Genetic and Cultural Differences between Jews and Greeks

Jovialis: I have looked at that plot so many times but I still struggle to see where Sicily1 and Sicily2 are, it seems they are buried under the inverted SItay1 sample in yello right next to and under the SItaly3 sample in brown, but I still struggle exactly where Sicily1 and Sicily2 are plotting. Are my eyes misleadiing me or am I seeing correctly?
 
Jovialis: I have looked at that plot so many times but I still struggle to see where Sicily1 and Sicily2 are, it seems they are buried under the inverted SItay1 sample in yello right next to and under the SItaly3 sample in brown, but I still struggle exactly where Sicily1 and Sicily2 are plotting. Are my eyes misleadiing me or am I seeing correctly?

The yellow colored cohort represents the range of both Sicily and Calabria:

wEB9YWY.png
 
@Ygorcs, I think I have been fair to your argument, trying to make sure to understand your points without misrepresenting them, yet I do think you have not substantiate your claim, because your evidence is your models, and two ( I'll be glad to see the other one) papers, of which one by an Italian genetist had the fault of being very vague about the populations the term "near east" referes to ( Anatolia and the Levant? Anyway that's something already talked about here) and the other that suggested it without going in depth, and the studies that go in depth you find untrustworthy because they do not show other possible models in the supplements and do not show why their models were the best way to explain the data. Honestly, this is a good point and honest criticism, but I think it's hard to believe that all the authors of all those studies did not run some models with Levant_N and later decide to publish only the best results they got ( the ones shown in the papers, even if we agree that's a shortcoming on their part). Lastly it's also not very clear why the two papers cited ( of which one "suggested" and the other was never precise whether it was Anatolian or Levant) ought to shed more light on the issue when the majority of the literature agrees on a picture( the two way model). Also, talking about Lazaridis, it modelled ABA with a 6% Levant and the Myceneans with 0%, meaning that there was in the first place at least one gene flow that carried only Caucasus/iran admixture, and I think it is likely that it was the gene flow that affected Italy, and it's clear that apart from a direct gene flow from ABA from Italy, there must have been other migrations in order to bring about the 9% admixture that your model has, happened after the late bronze age, and again we happen again to be talking about ghost migrations that have left no archeological records.
 
Ok, that makes sense. I forgot to go back and see that plot, went back and got the paper and I see it now. Thanks
 
Your directly insulting me very moderator friendly of you, you come all the way to AG to stir a argument, you think nobody realizes what you are doing?

Ask your self which populations were heavy in Iran_Neo?

Have you familiarized yourself with Uniparentals at all? It was blatantly obvious from when I was 20 (5 years ago) that I first took a dna test and transferred my results to ftdna and saw all the projects that there is huge diversity in Italy, especially in South.

We are (Southern Italians) primarily 90% (85-95 range) identical to Late Antiquity Italians, no one is here to deny it, my point was always and still is Iron Age and Roman Age Italy was a Genetic Sink, the results from the Antonio et al. paper might as well been written by the crowd from AG because it pretty much vindicated what we've all been saying for years. The only thing I was wrong about and admit I was wrong was the origins of the Etruscans.

You are wrong about much, and I don't even know where you are pulling these claims from.

Medieval Italians plot right on top of Southern Italians, but there have been Italians that fall into their range since the Iron Age, do you not even know of R437 or R850?
DxCpI2Q.png




5rT1g8u.png
 
You are wrong about much, and I don't even know where you are pulling these claims from.

Medieval Italians plot right on top of Southern Italians, but there have been Italians that fall into their range since the Iron Age, do you not even know of R437 or R850?
DxCpI2Q.png




5rT1g8u.png

R437 can in fact be modeled similar to a southern Italian as well, and close to medieval samples:

