Moots: Ancient Rome Paper

Two-way mixture models for individuals from 300-700 AD, Table S24:

Germany_Late_Roman was that Roman soldier FN_2 who resembled genetically Republican Era Romans, or maybe Celtiberians:

E1mUqeq.png


^^^ So Romans from ca. 300-700 AD can be modelled as 60% Romans from 0-300 AD + 40% Roman soldiers similar to FN_2:

5CRjgFA.png


vTAqTbl.png


Table S23, F4 stats: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/suppl/2019/11/06/366.6466.708.DC1/aay6826_Antonio_SM.pdf

Yes, and as a lot of other mixtures.

He was a combination of IBS and TSI, using the 1000 genomes that the authors of that paper used as a reference.

So?

Sorry, you've lost me a bit. How do you know where FN_2 would plot? I'm looking at the PCA of the ancient Italian samples and other published ancient samples, and I don't see him near the Republican Era Romans, or, actually on that plot at all, unless he was given a new number. Am I going blind? :)

TPph9cA.png



As to why they modeled that way, you've got me. Why didn't they get some samples from Bronze Age and Iron Age Southern Italy before coming to some of these conclusions?
 
They should have checked a model assuming the resurgence of local (pre-Imperial) population:

Target: Rome_LA [300-700 AD]

Source 1: Rome_IR [0-300 AD]
Source 2: Rome_IA [900-0 BC]

Not sure why they didn't do this. Just like they didn't check any Germanic models for Rome_LA.

High P value indicates that a model is good / probable.

If there was no resurgence they would get low P value.
 
In Greece, you couldn't legally marry non-citizens, and a child produced with a non-citizen, even one resident in the city-state, had no citizenship rights.[...]

That might have been true later in Athens (under Pericles?), but Cleisthenes, considered to be the founder of Athenian democracy, was the son of Megacles (of the powerful Alcmaeonid family) and Agariste, daughter of Cleisthenes, tyrant of Sicyon, and there was no question about his citizenship at the time.
 
R850....T1a1-L208.........mtdna T2c1f
R1543...T1a1-Z709.........H1e
R120....T1a2-L446.....I1c

imho y T is not an outlier, y T is rare, but proportionally and coincidentally it’s the only non y R Haplogroup among the Iron-age Roman-Italics.


Match (outlier? Lost Tourist :)
I don’t think so:

y T-L208 (R850) Latin Tribe Ardea 650 BC

lAw033v.jpg



qlFfjpd.jpg
 
We need more samples from other areas of italy south of rome but also north of it ...
3 samples of etruscan is not enough .....
6-8 latin samples also hard to know ....
 
Are you so sure? The Liburnian language shows more ties to a proto-Italic or archaic Italic language close to Venetic than to Illyrian. Even the maps about Illyrian ethny put their borders a bit too far north, i think.

They were Illyrian before the Roman expansion, just because Romans colonised it doesn’t make it theirs, original Liburnians were Illyrian.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Mtdna Haplogroup D in Imperial Roma, Mesolithic people were all y-dna I2a2(a) and mtdna U5 and U8 and probably one Neolithic sample was R1b-V88. They say the intriguing y-dna I1 in Late Antiquity... not so intriguiging for the time to be honest.

Looking forward to see the history of mtdna D and if the U8 sample is U8a.

Even tho slight, the Iberomaurusian admixture is kind of interesting, we can actually make a lot of assumptions on it. But if it came from Phoenicians, why would they bring only Morocco Hunter-Gatherer ancestry and not both with Morocco Neolithic ancestry?
 
Match (outlier? Lost Tourist :)
I don’t think so:

y T-L208 (R850) Latin Tribe Ardea 650 BC

lAw033v.jpg



qlFfjpd.jpg

Here's mine :)

bFmSBBX.png

I now get Latin Tribe Ardea as a new sample, and it is right before Anatolian Copper age. I think these are the two most important samples I get, as I speculate it I am roughly a merger of these two groups, ultimately.

MTZjEWf.png


I used to get Copper Age Anatolian as my 4th sample by these settings, now it has been bumped down to 5, by Latin Tribe Ardea that took it's place.

wVdEhAN.png


What a glorious revelation :)
 
During upheavals etc. cities suffer more than countryside.

