Moots: Ancient Rome Paper

Italians in general are well aware that the Roman Empire was multi-ethnic and that there may have been some legacies from the imperial era in Italy. Of course, many Italians are also ignorant and still think that the Latins or Italics were Nordic gods compared to the other populations of pre-Roman Italy. In any case, uniparental markers on mitochondrial or Y chromosomal DNA represent only one ancestor of the many ancestors from which a person is descended. Ethnicity estimates of commercial companies are games. To be clear for me everyone is free to do and think what he wants, but it is naive to think that an Italian can change his identity on the basis of his genetic results, or because he discovers he has a Y-DNA that exists in the Levant he begins to feel more Levantine than Italian, just as if he discovers he has a Y-DNA that is more frequent among Germanic populations he can begin to feel more German or Scandinavian than Italian. The Italian demography has changed a lot in the last 150 years because of internal migrations, and in the last 30-40 years it is changing because of external ones, and it will change again in the next years. Despite this, regional identity is still strong in Italy, even when a person has ancestors from different regions of Italy. There are many Italians born in a region other than that of their parents' origin who identify with their place of birth rather than their parents' place of origin. Identity is first and foremost a cultural process. Changing identity on the basis of genetic data may happen in the new world, or it may happen to those of mixed ancestry or to migrants in a completely different context, but it can hardly happen in Europe. Very rarely I do see it happening in Italy in the real life.

The interest in these topics should be purified by personal research into one's own identity, which only ends up influencing the judgement on what are the conclusions or hypotheses of the research. Population genetics produces hypotheses, genetic studies rarely have the smoking gun. And population genetics, including studies of the much overrated Ivy League schools, is much criticised by other scholars for its approach and method, which is often reminiscent of old 19th century theories. Pointing out that southern Europeans have more contact with West Asia, Levant and North Africa, which given the geography is like reinventing the wheel, feeds the idea that the purest Europeans are northern Europeans, nineteenth-century idea that it was the geneticists themselves who revived. So it is absolutely no surprise that he may be in contact with Ivy League Schools. Because more and more we see in discussions Nordicists going hand in hand with migrationists and orientalists.

Having said that, a few words should also be said about the G25 and Italy. As far as Italy is concerned, many areas are still uncovered, Liguria is based on a single individual probably from the Savona area, Emilia and Romagna are completely missing, and it is evident that the Alpine and Prealpine areas are oversampled compared to the Po Valley. The view it can give is still very partial. Only in a few years' time will we have a more accurate view, although it cannot be taken for granted, because Italian geneticists have suffered from circular argumentation from the very beginning, as this can be seen in their work, and from Cavalli-Sforza's initial wrong approach. So, if even geneticists are not exempt from mistakes, why should we believe amateurs who have never had a neutral point of view? When he said that modern samples were not representative and reliable he was referring only and exclusively to a few samples that he was interested in. Those who have really a neutral approach, rare even to find among geneticists, are interested in the accuracy of all, not just the part they are attached to for personal reasons.



Present pasts in the archaeology of genetics, identity, and migration in Europe: a critical essay


https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00438243.2019.1627907
 
@Jovialis

Look we see this completely different, if you choose not to see the Levantine its on you, for me its been a fact like the sky is blue since 2016 when I got my first ever results back from Nat Geo.

Maybe the Calcs plus the Uniparental evidence one day will become clear to you as many others see it. There was another poster whom I always argued with over similar discussions, now doesn't deny it anymore.

We'll see what 2021 brings us

Yeah, we do see it completely differently. But I do not choose to not see, what is not there. I already told you my take on it.

As for Nat Geo, my results did not indicate Levantine for me either:

pJO2Dox.png


Originally, I thought it shows Italian being augmented by Norman or Lombard input.

Regardless, of direct-to-consumer models, I do not see it in Sarno et al. 2021. So I don't know what to tell you.

The only explanation I can think of is non-steppe CHG pulse in EBA for excess Caucasus-related ancestry in South Europeans.

