Genetic study Ancient DNA of Roman Danubian Frontier and Slavic Migrations (Olalde 2021)

[Leopoldo Leone]

Agree with you on most points.

But Ancient Anatolia was a different beast from whatever propaganda egists today on Anatolia.

Anatolia Neolithic was what? 90% of Sardinia? ... How can you deny all types of continuity with the rest of Italy lets say?

Now as you can see, distance wise simply do the eye test, Anatolian Jewish and South Italian and Greek (I assume average) and North Italian. From what I see South Italy legit falls below Greeks, meaning closer to Turkish "Jewish" (refer to the Lazaridis red squares in the graphics of his paper, the squares are Jewish ancient communities around what I assume Lydia). Meanwhile since Greek is above in the PCA, it is closer to N Italy. Again... Double check. That is simply what I see.

And come on. How long will we demonize Ancient ME sources like they did nine 11.

Like how long? Cause demonizing ancient populations and denying their input when its as explicit as these graphics also does get old.

And since these papers we have had many more papers that came out, and are soon to be published all but confirming the same overarching trend.

Sure there is room for interpretation. But at some points... as you said it gets old.

The Antonio et al graph has Greeks with a higher heterogeneity, and if you look at all the distribution you see that they fall lowere than where the southernmost south Italians are located, and the centroid is where central Italians are, furthermore, despite it "passes the eye tests" we know that there is no cline from Anatolia to the near east (that's why the Alalakh sample was a bad source of gene flow in the modelling), at least in antiquity, though by making a "eye test" it seems to exist. We have no samples so this is speculation, but in the calcolithic there is strong evidence that there existed a cline between Anatolians/Aegeans and Iranians, following the Alpide belt, so it can be that somehow it persisted through antiquity...

This study concluded that the near easterners did not leave much of a trace: of course it can be just that the methodology didn't allow them to detect them, but as for the evidence goes for now, it doesn't seem there's much if at al, and Sicilians (and peloponnesians Greek) all fall in the Balkan_IA cluster; of course I am not implying direct descent but if the two populations were similar to begin with a slight pull could make one plot where the other plotted, and this to me seems to speak for a continuity with balkan_IA for all southern Italians and mainland Greeks, not just northern.

 

[kingjohn]

The roman sample from
Marathon cluster with dodeneces island not
Levant there profile is of greek islanders close
To west coast anatolia...
If i would need to think of parllell cluster
From moots roman paper
They are cluster C5 not cluster C4

P.s
One thing for sure this going to be interesting paper:cool-v:

 

[blevins13]

Alas we have come a long way, from Caucasian Albanians, Ottoman Immigrants, Maghreb Berber Albanians etc. Had I had an account at the time I would probably have been banned as well :embarassed:
But it is much easier to keep afloat in the era of "Mediterranean continuity"

Our neighbors have come a long way. We have stayed almost at the same obvious place, In the “Mediterranean continuum”, For me the best place in the world. But to find out from where and when the bearers of the Albanian language came from, we should look to a different direction. In this context “Mediterranean continuum” even though feels warm, tells us nothing.


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum

 

[Archetype0ne]

The Antonio et al graph has Greeks with a higher heterogeneity, and if you look at all the distribution you see that they fall lowere than where the southernmost south Italians are located, and the centroid is where central Italians are, furthermore, despite it "passes the eye tests" we know that there is no cline from Anatolia to the near east (that's why the Alalakh sample was a bad source of gene flow in the modelling), at least in antiquity, though by making a "eye test" it seems to exist. We have no samples so this is speculation, but in the calcolithic there is strong evidence that there existed a cline between Anatolians/Aegeans and Iranians, following the Alpide belt, so it can be that somehow it persisted through antiquity...

This study concluded that the near easterners did not leave much of a trace: of course it can be just that the methodology didn't allow them to detect them, but as for the evidence goes for now, it doesn't seem there's much if at al, and Sicilians (and peloponnesians Greek) all fall in the Balkan_IA cluster; of course I am not implying direct descent but if the two populations were similar to begin with a slight pull could make one plot where the other plotted, and this to me seems to speak for a continuity with balkan_IA for all southern Italians and mainland Greeks, not just northern.

Yes. You are right and I agree.
I seem to use definitions too loosely lowering the quality of the conversation. Sry about that.
Certainly there is clines within clines. South Italians are not all the same, neither Albanins or even Greeks.
That is why when I first started this argument with you, I carefully said "some" south Italians. And again, with North Greeks, I kind of mean Mainland, but specifically Epirus, Macedonia, Thessaly. But generally Mainland as they cluster with each other. Log like individuals. With some further N input. As opposed to Anatolian Greeks, Trebizond, or Islanders.