Here is example from two regions of Poland during the "Deluge" (disastrous wars of 1648-1667):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_(history)

Population change of these two regions is estimated as:

In years 1578-1580:

Rural population (non-Jewish) - 1,676,000
Non-Jewish urban population - 650,200
Jewish (all urban population) - 26,500

In years 1662-1676:

Rural population (non-Jewish) - 1,531,600
Non-Jewish urban population - 308,200
Jewish (all urban population) - 43,500

Summary of the decline:

Non-Jewish urban population changed from 650 thousand to 300 thousand (decline by 54%).

Non-Jewish rural population changed from 1676 thousand to 1532 thousand (decline by 9%).

Urban population suffered much more than rural.

Jewish (vast majority urban) population increased, mainly due to their super high natural growth rates (which is already known from AJ genetics).

SOURCES (two books):

Bogucka, Samsonowicz, "Dzieje miast i mieszczaństwa w Polsce" [History of cities in Poland]
Schiper, Tartakower, Hafftka, "Żydzi w Polsce Odrodzonej" [Jews in the Reborn Poland]
 
They were Illyrian before the Roman expansion, just because Romans colonised it doesn’t make it theirs, original Liburnians were Illyrian.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In fact the question is a bit more complicated. It depends if you speak of a politic "state" or if you speak of ethnicity or language. The Liburnian language is closer to Venetic, as say Bernard SERGENT and WIKIPEDIA. B. SERGENT explains that at le anthroponymic level, the "Illyrian" territory (according to later Roman naming?) was divided into three parts (at least). One of them checks geographically the zone where Greeks had signaled their "Illyrians", it's to say in the N-W of Greece, where they localized the Taulantians, Enkhelai, Piraei: their lands correspond well enough to the southern anthroponymic zone of the author KATICIC (KATICHICH') 1976. It would be the true linguistic original Illyrian zone. The later in between Dalmatian zone had anthroponyms seeming formed on pan-italic languages descendant as Venetic, someones call it Pannono-Italic (let's not forget the Italics differenciation could have occurred around Panninia). It seems all that was already settled before Roman occupation and the changes it caused. It's out of discussion that Liburni(ans) were not true Illyrians, if they were, maybe, unde Illyrian control at some stage of history.
 
In fact the question is a bit more complicated. It depends if you speak of a politic "state" or if you speak of ethnicity or language. The Liburnian language is closer to Venetic, as say Bernard SERGENT and WIKIPEDIA. B. SERGENT explains that at le anthroponymic level, the "Illyrian" territory (according to later Roman naming?) was divided into three parts (at least). One of them checks geographically the zone where Greeks had signaled their "Illyrians", it's to say in the N-W of Greece, where they localized the Taulantians, Enkhelai, Piraei: their lands correspond well enough to the southern anthroponymic zone of the author KATICIC (KATICHICH') 1976. It would be the true linguistic original Illyrian zone. The later in between Dalmatian zone had anthroponyms seeming formed on pan-italic languages descendant as Venetic, someones call it Pannono-Italic (let's not forget the Italics differenciation could have occurred around Panninia). It seems all that was already settled before Roman occupation and the changes it caused. It's out of discussion that Liburni(ans) were not true Illyrians, if they were, maybe, unde Illyrian control at some stage of history.

Both the Liburnians and Dalmatians before the Roman Empire were Illyrian, it’s stupid to say weren’t when original Greek sources say they were. You can’t compare modern scholars to ancient ones, because one only “guess” and take sources out of Romans who had an “agenda” to spread their people to replace them with the natives, the others were here to hear the language they spoke.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
IIRC, in the Olalde 2019 study the authors claimed Iberia has almost no Germanic admixture after modelling Visigoths with use of very "northern" Pre-Roman samples as a source (while samples from times of the Roman rule in Iberia were no longer as northern-shifted as those Pre-Roman, due to admixtures from the east).

And that made no sense, because Celtiberian genetics got altered during Roman period. The authors used a biased model to prove lack of Germanic DNA.

Here the authors have the opposite agenda - and are also using biased models. In this case it would actually make sense to use Republican samples, because - unlike Celtiberians in Iberia - Republican Romans could survive Imperial era unaltered. Imperial samples so far are only from Rome and vicinity, not from all over Italy.

We should wait for a comprehensive study with samples from all over Italy including various rural areas, just like Olalde 2019 sampled most of Iberia.
 
Match (outlier? Lost Tourist :)
I don’t think so:

y T-L208 (R850) Latin Tribe Ardea 650 BC

What I meant by outlier was that it is the only Iron Age sample that plots with South Italians and Greeks, while the others plot with North Italians. Clearly there must have been a merger of two populations. I assume that T-L208 sample was of Greek origin.

