Moots: Ancient Rome Paper

Plausible but improbable.

After how long is a population to be considered local?

What about common ancient Italian ancestry with the Very Old Mycenaeans.

more or less Mycenaean elements:
like South Italian like Pugliese like Calabrese like Greek like ...

.. even MyHeritage can’t tell who’s who.
 
So here are the iron age so-called Latin samples:


Palestrina
Individuals: R435, R436, R437
Praeneste, modern-day Palestrina, located south of Rome, was one of the largest ancient cities in Iron Age Latium and home to the Praenesti tribe.
"Praeneste was originally an Etruscan settlement. Like other Etruscan city-states. Praeneste was allied with the Latin League, a loose federation of independent cities"


Veio Grotta Gramiccia
Individual: R1015
The site of Veio (Veii in English, Veio in Italian) is a large Etruscan city, located about 18 kilometers north of Rome.


Ardea
Individuals: R850, R851
Located 4 kilometers from the Tyhrennian coast, the area was once the main urban center of the Rutuli
"According to modern scholars the Rutuli were an Etruscan people."


Martinsicuro
Individuals: R1
Martinsicuro is a coastal site located on the border of Le Marche and Abruzzo on central Italy’s Adriatic coast. It is a Villanovan village
"Villanovan culture (c. 900–700 BC) is regarded as the oldest phase of Etruscan civilization."


k2ukiqM.png



So you sample only coastal places that you know for a fact are Etruscan and none of the mountainous regions that are Italic, and voilá Etruscans are now the real Italics and Romans are dirty Middle Eastern immigrants, and the Kurgan theory gets to live for a couple more years, even though this still doesn't top Indo-Iranian languages being transmitted by great-grandmothers. Congratulations to all the clowns involved.
 
@Saetrus take it easy.

those are the results we have, for now.

Calmati, ma quante cazz... vai dicendo.
 
Is this the Italian Nordicist perspective?

I haven't looked at each of those samples individually yet, but the majority of the Iron Age/Republican Rome Era samples are at most one third Indo-European, which makes them Southern European.

That's not good enough for you?

What did you expect? Scandinavians? Germans?

Honestly, what planet do some of you internet pop gen people come from? You're not playing with a full deck.

And one more pejorative about people from the Near East and you're history.

The culture to which all of Europe owes so much derives from the Near East via Greece. It sure as hell didn't come from the steppe.
 
Last edited:
So here are the iron age so-called Latin samples:

Veio Grotta Gramiccia
Individual: R1015
The site of Veio (Veii in English, Veio in Italian) is a large Etruscan city, located about 18 kilometers north of Rome.


Martinsicuro
Individuals: R1
Martinsicuro is a coastal site located on the border of Le Marche and Abruzzo on central Italy’s Adriatic coast. It is a Villanovan village
"Villanovan culture (c. 900–700 BC) is regarded as the oldest phase of Etruscan civilization."


The sample (a female) from Veio Grotta Gramiccia is labeled in the study as Villanovan and is clearly Etruscan, and the study does not attempt to make her appear as Latin.


Martinsicuro is a Protovillanovan site, not Villanovan. Protovillanovan is a supranational Bronze facies that is ancestral to many different Iron age facies. Villanovan is instead an Iron age facies which is exclusively Etruscan.
 
My father would say he was a proud steppe barbarian, but that's neither here nor there. By the time of the Roman period, the steppe component of the original Italic tribes had been diluted due to the large Neolithic population in the peninsula, so they would not have resembled northern Europeans in any way; the Po valley is more Gallic than Italic in ancestry and has the most U152 from Celtic tribes as well as lingering Italics.
 
Is this the Italian Nordicist perspective?

I haven't looked at each of those samples individually yet, but the majority of the Iron Age/Republican Rome Era samples are at least one third Indo-European, which makes them Southern European.

That's not good enough for you?

What did you expect? Scandinavians? Germans?

Honestly, what planet do some of you internet pop gen people come from? You're not playing with a full deck.

And one more pejorative about people from the Near East and you're history.

The culture to which all of Europe owes so much derives from the Near East via Greece. It sure as hell didn't come from the steppe.

So what did come from steppe? Something came for sure after all that made those lines so successful, even as we speak. So is the wealth accumulated due to what Europeans owe to steppe or near east, this could be a good question to answer?


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum
 
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

R1543 T1a1a - 1-400 CE

R120 is a T1a2 :) 1000 year younger than R850 (T-L208) too.