v0hnph0.png


r5urnqH.png
 
@Ygorcs, I think I have been fair to your argument, trying to make sure to understand your points without misrepresenting them, yet I do think you have not substantiate your claim, because your evidence is your models, and two ( I'll be glad to see the other one) papers, of which one by an Italian genetist had the fault of being very vague about the populations the term "near east" referes to ( Anatolia and the Levant? Anyway that's something already talked about here) and the other that suggested it without going in depth, and the studies that go in depth you find untrustworthy because they do not show other possible models in the supplements and do not show why their models were the best way to explain the data. Honestly, this is a good point and honest criticism, but I think it's hard to believe that all the authors of all those studies did not run some models with Levant_N and later decide to publish only the best results they got ( the ones shown in the papers, even if we agree that's a shortcoming on their part). Lastly it's also not very clear why the two papers cited ( of which one "suggested" and the other was never precise whether it was Anatolian or Levant) ought to shed more light on the issue when the majority of the literature agrees on a picture( the two way model). Also, talking about Lazaridis, it modelled ABA with a 6% Levant and the Myceneans with 0%, meaning that there was in the first place at least one gene flow that carried only Caucasus/iran admixture, and I think it is likely that it was the gene flow that affected Italy, and it's clear that apart from a direct gene flow from ABA from Italy, there must have been other migrations in order to bring about the 9% admixture that your model has, happened after the late bronze age, and again we happen again to be talking about ghost migrations that have left no archeological records.

Genetic papers are (or at least more often than not should) cautious in their phrasing when they are indicating interpretations of the data. The use of "suggest, indicate, hypothesize" is very common, and if you've been reading those papers as much as other forum members you of course must know it.

But okay then if you think my models, published genetic papers and PCA plots are not "substantiation" at all. When I find evidences that conform to what you already believe and post them here, I'm sure you will start to consider the likelihood that I am starting to substantiate my point. ;)

As for uniparentals, I could go on longer, but I've seen you don't think there has been any substantiation so far in my claims, and I already wasted a lot of pens (figuratively) and time discussing this in the vain belief that I was explaining my point on the basis of evidences and at least hints that are logical and at least hypothetically plausible. But I can indicate this about uniparentals, which I'm sure you guys have already discussed before and will likely also dismiss as "unprofessional" and "controversial", so it doesn't count, either:

Sicily and Southern Italy particularly revealed to be well set in the genetic context of the Central and South-Eastern Mediterranean group, the only exception being Catania (CT), which instead shows a stronger affinity to the North-Western cluster (Iberian Peninsula, Germany and Northern Italy)

The first group (black squares) is indeed represented by populations from the South-Eastern Mediterranean shore (Levant and North-Africa), including also the most western Sicilian provinces (Trapani and Agrigento) and the Iberian populations. Conversely, the second cluster (white squares) is mainly a North-Eastern Mediterranean centred group, encompassing the Balkans, South-Italy and East-Sicily, together with the other central European populations.

In this context, Sicily and Southern Italy show clearly their stronger affinity with the populations from the South-Eastern Mediterranean side (with the partial exception of Catania - CT).

From a Y-chromosome point of view, SSI form a fairly coherent group with the Levantine and the Balkan populations (cluster 2), despite showing some minor contribution (black component) also from the North-Western Mediterranean group (cluster 3). From a mtDNA point of view, our results show the differentiation between European and non-European Mediterranean populations, with North Africa and the Levant clustering in separate and different groups (1 and 2). However – and differently from the other European populations – S
SI shows a noteworthy contribution (grey component) from the Levantine cluster. Both genetic systems reveal a negligible contribution from North Africa (white component).

Y-chromosome admixture proportions to the current SSI genetic pool indeed confirm a high paternal contribution from the South-Eastern Mediterranean populations, and particularly from the Balkan Peninsula (∼60%), whereas about 25% of SSI Y-chromosomes can be traced back to North-Western European group. Analogously, although the present-day SSI mtDNA genetic pool is largely shared with the other South-Eastern European populations of the Mediterranean Basin (respectively Balkan and Italian Peninsulas), a remarkable proportion of maternal ancestry (especially if compared with its paternal counterpart) derives from the Levant.

In fact, whereas the different continental and within continental contributions to the current SSI genetic pool appeared to be more equally distributed on the maternal side (despite a noteworthy contribution of Levantine females), the paternal counterpart appeared to be clearly affected by South-Eastern Mediterranean, mainly Balkan, males.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0096074


Now did that similarity come directly or indirectly via migration? Does it suggest the shared earlier roots between Levantines and Chalcolithic/Bronze Age Anatolians? Does it mean a shared and somewhat similar genetic history? Did it come indirectly via admixed populations and also sometimes directly? That may be and certainly will be discussed. But I don't think people will keep denying any influence at all much longer especially after more aDNA samples are availble. It's just my opinion for now based on many clues, but of course it's no established truth and is perhaps even counter-dominant position.