TPph9cA.png
 
macaimo
where do you think most of the roman emperors would cluster ?
with northwest italian like most iron age samples or
with central italians mainland greeks like most of the imperial samples ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_emperors
regards
adam
 
What I meant by outlier was that it is the only Iron Age sample that plots with South Italians and Greeks, while the others plot with North Italians. Clearly there must have been a merger of two populations. I assume that T-L208 sample was of Greek origin.

TPph9cA.png

It could be Greek hg, but I should add that a Parent of y T-L208, T-L162 (CTS880) was found in 7000 year old Karsdorf burials in Germany.

y1hJCrK.jpg


4I6daBq.jpg


fwFXzBD.jpg


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_T-M184
 
This shows for period 300-700 CE the direction of gene flow into Lazio from areas between Spain and Germany:

Km71izg.png


^^^
Those Bronze Age Anatolians were genetically a lot like modern Cyprus.

Imperial Rome is modelled as 20% Republic Romans plus 80% Cyprus:

hUT1F4d.png


^^^
This is 4/5 replacement. Do you really believe countryside was also 80% replaced?
 
IIRC, in the Olalde 2019 study the authors claimed Iberia has almost no Germanic admixture after modelling Visigoths with use of very "northern" Pre-Roman samples as a source (while samples from times of the Roman rule in Iberia were no longer as northern-shifted as those Pre-Roman, due to admixtures from the east).

And that made no sense, because Celtiberian genetics got altered during Roman period. The authors used a biased model to prove lack of Germanic DNA.

Here the authors have the opposite agenda - and are also using biased models. In this case it would actually make sense to use Republican samples, because - unlike Celtiberians in Iberia - Republican Romans could survive Imperial era unaltered. Imperial samples so far are only from Rome and vicinity, not from all over Italy.

We should wait for a comprehensive study with samples from all over Italy including various rural areas, just like Olalde 2019 sampled most of Iberia.

I don't think they're necessarily biased. That will and is coming from the amateur community. :) I just don't think they thought things through, and they have a high schoolers understanding of Roman history and that of Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, if that. Some of their commentary sounded like a study note card from Middle School.

They also don't seem as conversant with the findings of other papers as we are, which is indeed worrying.

Still, at least, unlike Hellenthal and his group, they get that the "Southern" group was already there and didn't arrive with the Byzantines. I wonder if that group remembers the texts I sent! :) Indeed, I wonder if the group over at Anthrogenica and Polako remember all the arguments they put forward for a huge movement from the east during Late Antiquity. I mean, it couldn't be more ironic. The change was the other way.

I have no problem with the change in Central Italy coming about because of input from Goths and Lombards. Well, I have a personal problem with it, as I don't like the idea of these destroyers entering our bloodlines, but I try to keep personal feelings out of it. I've accepted the Indo-Europeans, after all. :) I had little choice. My father carried U-152, and unlike certain dead enders, I don't think it derives from WHG. Then there's my U2e, so there's that as well. They came, and that's an end to it.

I just don't see the evidence for this, however.

The Lombards' own chronicler, Paul the Deacon, said there were only 60,000 of them, including women and children. All the samples we have so far are U-106. Now, in the Veneto, and to a lesser extent in the rest of Northern Italy, we do see settlement patterns, some of which have survived, indeed, the very holdings have survived, and we do see U-106. We also see I1. Whether that came from other types of Lombards or from Goths or Franks from later on I don't know. Now, there isn't a lot of it, but it's there.

It's true that the Lombards established kingdoms elsewhere in Italy, including further south. However, those were some knights and their retinues. It was in no way a mass migration. You can get spikes of yDna because of founder effects, but for substantial autosomal change, which this was, you need a lot of it. I'll repeat my example of my area of Italy. The people plot firmly as north/central Italians, and yet they're over 70% R1b.

Where is all that U-106 and I1 in modern Lazio?

Now let's turn to IBD analysis. It's unlike IBS and more reliable in my opinion. So, unlike you, I don't think Olalde was wrong about there being very few signs of Germanic dna intrusion in Spain. Ralph and Coop found the exact same thing, i.e. very little sign of genetic change coming from the Germanic tribes in either Spain or Italy. I do think it makes sense. These were elite invasions, not mass invasions.

