Moots: Ancient Rome Paper

[LTG]

I ran a K-means cluster analysis on the Imperial Romans in PAST (data program for PCA�s, neighbor joining trees and other analysis). I removed the obvious outlier samples that fell somewhere long the MENA cline. I then asked the program to divide the remaining samples into 4 distinct clusters based on their genetic correlation before working out the average of these different cluster groups. Once the centroid had been found I ran those coordinates against the Global 25 datasheet to find their closest population representatives; they happened to coincide with certain genetic locations for the most part.

C1) West Mediterranean
RMPR37, RMPR111, RMPR116

C2) Aegean
RMPR39, RMPR40, RMPR41,RMPR43, RMPR44, RMPR50, RMPR51, RMPR66, RMPR69, RMPR72, RMPR75, RMPR78, RMPR81, RMPR114, RMPR115, RMPR123, RMPR126, RMPR1543, RMPR1545

C3) Anatolia
RMPR38, RMPR128, RMPR76

C4) South Italy
RMPR45, RMPR47, RMPR49, RMPR73, RMPR80, RMPR113, RMPR125, RMPR131, RMPR132, RMPR436, RMPR835, RMPR836, RMPR1544, RMPR1548, RMPR1549

This is what these clusters look like on the PCA:

 

[Jovialis]

Thanks for the info LTG, this is what I get for the imperial samples:

C1) West Mediterranean:

0


C2) Aegean:

8. Imperial Rome Empire Via Paisiello (100 AD) ..... 10.81 - R114 -
Top 98% match vs all users


22. Imperial Rome Centocelle (200 AD) ..... 12.66 - R51 -
Top 98% match vs all users


24. Imperial Rome ANAS (200 AD) ..... 12.77 - R69 -
Top 99% match vs all users


29. Hellenic Roman Empire VP (100 AD) ..... 13.72 - R115 -
Top 98% match vs all users


32. Imperial Rome Centocelle (190 AD) ..... 14.51 - R50 -
Top 97% match vs all users


33. Anatolian Roman Necropolis MR (200 AD) ..... 14.51 - R1543 -
Top 97% match vs all users


36. Hellenic Roman Necropolis MR (200 AD) ..... 14.6 - R1545 -
Top 98% match vs all users


47. Imperial Rome Viale Rossini (100 AD) ..... 15.42 - R75 -
Top 98% match vs all users


48. Anatolian Roman Isola Sacra (200 AD) ..... 15.55 - R43 -
Top 99% match vs all users


68. Anatolian Roman Casale del Dolce (288 AD) ..... 17.19 - R126 -
Top 98% match vs all users


72. Imperial Rome Isola Sacra (99 AD) ..... 17.31 - R39 -
Top 98% match vs all users


76. Hellenic/Anatolian Roman ANAS (200 AD) ..... 18.65 - R66 -
Top 98% match vs all users


84. Anatolian Roman Viale Rossini (100 AD) ..... 19.23 - R78 -
Top 98% match vs all users


86. Anatolian Roman ANAS (200 AD) ..... 19.39 - R72 -
Top 98% match vs all users


C3) Anatolian:


54. Anatolian Roman Viale Rossini (100 AD) ..... 16.11 - R76 -
Top 98% match vs all users


65. Roman Empire Casale del Dolce (200 AD) ..... 17.15 - R128 -
Top 98% match vs all users


93. Anatolian Roman Isola Sacra (200 AD) ..... 20.58 - R38 -
Top 97% match vs all users


C4) Southern Italian:


1. Hellenic Roman Monterotondo (165 AD) ..... 6.842 - R1548 -
Top 99% match vs all users


6. Roman Imperial Palestrina (100 AD) ..... 10.29 - R436 -
Top 99% match vs all users


11. Hellenic Roman ANAS (200 AD) ..... 11.47 - R73 -
Top 98% match vs all users


15. Imperial Rome Centocelle (200 AD) ..... 12.2 - R49 -
Top 97% match vs all users


16. Imperial Rome Centocelle (282 AD) ..... 12.28 - R47 -
Top 98% match vs all users


23. Central Roman Casale del Dolce (200 AD) ..... 12.7 - R125 -
Top 99% match vs all users


26. Central Roman Necropolis MR (200 AD) ..... 13.32 - R1544 -
Top 99% match vs all users


27. Imperial Rome Marche CN (165 AD) ..... 13.46 - R835 -
Top 97% match vs all users


66. Imperial Rome Isola Sacra (200 AD) ..... 17.17 - R45 -
Top 96% match vs all users


74. Imperial Rome Via Paisiello (100 AD) ..... 17.63 - R131 -
Top 95% match vs all users




C5) Middle Eastern:


62. Roman Outlier Monterotondo (165 AD) ..... 17.03 - R1550 -
Top 97% match vs all users


91. Canaanite Roman Empire Monterotondo (165 AD) ..... 20.35 - R1547 -
Top 96% match vs all users

 

[Jovialis]

Of the Imperial samples ( I get more from other eras) these are the ones I match with Deep Dive. Just Aegean, and Southern Italian samples, which makes perfect sense.:

C1) West Mediterranean:

0

C2) Aegean: 9 total matches

*8. Imperial Rome Empire Via Paisiello (100 AD) ..... 10.81 - R114 -
Top 98% match vs all users

*22. Imperial Rome Centocelle (200 AD) ..... 12.66 - R51 -
Top 98% match vs all users

*24. Imperial Rome ANAS (200 AD) ..... 12.77 - R69 -
Top 99% match vs all users

*32. Imperial Rome Centocelle (190 AD) ..... 14.51 - R50 -
Top 97% match vs all users

*33. Anatolian Roman Necropolis MR (200 AD) ..... 14.51 - R1543 -
Top 97% match vs all users

*36. Hellenic Roman Necropolis MR (200 AD) ..... 14.6 - R1545 -
Top 98% match vs all users

*47. Imperial Rome Viale Rossini (100 AD) ..... 15.42 - R75 -
Top 98% match vs all users

*48. Anatolian Roman Isola Sacra (200 AD) ..... 15.55 - R43 -
Top 99% match vs all users

*72. Imperial Rome Isola Sacra (99 AD) ..... 17.31 - R39 -
Top 98% match vs all users

C3) Anatolian:

0

C4) Southern Italian: 6 total matches

*1. Hellenic Roman Monterotondo (165 AD) ..... 6.842 - R1548 -
Top 99% match vs all users

*6. Roman Imperial Palestrina (100 AD) ..... 10.29 - R436 -
Top 99% match vs all users

*11. Hellenic Roman ANAS (200 AD) ..... 11.47 - R73 -
Top 98% match vs all users

*16. Imperial Rome Centocelle (282 AD) ..... 12.28 - R47 -
Top 98% match vs all users

*26. Central Roman Necropolis MR (200 AD) ..... 13.32 - R1544 -
Top 99% match vs all users

*66. Imperial Rome Isola Sacra (200 AD) ..... 17.17 - R45 -
Top 96% match vs all users

C5) Middle Eastern:

0

 

[Angela]

West Med cluster
R37 11.47

Aegean cluster:
R114 14.17 (Using K=15, mta says it’s closest modern pop. Is Abruzzo)
R51 13.0 (mta says closest is West Sicilian, then Tuscan)

No hits in the Anatolia cluster

South Italy cluster:
R47 13.49 (mta says Tuscan is closest)
R835-7.875 (mta says Tuscans are the closest


What happened to the following samples?
R1540 9.166 (mta says Tuscan)
R117 10.85 (mta says West Sicilian then Tuscan)
R136 Hellenic Roman Italian 13.52 (mta says Abruzzo)
R118 14.49 (mta says North Italian, but at quite a distance)

 

[Pax Augusta]

