Moots: Ancient Rome Paper

Look, you're on a site where we want people to base their interpretations on "SCIENCE" and "HISTORY", not agenda, myths and fantasy. If you're not going to read the science and history as it relates to the topic at hand, and have no interest in learning from the relevant scientific and historical material we present here, then what's the point pray tell?

All you're doing is repeating over and over again misunderstood information from t-rolls, or just dreaming up hypotheses with no basis in fact.

I don't know how old you are, but this is not kindergarten, and we're not your parents.

In the real world if you want someone to listen to your opinions they have to be informed ones.

We have a lot of problems in modern society precisely because young people are not held to the same standards that we had to meet.

You have to do your homework before forming opinions, and still those opinions will get criticized, and you have to learn from the criticism too instead of just having hurt feelings. The thing not to do is to ignore the facts and to refuse to absorb where you went wrong. If you want to challenge the facts with different facts that's fine, but that's not what you're doing.

I complained about my post graduate education, saying it was too tough, the professors too unfeeling. Nobody wants to see 25 year old men crying under interrogation. You know what? They were like Mama Bear compared to what I had to deal with at work.

It was good preparation.

Even parents have to practice "tough love" more than occasionally. You're not always going to be around to act as protector. You have to teach them how to function in the real world without you when the time comes, and that means facing the consequences of the things they do, although it probably hurts you as much if not more than them.

I think the phrase Angela may have been looking for (excuse the presumption) is, “man up.” No adult, male or otherwise, complains that someone has been mean to them. They marshall their facts and do battle, or they say, sorry, I was in error. Pick one.
 
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).
@Angela
Just found the time to check it.

Dodecad V3's Oracle is not that bad after all, but it does have North Italians. Still, my three first pops there are Tuscans. N_Italian is the 4th, and North_Italian is the 8th. Not great, since I'm North Italian in ancestry. One pro of V3 would be that it puts the Tuscans before the Iberians, as in K36's "Oracle". I suppose it's right.
Eurogenes K15's Oracle has the pro of being headed by North Italians, however, one con of it would be, I suppose, placing Iberians before Tuscans.
 
What it concerns me, as usual, is the lack of accuracy. All these tools are inaccurate, even academic papers sometimes are, but MTA is really very inaccurate.


Since I see that MTA is a little game that people like, I don't want to be the usual party pooper, so I leave the party.

Sorry, just saw this.

I sincerely hope you don't leave this thread. Your contributions have been valuable.

We wouldn't have found some of these errors without your commentary.

What we all should want is something which is as accurate as possible.

MTA should thank you. If they correct this problem, and the one with the mysterious 1540, and the misleading description of the Ostrogoth, for example, as well as other issues we may discover, they'll have a better product.
 
I should have just stuck with another poster's reply: Man UP

You have presented NO verifiable facts. All you have presented is jumbled, incoherent ramblings which show absolutely NO knowledge of the relevant history or genetics.

You've also now gotten yourself an infraction.

By all means keep it up.
 
Imperial Rome based on 24 samples from Antonio et al:


29.1 % J2a-M410 7
20.8 % G2a2 5
16.6 % J1a 4
8.3 % R1b 2
4.1 % J2b-M241 1
4.1 % J2b-M205 1
4.1 % T1a 1
4.1 % R1a 1
4.1 % R2a 1
4.1 % E1b-v12 1
 
Another high-resolution subset of inscriptions (161 of over 41,000 inscriptions that are dated to a specific year in the 6th century) from late antique Rome shows a spike in inscriptions in 543 and a subsequent decline (Fig. 8). While some have seen in this evidence for plague (21), temporal correlation is insufficient to confirm a connection. The only direct evidence for plague in Rome in this period is a one-line reference to “a great pestilence [that] ravaged the land of Italy” in 543 in the continuation of the chronicler Marcellinus (39). This epidemic coincided with the Gothic Wars, which devastated Italy in the early and mid-540s. Rome was besieged several times, notably from 545 to 546, causing famine as well as deaths due to warfare. Procopius, who reports on the siege in detail, claims that only 500 local men (likely an underestimate) remained in the city after it (26). These political–military factors more readily explain the absence of inscriptions in the late 540s and early 550s. An additional dataset of ∼31,000 inscriptions from Spain includes only 40 that can be precisely dated within an annual resolution, but nonetheless does not show a substantial decline in inscriptions beginning in the 540s (Fig. 9).