So, how did the change come about? Could there be other factors? I do think looking at Italians further north is a possibility which should have been explored. The change doesn't seem to be stemming from central/east Europe, but rather from northwestern Europe. Isn't that precisely what was more present in northern, especially northwestern Italy.

I'm not at all saying, by the way, as I tried to explain upthread, that Central Italy didn't remain more "southern" than it was at the time of the Republic. There's a great deal of Greek like ancestry in Italy. However, I just don't see evidence yet that the change was because of Goths and Lombards.

The disappearance of that "tail" into the Levant is a different matter. The mass decline in J1 should tell part of the story. The authors should have looked at the differences in ancestry per each burial site, as I tried to do in a quick and dirty way. There seems to be a difference, which would support their own statement about the heterogeneity of these Roman populations. It wasn't a melting pot; it was more like a stew. :) There were probably ethnic "enclaves", as there are in any great city where there's been a lot of migration from foreign parts. Look at London, or New York. In a couple of hundred years those differences aren't going to disappear. As trade dried up, people moved to more advantageous locations, and then there was the sacks and mass destruction. Those who had the ability or contacts elsewhere fled. The others would have died.

These are patterns which are repeated over and over again in history. You just have to read it, a lot of it, and try to learn from it, from it and archaeology, and not just play with algorithms. I tried telling the usual suspects not to include Messina in their attempts to figure out ancient migrations specifically to particular areas of Sicily. There was a massive earthquake at the beginning of the 20th century. Very few people survived. Where did most of the resettlement come from? Calabria across the water.
 
Sample R1016 seems to be R1b-Z2103. This, like L283 is one of the 3 main Albanian paternal lineages, thus increasing possibility that it has shared recent origin on the Illyrian coast from the same movement that brought the L283 into Rome.
 
macaimo
where do you think most of the roman emperors would cluster ?
with northwest italian like most iron age samples or
with central italians mainland greeks like most of the imperial samples ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_emperors
regards
adam

That's an odd question considering that over half of the Roman emperors were not from Italy. From the 3rd century onwards, the majority were from the Balkans (including the Tetrachs and the Constantinian dynasty). Some were from Spain (Trajan, Hadrian, Theodosius), from North Africa (Macrinus, Septimius Severus), mixed North Africa and Syria (Geta, Caracalla), Syria (Elagabalus, Severus Alexander).

If you refer to early emperors of Patrician descent, it's hard to tell because Rome was multicultural from the start. It wasn't purely Italic (Latin and Sabine), but also incorporated families of Greek and Etruscan descent. But considering that the Etruscan appear to be autosomally similar to Italics, and that the Greek ancestry was the lowest in the lot during the Kingdom and Republic, I'd say that Republican patrician and plebeian families from Rome itself were most probably like the Iron Age samples in this study, but plotting slightly more south toward southern Italy.
 
This shows for period 300-700 CE the direction of gene flow into Lazio from areas between Spain and Germany:

Km71izg.png


^^^
Those Bronze Age Anatolians were genetically a lot like modern Cyprus.

Imperial Rome is modelled as 20% Republic Romans plus 80% Cyprus:

hUT1F4d.png


^^^
This is 4/5 replacement. Do you really believe countryside was also 80% replaced?

This is where you are going wrong. The "Cyprus" part is an AVERAGE. Plus, they're using modern Cypriots.

Even they themselves state that it's an average, and it doesn't mean that there was this big migration from Cyprus.

What do you get if you combine people from a community of Mycenaean like people, which is probably what most Greeks were like at the time, or Southern Italians of the time who had such ancestry, with people from some transplanted Jewish or Syrian like community, with a sprinkling of some locals? You get people who might approximate modern Cypriots.

The thing is, you can't average people from different communities like this and get some sort of good information about ancient genetics.

Think about it: if we were talking about New York City, would it be a good idea to average Hasidic Jews from Borough Park, Middle Class Jews from Forest Hills and Manhattan, Puerto Ricans from the Bronx, Italians from Bay Ridge, and East Asians from Flushing? This is going on 120 years after some of them migrated from Europe.

Well, you may not know those places, but I assure you that they're "ethnic" strongholds, and there are others.

Did you read my post number 117? You're preaching to the choir. :)

There was no mass migration from Spain to Rome. I don't know how that got past peer review. I guess no one knows ancient history anymore. Going by Ralph and Coop there's literally no input from Spain to Italy for thousands of years.
 

This thread has been viewed 357133 times.

Back
Top