West Med cluster
R37 11.47

Aegean cluster:
R114 14.17 (Using K=15, mta says it’s closest modern pop. Is Abruzzo)
R51 13.0 (mta says closest is West Sicilian, then Tuscan)

No hits in the Anatolia cluster

South Italy cluster:
R47 13.49 (mta says Tuscan is closest)
R835-7.875 (mta says Tuscans are the closest


What happened to the following samples?
R1540 9.166 (mta says Tuscan)
R117 10.85 (mta says West Sicilian then Tuscan)
R136 Hellenic Roman Italian 13.52 (mta says Abruzzo)
R118 14.49 (mta says North Italian, but at quite a distance)

14.17, 13.0, 13.49, 9.166, 10.85... are still significant distances which means that there is no best fit on MTA.

MTA is nothing more than Eurogenes K15 with the old spreadsheet of K15, to which MTA is adding the ancient samples.

 

[Regio X]

14.17, 13.0, 13.49, 9.166, 10.85... are still significant distances which means that there is no best fit on MTA.
MTA is nothing more than Eurogenes K15 with the old spreadsheet of K15, to which MTA is adding the ancient samples.

They claim the modern pop labels were borrowed from K15 for comparison, but that the similarities end here, i.e., that it's not based on it. We supposedly could notice it by checking the results for anyone with partial non-European backgrounds, who would get more accurate ones. However, I wonder if it was not just a matter of dividing certain K15 clusters and adding pop references. Anyway, it seems they're working on new and better tools. We'll see.

Finally, all that said, being based on a calculator such K15 wouldn't be so bad in my opinion. Even if the clusters are not de per si that informative, they can be used as a whole for clues on general similarities (not necessarily direct ancestry only), and, importantly, that's actually how a simple Oracle works. It tries to identify your closest pop using your own results and also references, based on relevant clusters. Of course, here we're talking also on ancient (and low coverage) individuals, so this "MTA Oracle" seems more subjected to "convergences", or accidental (super)approximations, as noticed in my own results but not in my parents' (for the same ancient individual). I mean, this "Illyrian continuity" would be impossible. The fact we're too close evidences we're not that close, je je, given all movements in N. Italy in the last 3000 years. Which doesn't mean the results are totally off, or that there is not a general (relative) similarity between us, due to direct ancestry, shared ancestry or both. I say "relative" because the references are still modern, and the calculator will try to do the fitting anyway. I just think the distances should not be seen in "absolute sense", nor against moderns. They seem more informative in their own context, against other ancients', especially when the distances are too different. Seen this way, they'd look more informative, which is shown by the somewhat "coherent" results people from different areas get. But I agree the results should not be taken "literaly", as any other Autosomal test (for example, I'm certainly not x% NW European, Greek or Iberian in ancestry, as some commercial tests could suggest). At the end, MTA is one more tool for clues, and particularly I have a more limited interest on it (so much so I haven't bought it yet). And it's certainly fun.
PS: I'd prefer K36 for this job, but unfortunately it's associated to certain "overfits". Perhaps it'd be better in some cases, but this "K15-like calculator" (lol) probably works better than K36 "in general".

 

[Angela]

14.17, 13.0, 13.49, 9.166, 10.85... are still significant distances which means that there is no best fit on MTA.

MTA is nothing more than Eurogenes K15 with the old spreadsheet of K15, to which MTA is adding the ancient samples.

Yes, so I've heard numerous times.

The point is that LTG's analysis puts, for example, R47 and R835 in Southern Italy, whereas the K15 is putting them in Tuscany.

So, there is no agreement between methods.

Plus, why were some samples not included?

On a related topic, do the rest of us really have to be at the mercy of someone who includes or doesn't include samples, changes labels, changes the numbers for reasons unknown to anyone else, who has a documented history for bias and massaging the data?

