Moots: Ancient Rome Paper

[Johane Derite]

It is out:

Ancient Rome: A genetic crossroads of Europe and the Mediterranean


Abstract

Ancient Rome was the capital of an empire of ~70 million inhabitants, but little is known about the genetics of ancient Romans. Here we present 127 genomes from 29 archaeological sites in and around Rome, spanning the past 12,000 years. We observe two major prehistoric ancestry transitions: one with the introduction of farming and another prior to the Iron Age. By the founding of Rome, the genetic composition of the region approximated that of modern Mediterranean populations. During the Imperial period, Rome’s population received net immigration from the Near East, followed by an increase in genetic contributions from Europe. These ancestry shifts mirrored the geopolitical affiliations of Rome and were accompanied by marked interindividual diversity, reflecting gene flow from across the Mediterranean, Europe, and North Africa.



LINK: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/366/6466/708

[Jovialis]

Behind a paywall?!

[Johane Derite]

It seems so. I got the paper with sci hub, but the supplementary data do not seem to be extractable with sci hub.

[Johane Derite]

Supplementary data:

https://science.sciencemag.org/conte...Antonio_SM.pdf

[Jovialis]

"An analysis of some of the earliest samples more or less comports with what has been found around Europe—they represent an influx of farmers primarily descended from early agriculturalists from Turkey and Iran around 8,000 years ago, followed by a shift toward ancestry from the Ukrainian steppe somewhere between 5,000 and 3,000 years ago. By the founding of Rome, traditionally dated to 753 BCE, the city's population had grown in diversity and resembled modern European and Mediterranean peoples"

Looks like Anatolian copper age-like admixture reached the area of Rome, prior to Steppe.

[kingjohn]

No e-z830 i look at the table
But there is e-v12 in lazio from 0-200 ad so cool
Imperial period...
Convlusion
I shouldnt listen to rumors ...

I look at table 1-4 in the paper

Mesolitic:
I

: neolithic
G-L91
J-m304
J-L26
R-m343

Copper age :
G-F1193
H-L901
I-cts616
I-m223
G-pf3359

Iron age:
R-m269
T-L208
R-P311
R-PF7588
J-m12
R-p312
R-p312

Imperial:
R-PF7589
E-V12
J-m92
J-Z631
G-FGC5089
J-p58
There are more
J,R,G .....

Late antiquity:
:400-600ad
One e-v13 dude was found

[Pax Augusta]

[bicicleur]

https://science.sciencemag.org/conte...6.6466.708.DC1

https://science.sciencemag.org/conte...Antonio_SM.pdf

[bicicleur]

the tribes that founded Rome were R1b-M269 and they arrived between 2300 and 900 BC

[kingjohn]

I now looked in the table there is 1 E-L257/L19
Dude From late mediveal 1280-1430 ad ....
To bad he is johny come lately....
anyway he is in the e-z827 branch as oposed to the e-v12 and e-v13 that were found in remains
Who belong to the e-v68 branch.
The E in this paper:
samples:
1) R113, Via Paisiello, 0-200CE (Imperial Rome) - E-V12
2) R107, Crypta Balbi, 400-600CE (Late Antiquity) - E-V13
3) R59, Villa Magna, 820-990CE (Early Medieval) - E-V12
4) R53, Villa Magna, 1280-1430CE (Late Medieval) - E-V257
5) R1219, Cancelleria, 1417-1463CE (Renaissance) - E-V13

[Jovialis]

Looks like Anatolian copper age-like admixture reached the area of Rome, prior to Steppe.

Logically, one would assume this admixture was stronger in the South during this time as well. Further increased by the Greek settlers. The creation of Roman Italy probably brought a great deal of this ancestry into the area of Rome.

[Salento]

Logically, one would assume this admixture was stronger in the South during this time as well. Further increased by the Greek settlers. The creation of the Roman province of Italia probably brought a great deal of this ancestry into the area of Rome.

Where do you think we're located on the map that Pax posted?

I think I know (S.E of S.Italy line), but I'm not sure.

[Jovialis]

Where do you think we're located on the map that Pax posted?

I think I understand it, but I'm not sure.