https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/11/26/1903797116#sec-1


Looks like the plague did hit Italy hard, but the Gothic Wars, political de-stablization, and famine took the lion's share of demographic change. However this was nearly half a century AFTER the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476 AD, further driving the change.

Discussed here: https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/39606-The-Justinianic-Plague-An-inconsequential-pandemic
 
r5urnqH.png



Here are the first 10 samples I get on MTA from 1000 AD - 1400 AD. The first 8 are from Villa Magna, with R65 at 8.682:


Medieval Villa Magna Italy (1100 AD) ..... 8.682 - R65 -
Top 99% match vs all users

Medieval Villa Magna Italy (1100 AD) ..... 12.08 - R58 -
Top 98% match vs all users

Tuscan Medieval Cancelleria Basilica (1350 AD) ..... 12.13 - R1290 -
Top 96% match vs all users

Tuscan Late Medieval Villa Magna Italy (1355 AD) ..... 12.59 - R54 -
Top 98% match vs all users

Tuscan Late Medieval Villa Magna Italy (1355 AD) ..... 13.28 - R56 -
Top 97% match vs all users

Tuscan Medieval Villa Magna Italy (1110 AD) ..... 14.69 - R64 -
Top 97% match vs all users

Tuscan Medieval Villa Magna Italy (1110 AD) ..... 15.14 - R57 -
Top 97% match vs all users

Medieval Italy Abbadia SS Plague (1348 AD) ..... 15.96 - BSS31
Top 93% match vs all users

Hellenic Cordoba Caliphate (1050 AD) ..... 16.85 - I7499 -
Top 94% match vs all users

Crusader Knight Tuscan / Lebanon (1250 AD) ..... 16.97 - SI-41 -
Top 95% match vs all users

8nuK852.png
 
Eurogenes K15 PCA plot with Iron Age samples only

font><font color=


FJ1K6hQ.jpg

I think what I find so surprising is that so many samples still land among Sardinians. Is it possible there were still unadmixed Romans around, i.e. locals who never got steppe admixture? Of course, this is Eurogenes, so it's not engraved in stone.

I wish there was something as detailed based on more sophisticated statistical methods.

I'm having a little trouble finding some of the samples. In the first set, where is Ardea 850?

Also, what number is Etruscan_o and Latin _o and Latin _oo?
 
Their G25 distances

R60

JhmQkwW.png


R57

font><font color=


R59

font><font color=


R54

ypyPOr3.png



R52


font><font color=







They're all part of the same paper.


There's a BIG difference between this and what mta shows.
 
from eurogenes .................samples that match other samples

R850 to non-Imperial/later Italian or modern samples:

Anatolia_MLBA:MA2203,
Germany_Early_Medieval:STR300,
Greece_Mycenaean:I9033,
Greece_Mycenaean:I9006,
Anatolia_MLBA:MA2208,
Moldova_Scythian:scy300,
Anatolia_MLBA:MA2200,
Greece_Mycenaean:I9041,
Moldova_Scythian:scy197,
Moldova_Scythianscy192,
Anatolia_MLBA:MA2206,

.......................................................................................

R1: .....proto-Villanovan

Hungary_BA:I7043,
Croatia_MBA:I4331,
Germany_Bell_Beaker_dup.I4134.SG:RISE564.SG,
Czech_Bell_Beaker:I4885,
Croatia_Early_IA:I3313,
Croatia_MBA:I4332,
Hungary_Maros.SG:RISE373.SG,
Moldova_Scythian.SG:scy305.SG,
Moldova_Scythian.SG:scy197.SG
 
There's no way they "Match" those other samples.