No one else in the amateur community is capable of creating a program like the G25? Someone who inspires more confidence? Is that really true? Even in terms of mta, there was no option but to use the K=15? That's why I don't take those numbers as gospel. I only have to take a look at the horrible fit they give me in the modern populations section to North Italians and Tuscans to know that. I get much better fits in other calculators.

Ed. @Regio.

We cross posted.

Well, mta may be denying they're using K=15, but the modern fits they give for me are the same as I get for K=15, and they're among the worst I've gotten in any of the calculators.

I realize none of these numbers is meant to be carved in stone, but you'd expect a few differences if they're really different methods.

As for the comparison between the analysis of LTG and mta, I quite understand there will be differences between methods, but placing Tuscans in Southern Italy is not exactly minor.

Nor is the absence of certain samples going to help. I'm going to check those again. I was in a food coma from too much turkey and fat and carbs, so maybe there's some obvious reason they're not included which I missed. Or it may be an oversight.

If they actually should be included, I would think the analysis has to be redone.

Ed.#2

I pointed out way back in post #62 that the authors should have at least divided up the samples by burial site and checked for similarity in autosomal composition. That would have alerted them to the fact that they might be getting samples from an "ethnic" enclave. If you're sampling in the Bronx 1500 years from now, you're going to get all Amerindian(maybe), all Dutch and English, pockets of Italian, Jewish, Irish, and then mostly Puerto Rican. If you're sampling in the Upper East Side you'd find a completely different mix.

Some of the burial sites in the paper definitely look like that, whereas others are more local or a mix.

No excuse for leaving it to the amateur community to figure that out.

 

[LTG]

West Med cluster
R37 11.47

Aegean cluster:
R114 14.17 (Using K=15, mta says it’s closest modern pop. Is Abruzzo)
R51 13.0 (mta says closest is West Sicilian, then Tuscan)

No hits in the Anatolia cluster

South Italy cluster:
R47 13.49 (mta says Tuscan is closest)
R835-7.875 (mta says Tuscans are the closest


What happened to the following samples?
R1540 9.166 (mta says Tuscan)
R117 10.85 (mta says West Sicilian then Tuscan)
R136 Hellenic Roman Italian 13.52 (mta says Abruzzo)
R118 14.49 (mta says North Italian, but at quite a distance)

This may be a result of me just using K=4 to categorize the samples. I also used population individuals rather than averages unlike this oracle, which could create a situation where, say, six of the top ten closest matches are Cretans and the other four are South Italians leading to the sample being placed in the "Aegean" cluster. The distances here suggest that the Roman samples are going to be really hard to categorize without upgrading the amount of clusters in the analysis.

I searched for those samples listed in the datasheet and they are from Late Antiquity.

 

[Pax Augusta]

Yes, so I've heard numerous times.

The point is that LTG's analysis puts, for example, R47 and R835 in Southern Italy, whereas the K15 is putting them in Tuscany.

So, there is no agreement between methods.

These are all certainly imprecise tools and I totally agree with you that there is no agreement between methods but on the basis of the distances I would not say that MTA is putting R47 and R835 in Tuscany.

The Italian breakdown of MTA (which is identical to that of K15) is incomplete and so the results of MTA should also be interpreted on the basis of distances.

If LGT puts them in the south of Italy, it is because in the G25 these samples come out closer to the south of Italy, I think.

 

[MOESAN]

There is no linguistic association between the etruscans and lydians of anatolia......the lydians where still in anatolia circa 500bc fighting against phyrgians.....still no association with etruscans......we should expect something berween the 2 if they are linked

Akways this way of reading only isolated words in a post (No offense, not only you, helas!)! This rots the threads. Have you read what I wrote?
Are you thinkng I'm so ignorant that I did not know this. Here we are speaking of ancient localizations of pops or tribes or bands, not of their language. I was trying to find an excuse for Herodotus, not saying what he wrote in his time was gospel! It seams that at those times of "Sea people", a lot of bands could have had settlements on the shores, for some time at least. I don't make a link between supposed Etruscans and Lydians who spoke anI-E language. Do read correctly!
Phillistins were not Jews nor Canaanians or who else, but they settled some time the shores of Levant, spite they were I-E speaking and surely come from around today Macedonia or not too far from there (maybe through Creta, according to some opinions).