I must confess I'm also a bit wary of your only questioning me, but never replying my questions, such as how you would explain the fact Levant_N is not picked up by most populations rich in EEF, but exclusively (and, according to your reasoning, by sheer coincidence and incorrect interpretations of data) and exactly those that we do know had frequents contacts with the East Mediterranean world and even saw direct migrations from there (I just can't believe you think Phoenicians, Punics, Anatolian Greeks and Jews, besides Romanized people, who could've been perfectly Roman for Romans, but genetically distinct - e.g. Saint Augustine - in fact were nothing but "ghost migrations", that's really news for me). If G25 and other calculators are artificially inflating Levant_N in populations with ANF and/or INF, then why isn't that happening everywhere else, only in regions and individuals closely linked with the Aegean/East Mediterranean shores? Isn't that at least a bit intriguing and worthy of further investigation to know what's causing this difference in the way the algorithms work for regions that, if no Levant_N admixture is present in fact, share directly and exactly the same ancestral components?
 
On a more fun note, about the Imperial Roman samples, I'm more and more convinced they had the striking "luck" to extract DNA from burial places that were heavily used by immigrants and their recent descendants, with several of them still totally unmixed and some others with only minor ancient Italian or Italian-like admixture. Those cities must've been basically multiethnic ghettos with a very dynamic and "globalized" (for Antiquity standards) economic life. I reckon less than 10% of the cities and towns in Italy would've been as "international" and multicultural as that, not to mention the huge rural population. Comparing those samples both to other aDNA samples as to modern individuals' DNA, I made my personal hypotheses about where they actually were from (total guesswork, I know, but not uninformed one). Result?

ITA_Rome_Imperial:RMPR1551 CAUCASIAN/BLACK SEA ANATOLIAN
ITA_Rome_Imperial:RMPR1550 LEVANTINE
ITA_Rome_Imperial:RMPR1549 LEVANTINE-ADMIXED ITALIAN
ITA_Rome_Imperial:RMPR1548 AEGEAN
ITA_Rome_Imperial:RMPR1547 LEVANTINE
ITA_Rome_Imperial:RMPR1545 AEGEAN
ITA_Rome_Imperial:RMPR1544 ITALIAN
ITA_Rome_Imperial:RMPR1543 LEVANTINE-ADMIXED ITALIAN
ITA_Rome_Imperial:RMPR836 ITALIAN
ITA_Rome_Imperial:RMPR835 ITALIAN
ITA_Rome_Imperial:RMPR436 ITALIAN / ITALIAN-ADMIXED AEGEAN
ITA_Rome_Imperial:RMPR132 MAGHREBI
ITA_Rome_Imperial:RMPR131 ITALIAN
ITA_Rome_Imperial:RMPR128 AEGEAN
ITA_Rome_Imperial:RMPR126 AEGEAN
ITA_Rome_Imperial:RMPR125 ITALIAN
ITA_Rome_Imperial:RMPR123 AEGEAN WITH LITTLE ITALIAN ADMIXTURE
ITA_Rome_Imperial:RMPR116 FRENCH (GAULISH)
ITA_Rome_Imperial:RMPR115 AEGEAN WITH LITTLE ITALIAN ADMIXTURE
ITA_Rome_Imperial:RMPR114 ITALIAN / ITALIAN-ADMIXED AEGEAN
ITA_Rome_Imperial:RMPR113 ITALIAN
ITA_Rome_Imperial:RMPR111 ITALIAN
ITA_Rome_Imperial:RMPR81 ITALIAN-ADMIXED AEGEAN
ITA_Rome_Imperial:RMPR80 EUROPEAN AND MAGHREBI-ADMIXED LEVANTINE (PUNIC?)
ITA_Rome_Imperial:RMPR78 AEGEAN
ITA_Rome_Imperial:RMPR76 AEGEAN / LEVANTINE-ADMIXED AEGEAN
ITA_Rome_Imperial:RMPR75 AEGEAN / LEVANTINE-ADMIXED AEGEAN
ITA_Rome_Imperial:RMPR73 EUROPEAN-ADMIXED LEVANTINE
ITA_Rome_Imperial:RMPR72 AEGEAN
ITA_Rome_Imperial:RMPR71 AEGEAN WITH LITTLE ITALIAN ADMIXTURE
ITA_Rome_Imperial:RMPR70 (NORTH) LEVANTINE
ITA_Rome_Imperial:RMPR69 AEGEAN / AEGEAN-ADMIXED SOUTH ITALIAN
ITA_Rome_Imperial:RMPR68 LEVANTINE
ITA_Rome_Imperial:RMPR67 LEVANTINE
ITA_Rome_Imperial:RMPR66 AEGEAN / LEVANTINE-ADMIXED AEGEAN
ITA_Rome_Imperial:RMPR51 ITALIAN
ITA_Rome_Imperial:RMPR50 AEGEAN / ITALIAN-ADMIXED AEGEAN
ITA_Rome_Imperial:RMPR49 ITALIAN
ITA_Rome_Imperial:RMPR47 ITALIAN
ITA_Rome_Imperial:RMPR45 EUROPEAN-ADMIXED LEVANTINE
ITA_Rome_Imperial:RMPR44 AEGEAN / ITALIAN-ADMIXED AEGEAN
ITA_Rome_Imperial:RMPR43 AEGEAN
ITA_Rome_Imperial:RMPR42 LEVANTINE
ITA_Rome_Imperial:RMPR41 EUROPEAN-ADMIXED LEVANTINE
ITA_Rome_Imperial:RMPR40 AEGEAN / ITALIAN-ADMIXED AEGEAN
ITA_Rome_Imperial:RMPR39 AEGEAN / ITALIAN-ADMIXED AEGEAN
ITA_Rome_Imperial:RMPR38 (NORTH) LEVANTINE
ITA_Rome_Imperial:RMPR37 IBERIAN

