Cuceteni Tripolye, and L497 and CTS342 heading west into Central Europe and Italy.

Second, it looks like the early G2a2a lines, associated with Otzi, were thoroughly eclipsed by G2a2b lines (with due allowance for small number of samples).

Third, I am also surprised to see two M-406 individuals in the Imperial period, but no L497 or CTS342 (again, perhaps this reflects small number of samples?). According to Pip, both L497 and CTS342 expanded in conjunction with R1b-U152, and therefore should have been present at the founding of Rome, well before Imperial times. However, it is worth noting that the Olalde study from earlier this year partially contradicts Pip's account, as CTS342>Z1903 individuals were found in both Southern Spain and Western Sicily with no signs of Steppe admixture, circa 1500 to 1000 BCE. Therefore, it seems possible that CTS342 took path from Balkans to Spain to Sicily to Southern Italy, and only appeared in Rome in Imperial times.
 
Hi Dema -- Thanks for the G2a info. A few remarks.

First, I am surprised to see the U1 branch represented in Rome (circa 1-400 CE). Although Pip was banned, I found his discussion of the L140 lines very persuasive, with U1 lines heading east from Cuceteni Tripolye, and L497 and CTS342 heading west into Central Europe and Italy.

Second, it looks like the early G2a2a lines, associated with Otzi, were thoroughly eclipsed by G2a2b lines (with due allowance for small number of samples).

Third, I am also surprised to see two M-406 individuals in the Imperial period, but no L497 or CTS342 (again, perhaps this reflects small number of samples?). According to Pip, both L497 and CTS342 expanded in conjunction with R1b-U152, and therefore should have been present at the founding of Rome, well before Imperial times. However, it is worth noting that the Olalde study from earlier this year partially contradicts Pip's account, as CTS342>Z1903 individuals were found in both Southern Spain and Western Sicily with no signs of Steppe admixture, circa 1500 to 1000 BCE. Therefore, it seems possible that CTS342 took path from Balkans to Spain to Sicily to Southern Italy, and only appeared in Rome in Imperial times.

Good information, thanks. As to the first speculation, that may indeed me the case.

As to the second, is it possible that some got picked up later in the Balkans or perhaps, say, Hungary?

With autosomal dna you need far fewer samples to come to reasonable conclusions than with uniparentals, given all the sub-lineages.
 
I paid for access to the paper, and I'm going over it with a fine-tooth comb. Interestingly, the authors suggest that it is plausible that rather than additional source population of CHG/IN; Neolthic Italian Farmers could be from a different source population different from Central European, and Iberian farmers. Rather, they may have come directly from Central Anatolia, or Northern Greece.
 
But also, there's quite a lot of Irish/Italians; almost every Italian-American I know is either marrying an Irish person, or is partly Irish. They can pretty much be an ethnicity on to themselves, imo

ha ha, guilty as charged ---> somehow the latest Ancestry.com results have me as more Irish (42%) than Italian (38%, plus another 8% Greece & Balkans). I should be a quarter English, but somehow only got 6%. And mysteriously I am now suddenly 5% French, which I believe is perhaps better understood as Western Mediterranean ancestry, supporting my growing sense that G2a-CTS342 moved to Spain before heading back east to Italy via Sicily and Sardinia. Ahem, not that it is any way scientific to extrapolate from one's own narrow experience
 
I paid for access to the paper, and I'm going over it with a fine-tooth comb. Interestingly, the authors suggest that it is plausible that rather than additional source population of CHG/IN; Neolthic Italian Farmers could be from a different source population different from Central European, and Iberian farmers. Rather, they may have come directly from Central Anatolia, or Northern Greece.

Yes, but it decreases in the Copper Age, so I don't know how much would have survived in Northern/Central Italy. (I don't recall them saying it was all from the Neolithic, but maybe I missed it somehow. I'll go back over the paper.) It might be different in Southern Italy, of course, which is why, as you know so well, we so desperately need Bronze and Iron Age samples from there.

Then, the levels increase in Southern Italy, so I doubt the Neolithic could be responsible for it all. The question is, when did it arrive, yes? Did some arrive in the Copper Age, in the Bronze Age, in the Iron Age, In the days of the Republic and Empire, all, or just some, and what was the ydna like at each time? I can't imagine that there wasn't a boost at least in the Iron Age from Greek migration. Modern mainland Greeks may be slightly different, but ancient Greeks must have been pretty Mycenaean like going by the Empuries sample.

What we do know is that the Hellenthal group and the usual suspects were completely wrong about it arriving during the Post Imperial Age with some supposed mass migration from Byzantine areas.

Amazing, isn't it, how not only the amateurs, but even some of the scholars who buy into cliches have gotten it wrong?

