Why do native Iron Age Balkanites plot over modern Italians?

Read my last post where I quote the study saying Late Antiquity Roman origins should not be taken literally because:

The precise identity of the source populations and the admixture fractions should not be interpreted literally, given the simplified admixture model assumed and the lack of data for most contemporaneous ancient populations (7).

Not to mention the demographic change the authors explicitly write about at the fall of Rome.

The authors who constructed the idea of an Imperial Clusters say:

A) There was variation within the cohort of samples, some of which become extinct in preceding eras. However, C6 is the only one which persists past the middle ages.

B) 31 of the 48 samples were C6 and C5, two groups that were already present in the Iron age.

C) There is discontinuity after the Fall of Rome, and the modeling for Late Antiquity Romans should not be taken literally, due to lack of data and dubious origins. Furthermore, Near Eastern and north African individuals disappear.
 
Here is what I said. It cannot be clearer than that.

Anything to say about your gross misinterpretation of the Balkan paper? How do you explain that? Did you read the WHOLE paper? Or perhaps you thought we hadn't?

How about Antonio et al? Missed the fact about the disappearance of that "tail into the Levant", did you?

How about this one? Didn't read it or didn't understand it?

"This ancestry shift is also reflected in ChromoPainter results by the drastic shrinkage of the Near Eastern cluster (C4), maintenance of the two Mediterranean clusters (C5 and C6), and marked expansion of the European cluster (C7) (Fig. 4C).
 
@jovialis

I presume you recently updated the K12b ancient spreadsheet

Distance to: Torziok12b
1.89726118 C7-Villa_Magna_MA:R55:Antonio_2019
3.58079600 Burgweinting–Nord-West_II_(ADH)_388-532calADA_Female:NW54:Veeramah_2018
4.26423498 I3593:Olalde_2018
4.63928874 C7-Crypta_Balbi_Late_Antiquity:R105:Antonio_2019
4.73068705 Hungary_BA:I7041:Olalde_2018
4.82277928 Collegno23:Amorim_2018
4.85309180 Croatia_EMBA:I4331:Mathieson_2018
4.90795273 Etruscan_IA:R474:Antonio_2019
4.94308608 Protovillanovan_IA:R1:Antonio_2019
4.95979838 C7-Mausole_di_Augusto_Late_Antiquity:R33:Antonio_2019
4.99818967 I7040:Olalde_2018
5.02880702 Croatia_EMBA:I4332:Mathieson_2018
5.71485783 I5017:Olalde_2018
5.89447199 La_Tène_IA:ERS88:Brunel_2020
5.93363295 Beaker_Central_Europe:E09538:Olalde_2018
6.00532264 Szolad28:Amorim_2018
6.59958332 Beaker_Central_Europe:I4885:Olalde_2018
6.60955369 Collegno49:Amorim_2018
6.63158352 Hungary_BA:I7043:Olalde_2018
6.67385945 MOK13:Zegarac_2021
6.71792379 Hallstatt_C-Early_La_Tène_IA:NOR3-15:Brunel_2020
6.78342097 Helladic_Logkas_MBA:Log04:Clemente_2021
6.88000000 Vucedol:I3499:Mathieson_2018
6.93799683 Collegno94:Amorim_2018
7.07471554 C7-Cancelleria_MA:R1221:Antonio_2019


Target: TorzioK12b
Distance: 0.3589% / 0.35886970 | ADC: 0.25x RC
71.9 C7-Villa_Magna_MA
20.0 Collegno49
6.2 Beaker_Central_Europe
1.9 Collegno47


Is the C7 your guess ? .....................and where does I3593 a female from Straubing Bavaria
culture Bell Beaker
epoch Copper Age

have a link with C7 or not
 
If you feel I misrepresented something, please quote the relevant part of any of my posts and I will explain.
Great questions. Every time you disagree with someone your tactic is to make it personal, and then give infractions, ban, or delete posts if the other person replies in kind.
The "tail into the Levant" phrase I cannot find, but obviously the Near Eastern component was significantly diminished. This does not mean that those people dissappeared altogether. Both the Rome and the Etruscan papers model Late Antiquity samples as a mixture between Imperial and Central European (or Central European-like) ones.
The paper that said not to take it seriously. Are you feigning ignorance? I have quoted the paper for you. If you choose not to read it, I could care less.
 
The authors who constructed the idea of an Imperial Clusters say:

A) There was variation within the cohort of samples, some of which become extinct in preceding eras. However, C6 is the only one which persists past the middle ages.

B) 31 of the 48 samples were C6 and C5, two groups that were already present in the Iron age.