Thus I would say that from 48 samples labeled as Imperial Rome the truth is that only 15 can be safely attributed to individuals with a large majority of "native" Italian ancestry already in situ several generations earlier, while 8 others show significant signs of Italian-like introgression on a still mostly foreigner genetic pool (usually Levantine or Aegean i.e. Anatolian/Cypriot/Greek), probably indicating recent migrant background.

Even considering these latter as if they were clearly Italian individuals too, that woud still make 25 very likely foreigner individuals. More than 50% of the samples. That's why I say these samples are really interesting especially from an anthropological and demographic point of view to understand how dynamic, integrated and mini-globalized the Roman Empire was, and how tremendously multicultural and international its main urban areas were... but it's a mistake if you use it as a reasonable reference population to represent average Roman Era Italians.
 
Why east sicily and campania
Score 13-14% levant ppnb in g25 runs by ygorcs
?
Maybe the levant signal is there and people
Don't want to see it and ignore it 🤔
I know people thinks mdlp k11 is not good
But please explain to me why other
Southern europeans like iberians and greeks
Score much lower % basal than south italians in mdlp k11?....🤔
 
@Ygorcs:
Even considering these latter as if they were clearly Italian individuals too, that woud still make 25 very likely foreigner individuals. More than 50% of the samples. That's why I say these samples are really interesting especially from an anthropological and demographic point of view to understand how dynamic, integrated and mini-globalized the Roman Empire was, and how tremendously multicultural and international its main urban areas were... but it's a mistake if you use it as a reasonable reference population to represent average Roman Era Italians.

I thought so too, but why does this samples capture modern basic Italian so well then? I saw various calculators for "Italian" and Imperial_Roman being one of the closest thing to measure basic Central and Southern Italians without more recent/Northern (including Northern provinces) admixture. And it even works for many people out of Italy, like Swiss, French, German, British etc.
One idea I had about that is, its because both such Near Eastern and classic Italic as well as Northern shifted samples no longer exist as much and the total sample being, on average, pulled to a representative mixture, even though the individuals are often outliers.

I think such models are good for comparisons, to look how consistent they are. Basically if comparing this run with my Medieval trial, you see how close Aosta is to the Swiss French and like in the literature, the Northern provinces score the highest for Barcin:
View attachment 12247

Yamnaya is not generally too high neither, seems to fit overall.
 