Approximately a percent or less of Levant/North African related to Moors/Saracens. But I guess that's too little for them to even use in the modeling.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, we do see it completely differently. But I do not choose to not see, what is not there. I already told you my take on it.

As for Nat Geo, my results did not indicate Levantine for me either:

pJO2Dox.png


Originally, I thought is shows Italian being augmented by Norman or Lombard input.

Regardless, of direct-to-consumer models, I do not see it in Sarno et al. 2021. So I don't know what to tell you.

The only explanation I can think of is non-steppe CHG pulse in EBA for excess Caucasus-related ancestry in South Europeans.

Approximately a percent or less of Levant/North African related to Moors/Saracens. But I guess that's too little for them to even use in the modeling.

The Nat Geo modeling sort of reminds me of the Dodecad Ancient Rome Test modeling:

T8z4qhI.png


Distance to:C6_Medieval_Mediterranean:R973_Tivoli_Palazzo_Cianti
1.58104396Italian_Abruzzo
2.75294388Italian_Campania
3.44476414Italian_Apulia
3.51955963Italian_Sicily
4.59958694Greek_Lemnos
5.77788023Greek_Foca
5.79443699Italian_Calabria
6.31964398Greek_Central
6.34653449Ashkenazi_Jews
6.48418846Greek_Athens
6.79745541Greek_Izmir
6.82921665Moldavian_Jewish
7.21295363Greek_Fournoi
7.33743034Italian_Marche
7.44902678Italian_Lazio
8.33485453Greek_Crete
8.52562021Greek_Peloponnese
9.90076765Albanian
10.25443319Italian_Jews
10.40373010Greek_Icaria
10.48913247Greek_Thrace
10.63477785Greek_Kos
10.78041279Italian_Romagna
11.10206287Greek_Thessaly
11.12278742Greek_Thessaloniki


Distance to:C7_Late_Antiquity_European:R106_Crypta_Balbi
5.97977424Bavarian_German
6.44240638French_Northeast
6.67700532French_North
8.07205674Dutch
8.51226174English_South
8.62562462French_Northwest
9.14299732Hungarian_Transdanubia_Budapest
9.14821294English_mixed
9.15852062Hungarian_Transylvania_Szekely
9.71460756Hungarian
9.84938069English_North
10.22175621German_Northwest
10.25785065Scottish
10.46867709Hungarian_Alfold
10.67980805German
10.96936188Slovenian
11.45865175Irish
11.66404304Hungarian_North
12.19399032Icelandic
12.21720508Croat
12.47612520Czech
13.02931694Bosnian
13.07887228Serb
13.37731288Danish
13.76011264Moldavian_North

 
one to one ... vs R969 Tivoli Palazzo Cianti (Date range: 1600 CE - 1700 CE)

qIkea1F.gif


Edit : :unsure:... wrong thread, ... but it's OK :) ... there aren't many R samples on that site, ... get the Kit # !
 
Search for Shared DNA Segments in Two Raw Data Files.

Salento vs R437 / R850 (single segment matches only ... :unsure: MTA )

... my settings:

Single Segment Matches of length at least 100 tested SNPs
Report Double Segment Matches of length at least 250 tested SNPs
Treat No-Calls as Matching SNPs? no
............. :


... vs R437
FqGZMg6.gif


... vs R850
LLRPtM0.gif



https://www.math.mun.ca/~dapike/FF23utils/pair-comp.php
 
one to one: R1 vs R437 & R850 :cool-v:

R1 (# AG4512653) vs R437 (# SA5994979)

egd2HCR.jpg



R1 (# AG4512653) vs R850 (# SN3426822)

6quXEXA.jpg
 
Ancient square rock-cut tombs in the west of Iran and south of Italy (2nd millennium BC):

5dop_rockcut.jpg


sap4_rock2.jpg
 
I was wrong about all the Imperial Roman samples coming from Isola Sacra near Ostia, although a good number do. They're actually from some necropoli around the city of Rome itself as well. So, not like future archaeologists excavating just in Flushing. It's like archaeologists excavating in New York City as a whole, or London.