 

[brick]

West Med cluster
R37 11.47

Aegean cluster:
R114 14.17 (Using K=15, mta says it’s closest modern pop. Is Abruzzo)
R51 13.0 (mta says closest is West Sicilian, then Tuscan)

No hits in the Anatolia cluster

South Italy cluster:
R47 13.49 (mta says Tuscan is closest)
R835-7.875 (mta says Tuscans are the closest


What happened to the following samples?
R1540 9.166 (mta says Tuscan)
R117 10.85 (mta says West Sicilian then Tuscan)
R136 Hellenic Roman Italian 13.52 (mta says Abruzzo)
R118 14.49 (mta says North Italian, but at quite a distance)

They are a mix of Imperial age samples and Late Antiquity samples.

In G25 PCA Rome_Imperial:RMPR37 plots with the Basques. Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR118 plots between Lazio and Umbria.

The rest instead plot with Southern Italy: Rome_Imperial:RMPR114, Rome_Imperial:RMPR51, Rome_Imperial:RMPR47, Rome_Imperial:RMPR835, Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR117, Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR136, Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR118.

I didn't find R1540.

Their distances

Rome_Imperial:RMPR37

Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR118

Rome_Imperial:RMPR114

Rome_Imperial:RMPR51

Rome_Imperial:RMPR47

Rome_Imperial:RMPR835

Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR117

Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR136



 

[Angela]

OK, I guess it was too much tryptophan. Apologies.

Do you know of any reason why 1540 would not be in the G25?
8. Roman Empire Monterotondo (165 AD) ..... 8.697 - R1540 [FONT=&quot][/FONT]
Ancient GroupModern GroupSimiliar SamplesHaplogroups (NEW!)PCA AncientPCA ModernResearch Link
1. Tuscan (9.676)
2. North_Italian (11.30)
3. West_Sicilian (12.40)
4. Italian_Abruzzo (14.23)
5. Spanish_Murcia (15.43)
6. Spanish_Extremadura (16.02)
7. Spanish_Andalucia (16.54)
8. Portuguese (16.89)



This is what I meant...
11. Imperial Rome Marche CN (165 AD) ..... 9.561 - R835 - [FONT=&quot][/FONT] [FONT=&quot][/FONT]
Ancient GroupModern GroupSimiliar SamplesHaplogroups (NEW!)PCA AncientPCA ModernResearch Link
1. Tuscan (7.875)
2. West_Sicilian (10.61)
3. Italian_Abruzzo (11.29)
4. North_Italian (11.81)
5. East_Sicilian (13.82)
6. South_Italian (13.88)
7. Central_Greek (13.94)
8. Greek_Thessaly (15.00)

 

[Pax Augusta]

OK, I guess it was too much tryptophan. Apologies.

Do you know of any reason why 1540 would not be in the G25?
8. Roman Empire Monterotondo (165 AD) ..... 8.697 - R1540

I suppose because there is no R1540 at all from Monterotondo in the paper. Something is wrong here at the start (wrong labelling? Or also something else?). We see many mistakes in the academic papers, so let alone in these amateur tools.

This is what I meant...
11. Imperial Rome Marche CN (165 AD) ..... 9.561 - R835 -
Ancient GroupModern GroupSimiliar SamplesHaplogroups (NEW!)PCA AncientPCA ModernResearch Link

That's probably a mistake too or a lack of accuracy.

 

[Regio X]

Ed. @Regio.

We cross posted.

Well, mta may be denying they're using K=15, but the modern fits they give for me are the same as I get for K=15, and they're among the worst I've gotten in any of the calculators.

I realize none of these numbers is meant to be carved in stone, but you'd expect a few differences if they're really different methods.