R120:
y T1a2b L131>Y6033
mt I1c
400-600 CE Late Antiquity
San Ercolano

R1543:
y T1a1a L162>L208>CTS11451>Y4119>CTS2214>Z709
mt H1e
1-400 CE
Imperial Rome
Mazzano Romano

R850
Y T1a1a TL208
mt T2c1f
800-500 BCE
Latin_IA
Ardea
 
So what did come from steppe? Something came for sure after all that made those lines so successful, even as we speak. So is the wealth accumulated due to what Europeans owe to steppe or near east, this could be a good question to answer?


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum

Blevins, you know all this, surely? Where did agriculture originate? How about metallurgy? It was in the Near East and some of it was developed by EEF like people in the Balkans. How about irrigation systems, cities, monumental buildings, paved roads, writing, law codes? If you want to add empires, throw that in.

Do I have to go on???

We learn all this in middle school and high school, at least in the U.S., and from what I've seen in the Anglo world as a whole There's no need to belabor it. It's not some plot.

The original steppe people were fisher/hunters living in yurts, illiterate, without domesticated animals other than the horse, without farming, without metallurgy. Now, I want to emphasize that's how ALL human beings lived originally, even in the Near East, but there they developed more sophisticated cultures first.


Every culture builds on prior cultures; they borrow and adapt to suit their own needs, and the better ones add some improvements of their own. Look at the Japanese. Within one hundred years of Commodore Perry's arrival they had totally transformed their culture. There's no shame in it.

The Greeks of the Aegean learned and added, created something new, something that didn't exist in the Near East, and passed it on to the Romans, who added their own tweaks and then passed it down to all Europeans. Then most of it was lost and had to be re-learned in the Renaissance.

The steppe people (half EHG and half CHG like) mixed with EEF people when they moved west. By the time the Indo-European speaking people got to Italy, they were
already a mixture of EEF (with some additional WHG from the resurgence) and steppe. The Beakers were about 50/50 broadly speaking, yes?. You know all this.

Once the Indo-European speakers got to Italy they admixed with the Neolithic population there, a population much like the EEF, but already with some CHG/Iran Neo like ancestry, perhaps from Greece or perhaps by a more direct route. It further diluted the steppe signal. The same thing happened elsewhere in Southern Europe. It's only in the low population extreme north-east of Europe that you get people over 50% steppe. I mean, think about it, there was barely anyone living up there. Even Britain is more EEF than steppe. Southern Europe was heavily populated, so it's the least steppe.

Sometimes we just have to step back when we look at historical processes and use some reason and common sense.

To this day, Northern Italians/Tuscans have the highest EEF ancestry in Europe after certain Sardinians perhaps, followed closely by Spaniards. Look at the plot. They lean toward the Sardinians. These Iron Age and Republican Era samples average out perhaps to the high 30s for steppe ancestry? (I haven't gotten into the nitty gritty of the details yet.) That's not much more than Northern Italians have today.

What did modern Europeans get from them? Language for most Europeans, of course, parts of the religion prior to Christianity, perhaps a more male centered social structure, although the desert Near Easterners may have them beat. Some parts of the culture, perhaps. Oh, also the domesticated horse, which turned out to be really important for traveling long distances quickly, and eventually for warfare, along with the chariot, although it was the Near Easterners who perfected chariot warfare.

It's too big a topic to cover in one post on another topic altogether.

@Joey,
Half of my ancestry comes from the Po Valley, and I assure you they're not Celts, whatever you mean by that. They don't plot with the people of the Celtic fringe like the Irish or Welsh, and not even with the French. We're our own people.

Did the Gauls invade in the first millennium BC? Yes, they did, although some, like the Boi, were mostly kicked out. The ones who remained mixed with the people already living there. The Italics and Etruscans, people of mixed Italian Neolithic and Indo-European ancestry, weren't wiped out. Place names and inscriptions show Italic, Etruscan, and Gallic names in the same area.
 
R1016 is not a certain Z2103 it seems:

Ted Kandell writes: "R1016 is *both* Z2103+ and L51+. Impossible. It's completely ambiguous. Contamination?"
 
Blevins, you know all this, surely? Where did agriculture originate? How about metallurgy? It was in the Near East and some of it was developed by EEF like people in the Balkans. How about irrigation systems, cities, monumental buildings, paved roads, writing, law codes? If you want to add empires, throw that in.

Do I have to go on???

We learn all this in middle school and high school, at least in the U.S., and from what I've seen in the Anglo world as a whole There's no need to belabor it. It's not some plot.