They may be "related" to them or the result of admixtures among groups somewhat like that, but that's it.

Either you've misunderstood, or he's even more delusional than usual.
 
I noticed that the haplogroup J appears suddenly after 700 BCE and at a very large proportion of 44,2% between 700 BCE - 700 CE. How is that possible?

700ien-700en%
I2a24,7
I112,3
g2a2b716,3
R1b716,3
R1a12,3
R2a12,3
J12,3
J1614,044,2
J2a920,9
J2b37,0
E1b1b24,7
T1a24,7
H212,3
TOTAL43100,0


In Imperial Rome is 54,2% !
 
Last edited:
I noticed that the haplogroup J appears suddenly after 700 BCE and at a very large proportion of 46,3% between 700 BCE - 700 CE. How is that possible?
700bce-700ce%
I2a24,9
I112,4
G2a2b717,1
R1b512,2
R1a12,4
R2a12,4
J12,4
J1614,646,3
J2a922,0
J2b37,3
E1b1b24,9
T1a24,9
H212,4
TOTAL41100,0

In Imperial Rome is 56% !

This below is the imperial numbers......where did you get the repulican numbers ?

Imperial Rome based on 24 samples from Antonio et al:


29.1 % J2a-M410 7
20.8 % G2a2 5
16.6 % J1a 4
8.3 % R1b 2
4.1 % J2b-M241 1
4.1 % J2b-M205 1
4.1 % T1a 1
4.1 % R1a 1
4.1 % R2a 1
4.1 % E1b-v12 1
 
This below is the imperial numbers......where did you get the repulican numbers ?

Imperial Rome based on 24 samples from Antonio et al:

29.1 % J2a-M410 7
20.8 % G2a2 5
16.6 % J1a 4
8.3 % R1b 2
4.1 % J2b-M241 1
4.1 % J2b-M205 1
4.1 % T1a 1
4.1 % R1a 1
4.1 % R2a 1
4.1 % E1b-v12 1

Thank you for the question. I looked again and found that I omitted 2 samples (R437 and R435, 2xR1b) that I think are from the period of the Roman Republic.
I have corrected now.

700 BCE-700 CE
%
I2a24,7
I112,3
G2a2b
716,3
R1b716,3
R1a12,3
R2a12,3
J12,3
J1614,044,2 %
J2a920,9
J2b37,0
E1b1b24,7
T1a24,7
H212,3
TOTAL43100,0
Js appears suddenly after 700 BCE and at a very large proportion of 44,2% for 700 BCE - 700 CE period.
For the imperial period, the clades of Js reach 54.2%. This proportion I think is only in the Arabian Peninsula or in small isolated regions of Asia. Migrations? Middle East, North Africa, Caucasus?
Before 700 BCE only 2 Js discovered in the same location (probably related) from 5300 BCE. After 700 CE the percentage of Js decreases by almost half (28.5%)

It is also interesting that G2a and even R1b do not have such jumps and they maintain in time at stable percentages around ~ 16-20%.
 
I didn't want to comment anymore but was adressed directly.

Yes, CTS6190 has been found in a turkish guy who says he has Albanian origins. We also have clades other than z638, which has tmrca of 4200 ybp, so its not some young founder effect.

Is the Albanian-origin Turkish guy under CTS6190 visible in any projects or on any trees?
 
On Yfull, under CTS6190 there are four Portuguese, one Italian, one Dutch, one British, one Russian. There's not a single Albanian.

The two "Portuguese" under Y36166 are both Anglo-Virginians, one of whom has fabricated a Sephardic origin story. The Portuguese flag under Y22038 is an Italian Sephardic Jew who claims ultimate roots in Portugal. And then everyone under Y33795 is Ashkenazi, to the best of my knowledge. FYI.
 

This thread has been viewed 357901 times.

Back
Top