Btw, if you join the magazine, which is free, you get access to certain papers without having to pay for them. It took me a long while to figure it out. :)

As to your post 443, that will be the second or third time that material was quoted to them. I guess if they don't want to acknowledge what it says in black and white, they just won't. Maybe I'm wrong that combatting nonsense with facts works.
 
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.

@KingJohn,

I can't seem to find the post where you accused me of having a problem with Italians or Southern Europeans in general having Levante like/Semitic ancestry, and I don't want to let that go unanswered, so I'll put it here, which is what led to your comment.

For the record, as I've alluded to before, and yes, I know it's a cliche or an excuse some times, but most of my best friends and my husband's partner and best friends are Jews. I nursed my best friend, Ruth, who died of breast cancer way too early, through the last grueling and horrific six months of her life and was there when she passed. Her absence is a loss, a whole in my heart which I feel every day of my life. No family member could have been closer. That someone could accuse me of disrespecting her ancestry is like someone stabbing me in the heart.

I have no problem with some Levant ancestry having entered the Italian gene pool. I'm sure some did. If my husband doesn't have at least a bit I'd be surprised.
ri
What I object to is Anti-Semites and anti-Levant, or even actual people from the Levant trying to find it in Italians where it doesn't exist, or exaggerating the amount of it where it does for their own psychiatric or racist reasons. The same goes for North African ancestry.

I also, as anyone who frequents this board should know, detest deceit, cheating, fraud, call it what you will. It's one the reasons for my choice of profession. I'll expose it on any topic wherever I can.

Period.

That's the last I'll say on the subject.
 
Last edited:
Yes, but it decreases in the Copper Age, so I don't know how much would have survived in Northern/Central Italy. (I don't recall them saying it was all from the Neolithic, but maybe I missed it somehow. I'll go back over the paper.) It might be different in Southern Italy, of course, which is why, as you know so well, we so desperately need Bronze and Iron Age samples from there.

Then, the levels increase in Southern Italy, so I doubt the Neolithic could be responsible for it all. The question is, when did it arrive, yes? Did some arrive in the Copper Age, in the Bronze Age, in the Iron Age, In the days of the Republic and Empire, all, or just some, and what was the ydna like at each time? I can't imagine that there wasn't a boost at least in the Iron Age from Greek migration. Modern mainland Greeks may be slightly different, but ancient Greeks must have been pretty Mycenaean like going by the Empuries sample.

What we do know is that the Hellenthal group and the usual suspects were completely wrong about it arriving during the Post Imperial Age with some supposed mass migration from Byzantine areas.

Amazing, isn't it, how not only the amateurs, but even some of the scholars who buy into cliches have gotten it wrong?

Btw, if you join the magazine, which is free, you get access to certain papers without having to pay for them. It took me a long while to figure it out. :)

As to your post 443, that will be the second or third time that material was quoted to them. I guess if they don't want to acknowledge what it says in black and white, they just won't. Maybe I'm wrong that combatting nonsense with facts works.

Facts can be inconvenient. But also, I don't think they can perform the mental gymnastics to understand, anyway. Maybe they should get a new hobby, perhaps working at a Heaven's Gate-style cult would better suit the mentality.
 
Interestingly, the authors suggest that it is plausible that rather than additional source population of CHG/IN; Neolthic Italian Farmers could be from a different source population different from Central European, and Iberian farmers. Rather, they may have come directly from Central Anatolia, or Northern Greece.

Jovialis, could you elaborate on this point? Or did you want to go over Moots with a fine-tooth comb first?

Certainly it appears that G2a2b lines moved from Balkans during Copper Age to Western Europe (by which routes is debatable, most likely multiple routes), replacing earlier G2a2a lines in places like Italy

So maybe G2a2a comes from different area of Anatolia than G2a2b, each division having its own autosomal make-up, with G2a2a more mixed with CHG/Iranian Neolithic (in particular J2a populations) than the G2a2b-dominated populations. G2a2a-led group then takes a more southern route into Italy, via Greece & the Islands, while G2a2b-led group initially goes up the Danube.

Somewhat off topic, but have there been any studies of post-Neolithic Iranian populations, say from the time of Cyrus the Great?
 
Jovialis, could you elaborate on this point? Or did you want to go over Moots with a fine-tooth comb first?

Certainly it appears that G2a2b lines moved from Balkans during Copper Age to Western Europe (by which routes is debatable, most likely multiple routes), replacing earlier G2a2a lines in places like Italy

So maybe G2a2a comes from different area of Anatolia than G2a2b, each division having its own autosomal make-up, with G2a2a more mixed with CHG/Iranian Neolithic (in particular J2a populations) than the G2a2b-dominated populations. G2a2a-led group then takes a more southern route into Italy, via Greece & the Islands, while G2a2b-led group initially goes up the Danube.