The original steppe people were fisher/hunters living in yurts, illiterate, without domesticated animals other than the horse, without farming, without metallurgy. Now, I want to emphasize that's how ALL human beings lived originally, even in the Near East, but there they developed more sophisticated cultures first.


Every culture builds on prior cultures; they borrow and adapt to suit their own needs, and the better ones add some improvements of their own. Look at the Japanese. Within one hundred years of Commodore Perry's arrival they had totally transformed their culture. There's no shame in it.

The Greeks of the Aegean learned and added, created something new, something that didn't exist in the Near East, and passed it on to the Romans, who added their own tweaks and then passed it down to all Europeans. Then most of it was lost and had to be re-learned in the Renaissance.

The steppe people (half EHG and half CHG like) mixed with EEF people when they moved west. By the time the Indo-European speaking people got to Italy, they were
already a mixture of EEF (with some additional WHG from the resurgence) and steppe. The Beakers were about 50/50 broadly speaking, yes?. You know all this.

Once the Indo-European speakers got to Italy they admixed with the Neolithic population there, a population much like the EEF, but already with some CHG/Iran Neo like ancestry, perhaps from Greece or perhaps by a more direct route. It further diluted the steppe signal. The same thing happened elsewhere in Southern Europe. It's only in the low population extreme north-east of Europe that you get people over 50% steppe. I mean, think about it, there was barely anyone living up there. Even Britain is more EEF than steppe. Southern Europe was heavily populated, so it's the least steppe.

Sometimes we just have to step back when we look at historical processes and use some reason and common sense.

To this day, Northern Italians/Tuscans have the highest EEF ancestry in Europe after certain Sardinians perhaps, followed closely by Spaniards. Look at the plot. They lean toward the Sardinians. These Iron Age and Republican Era samples average out perhaps to the high 30s for steppe ancestry? (I haven't gotten into the nitty gritty of the details yet.) That's not much more than Northern Italians have today.

What did modern Europeans get from them? Language for most Europeans, of course, parts of the religion prior to Christianity, perhaps a more male centered social structure, although the desert Near Easterners may have them beat. Some parts of the culture, perhaps. Oh, also the domesticated horse, which turned out to be really important for traveling long distances quickly, and eventually for warfare, along with the chariot, although it was the Near Easterners who perfected chariot warfare.

It's too big a topic to cover in one post on another topic altogether.

@Joey,
Half of my ancestry comes from the Po Valley, and I assure you they're not Celts, whatever you mean by that. They don't plot with the people of the Celtic fringe like the Irish or Welsh, and not even with the French. We're our own people.

Did the Gauls invade in the first millennium BC? Yes, they did, although some, like the Boi, were mostly kicked out. The ones who remained mixed with the people already living there. The Italics and Etruscans, people of mixed Italian Neolithic and Indo-European ancestry, weren't wiped out. Place names and inscriptions show Italic, Etruscan, and Gallic names in the same area.

IMG_3925.jpg

In my eyes, indo-europian were military culture that conquered whoever found in their path.
In their path they conquered continents and exterminated populations. And yes they did adopted all the things that you said above from the other populations, mostly the conquered ones.



Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum
 
Sample R435 Roman Republic, 600-200 BC, Similitude Map:

https://gen3553.pagesperso-orange.fr/ADN/similitude.htm

K36 results:

R435
Basque 5.56
Central_Euro 2.72
Eastern_Euro 0.55
Fennoscandian 3.40
French 12.68
Iberian 21.95
Italian 23.51
North_Atlantic 6.45
North_Sea 12.39
West_Med 10.80

ERHPOCz.png


Sample R1021 Iron Age B, 700-600 BC, Similitude Map:

K36 results:

R1021
Basque 2.44
Central_Euro 6.81
East_Balkan 2.65
East_Central_Euro 0.70
East_Med 4.06
Fennoscandian 0.21
French 8.25
Iberian 26.56
Italian 25.56
Near_Eastern 0.50
North_African 0.46
North_Atlantic 3.75
North_Sea 4.85
Volga-Ural 0.01
West_Caucasian 0.69
West_Med 12.49

y1gCMh8.png
 
Sample R435 Roman Republic, 600-200 BC, Similitude Map:
https://gen3553.pagesperso-orange.fr/ADN/similitude.htm
K36 results:
R435
Basque 5.56
Central_Euro 2.72
Eastern_Euro 0.55
Fennoscandian 3.40
French 12.68
Iberian 21.95
Italian 23.51
North_Atlantic 6.45
North_Sea 12.39
West_Med 10.80
ERHPOCz.png