However, the burial contexts tell us nothing. There's no grave goods, no inscriptions, not even names from what I can see, and there's been disturbances at a lot of the sites.

Interestingly enough, some of the samples come from the Catacombs of Peter and Paul. I have to check tomorrow and see if those are more "East Med", i.e. the samples south and east of modern Southern Italians. It would make sense. The first Christians, and the only Christians for a long time were Jews.

In that regard, look what happens to the J1 in ancient Italy after the Imperial Era.

tDTYRF2.png

Razib Khan continues to get it:
https://www.gnxp.com/WordPress/2019...e-more/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

"A combination of the wars of the 6th-century, which are recorded to have depopulated much of Italy, and the overall decentering of Rome from the Mediterranean system after the ending of the Western Empire, probably resulted in the inevitable contraction of the Eternal City.Of course, Rome grew again over the centuries. But the new Romans were not the same Romans as those of the Roman Empire, who left few descendants. In addition to far off cosmopolitans, the bulk of the population was probably derived from northern Lazio and southern Tuscany. Rural people whose genetic makeup resembled the Iron Age Italians from whom they descended."
syrian-orontes-has-long-since-dried-up-to-be-replaced-by-the-tiber-once-more

What is interesting is that J1 is not so great in most of Anatolia, expect for it's very eastern region. The sample size is still small to take conclusions but if we assume that those percentages are good representatives of Y-DNA lines of Imperial Rome population then it seems that the bulk of the population should come from the the very south-eastern Anatolia, Syria, Levant and Northern Africa. Otherwise you don't get nearly 25% J1. (I estimated it with a ruler)

Haplogroup-J1.png
 
Last edited:
Target: ITA_Rome_Imperial
Distance: 1.4672% / 0.01467243

51.8SYR_Ebla_EMBA
32.4ITA_Etruscan
8.4ITA_Rome_Latini_IA
7.4Levant_Beirut_Hellenistic


Target: ITA_Rome_Imperial
Distance: 2.4345% / 0.02434468

59.6Levant_Beirut_Hellenistic
23.4ITA_Etruscan
17.0ITA_Rome_Latini_IA


Target: ITA_Rome_Imperial
Distance: 2.6360% / 0.02635958

62.2Levant_Beirut_Hellenistic
37.8ITA_Rome_Latini_IA
 
The calculator fails to recognize significant Classical Greek ancestry in Imperial Romans (0-1.4%). The Empuries does not even show up.
This makes sense historically and demographically. Those people did not come from Southern Italy. It's mathematically impossible for Imperial Romans to be mostly from Southern Italy. Not only because of the demographics but they cannot create the cluster because Southern Italians plot west of Imperial Romans.

Target: ITA_Rome_Imperial
Distance: 1.4796% / 0.01479591
60.2SYR_Ebla_EMBA
21.8ITA_Etruscan
18.0ITA_Ardea_Latini_IA

Target: ITA_Rome_Imperial
Distance: 1.4417% / 0.01441702
51.2SYR_Ebla_EMBA
22.2ITA_Ardea_Latini_IA
16.0ITA_Etruscan
9.4Levant_Beirut_Hellenistic
1.2GRC_Mycenaean

Target: ITA_Rome_Imperial
Distance: 1.4789% / 0.01478888
59.4SYR_Ebla_EMBA
22.6ITA_Etruscan
16.6ITA_Ardea_Latini_IA
1.4GRC_Mycenaean
 
Stop using averages. They can totally misrepresent what happened.

For one thing, get rid of the C4 samples, since the authors themselves pointed out that the "tail into the Levant disappeared, and then see what you get.

That's not to say that some of the C4 type genes didn't remain, but using an average of ALL the samples is not going to give you a complete picture.