@Ygorcs
I am sorry that my asking has made you wary, but I hope you see that when your claims are "counter-dominant", as you acknowledge, than the onus of proof falls on you, and it is part of a rational discussion to ask the other what his reasons are.
Now let's talk about the paper you cited: a first criticism is that oddly it doesn't have Anatolia as a reference, thus it doesn't help clarify whether there is a gradient with Anatolia ( and two possible ways for explanation would be open: the classical two way model plus the Levant as a genetic sink of subsequent migration from Anatolia, as the latest paper on the matter shows: https://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/S0092...ItvxtjMuLGWfxiStk27qI--flIkfbpvAZNATQR4-uDoSM, or your model), but it isn't an obstacle to our discussion.
However, what are the biggest issues is that the same paper goes against your claims: from the section about Y chromosome: "As for TMRCA estimates, STR variation within the most frequent haplogroups of SSI suggests that most of them (with the exception of haplogroup G2a-P15: 9339?3302 YBP) date back to relatively recent times (Table 1), in some cases falling into time periods compatible with specific documented historical events occurred in SSI. Despite the fact that these time estimates must be taken with caution, as they might be affected by the choice of both STRs markers and their mutation rates, overall our results agree in suggesting that most of the Y-chromosomal diversity in modern day Southern Italians originated during late Neolithic and Post-Neolithic times (∼2,300 YBP for E-V13; from ∼3,200 to ∼3,700 YBP for J sub-lineages; ∼4,300 YBP for R-M17 and R-P312; and ∼2,000 YBP for R-U106 and R-U152).", thus it doesn't help to see clear whether there was a post-late bronze age migration of Levant-rich populations to south east Europe ( and talking specifically about south Italy the levels of J1 are very low, thus they don't support an admixture event that would have brought an average 9% Levant-neolithic.)
From the section about MtDna: "Differently from Y-chromosome results, TMRCA estimates for the most frequent mtDNA haplogroups of Sicily and Southern Italy (Table 1) date back to pre-Neolithic times and could be mainly classified in lineages pre-dating the Last Glacial Maximum - LGM (∼32,200 YBP for HV; ∼31,100 YBP for J2; ∼28,900 and ∼28,600 YBP for T1 and T2; ∼27,300 for U5; and ∼25,000 YBP for J1) or dating immediately after it (∼16,700 YBP for H5 and ∼15,700 YBP for H1)", meaning that it is sure as hell that the maternal similarities are well older than the bronze age.
It is spectacular how you accuse me of ignoring data that do not comform to my beliefs, when you have only cited three papers, of which the last one doesn't point to your thesis or goes against it, and about the other two I have already talked about them, they have been talked about in this forum, and their results can be interpreted using the "classical" two way model, and when you dismiss the majority of the literature using the two way model by claiming the absurdly weak claim that to none of the authors that worked on those papers came to mind to check if other admixture models using Levant-N worked better than the ones they actually used. Certainly it was a fault of them not to discuss other models in the supplement, but c'mon, how can you rationally argue that no genetist thought about it while working on those papers. Also Lazaridis 2017 explicitely rejected models with Levant_N for Myceneans and used barely a 6% for ABA, and we have empuries greek samples hundreds of years later the mycenean period and they are still most similar to Myceneans, and a working hypothesis of yours is that this gene flow interested a good chunk of south east Europe and Italy, thus hitting Greece first, so when did this Levant-gene flow take place? It must have take place, given the empuries samples, in or later the classical period, yet there are no indication that such a massive population movement took place.
For a comparison, taking for good Lazaridis and the greek empuries samples (and by extension south and central Italy, and in fact Antonio paper about Rome showed that central Italian samples had Iran-neolithic but no levant-N, and in that study they did use Levant-N as a possible donor.), in order to pass from 0% ( you have not shown Greeks modelled by you but you have talked about the fact that according to your models all south east Europe show an excess of Levant N, thus I assume that Greeks would show similar if not higher levels) to around 10% east asian in Anatolian there happened a massive migration of Turks from central Asia, yet we have no account of such an event for Greece, Italy or the Balkans.
Also, "Punics" and "phoenicians" are the same people ( the phoenicians Italians had contact with were Punics) had three emporiums in Sicily, Greeks and Anatolians carried no post-neolithic levant admixture ( or a 6% in south west Anatolia, well under what would have been needed to give a 9% to Italians) according to the literature, and regarding other populations Angela has already told you that there are no reliable historical accounts that record such a massive presence in all south and central Italy.
It is certainly intriguing to understand why G25 and similar tools show systematically an excess of Levant N in south east europeans populations and south and central Italians, but I object that it is a valid inference to think that they are more reliable than accademic results. It is a rational counterpoint to ask why we oughtn't take seriously the results from such hobbist tools, but there are reasons for that: At least G25 is known to give the worse results for people of Italian descent, it has given results of Italians with exactly an excess of Levant_N ( so wrong that they have been deleted by Davidsky himself ), and I don't know if this tool has been developed or "adjusted" by Davidsky, but if that is the case, then we know also the reasons why he would want a systematic error to show for certain populations. Thus, imo it ought to be obvious what is more trustworthy between the majority of the literature and the thesis supported by amateur software, especially if these have been know to give the exact problems ( a surplus of Levant_N ) for certain populations.