Sample R1021 Iron Age B, 700-600 BC, Similitude Map:
K36 results:
R1021
Basque 2.44
Central_Euro 6.81
East_Balkan 2.65
East_Central_Euro 0.70
East_Med 4.06
Fennoscandian 0.21
French 8.25
Iberian 26.56
Italian 25.56
Near_Eastern 0.50
North_African 0.46
North_Atlantic 3.75
North_Sea 4.85
Volga-Ural 0.01
West_Caucasian 0.69
West_Med 12.49
y1gCMh8.png
If you could do the following, I'd appreciate it.
R850, R851, R475, R437
 
I would like to see the imperial ones upload to gedmatch .....
By the way
Dacian war : imperial time
Morcomanic wars (yes the one in gladiator) : imperial time
many of the wars were in that period...
 
Last edited:
t5gaaMf.jpg


But first, something I won’t update: it seems clear that Imperial Romans were genetically distinct and quite cosmopolitan in comparison to their Republican predecessors, but neither did they leave a clear imprint down to the future. The histories are quite clear that Imperial Rome was a reflection of the whole Roman Empire, with eminent intellectuals and aristocrats congregating from all corners of the world-state. That being said, the results from the paper confirmed the weight of the eastern provinces in their influence and demographic heft.

And yet for all that heft, the scions of the eastern provinces who settled down in and around the Eternal City left few descendants judging from modern Italian DNA. Why? Because cities were massive demographic sinks in the best of times, with endemic disease, combined with periodic shocks like plagues and invasions.

https://www.gnxp.com/WordPress/2019/11/09/city-air-makes-you-less-fecund/
 
t5gaaMf.jpg


But first, something I won’t update: it seems clear that Imperial Romans were genetically distinct and quite cosmopolitan in comparison to their Republican predecessors, but neither did they leave a clear imprint down to the future. The histories are quite clear that Imperial Rome was a reflection of the whole Roman Empire, with eminent intellectuals and aristocrats congregating from all corners of the world-state. That being said, the results from the paper confirmed the weight of the eastern provinces in their influence and demographic heft.

And yet for all that heft, the scions of the eastern provinces who settled down in and around the Eternal City left few descendants judging from modern Italian DNA. Why? Because cities were massive demographic sinks in the best of times, with endemic disease, combined with periodic shocks like plagues and invasions.

https://www.gnxp.com/WordPress/2019/11/09/city-air-makes-you-less-fecund/

DxCpI2Q.png
PaLWI64.png
t5gaaMf.jpg



The near eastern tail had been severed after the end of the Imperial era. However, other than some peripheral urban enclaves, this study cannot determine how much of a fixture it was throughout Roman Italy. However, the extinction of these people in Italy, should logically indicate that their presence was not prevalent.


r5urnqH.png


The study itself models the surviving native population around Rome as as 40% "European C7" + 60% "Mediterranean C6"; who plotted mainly around Central to South Italians.

Just in case it is not clear enough, Mediterranean C6 cluster is right on top of South Italians. As the Neolthic Italians from Rome, are on the same axis on the PCA:

8PdsFvY.png


BQ5EoGy.png
 
R1543 T1a1a - 1-400 CE

R120 is a T1a2 :) 1000 year younger than R850 (T-L208) too.

R120:
y T1a2b L131>Y6033
mt I1c
400-600 CE Late Antiquity
San Ercolano

R1543:
y T1a1a L162>L208>CTS11451>Y4119>CTS2214>Z709
mt H1e
1-400 CE
Imperial Rome
Mazzano Romano

R850
Y T1a1a TL208
mt T2c1f
800-500 BCE
Latin_IA
Ardea

y Ts Romans:

R120 ~ C. Italian
R1543 ~ S. Italian
R850 ~ S. Italian

( ~ = about )

U8hHqIw.jpg
 
I can see that 1 individual latin in the iron age period was in cluster c4 eastern med that is cool...
 
8PdsFvY.png


are some of those clusters based on modern populations? if so wouldn't it be logical that the closer you get to modern times, the better you can model populations with modern clusters of populations that live close?
 
8PdsFvY.png


are some of those clusters based on modern populations? if so wouldn't it be logical that the closer you get to modern times, the better you can model older populations with modern clusters of populations that live close?

9F2cMqC.jpg


I think they are ancient clusters from the study, organized by broard ethnic grouping.
 

This thread has been viewed 357879 times.

Back
Top