For crying out loud, the "Italian-Greek" like samples which are so similar to modern Southern Italians were already in central Italy in the IRON AGE.

For another run, maybe do averages of the different Moots groups, and see what happens in terms of admixture to reach Southern Italians/Sicilians.
 
Stop using averages. They can totally misrepresent what happened.

For one thing, get rid of the C4 samples, since the authors themselves pointed out that the "tail into the Levant disappeared, and then see what you get.

That's not to say that some of the C4 type genes didn't remain, but using an average of ALL the samples is not going to give you a complete picture.

For crying out loud, the "Italian-Greek" like samples which are so similar to modern Southern Italians were already in central Italy in the IRON AGE.

For another run, maybe do averages of the different Moots groups, and see what happens in terms of admixture to reach Southern Italians/Sicilians.
Only one of them appears to be Italian-Greek-like from Iron Age (and an other one seem shifted towards northern Africa).
I thought Southern Italian-like Romans were in Late Antiquity only ? The vast majority of Imperial Romans them plot south of Southern Italians.

Can you help me where can I find the dates of the samples?
Overview-of-the-genetic-structure-of-127-ancient-individuals-from-central-Italy-A.png
 
My guess is that the majority of the imperial samples are indeed foreigners, but before drawing inferences about the demography one must keep in mind that Latins practiced cremation back then and it likely skewed the rests that survived till our days, and C5, the so called "east med" cluster seems to me to be made up of the Anatolians found in the Danubian limes paper, judging from their position in a PCA.
 
My guess is that the majority of the imperial samples are indeed foreigners, but before drawing inferences about the demography one must keep in mind that Latins practiced cremation back then and it likely skewed the rests that survived till our days, and C5, the so called "east med" cluster seems to me to be made up of the Anatolians found in the Danubian limes paper, judging from their position in a PCA.

That explain everything. Because Rome had hundreds of thousands Italic people I was wondering why only one or two of Imperial samples are showing as fully Italic-like, surely there should have been more. Scientist must have struggled to find Iron Age Italic samples.
 
Only one of them appears to be Italian-Greek-like from Iron Age (and an other one seem shifted towards northern Africa).
I thought Southern Italian-like Romans were in Late Antiquity only ? The vast majority of Imperial Romans them plot south of Southern Italians.

Can you help me where can I find the dates of the samples?
Overview-of-the-genetic-structure-of-127-ancient-individuals-from-central-Italy-A.png


No, the majority of the samples are NOT C3, C4.

There seems to be 15 C3/C4 samples, and 38 C5/C6 samples from the Imperial Era, so that's not correct. Then there are two samples from the Iron Age which Maciamo labeled "Italian_Greeks". One of them is definitely R850. The other is, I think, R437. To the best of my recollection both Jovialis and Salento are very close to R437, which is labeled C6. Maciamo may, on the other hand, have used the North African leaning sample. I'm not sure.

Anyway, that brings me to 40 samples. (I think I may be off 1, C/5, C/6, who might be in another part of the list of samples. Jovialis would know.)

Jovialis has illustrated all of this again and again.

If you don't have a copy of his coordinates for the Imperial Era Antonio et al samples, here they are, separated by cluster.