Take this from a guy that himself gets up to 15% pre pottery Neolithic Levant on some calculators, me saying any particular ancestry might have some input from ancient NE / Anatolian people is not to denigrate anyone.

I know from a Greek member on another forum that supposedly Anatolian samples are in the works from the BA. From what I recall we have none or very few such samples. I hope something from around Ilium pops up. And my hypothesis, hope is to see both Log like or Balkan IA individuals as well as Marathon like individuals.

Furthermore Gjergj, on another forum confirmed then within weeks the North Albania paper is coming out and hopefully we can use that also as a reference. But given R1b and J2b2-L283 are rumored there from around BA-IA I suspect IA Balkan like autosomal.

All in all a lot of exiting papers coming ahead.

PS... Both Diogenes and Aristotle IIRC were from around Anatolia. Some of my historical MVPs.

 

[Leopoldo Leone]

Yes. You are right and I agree.
I seem to use definitions too loosely lowering the quality of the conversation. Sry about that.
Certainly there is clines within clines. South Italians are not all the same, neither Albanins or even Greeks.
That is why when I first started this argument with you, I carefully said "some" south Italians. And again, with North Greeks, I kind of mean Mainland, but specifically Epirus, Macedonia, Thessaly. But generally Mainland as they cluster with each other. Log like individuals. With some further N input. As opposed to Anatolian Greeks, Trebizond, or Islanders.

Take this from a guy that himself gets up to 15% pre pottery Neolithic Levant on some calculators, me saying any particular ancestry might have some input from ancient NE / Anatolian people is not to denigrate anyone.

I know from a Greek member on another forum that supposedly Anatolian samples are in the works from the BA. From what I recall we have none or very few such samples. I hope something from around Ilium pops up. And my hypothesis, hope is to see both Log like or Balkan IA individuals as well as Marathon like individuals.

Furthermore Gjergj, on another forum confirmed then within weeks the North Albania paper is coming out and hopefully we can use that also as a reference. But given R1b and J2b2-L283 are rumored there from around BA-IA I suspect IA Balkan like autosomal.

All in all a lot of exiting papers coming ahead.

PS... Both Diogenes and Aristotle IIRC were from around Anatolia. Some of my historical MVPs.

I get that the attribution of NE/anatolian ancestry isn't to denigrate anybody (though people on other anthrofora think it does), and I have never thought you implied that, but my care is for historical plausibility: you can model a population in many ways, and these calculators aren't a magic display that show how you really are with 100% accuracy and infallibility, especially if the sources are other western eurasians, who aren't much differentiated from one another (on a global perspective).
I am just tired of some "analyses" that go in this manner: " I see x% in my models, hence it must be true and I must find any historical explanation,no matter how historically implausible, for it, and if I can't find one, I just pretend it happened but left no records". I am not saying you've done something of the sort, but I am explaining why I have chipped in.

As a last word, I can see theoretically how low amounts of admixture (let's say 10%<) can exist and yet be undetected, it is not something I shall lose my sleep over, but I'll take it as a fact and not as a mere possibility when I see positive proof of it.

 

[bigsnake49]

Yes. You are right and I agree.
I seem to use definitions too loosely lowering the quality of the conversation. Sry about that.
Certainly there is clines within clines. South Italians are not all the same, neither Albanins or even Greeks.
That is why when I first started this argument with you, I carefully said "some" south Italians. And again, with North Greeks, I kind of mean Mainland, but specifically Epirus, Macedonia, Thessaly. But generally Mainland as they cluster with each other. Log like individuals. With some further N input. As opposed to Anatolian Greeks, Trebizond, or Islanders.

Take this from a guy that himself gets up to 15% pre pottery Neolithic Levant on some calculators, me saying any particular ancestry might have some input from ancient NE / Anatolian people is not to denigrate anyone.

I know from a Greek member on another forum that supposedly Anatolian samples are in the works from the BA. From what I recall we have none or very few such samples. I hope something from around Ilium pops up. And my hypothesis, hope is to see both Log like or Balkan IA individuals as well as Marathon like individuals.

Furthermore Gjergj, on another forum confirmed then within weeks the North Albania paper is coming out and hopefully we can use that also as a reference. But given R1b and J2b2-L283 are rumored there from around BA-IA I suspect IA Balkan like autosomal.

All in all a lot of exiting papers coming ahead.

PS... Both Diogenes and Aristotle IIRC were from around Anatolia. Some of my historical MVPs.

Aristotle was born in Stagira, Chalcidice. Diogenes was from Sinope in North Anatolia. They were most probably descendants of colonists. Stagira was a colony of Andros and Sinope was a colony of Miletos.