C) There is discontinuity after the Fall of Rome, and the modeling for Late Antiquity Romans should not be taken literally, due to lack of data and dubious origins. Furthermore, Near Eastern and north African individuals disappear.

Bump post.
 
Read my last post where I quote the study saying Late Antiquity Roman origins should not be taken literally because:

The precise identity of the source populations and the admixture fractions should not be interpreted literally, given the simplified admixture model assumed and the lack of data for most contemporaneous ancient populations (7).

Not to mention the demographic change the authors explicitly write about at the fall of Rome.

Bump post.
 
This is not true, when are you going to stop repeating it?

Here is an excerpt from the study:

We attempted to fit the Imperial population as a simple two-way combination of the preceding Iron Age population and another population, either ancient or modern, using qpAdm. Some populations producing relatively better fits come from eastern Mediterranean regions such as Cyprus, Anatolia, and the Levant (table S22). However, none of the tested two-way models provides a good, robust fit to the data, suggesting that this was a complex mixture event, potentially including source populations that have not yet been identified or studied.
Although the data show a shift in the ancestry averaged across all Imperial individuals (referred to as “average ancestry” henceforth) toward eastern populations, the PCA results also suggest variation in ancestry within the population. To further characterize this, we assessed haplotype sharing using ChromoPainter (11), a method more sensitive than allele frequency–based approaches such as PCA. Specifically, we measured the genetic affinity between each ancient Italian individual and a set of modern Eurasian and North African populations by the total length of the haplotype segments shared between them (Fig. 4A) (7). We clustered ancient individuals by their relative haplotype sharing with modern populations and then labeled the resulting clusters by proximity to modern populations in PCA (Fig. 4B).

ChromoPainter analysis reveals diverse ancestries among Imperial individuals (n = 48), who fall into five distinct clusters (Fig. 4A). Notably, only 2 out of 48 Imperial-era individuals fall in the European cluster (C7) to which 8 out of 11 Iron Age individuals belong. Instead, two-thirds of Imperial individuals (31 out of 48) belong to two major clusters (C5 and C6) that overlap in PCA with central and eastern Mediterranean populations, such as those from southern and central Italy, Greece, Cyprus, and Malta (Fig. 4B). An additional quarter (13 out of 48) of the sampled Imperial Romans form a cluster (C4) defined by high amounts of haplotype sharing with Levantine and Near Eastern populations, whereas no pre-Imperial individuals appear in this cluster (Fig. 4AC). In PCA, some of the individuals in this cluster also project close to four contemporaneous individuals from Lebanon (240 to 630 CE) (fig. S18) (28). In addition, two individuals (R80 and R132) belong to a cluster featuring high haplotype sharing with North African populations (C4) and can be modeled with 30 to 50% North African ancestry in explicit modeling with qpAdm (table S28).

Ancient Rome: A genetic crossroads of Europe and the Mediterranean (science.org)

Bump post.
 

… MyHeritage, … my Chieti (Abruzzo) Genetic Group,
Martinsicuro is around the top blue circle:

x7QqMmq.jpg



AXMvrVz.jpg
 
The paper that said not to take it seriously. Are you feigning ignorance? I have quoted the paper for you. If you choose not to read it, I could care less.

It said not to take it literally, which does not mean it is wrong, but that it is not certain. As it happens the new paper has reaffirmed what they suspected.
 
It said not to take it literally, which does not mean it is wrong, but that it is not certain. As it happens the new paper has reaffirmed what they suspected.
They are not the same samples. Furthermore, it is a much smaller set. Plus, despite the small size, C6 people are still the majority. Also I find your interpretation of the sentence to be not what the author meant. Also, they said there wasn't enough data to make a determination on the origin of Late Antiquity Rome. Let's get things straight.
 
If you feel I misrepresented something, please quote the relevant part of any of my posts and I will explain.



Great questions. Every time you disagree with someone your tactic is to make it personal, and then give infractions, ban, or delete posts if the other person replies in kind.

The "tail into the Levant" phrase I cannot find, but obviously the Near Eastern component was significantly diminished. This does not mean that those people dissappeared altogether. Both the Rome and the Etruscan papers model Late Antiquity samples as a mixture between Imperial and Central European (or Central European-like) ones.

Happily.

This is what you posted: "However this shift was far more dramatic than the an admixture between BA/IA Italians and BA/IA Aegeans would produce. Most of it is attributed to Levantine and Anatolian components. Four papers from Italy, Spain and the Balkans have already brought evidence of this. So BA/IA samples cannot be compared to modern populations without first accounting for the eastern shift in the early Roman period and then the western shift in the late one."