C3-Marcellino_&_Pietro_Imperial_Rome:R132:Antonio_2019,1.24,0,17.94,1.71,24.66,4.24,0,6.41,16.58,0.29,24.91,2.02
C3-Viale_Rossini_Necropolis_Imperial_Rome:R80:Antonio_2019,3.6,0,11.4,0,27.69,7.57,0,3.33,16.8,0.28,28.39,0.94
C4-ANAS_Imperial_Rome:R67:Antonio_2019,18.93,0,4.46,0.81,9.71,3.86,0.41,1.41,17.74,0,42.1,0.57
C4-ANAS_Imperial_Rome:R68:Antonio_2019,17.66,0,3.38,0,12.85,0.04,0,1.12,19.87,0,44.63,0.45
C4-ANAS_Imperial_Rome:R70:Antonio_2019,9.87,0.04,2.27,0,21.13,2.38,0,1.9,20.78,0,41.64,0
C4-ANAS_Imperial_Rome:R73:Antonio_2019,10.71,0,6.38,0,23.57,4.41,0.48,0.11,18.48,0,34.78,1.09
C4-Casale_del_Dolce_Imperial_Rome:R126:Antonio_2019,8.87,0.13,2.7,0,21.68,1.28,0.37,0,18.5,0.5,45.28,0.69
C4-Isola_Sacra_Necropolis_Imperial_Rome:R38:Antonio_2019,11.97,0.24,2.94,0,17.99,1.99,0.16,0.3,18.03,0,46.26,0.13
C4-Isola_Sacra_Necropolis_Imperial_Rome:R41:Antonio_2019,6.8,0,4.58,0.58,22.76,5.5,1.17,0.93,16.28,0.84,40.36,0.19
C4-Isola_Sacra_Necropolis_Imperial_Rome:R42:Antonio_2019,8.78,0,3.65,0.61,16.08,0,0,1.86,24.68,0.29,43.58,0.49
C4-Monterotondo_Imperial_Rome:R1547:Antonio_2019,7.68,0,5.24,0.75,16.6,0,0.88,2.25,24.3,0,42.29,0
C4-Monterotondo_Imperial_Rome:R1550:Antonio_2019,12.14,0,7.34,0.46,14.89,1.07,0,1.17,23.92,0.34,38.67,0
C4-Monterotondo_Imperial_Rome:R1551:Antonio_2019,14.51,0,0,0.07,10.96,4.32,0,0,15.15,0,54.02,0.96
C4-Viale_Rossini_Necropolis_Imperial_Rome:R75:Antonio_2019,7.1,0,4.53,0,21.52,4.26,0.62,1.18,16.8,0.53,43.46,0
C4-Viale_Rossini_Necropolis_Imperial_Rome:R76:Antonio_2019,7.56,0,3.38,0.5,17.19,5.76,0.79,0,19.2,0.06,45.56,0
C5-ANAS_Imperial_Rome:R66:Antonio_2019,7.41,0,0,0.88,25.05,8.08,0,0,17.27,0,40.91,0.4
C5-ANAS_Imperial_Rome:R69:Antonio_2019,7.86,0.81,0.57,0,27.22,11.31,0,0,9.7,0,42.15,0.39
C5-ANAS_Imperial_Rome:R71:Antonio_2019,7.22,0,4.51,0,21.22,2.34,0,0,11.39,0,52.86,0.46
C5-ANAS_Imperial_Rome:R72:Antonio_2019,8.93,0,0.55,0,23.61,5.18,0,0,16.96,0.36,43.85,0.57
C5-Casale_del_Dolce_Imperial_Rome:R123:Antonio_2019,8.53,0,0,1.18,24.75,8.57,0,0,15.64,0,41.02,0.3
C5-Casale_del_Dolce_Imperial_Rome:R128:Antonio_2019,8.25,0,1.27,0,20.16,8.57,0.69,0,14.58,0,46.38,0.1
C5-Centocelle_Necropolis_Imperial_Rome:R50:Antonio_2019,8.31,0,0.91,0,25.51,11.04,0.37,0,15.34,0.52,36.86,1.15
C5-Isola_Sacra_Necropolis_Imperial_Rome:R39:Antonio_2019,7.32,0.69,3.87,0.29,25.31,7.92,0,0,13.54,0.16,40.39,0.51
C5-Isola_Sacra_Necropolis_Imperial_Rome:R40:Antonio_2019,7.17,1,0.52,0.04,27.69,5.79,0,0,15.54,0,41.29,0.97
C5-Isola_Sacra_Necropolis_Imperial_Rome:R43:Antonio_2019,7.74,0,1.35,0,26.77,3.83,0.51,0,12.69,0,46.89,0.23
C5-Isola_Sacra_Necropolis_Imperial_Rome:R44:Antonio_2019,5.19,0,2.37,0,29.27,4.24,0,0,12.92,0,45.7,0.31
C5-Isola_Sacra_Necropolis_Imperial_Rome:R45:Antonio_2019,5.04,0,9.86,0,27.46,7.12,0.8,0,16.44,0,32.4,0.88
C5-Marcellino_&_Pietro_Imperial_Rome:R130:Antonio_2019,9.5,0,4.35,0,24.11,2.09,0.93,0,17.15,0,41.34,0.53
C5-Marcellino_&_Pietro_Imperial_Rome:R133:Antonio_2019,7.2,0.88,3.08,0.32,26.06,7.84,0,0,14.07,0,39.97,0.58
C5-Marcellino_&_Pietro_Imperial_Rome:R134:Antonio_2019,8.11,0,4.64,0.7,23.15,7.79,0,0.89,15.41,0,39.31,0.01