 

[Archetype0ne]

Aristotle was born in Stagira, Chalcidice. Diogenes was from Sinope in North Anatolia. They were most probably descendants of colonists. Stagira was a colony of Andros and Sinope was a colony of Miletos.

Goes to show how cosmopolitan the Hellenic world was. In line with the heterogeneity of the results that keep popping up.
Thanks for the clarifications of their origins.

 

[Constantine]

All this reminds me of the map of Cavalli Sforza which was made in the late 80s. He noticed a cline of genes around Greece. Now we know that IA Balkanians were similar to them.

View attachment 12898

It seems that the people around Greece were genetically similar to Greeks. And you can still see the biological traces of that.

All these people were genetically similar at one point. As the Greek speaking wanderers expanded, they linguistically absorbed the people around the Aegean. The ones who didn't speak Greek were not part of this Greek ethnogenesis. But they weren't necessarily different biologically. I believe Dienekes argued this once as well. Seems he was right.

Cavalli-Sforza, if I recall, also showed (in his well-known book) a sharp genetic change as one crosses into the Peloponnese from the Balkans.

 

[Dianatomia]

Cavalli-Sforza, if I recall, also showed (in his well-known book) a sharp genetic change as one crosses into the Peloponnese from the Balkans.

It would not surprise me actually. Peloponnesians are very Mediterranean. Perhaps it's not so much about with whom they mixed with since the Bronze Age, but rather, who they were before that. Starting from the Neolithic.

 

[Dianatomia]

The roman sample from
Marathon cluster with dodeneces island not
Levant there profile is of greek islanders close
To west coast anatolia...
If i would need to think of parllell cluster
From moots roman paper
They are cluster C5 not cluster C4
P.s
One thing for sure this going to be interesting paper:cool-v:

I would even say the lower end of C6. At least for modern Greek islanders and people from the Dodecannese.

 

[kingjohn]

I would even say the lower end of C6. At least for modern Greek islanders and people from the Dodecannese.

Interesting what you say
so who are the members
Of C5 cluster in moots roman paper ?
Cypriots ?

 

[Davidtab]

"thank the Goths and Slavs saving...? I will never understand these ideas. Roma was incrediblily important for what is now Europe. Roma gave to Europe so, so many items... a intense part of what we are now is thanks to Roma. Out of the Mediterranean Sea, European people was almost up to the trees 2.000 years ago... please...

 

[Dianatomia]

Interesting what you say
so who are the members
Of C5 cluster in moots roman paper ?
Cypriots ?

Cypriots and I think Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews may fall in C5 category. Pehaps some Sicilian outlier as well. This kind of people are usually very Greek like, but have some Near Eastern admixture as well. I.e. Cypriots could be Achaean Greeks with some Near Eastern admixture. After all, the island was part Phoenician. As was Sicily. People from the Dodecanese usually don't have these admixtures, but they do tend to have lower levels of Steppe admixture compared to mainland Greeks. That said, all the Bronze Age Greeks tested so far had less East Med admixture and less Steppe than the post-Classical individual from Attica, aside from the MBA North Greeks. If this post Classical Age individual overlaps with people from the Dodecanese, he would fall under C6. If he is in between Cypriots and Dodecannese islanders, then he may be C5. In any case, it is the first Ancient Greek sample which overlaps or is extremely close to a modern Greek population of any kind.

 

[blevins13]

"thank the Goths and Slavs saving...? I will never understand these ideas. Roma was incrediblily important for what is now Europe. Roma gave to Europe so, so many items... a intense part of what we are now is thanks to Roma. Out of the Mediterranean Sea, European people was almost up to the trees 2.000 years ago... please...

My comment was not to diminish the Roman achievement and contribution to European History. Their demise, saved Albanians from complete romanization.


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum

 

[kingjohn]

Cypriots and I think Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews may fall in C5 category. Pehaps some Sicilian outlier as well. This kind of people are usually very Greek like, but have some Near Eastern admixture as well. I.e. Cypriots could be Achaean Greeks with some Near Eastern admixture. After all, the island was part Phoenician. As was Sicily. People from the Dodecanese usually don't have these admixtures, but they do tend to have lower levels of Steppe admixture compared to mainland Greeks. That said, all the Bronze Age Greeks tested so far had less East Med admixture and less Steppe than the post-Classical individual from Attica, aside from the MBA North Greeks. If this post Classical Age individual overlaps with people from the Dodecanese, he would fall under C6. If he is in between Cypriots and Dodecannese islanders, then he may be C5. In any case, it is the first Ancient Greek sample which overlaps or is extremely close to a modern Greek population of any kind.

that is a logic
i am in the C5 or more presice between C5 and C6 :wink:

P.S
THE r850 outlier iron age from ardea cluster with modern dodecanese so you might have a point here :cool-v:

 

[Archetype0ne]

https://imgur.com/a/jbYPD4H
https://imgur.com/a/icbsYFR

This paper is good cause of the samples.
But this paper is really really lacking with their two way models.
Take the model and its conclusions and toss it in the bin.
If anything rely on more accurate models, or just like any decent scientist use Fstats.