To sum up, the "evidence" for your thesis exists only if we take for good the results of doubtful hobbyist softwares, and the counterevidence offered by accademic papers is bypassed only if we accept the rather weak claim that all the two way models are faulty because no author checked whether other models worked best.
 
@Ygorcs

Dodecad K7b gives me R836 as my closest match, which is Italian, in your list. Which is very close to the two-way admixture I get with R1 and R850, when using just the Iron Age samples.

2uUweWw.png


Here is what this calculator gives the Imperial samples I get for modern populations. I am not sure which "Greek" sample it is using, but I am sure if they had a better Italian set, it would put that instead:

Distance to: R836_Imperial_Era_Civitanova_Marche
3.75981383 Greek

Distance to: R835_Imperial_Era_Civitanova_Marche
2.66728326 Greek

Distance to: R113_Imperial_Era_Via_Paisiello_Necropolis
1.73568430 Greek

Distance to: R1549_Imperial_Era_Monterotondo
2.74479507 Greek

Distance to: R131_Imperial_Era_Via_Paisiello_Necropolis
2.39370006 S_Italian_Sicilian

Distance to: R49_Imperial_Era_Centocelle_Necropolis
4.15213198 S_Italian_Sicilian

Distance to: R47_Imperial_Era_Centocelle_Necropolis
3.12331555 S_Italian_Sicilian

As for the context of where they are from, they are not representative of Italy as a whole, considering they come from only two cemeteries outside of Rome.

The area between Portus and Ostia Antica was transformed into an artificial island by Emperor Trajan, creating a canal that linked the Tiber to the sea (Fossa Traiana, now Fiumicino Canal). Merchant ships arriving from Egypt and Africa were able to reach Ostia using this canal. The island was originally much smaller but it has been constantly growing due to the alluvial activity of the Tiber. Its area almost quintupled since antiquity.[3]

In the 1st century AD., a road linked the two ports, crossing through the island and becoming the main road axis. The Isola Sacra Necropolis grew up alongside the road, that was discovered between the 1920s and the 1940s, while the land was being reclaimed. Some of the necropolis buildings have two storeys, elaborately decorated with paintings, stucco work and mosaics.[4]

The left side of the Fossa Traiana was a residential area of Portus. Near the Fiumicino Canal, by the bridge that crossed over to Portus, the so-called Terme di Matidia can be seen. The core of the complex built in the middle of the 2nd century and used until the 6th century. The Basilica of St. Hippolitus was built between the end of the 4th and the beginning of the 5th century. The building was divided into three naves by two rows of columns.

The study of human skeletal remains from the site continues to provide important information about diet and morbidity in ancient Rome.[5]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isola_Sacra

It would be like someone using a cemetery in New York City, to determine the ethnic character of the United States.
 
Here is my Dodecad K12b results, top 25:

3.02061252R973_Medieval_Era_Tivoli_Palazzo_Cianti
3.28542235R835_Imperial_Era_Civitanova_Marche
3.34644588R54_Medieval_Era_Villa_Magna
3.43008746R121_Late_Antiquity_S_Ercolano_Necropolis_Ostia
3.70737104R836_Imperial_Era_Civitanova_Marche
3.83489244R970_Medieval_Era_Tivoli_Palazzo_Cianti
4.06829202R60_Medieval_Era_Villa_Magna
4.18988067R969_Medieval_Era_Tivoli_Palazzo_Cianti
4.49402937R1290_Medieval_Era_Villa_Magna
4.65852981R57_Medieval_Era_Villa_Magna
4.91924791R122_Late_Antiquity_S_Ercolano_Necropolis_Ostia
4.94132573R49_Imperial_Era_Centocelle_Necropolis
4.96690044R64_Medieval_Era_Villa_Magna
5.16766872R56_Medieval_Era_Villa_Magna
5.77595879R117_Late_Antiquity_S_Ercolano_Necropolis_Ostia
6.07903775R131_Imperial_Era_Via_Paisiello_Necropolis
6.10611169R52_Medieval_Era_Villa_Magna
6.12550406R113_Imperial_Era_Via_Paisiello_Necropolis
6.31027733R35_Late_Antiquity_Celio
6.31831465R59_Medieval_Era_Villa_Magna
6.32038765R47_Imperial_Era_Centocelle_Necropolis
6.33613447R65_Medieval_Era_Villa_Magna
6.55681325R1544_Imperial_Era_Necropolis_of_Monte_Agnese
6.91828013R107_Late_Antiquity_Crypta_Balbi
6.93049060R58_Medieval_Era_Villa_Magna
 