C5-Monterotondo_Imperial_Rome:R1548:Antonio_2019,10.47,0,1.51,0,23.09,11.15,0,0.34,13.95,0,39.5,0
C5-Necropolis_of_Monte_Agnese_Imperial_Rome:R1543:Antonio_2019,8.92,0,5.86,0,21.15,9.11,0.41,0.36,14.95,0,38.92,0.31
C5-Necropolis_of_Monte_Agnese_Imperial_Rome:R1545:Antonio_2019,7.65,0,0.11,0,25.35,8.55,0.79,0.23,15.75,0,40.81,0.75

C5-Via_Paisiello_Necropolis_Imperial_Rome:R114:Antonio_2019,8.42,0,1.52,0,23.81,13.17,0.21,0,15.09,0,37.22,0.57
C5-Via_Paisiello_Necropolis_Imperial_Rome:R115:Antonio_2019,7.93,0.62,4.33,0,21.69,10.11,0,0,15.87,0,39.44,0
C5-Viale_Rossini_Necropolis_Imperial_Rome:R78:Antonio_2019,7.22,0,2.96,0,21.74,4.79,0,0.21,13.19,0.38,49.44,0.06
C5-Viale_Rossini_Necropolis_Imperial_Rome:R81:Antonio_2019,7.2,0,3.08,0,24.47,7.25,1.26,0,16.89,0.24,39.24,0.36

C6-Casale_del_Dolce_Imperial_Rome:R125:Antonio_2019,8.89,0,2.51,0.08,27.83,9.8,0.09,0,10.91,0,39.46,0.43

C6-Centocelle_Necropolis_Imperial_Rome:R47:Antonio_2019,9.26,0.79,5.46,0,30.38,11.55,0,0.1,9.43,0,32.54,0.5
C6-Centocelle_Necropolis_Imperial_Rome:R49:Antonio_2019,7.88,0,1.68,0.17,29.59,14.37,0,1.09,10.73,0,34.2,0.29
C6-Centocelle_Necropolis_Imperial_Rome:R51:Antonio_2019,7.5,0,2.26,0,25.82,10.46,0,0,13.7,1.23,39.03,0
C6-Civitanova_Marche_Imperial_Rome:R835:Antonio_2019,8.06,0.47,2.84,1.58,30.3,16.15,0,0,10.89,0,29.71,0
C6-Civitanova_Marche_Imperial_Rome:R836:Antonio_2019,7.99,0,1.59,0,30.78,15.05,0,0,10.14,0,34.45,0