 

[Pax Augusta]

https://imgur.com/a/jbYPD4H
https://imgur.com/a/icbsYFR

This paper is good cause of the samples.
But this paper is really really lacking with their two way models.
Take the model and its conclusions and toss it in the bin.
If anything rely on more accurate models, or just like any decent scientist use Fstats.

I agree with you that with the two-way models you can support anything, even that the Celts came from the Caucasus and the Germans from Bulgaria... just saying.

 

[Dushman]

@Archerype0ne and @Pax Augusta thank you guys for clarifying my suspicions!

Honestly I was feeling a bit stupid to ask such questions due to my ignorance on the matter, but at least now I learned to take things with a grain of salt.

These modern Albanians and Mainland Greeks (circled in blue pen) don?t seem nowhere close to being 30-40% Medieval Slav admixed to me. More like ~10% on average and even less for the circled ones. Can you guys see the images I?m uploading by the way?
View attachment 12902

I got really confused how can I be 30-40% Slavic when I paid $99 to 23andme for them to show me that I?m literally 100% South European.

 

[Archetype0ne]

@Archerype0ne and @Pax Augusta thank you guys for clarifying my suspicions!

Honestly I was feeling a bit stupid to ask such questions due to my ignorance on the matter, but at least now I learned to take things with a grain of salt.

These modern Albanians and Mainland Greeks (circled in blue pen) don�t seem nowhere close to being 30-40% Medieval Slav admixed to me. More like ~10% on average and even less for the circled ones. Can you guys see the images I�m uploading by the way?
View attachment 12902

I got really confused how can I be 30-40% Slavic when I paid $99 to 23andme for them to show me that I�m literally 100% South European.

As you can see below the K13 results are very consistent with G25(from my previous post).

K13 with Mordovins in place of Early Slavs from Moravia.

As you can see, the model does not fit the French, but since two way models force the calculator to give the best fit given the source pops, French will appear over 50% Slavic. But the fit will be very bad 20+.

This just further shows either that we do not have all the pieces of the puzzle yet. Meaning they must have some info from the bottom of the iceberg.
Or that amateurs are leaps and bounds above such scientists that came up with this ridiculous models.

They first said Ingria IA was considered and was not a good fit, so **** it we went with Mordovians and Russians...
First of all Ingrians are Finno-Ugric same as Mordovians. Secondly they live very very far away from the Western Slavs that supposedly colonized a devastated Balkans (Illyrian Revolt, 2 Plagues including Justinian Plague, Google 536 the worst year to be alive; https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2021/04/12/worst-year-to-be-alive/8551618222566/).

I am trying to think very hard, why these authors under the supervision of Reich? came up with such a low quality analysis? Was there nothing better? Political-Academic pressure? Like I have yet to see anyone on fora praising the analysis. Not on Eupedia, not on Anthrogenica not on Eurogenes. There has to be some massive surprises under this iceberg...

 

[Ralphie Boy]

Cypriots and I think Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews may fall in C5 category. Pehaps some Sicilian outlier as well. This kind of people are usually very Greek like, but have some Near Eastern admixture as well. I.e. Cypriots could be Achaean Greeks with some Near Eastern admixture. After all, the island was part Phoenician. As was Sicily. People from the Dodecanese usually don't have these admixtures, but they do tend to have lower levels of Steppe admixture compared to mainland Greeks. That said, all the Bronze Age Greeks tested so far had less East Med admixture and less Steppe than the post-Classical individual from Attica, aside from the MBA North Greeks. If this post Classical Age individual overlaps with people from the Dodecanese, he would fall under C6. If he is in between Cypriots and Dodecannese islanders, then he may be C5. In any case, it is the first Ancient Greek sample which overlaps or is extremely close to a modern Greek population of any kind.

The Roman Greek clusters or is close to the haplogroup J2a-L70 fellow from Viminacium. The Antonio et al. Rome L70 C5 sample R136 plots between Cyprus and south Italy. These two look like modern Aegean islanders or Cypriots. It is not surprising, according to YFull, with a modern basal sample in the Levant and many in Turkey. As far as my own L70 in my bloodline, I have no idea what are the subbranches, but this ancestor may have from the Levant or Anatolia at some point, with the eastern Roman contacts.