^^All of the Imperial samples I get have a close affinity with Italian populations according to Dodecad K12b:

Distance to: R835_Imperial_Era_Civitanova_Marche
3.57584531 Italy_Abruzzo

Distance to: R836_Imperial_Era_Civitanova_Marche
3.30295015 Italy_Abruzzo

Distance to: R49_Imperial_Era_Centocelle_Necropolis
2.06024416 Italy_Campania

Distance to: R131_Imperial_Era_Via_Paisiello_Necropolis
3.70836972 Italy_Campania

Distance to: R113_Imperial_Era_Via_Paisiello_Necropolis
6.07622248 Italy_Abruzzo

Distance to: R47_Imperial_Era_Centocelle_Necropolis
4.95675347 Italy_Sicily

Distance to: R1544_Imperial_Era_Necropolis_of_Monte_Agnese
3.93819832 Italy_Campania
 
As for the context of where they are from, they are not representative of Italy as a whole, considering they come from only two cemeteries outside of Rome.

It would be like someone using a cemetery in New York City, to determine the ethnic character of the United States.

But if the reference is that bad, why its being picked up all the time? I don't think its that bad overall, because its a large, diverse sample which balances itself out to a large degree. Its especially noteworthy how this good sample constantly tops other references for probable Roman ancestry, in and outside of Italy. I only used one Swiss Italian sample here, but look how well Imperial Roman picks potential Roman influences:
Antiquity_1.jpg

For more Eastern groups one could add something like TUR_Alalakh_MLBA and Ottomans. Of course, this is a rather Greco-Roman influence (its closest to ancient and modern Greeks), but how do you think it came to these places? I'd say mostly in Roman times and a lot migrated over the hub Rome itself and Italia, which was itself heavily influenced by the very same streams.

If I take out Imperial_Roman as a source, all Italians but Bergamo and Aosta need additional TUR_Alalakh_MLBA, the Southern ones on a high level. But not just these, but also Alsace, but not Western German, Austrian, Slovenian and Croatian. So if its that exotic and a bad fit, why does it fit so well and being missed otherwise? Even in places in which it is rather unlikely that in pre-Roman times much East Mediterranean was flowing in.
 
^^All of the Imperial samples I get have a close affinity with Italian populations according to Dodecad K12b:

Distance to: R835_Imperial_Era_Civitanova_Marche
3.57584531 Italy_Abruzzo

Distance to: R836_Imperial_Era_Civitanova_Marche
3.30295015 Italy_Abruzzo

Distance to: R49_Imperial_Era_Centocelle_Necropolis
2.06024416 Italy_Campania

Distance to: R131_Imperial_Era_Via_Paisiello_Necropolis
3.70836972 Italy_Campania

Distance to: R113_Imperial_Era_Via_Paisiello_Necropolis
6.07622248 Italy_Abruzzo

Distance to: R47_Imperial_Era_Centocelle_Necropolis
4.95675347 Italy_Sicily

Distance to: R1544_Imperial_Era_Necropolis_of_Monte_Agnese
3.93819832 Italy_Campania

When comparing them to Iron Age samples, they are all fairly close to R437:

Distance to: R835_Imperial_Era_Civitanova_Marche
6.94338534 R437_Iron_Age_Palestrina_Selicata
14.21247339 R1_Iron_Age_Protovillanovan_Martinsicuro
15.50019355 R850_Iron_Age_Ardea