C6-Marcellino_&_Pietro_Imperial_Rome:R136:Antonio_2019,8.45,0.16,4.03,0.38,25.87,13,0,0,12.45,0,35.36,0.28
C6-Marcellino_&_Pietro_Imperial_Rome:R137:Antonio_2019,9.38,0,2.53,0.51,28.21,9.34,0,0.62,11.96,0,37.44,0
C6-Monterotondo_Imperial_Rome:R1549:Antonio_2019,9.21,0.08,3.15,0,27.32,20.37,0.6,0.6,11.39,0.18,26.54,0.57
C6-Necropolis_of_Monte_Agnese_Imperial_Rome:R1544:Antonio_2019,9.52,0.56,2.18,0,26.06,13.98,0,0,12.91,0,34.79,0
C6-Palestrina_Imperial_Rome:R436:Antonio_2019,9.14,0,1.72,0.34,26.42,13.43,0.32,0,12.19,0.11,35.95,0.38

C6-Via_Paisiello_Necropolis_Imperial_Rome:R113:Antonio_2019,8.54,0,3.42,0,34.32,12.61,0.56,0,8.26,0,32.14,0.16
C6-Via_Paisiello_Necropolis_Imperial_Rome:R131:Antonio_2019,7.3,0.24,0.94,0.57,31.63,13.18,0.27,0,11.79,0,33.23,0.84

C7-Isola_Sacra_Necropolis_Imperial_Rome:R37:Antonio_2019,2.14,1,2.7,0,50.7,31.46,0,0,4.24,0,7.65,0.12

C7-Via_Paisiello_Necropolis_Imperial_Rome:R116:Antonio_2019,5.47,0.42,1.19,0.19,43.87,34.16,0,0,3.74,0,10.63,0.33

That's 37.

Then there's Via Paisiello 111, which is a good match for me, which brings me to 38. (It's C6, and the closest match is Romagna.)

Via_Paisiello_Necropolis_Imperial_Rome:R111:Antonio_2019,6.68,0,0.53,0.35,37.36,17.99,0,0,9.6,0,26.98,0.51


Then there are the two Iron Age "Italian-Greek" samples

Latini_o:R850:Antonio_2019,7.3,0,4.52,1.08,21.26,10.54,0,0.43,14.77,0,40.1,0

I think the other one is R437 but I'm having trouble finding the K12b coordinates. I'll get back to you.*

I may be missing another one. Jovialis will know and I'm sure chime in when he sees this post.

Ed. * Here is R437

C6_Iron_Age_Mediterranean:R437_(Latin_Prenestini_Tribe)_Palestrina_Selicata,6.45,0,3.03,0,33.19,11.94,0,0,11.63,0,33.74,0.02
 
Greeks in Rome cool.

Distance to:NE_Iberia_Hel_(Empúries2):I8208:Olalde_2019
6.19184141Mycenaean:I9010:Lazaridis_2017
6.20208836Mycenaean:I9041:Lazaridis_2017
7.38984438Mycenaean:I9006:Lazaridis_2017
9.91380351Mycenaean:I9033:Lazaridis_2017
17.79902525Latini_o:R850:Antonio_2019

 
Angela: Your memory is good :), yes I get close results to R437, not as close to R850, but not totally horrible there. But 6 of the Basilicata samples are distances <=6 and R437 is 4.25 on Dodecad 12B. So there is some Southern Italian/Sicilian people that are similar to moderns from those regions starting at least by the time of R437 (circa 300 AD) and clearly well established by 7th century in Basilicata.

Distance to:PalermoTrapani_Combined
2.38784422S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_670-775CE:VEN015
4.04278369S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_670-775CE:VEN013
4.24855269S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_650-763CE:VEN005
4.25480904C6_Iron_Age_Mediterranean:R437_(Latin_Prenestini_Tribe)_Palestrina_Selicata
6.18293620S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_650-800CE:VEN001
6.18618622S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_650-763CE:VEN006
6.46209718S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_672-800CE:VEN016
10.49192547S.Italy_Venosa_related:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_672-800CE:VEN017
10.62509765S.Italy_Venosa_related:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_660-766CE:VEN009
10.73998603S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_670-775CE:VEN012
13.22413702C5_Iron_Age_Eastern_Mediterranean:R850_(Latini)_Ardea
13.97620120S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_672-800CE:VEN018
14.18623981S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_660-766CE:VEN008
16.22776941S.Italy_Venosa:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_670-775CE:VEN014
16.65905460S.Italy_Venosa_related:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_672-800CE:VEN021
20.24406086S.Italy_Venosa_related:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_670-775CE:VEN010
22.79961403S.Italy_Venosa_related:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_672-800CE:VEN022
40.14503207S.Italy_Venosa_VEN002:Venosa(Potenza_Basilicata)_650-800CE:VEN002

