Moots: Ancient Rome Paper

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.


R1b-Z2103 and L283 are older than any supposed Illyrian movement into Rome.

So no evidence for what you claim.
 
The garbage that some people are posting is literally insane. Somebody could look at these results and say Etruscans came to Italy from AFRICA???? And Polako leaves posts like that there but deletes ones with which he disagrees?

Meanwhile, posters from anthrogenica come here to read our content, but prohibit one of our members from doing the same?

Honestly, I knew things were bad out there, but this is unbelievable.

As for all this "Illyrian" stuff, groups of mixed Indo-European and "local" ancestry may have passed through the Balkans and then into Italy. Others might have come down through Hungary. Some of these yDna lines were all over the Balkans and probably Hungary and southern Germany. We just can't untangle all of it completely yet, so I don't see the point of some of this commentary.
 
R1b-Z2103 and L283 are older than any supposed Illyrian movement into Rome.

So no evidence for what you claim.

The L283 in Rome is downstream of the exact same clade as the 1000 year older Illyrian coast sample.

R1b-Z2013 is one of the 3 main Albanian paternal lineages, and it is a Balkan R1b, not really present among Italics or Celts or Slavs.
 
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.


ok thanks for your answere
yes i meant the early ones
i agree with your answer
regards
adam

p.s
septimus severus was only half north african his mom was italian but overall i get the point
 
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
That T sample came with the R1b from ancient LBK areas of central europe...i will check if it also matches the neolithic T samples from malek bulgaria
 
I have news for Simon W...

Republican Era Romans were a mix of Spanish and Greek? Seriously? That would be MODERN northern Spanish and MODERN mainland Greek the paper was showing. We have to look at mixtures of PROXIMATE populations as in NOT MODERN POPULATIONS.

That doesn't mean admixture between those two groups you dunderheads!

Plus, most of the Republican samples don't plot far south enough for that. My God, look at the PCA.

I can use myself as an example. On the old gedmatch calculators I come out as midway between the Spaniards (a heavily northern Spaniard weighted sample) and the Greeks. I have neither Spanish nor Greek ancestry. It's just that I, and Italians like me, are neither West nor East Mediterranean. We're CENTRAL Mediterraneans.

Oh, and I'm at 3.4 genetic distance to a TSI like sample from Szolad, and 4.3 to an ancient sample from near Collegno (Piemonte). I haven't heard of anyone being closer.

Honestly, people, after all this time some of you people still don't understand how to interpret genetics results AT ALL.
 
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

In roman texts there are no illyrians, it is a geophical term, like british...in the roman census of 5bc , which i supplied before, they had tribes under the term illyricum of which the dalmatian represented 52 percent, next came pannonians with 21 percent
 
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.

Liburnians and histri and iapodes all sit under the term illyrian and so do other tribes in noricum, how else do you get halstatt culture in noricum, a mix of celts and illyrians
 
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.

What about the vandali confederation (vandals) of germanic tribes of modern north poland
 
In roman texts there are no illyrians, it is a geophical term, like british...in the roman census of 5bc , which i supplied before, they had tribes under the term illyricum of which the dalmatian represented 52 percent, next came pannonians with 21 percent

The Romans had an agenda to expand... invade and expand like all empires.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
In the early Iron age Romans were genetically mostly Northern Italians and slowly became more East Med because populations of the Southern part settled there (probably lots of Greeks and Phoenicians). Rome reached its height in the Imperial Era. Absolute power corrupts and Rome slowly but surely started to loose power. It became depopulated and absorbed newcomers which brought some North European admixture into the city (Medieval Rome). But the overall Italian population did not change. So when Italian population resettled in Rome during modern times, the average Italian genetic make up was represented.
 
Seems to be quite evident that the largest populations of the time were in the South of the Italian peninsula. In the early Iron age Romans were genetically mostly Northern Italians and slowly became more East Med because populations of the Southern part settled there (probably lots of Greeks and Phoenicians). Rome reached its height in the Imperial Era. Absolute power corrupts and Rome slowly but surely started to loose power. It became depopulated and absorbed newcomers which brought some North European admixture into the city. But the overall Italian population did not change. So when Italian population resettled in Rome during modern times, the average Italian genetic make up was represented.
At the start of the first Punic wars the romans are a combination of latins, Etruscans and Umbrians ( Sabines, sabellics, Samnites etc )
 
The Romans had an agenda to expand... invade and expand like all empires.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
and so what does this mean in reference

70 plus percent of Illyrians come from two tribes Dalmatians and pannonians
 
and so what does this mean in reference

70 plus percent of Illyrians come from two tribes Dalmatians and pannonians

But they weren’t italic. The name Arbon some are suggesting possibly came from Liburnia, Arbon were an Illyrian Tribe...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
But they weren’t italic. The name Arbon some are suggesting possibly came from Liburnia, Arbon were an Illyrian Tribe...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

i agree they are not italic
 
I'm monarchist
 
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

I find it intriguing that there were already south Italian-like people in the Republican era, among the other Latins and Etruscans. Instead of being Greek, perhaps he was just closer to the Neolithic Italians from the area of Lazio. Despite being an outlier in this set of samples, it shows there were people that plotted there consistently throughout the ages. From the early days, and beyond the fall of the Roman empire; represented by the graves of Vila Magna.

XwOyW8B.png


PaLWI64.png


r5urnqH.png
 
I find it intriguing that there were already south Italian-like people in the Republican era, among the other Latins and Etruscans. Instead of being Greek, perhaps he was just closer to the Neolithic Italians from the area of Lazio. Despite being an outlier in this set of samples, it shows there were people that plotted there consistently throughout the ages. From the early days, and beyond the fall of the Roman empire; represented by the graves of Vila Magna.

Republican Rome's first expansion was southward. Cumae and Naples, two Greek colonies, were absorbed by 338 BCE, and the other Greek colonies in Apulia, Basilicata and Calabria by 272 BCE. So immigration of Greeks from these areas to Rome would have increased progressively from 4th century BCE.

800px-Roman_conquest_of_Italy.PNG


However the T1a samples dates from 800 to 500 BCE, so it is harder to explain, unless the dating is off.
 
Republican Rome's first expansion was southward. Cumae and Naples, two Greek colonies, were absorbed by 338 BCE, and the other Greek colonies in Apulia, Basilicata and Calabria by 272 BCE. So immigration of Greeks from these areas to Rome would have increased progressively from 4th century BCE.
800px-Roman_conquest_of_Italy.PNG

However the T1a samples dates from 800 to 500 BCE, so it is harder to explain, unless the dating is off.
Greek admixture is absolutely plausible for this sample. It's closest affinity to other samples, is to Myceneans, and other Greeks. Especially given the history you have noted.

I think samples the Bronze Age and Iron age from southern Italy should help to better understand the true trajectory of Italian genetics throughout the history of the Roman empire.
 

This thread has been viewed 357121 times.

Back
Top