Distance to: R836_Imperial_Era_Civitanova_Marche
5.37071690 R437_Iron_Age_Palestrina_Selicata
14.08757609 R850_Iron_Age_Ardea
16.03948877 R1_Iron_Age_Protovillanovan_Martinsicuro

Distance to: R49_Imperial_Era_Centocelle_Necropolis
5.18327117 R437_Iron_Age_Palestrina_Selicata
11.40475778 R850_Iron_Age_Ardea
18.28628721 R1_Iron_Age_Protovillanovan_Martinsicuro

Distance to: R131_Imperial_Era_Via_Paisiello_Necropolis
3.23655681 R437_Iron_Age_Palestrina_Selicata
13.58974981 R850_Iron_Age_Ardea
17.69849994 R1_Iron_Age_Protovillanovan_Martinsicuro

Distance to: R113_Imperial_Era_Via_Paisiello_Necropolis
4.43136548 R437_Iron_Age_Palestrina_Selicata
15.75524675 R1_Iron_Age_Protovillanovan_Martinsicuro
16.82284756 R475_Iron_Age_Civitavecchia

Distance to: R47_Imperial_Era_Centocelle_Necropolis
6.15211346 R437_Iron_Age_Palestrina_Selicata
13.14023972 R850_Iron_Age_Ardea
17.55145863 R475_Iron_Age_Civitavecchia

Distance to: R1544_Imperial_Era_Necropolis_of_Monte_Agnese
8.25837756 R437_Iron_Age_Palestrina_Selicata
8.86556259 R850_Iron_Age_Ardea
20.53207734 R1_Iron_Age_Protovillanovan_Martinsicuro
 
But if the reference is that bad, why its being picked up all the time? I don't think its that bad overall, because its a large, diverse sample which balances itself out to a large degree. Its especially noteworthy how this good sample constantly tops other references for probable Roman ancestry, in and outside of Italy. I only used one Swiss Italian sample here, but look how well Imperial Roman picks potential Roman influences:
View attachment 12248

For more Eastern groups one could add something like TUR_Alalakh_MLBA and Ottomans. Of course, this is a rather Greco-Roman influence (its closest to ancient and modern Greeks), but how do you think it came to these places? I'd say mostly in Roman times and a lot migrated over the hub Rome itself and Italia, which was itself heavily influenced by the very same streams.

If I take out Imperial_Roman as a source, all Italians but Bergamo and Aosta need additional TUR_Alalakh_MLBA, the Southern ones on a high level. But not just these, but also Alsace, but not Western German, Austrian, Slovenian and Croatian. So if its that exotic and a bad fit, why does it fit so well and being missed otherwise? Even in places in which it is rather unlikely that in pre-Roman times much East Mediterranean was flowing in.

"Imperial Rome" is a nonsense cohort to lump together, because some are clearly immigrants, and some were native Italians. Also, I just demonstrated, that Italians match with the native ones, which I have seen others on this site get.

Would you take a WASP, a Jew, and an African-American, put them in one cohort, and call it "modern US"?
 
But if the reference is that bad, why its being picked up all the time? I don't think its that bad overall, because its a large, diverse sample which balances itself out to a large degree. Its especially noteworthy how this good sample constantly tops other references for probable Roman ancestry, in and outside of Italy. I only used one Swiss Italian sample here, but look how well Imperial Roman picks potential Roman influences:
View attachment 12248

For more Eastern groups one could add something like TUR_Alalakh_MLBA and Ottomans. Of course, this is a rather Greco-Roman influence (its closest to ancient and modern Greeks), but how do you think it came to these places? I'd say mostly in Roman times and a lot migrated over the hub Rome itself and Italia, which was itself heavily influenced by the very same streams.

If I take out Imperial_Roman as a source, all Italians but Bergamo and Aosta need additional TUR_Alalakh_MLBA, the Southern ones on a high level. But not just these, but also Alsace, but not Western German, Austrian, Slovenian and Croatian. So if its that exotic and a bad fit, why does it fit so well and being missed otherwise? Even in places in which it is rather unlikely that in pre-Roman times much East Mediterranean was flowing in.


Rome_Imperial is not an ancestral component, and using it in models in no way gives you plausible and credible results. It is ridiculous to think that in this way you can find out what contribution of the Roman imperial era has remained in modern populations.
 

This thread has been viewed 188617 times.

Back
Top