Somewhat off topic, but have there been any studies of post-Neolithic Iranian populations, say from the time of Cyrus the Great?

Thus far, it doesn't say much more than that. But at Angela pointed out, there was a decrease of Iran-Neo, based on the three Central Italian Copper Age samples. As well as a resurgence of WHG, probably from Early European Farmers who retained more WHG in their own ancestry. This increase of WHG happened in many other parts of Europe around this time as well. However, I suspect that the situation was different in other parts of Italy, like in the south.
 
In many ways, Germany is considered the Heartland of Europe. The upcoming paper by David Reich and Isolf Lazaridis models Germans as predominately Paleolithic Caucasian, which is similar to Anatolian_Neolthic:

0gHNs9u.png

So when Angela says, "this is a whole new way of looking at European ancestry" ---> the point is that Reich et al are going to look at modern European populations as different blends of six different paleolithic populations???

If so, this seems like a long overdue move. The "Native Hunter-Gatherer versus Early European Farmer versus Steppe Conqueror" paradigm seems to have exhausted much of its explanatory power
 
So when Angela says, "this is a whole new way of looking at European ancestry" ---> the point is that Reich et al are going to look at modern European populations as different blends of six different paleolithic populations???

If so, this seems like a long overdue move. The "Native Hunter-Gatherer versus Early European Farmer versus Steppe Conqueror" paradigm seems to have exhausted much of its explanatory power

It also is a bit confusing, for example, in the Iron Age samples, the Steppe Eneolthic within an of itself is modeled as (60% EHG + 40% CHG/IN) and/or (50% EHG + 50% CHG/IN). That is in addition to the Iran Neo that increases, and is modeled as the separate gray component from that subsumed amount of Iran-like ancestry of Steppe Eneolthic.

9F2cMqC.jpg
 
It also is a bit confusing, for example, in the Iron Age samples, the Steppe Eneolthic within an of itself is modeled as (60% EHG + 40% CHG/IN) and/or (50% EHG + 50% CHG/IN). That is in addition to the Iran Neo that increases, and is modeled as the separate gray component from that subsumed amount of Iran-like ancestry of Steppe Eneolthic.

9F2cMqC.jpg

8Rw1oTN.jpg


Ergo, we do see a jump in Iran-Neo from the copper age, to the Iron age. Which is comparable, or even more than Steppe Eneolithic. However, some of these Iron Age samples plot where they do on the PCA partly due to the copper-age resurgent WHG (Probably by EEF that retained this ancestry) that was brought to the region in a time that preceded the arrival of Steppe-like ancestry.

cG9nHQx.png
 
The CHG/Iran Neo like ancestry from the steppe is indeed included in the steppe number.

What we're, and the paper, are talking about is a separate flow of genes ultimately from the Caucasus, which, after a certain point was mixed with Anatolian Neo, and eventually mixed with more Anatolian Neo before reaching either Greece or Italy. We now know it started in the Neolithic, but I highly doubt there weren't other flows of that or similar ancestry.

I would be extremely surprised if some migrations high in Caucasus/Iran Neo like ancestry, emanating from the Near East, probably Asia Minor, either via Greece or both via Greece and the Balkans, and places like Crete or Cyprus, for example, didn't increase the amount of that ancestry in Italy.

The amount in the Neolithic, about 10%, is quite a bit smaller than what is currently present in some areas, or, I would bet, than what was present in the Middle to Late first millennium, for example.
 
So when Angela says, "this is a whole new way of looking at European ancestry" ---> the point is that Reich et al are going to look at modern European populations as different blends of six different paleolithic populations???

If so, this seems like a long overdue move. The "Native Hunter-Gatherer versus Early European Farmer versus Steppe Conqueror" paradigm seems to have exhausted much of its explanatory power

Since I said it, I'll answer, if Jovialis and you don't object. :)

That's exactly what I think, and I agree with your conclusion.

I had forgotten about that graphic, and I'm very glad Jovialis didn't, and posted it.

Also, you might take a look at my post number 449.

Maybe even 450, since that might have gotten lost too. I have no agenda here, and no biases. I'm just looking for the truth.
 
The paper states that there was "deep demographic change" in Late Antiquity; facilitated by the changing political and social situation in the Western Roman Empire (i.e. shift of capital to Constantinople, war, disease, collapse of the empire). The result was a population that was roughly 30% C7 European, 30% Eastern Mediterranean (C5), 38% Mediterranean (C6). Basically, it meant the loss of the Near eastern populations, and an expansion of C7.
 

This thread has been viewed 357873 times.

Back
Top