I think the green dots are the Italian samples from the Lombard paper. If so, it would be relative to that. Thus near the Northern side of the Imperial Roman cluster, with a proclivity towards the Greek centroid. That's my guess.

I think I know (S.E of S.Italy line), but I'm not sure.

Apulians are north/northeast of the south Italian line.

[Jovialis]

Maybe this might make it a bit easier to decipher.

[Salento]

Maybe this might make it a bit easier to decipher.

Thanks Jovialis, I see the Circle.

I’m glad that I get to keep my Avatar

[Johane Derite]

Trojet has checked the BAM file for the J2b etruscan:


"I just checked the BAM file for: R474, Civitavecchia, Etruscan, 700-600BCE (Iron Age/Roman Republic) - J-M12+

He is: J2b-L283>>Z597>Y15058>CTS6190

My friend Principe called it. We do have a J-CTS6190 in ancient Italy"


This individual was related to the Croatian coast J2b. This is from the supplement:
" In addition, a Bronze Age individual from Croatia (1631-1521 calBCE) belonged to the J2b2a haplogroup (14) and carried exactly the M314 derived allele that is also found in R474."

[Jovialis]

Here's another comparison.

[Tomenable]

Okay, so rumours about Early Romans being South Italian-like are not confirmed.

This PCA shows Republican Era Romans in Latium were probably like modern Piedmontese (North-West Italians):

Only during the Imperial Era mass migration from East Mediterranean changed it:

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/366/6466/708





BTW, soon another paper with ancient DNA from other regions of Italy (outside of Latium) should be published.

This paper had only DNA from the city of Rome and surrounding areas within the present-day region of Latium.

[brick]

Okay, so rumours about Early Romans being South Italian-like are not confirmed.

There were never any of these rumors. What you call early Romans are actually Iron Age Latins.

According to the rumors, it was the Imperial Romans who were South-Italian like.

[Tomenable]

What you call early Romans are actually Iron Age Latins.

No, these samples range from 900 BCE to 27 BCE and genetic profile did not change much in that period. Rome was founded in 753 BCE. Median age of these samples is given as "320 BCE Roman Republic" (map):

[Tomenable]

Samples from 900-27 BCE, so 150 years before foundation of Rome (753 BCE) and over 700 years after foundation of Rome. And yet you claim they are not Romans but "early Latins" ???

They are Romans from times when Rome was a Kingdom and a Republic:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Kingdom (753-509 BCE)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Republic (509-27 BCE)

[Tomenable]

According to the rumors, it was the Imperial Romans who were South-Italian like.

Nope.

I have heard rumours saying that Rome was founded by Greeks and genetics will confirm this legend.

If those rumours were true, we should be seeing South Italian-like genetics already around 753 BCE.

Besides, according to Razib, South Italian-like genetics was mainly in the cities, not in the countryside. And Razib thought that after the fall of the Western Roman Empire, there was resurgence of the rural locals after the cities (where East Med influence had to be the strongest) died out, and subsequently became re-populated by peasants (with more native "Republican-Iron Age" genetics):



^^^
Rome's (city) population over time:

[Salento]

Samples from 900-27 BCE, so 150 years before foundation of Rome (753 BCE) and over 700 years after foundation of Rome. And yet you claim they are not Romans but "early Latins" ???

They are Romans from times when Rome was a Kingdom and a Republic:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Kingdom (753-509 BCE)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Republic (509-27 BCE)

Is there a genetic difference between early Romans and Latins?

[Tomenable]

Is there a genetic difference between early Romans and Latins?

I do not think so. But rumours were saying that there would be a difference.

And that Romans would be Mycenaean-like genetically (= South Italian-like).

I saw people claiming that Rome was founded by the Greeks or Trojans, just like in one of legends about Aeneas:

https://www.thoughtco.com/the-myth-f...of-rome-117754

Genetics proves that this is false and that the legend about local Latin founders (Romulus & Remus) is more true.

[Johane Derite]

The J2b2-L283 that is found in Civitavecchia is from 700-600BC, and most likely has origin from the Croatian coast as it is under the same branch despite being near 1000 years younger.

Aeneas was a Dardanian, they are connected with Trojans, but not the same thing, so don't go discounting just yet. There could have been truth in the myth.