As for the comparison between the analysis of LTG and mta, I quite understand there will be differences between methods, but placing Tuscans in Southern Italy is not exactly minor.

Nor is the absence of certain samples going to help. I'm going to check those again. I was in a food coma from too much turkey and fat and carbs, so maybe there's some obvious reason they're not included which I missed. Or it may be an oversight.

If they actually should be included, I would think the analysis has to be redone.

I completely understand the bias which you usually refer to. It's relevant, and the calculator matters, as my post suggests. But I was more focused on the methodology per se, on how the tool supposedly works. Being based on K15 wouldn't necessarily mean it's not a good tool. That was the main point.

Yes, it's likely an "adaptation" of K15, but it could be based on an adaptation of Dodecad v3, or whatever. It should supposedly work at least in a similar way. See those "similarity maps" based on K36. I get high %s precisely with N. Italians. That's kind of an Oracle too, and it worked decently for "similarities".

If my memory serves, I don't get good Oracle results with v3, btw, but I suppose the problem may be just the abscence of more "populations", as North Italians (my closest in K15).

 

[MOESAN]

Moesan hypothesis about Tyrrhenians / Etruscans relationship in terms of Ethnonymy is not necessarily wrong. It's a bit awkward in terms of Linguistic considering Lydians were Indo-Europeans and Etruscans not, but an Ethnonym dont necessarily have to do with Linguistic. Also, Tyrrhenian being a Xenonym coming from the Greek, it could have described originally a ethne unrelated with Ethnic Etruscans and adopted by Italics. Dont forget that Etruscans called themselves Rasenna. Now, let's not think too much that ancient people were stupid or that they did not encounter the peoples they talk about to know a little bit about them. After all, Greeks called themselves Acheans, Danaans, Dorians, Eolians, Ionians, Hellens... Maybe Tyrrhenian effectively was a synonym related with Etruscan ( ethnically speaking ), but will we ever know one day?

I was trying to put some bits of testimonies in the game, but look at an answer I made to Torzio. I never said Etrsucans/Tyrsenoi was the same thing as Luwians (even drunk I would not say that), I just said they could have been "neighbours" (in what kind of contacts,???) or have occupied close regions in W-Anatolia at some stage of history. But it's a marginal side of the topic.

 

[MOESAN]

You are trying to find a plausible reading to a story like that of Herodotus that does not contain historical facts. Herodotus is the first to attribute it to others.

You can't discuss these things without having read what etruscologists and classicists have written in more than 100 years.

The stories about the Etruscan origins are symbolic and reflect the Greek mentality of the time. Writing that the Etruscans were of Lydian origin to the Greeks meant that Etruscans came from a world similar to their own. The first to be oriental are the Greeks themselves, as they are also physically closer to Anatolia than to Etruria. Greeks had colonies in Anatolia and lived in close contact with the Anatolian peoples, with whom they shared many things, starting with the Indo-European language. The Lydia of Herodotus' time is strongly Hellenized and at the same time under Persian rule, while the Etruscans had dominated Rome for centuries, and were the most powerful in Italy, or among the most powerful in the centuries before when the story of Herodotus is written.

The story of the Pelasgian origins of the Etruscans was also a way of trying to connect the Etruscans to the Greeks. When Dionysius finally tells the truth (his history on the Etruscans is the only one to contain information that has proved to be true), he does not do so in a disinterested manner. In fact, the Etruscans are recognized for their antiquity and autochthony, while Dionysius this time connects ethnically the Romans to the Greeks. Why does Dionysius do so? Because the Etruscans had now completely lost their power, while Rome was about to become one of the most powerful empires ever. The Greeks now had an interest in connecting themselves directly to the Romans and no longer to the Etruscans.

Interesting post.
But it'snot so complicated here.
only valid questions:
-Have Trs/Teresh/Tyrsenoi a link with CNW Italy (Toscane and around)?
- Are Hittits writings and Egyptians writings withot any value concerning the same people + Shardana, and their supposed locations?
Here we don't speak of Greek legends.