 
I would not be sure about Latini_o. C6 could really be a Greek.
Distance to:NE_Iberia_Hel_(Empúries2):I8208:Olalde_2019
6.19184141Mycenaean:I9010:Lazaridis_2017
6.20208836Mycenaean:I9041:Lazaridis_2017
7.38984438Mycenaean:I9006:Lazaridis_2017
9.91380351Mycenaean:I9033:Lazaridis_2017
11.86266833C6_Iron_Age_Mediterranean:R437_(Latin_Prenestini_Tribe)_Palestrina_Selicata
17.79902525Latini_o:R850:Antonio_2019
Distance to:Mycenaean:I9041:Lazaridis_2017
7.04257055C6_Iron_Age_Mediterranean:R437_(Latin_Prenestini_Tribe)_Palestrina_Selicata
17.46657952Latini_o:R850:Antonio_2019


Distance to:Mycenaean:I9033:Lazaridis_2017
9.99532891C6_Iron_Age_Mediterranean:R437_(Latin_Prenestini_Tribe)_Palestrina_Selicata
21.39397111Latini_o:R850:Antonio_2019


Distance to:Mycenaean:I9010:Lazaridis_2017
10.26925508C6_Iron_Age_Mediterranean:R437_(Latin_Prenestini_Tribe)_Palestrina_Selicata
19.57308356Latini_o:R850:Antonio_2019


Distance to:Mycenaean:I9006:Lazaridis_2017
13.83894866C6_Iron_Age_Mediterranean:R437_(Latin_Prenestini_Tribe)_Palestrina_Selicata
18.65988478Latini_o:R850:Antonio_2019

 
I would not be sure about Latini_o. C6 could really be a Greek.
Distance to:NE_Iberia_Hel_(Empúries2):I8208:Olalde_2019
6.19184141Mycenaean:I9010:Lazaridis_2017
6.20208836Mycenaean:I9041:Lazaridis_2017
7.38984438Mycenaean:I9006:Lazaridis_2017
9.91380351Mycenaean:I9033:Lazaridis_2017
11.86266833C6_Iron_Age_Mediterranean:R437_(Latin_Prenestini_Tribe)_Palestrina_Selicata
17.79902525Latini_o:R850:Antonio_2019

It depends how you define Greek, I suppose.

Distance to:C5_Iron_Age_Eastern_Mediterranean:R850_(Latini)_Ardea
2.94292372Greek_Kos
3.34363575Greek_Rhodes
4.80929309Greek_Crete
5.18691623Turk_Cyprus
5.44699917Greek_Fournoi
5.80874341Greek_Icaria
7.10749604Greek_Izmir
7.50240628Moldovan_Jewish
7.54348063Italian_Jews
7.63675324Italian_Calabria
7.74058137Sephardic_Jews
7.84169625Ashkenazi_Jews
8.69839066Greek_Cypriot
10.04992537Italian_Sicily
10.57545271Italian_Campania
10.65026291Greek_Lemnos
10.88449356Greek_Cappadocia
11.39714438Italian_Apulia
11.47420585Greek_Foca
12.08694751Nusayri_Turkey
12.19292418Morocco_Jews
12.91891636Italian_Abruzzo
13.17106678Turk_West_BlackSea
13.49063008Turk_Central_West
14.27385372Lebanese_Muslim

Don't at least people from Crete count as Greeks?

I don't make mistakes like that.
 

This thread has been viewed 358010 times.

Back
Top