You then quoted the Danubian Limes paper:
"Balkans
4-
The other major cluster (44% of the samples from Viminacium between 1-250 CE) is represented by individuals who projected towards ancient and present-day Eastern Mediterranean groups in PCA (Figure 1A), close to ancient individuals from Rome during Imperial times. Their ancestry can be modelled as deriving deeply from Chalcolithic Western Anatolian groups (Figure 2; Supplementary section 12.2), and we refer to this cluster as the Near Eastern-related cluster. The same signal of arrivals individuals with Anatolian/Near Eastern ancestral origins is also evident in Rome during the same period, consistent with largescale gene-flow originating from the major eastern urban centers of the Empire (such as Constantinople, Antioch, Smyrna and Alexandria). These results suggest that immigration from the east was a common feature across urban centers in the Roman Empire, including in border areas and large cities/military outposts such as Viminacium."This is IRRELEVANT to your point because the paper makes clear those Near Eastern people did not influence modern Balkan genetics. The shift for them happened earlier, not in the Imperial Age.

How can you still not get it?

Am I supposed to say," great job"?

How am I supposed to respond? Either you didn't read it, or you didn't understand it, or you're playing dishonest games. You're lucky I settled on didn't read these papers or understand them, because if I believed you were playing dishonest games you'd be banned.

If you were a newbie who was honestly confused I would respond differently. Instead, there's this totally misplaced arrogance about ludicrously incorrect comments.

Also, if you don't know about Antonio et al's discussion about the tail into the Levant and how it disappeared, then once again there is proof you didn't read the paper carefully.

Also, are you pretending you don't know what "drastically shrunk" means????

I'm losing my patience. Leave well enough alone, and only respond once you've re-read the papers.
 
I don't even take them so serious, the autosomal models.

It's because of very simple and not so smart algorithms at comparing such complex genomes as autosomal.

It's clear why they plot more toward Italians than modern Balkanites, mainly Slavic admixture and some Byzantine-Anatolian admixture more evident among Greeks.
 
… MyHeritage, … my Chieti (Abruzzo) Genetic Group,
Martinsicuro is around the top blue circle:

x7QqMmq.jpg



AXMvrVz.jpg


makes sense

You are liburnian ..............your line went south ...my line went north (y):cool-v:
 
They are not the same samples. Furthermore, it is a much smaller set. Plus, despite the small size, C6 people are still the majority. Also I find your interpretation of the sentence to be not what the author meant. Also, they said there wasn't enough data to make a determination on the origin of Late Antiquity Rome. Let's get things straight.

Not the same samples, you mean the ones from different papers? If so, of course they aren't. But the tendency is the same across the Mediterranean.

The whole point for my initial post was that your idea that Slovenian IA + Greek IA = modern Italians needs to take into account the numerous shifts between IA and today, including the eastern one.
 
Not the same samples, you mean the ones from different papers? If so, of course they aren't. But the tendency is the same across the Mediterranean.

The whole point for my initial post was that your idea that Slovenian IA + Greek IA = modern Italians needs to take into account the numerous shifts between IA and today, including the eastern one.

Both papers have different samples from each other. Posth has 6 Imperials, Antonio has 48. 31 of the 48 in Rome were C5 and C6. We see in the middle ages 60% of the samples in Rome are C6, and 40% C7. So the big shift was central Mediterranean ancestry taking predominace in Rome.
 
Not the same samples, you mean the ones from different papers? If so, of course they aren't. But the tendency is the same across the Mediterranean.

The whole point for my initial post was that your idea that Slovenian IA + Greek IA = modern Italians needs to take into account the numerous shifts between IA and today, including the eastern one.

Nice try, buy even the Posth paper says this:

In addition, we evaluate the genetic impact of historical events such as the establishment of the Roman Empire in Etruria, characterize the genetic makeup of Early Medieval individuals across central and southern portions of the Italian peninsula, and reveal the level of genetic continuity between these past cultures and present-day populations.
 
https://isba9.sciencesconf.org/data/pages/Abstract_Book_ISBA9_2022.pdf , Pag 122: it isn't surprising that the samples from central Italy plot with previous samples from Latium, more interesting to see that inhabitants of Emilia Romagna were similar to Latins, and Sicilians were identical to Sicily BA from what is stated here. Now the gap is between south Italy and Sicily: the paper about the Daunians showed that many samples were somewhat in a cline between Latins and Sicily_BA.
 

This thread has been viewed 37494 times.

Back
Top