 

[Pax Augusta]

Interesting post.
But it'snot so complicated here.
only valid questions:
-Have Trs/Teresh/Tyrsenoi a link with CNW Italy (Toscane and around)?
- Are Hittits writings and Egyptians writings withot any value concerning the same people + Shardana, and their supposed locations?
Here we don't speak of Greek legends.

CNW Italy you meant Central-North-Western Italy? Right?

It's not known for sure if Trs/Teresh/Tyrsenoi are all the same people, there is also a suspicion that Tyrsenoi in Greek sources may not always refer to the Etruscans. This issue has been discussed for many years.

The Sea People are a highly speculative argument, because archaeologically there is little or nothing, beyond that line of research carried out by some archaeologists according to which we can actually assume raids from Italy to the Aegean and the Levant in the second half of the Bronze Age. There is a growing consensus that many of these Sea People came from Italy. But from here on to the Etruscans, it's a good jump, although one of the Bronze Age weapons found in the Aegean and Levant, comes from one of the Bronze Age facies that belongs to the ethnogenesis of the Proto-Etruscans. But once again also in this case the Etruscans do not differ much from the other peoples of northern and central Italy, because this type of findings also exist for others.


We talked about it here


https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threa...e-invasion-of-South-Italy-and-the-Sea-Peoples


This is also a worth reading

A Sword of Naue II Type from Ugaritand the Historical Significance of Italian-type Weaponry in the Eastern Mediterranean


https://www.academia.edu/225687/M._...diterranean_Aegean_Archaeology_8_2008_111_136

 

[torzio]

Akways this way of reading only isolated words in a post (No offense, not only you, helas!)! This rots the threads. Have you read what I wrote?
Are you thinkng I'm so ignorant that I did not know this. Here we are speaking of ancient localizations of pops or tribes or bands, not of their language. I was trying to find an excuse for Herodotus, not saying what he wrote in his time was gospel! It seams that at those times of "Sea people", a lot of bands could have had settlements on the shores, for some time at least. I don't make a link between supposed Etruscans and Lydians who spoke anI-E language. Do read correctly!
Phillistins were not Jews nor Canaanians or who else, but they settled some time the shores of Levant, spite they were I-E speaking and surely come from around today Macedonia or not too far from there (maybe through Creta, according to some opinions).

I did not try to offend ...........but people migrated and sometimes they changed the culture of where they arrived and sometimes they did not..........but people think that the european system of when people moved, is that they completed abandoned their original settlement, they did not...........so for lydians to be associated with etruscans as per herodutus, then we need to find some link as they both existed circa 500BC, there is no link
I understand that new migrants merged into people in new areas and ruled these areas but did not change anything ........example the Danes, took over Normandy, but accepted the Norman language and culture circa 900AD

We have Goths from the baltic sea, migrated to the black sea, migrated to the west over 700 plus years, but still some goths remained where they began or first moved even after they arrived in italy and iberia

It is tiring to listen to people ...think that ...migration means abandoning the old settlement and everyone moving to a new one

 

[torzio]

They are a mix of Imperial age samples and Late Antiquity samples.

In G25 PCA Rome_Imperial:RMPR37 plots with the Basques. Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR118 plots between Lazio and Umbria.

The rest instead plot with Southern Italy: Rome_Imperial:RMPR114, Rome_Imperial:RMPR51, Rome_Imperial:RMPR47, Rome_Imperial:RMPR835, Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR117, Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR136, Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR118.

I didn't find R1540.

Their distances

Rome_Imperial:RMPR37

Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR118

Rome_Imperial:RMPR114

Rome_Imperial:RMPR51

Rome_Imperial:RMPR47

Rome_Imperial:RMPR835

Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR117

Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR136



Can we get a split of only republican or earlier samples and leave roman empire samples or later for another thread/post?

 

[Angela]

We're discussing the entire paper on this thread.