Genomic analysis of two Pompeians that died during the eruption of Vesuvius in 79 AD

[Jovialis]

Maciamo's average of the two imperial samples from Marche are a good standard for the Imperial Roman C6 cluster that came to be the predominant genetic group in Rome. This is what the standard of Imperial Roman central Italian ancestry that should be applied:

This person is more than 16 distant (nearly 17) from it! No way is this person a native to Italy:

Distance to:	f1R_Pompeii_Dodecad_K12b
16.86065835	Imperial-age_Marche_(n=2)

 

[Archetype0ne]

This guy was probably just a Near eastern immigrant (C4). He doesn't actually look like the average central Italian from the Imperial age (i.e. C6):

"Despite this high genetic variability in the Imperial period29 the Pompeian individual A shows a higher level of shared genetic drift with the central Italy Roman Imperial Age group. This result strongly suggests that the individual that we have analysed should come from the Italian peninsula. Whether this individual belongs to the local population of Pompeii or is part of the 5% of the internal migrants characterizing the imperial population of Italy85 is difficult to address, but very likely he is not part of the large external migrations related to the practice of enslavement."

Supposedly there was some leaked PCA.

"The fact Imperial era Pompeiian samples (there are more to come, at least from what we know based on leaked PCAs etc.) are much more Cypriot-like than most Imperial Romans are"

I mean, it was an attractive hypothesis for this particular profile in the two Rome papers, and Danubian limes paper to be attributed to Imperial Roman Era slaves, migrants etc... But when they show up for many studies in a row, maybe there is more to it. I just wish there was less talk of leaks, and more actual publishing going on.

 

[Jovialis]

"Despite this high genetic variability in the Imperial period29 the Pompeian individual A shows a higher level of shared genetic drift with the central Italy Roman Imperial Age group. This result strongly suggests that the individual that we have analysed should come from the Italian peninsula. Whether this individual belongs to the local population of Pompeii or is part of the 5% of the internal migrants characterizing the imperial population of Italy85 is difficult to address, but very likely he is not part of the large external migrations related to the practice of enslavement."

Supposedly there was some leaked PCA.

"The fact Imperial era Pompeiian samples (there are more to come, at least from what we know based on leaked PCAs etc.) are much more Cypriot-like than most Imperial Romans are"

I mean, it was an attractive hypothesis for this particular profile in the two Rome papers, and Danubian limes paper to be attributed to Imperial Roman Era slaves, migrants etc... But when they show up for many studies in a row, maybe there is more to it. I just wish there was less talk of leaks, and more actual publishing going on.

I think the researchers are wrong to state he is from Italy, here is the same model applied to other Ancient Italian samples. He actually looks more like a Eastern Med immigrant:

 

[Archetype0ne]

Quite a few of them match, or am I trippin?

Edit: If I am reading the legend right, over 20 of n-sample size you used seem to have similar makeup. And those seem to be labeled Imperial. So not sure what is wrong with what the authors stated. I could have misread the legend though.

 

[kingjohn]

His k13
Component %
North_Atlantic 13.12%
Baltic 1.18%
West_Med 20.43%
West_Asian 20.51%
East_Med 32.30%
Red_Sea 9.85%
South_Asian 0.82%
Northeast_African 1.17%
Sub-Saharan 0.60%

P.s
The north atlantic is to high
For an immigrant from anatolia
I do agree the other components values
Can fit a cypriot though

 

[Archetype0ne]

His k13
Component %
North_Atlantic 13.12%
Baltic 1.18%
West_Med 20.43%
West_Asian 20.51%
East_Med 32.30%
Red_Sea 9.85%
South_Asian 0.82%
Northeast_African 1.17%
Sub-Saharan 0.60%
P.s
The north atlantic is to high
For an immigrant from anatolia
I do agree the other components values
Can fit a cypriot though

Seems from the graphic Jovialis shared, Isola Sacra samples seem to match the pompei based on that K8 model.
Wasn't a sample from Isola Sacra part of the paper that had the Balkans samples? I am quite sure he was eastern shifted too. Not sure, was it E-V22?

Edit:

Dunno if these were posted yet, done by a friend:


R11109 MALE 1 CE 1749.5 400 CE ARCHAEOLOGY Isola_Sacra Y-DNA: J-Y15222 mtDNA: X2m'n
R11111 MALE 1 CE 1749.5 400 CE ARCHAEOLOGY Isola_Sacra Y-DNA: J-Z18216 mtDNA: R0a
R11112 MALE 1 CE 1749.5 400 CE ARCHAEOLOGY Isola_Sacra Y-DNA: G-L14 FGC5192;FGC5151;etc mtDNA: T2

R11109; Italy, Isola_Sacra Y-DNA: J-Y15222 mtDNA: U5a1c1a






K13:

K15:

 

[Jovialis]

The East meds in my model mostly get Anatolian_BA. This is consistent with the Pompeiian, as well as other similar components.

Those samples come from Antonio 2019.

@King John, he looks like an immigrant to me.

 

[kingjohn]

The East meds in my model mostly get Anatolian_BA. This is consistent with the Pompeiian, as well as other similar components.

Those samples come from Antonio 2019.

@King John, he looks like an immigrant to me.

Cool
From where cyprus, or the other greek islands?

 

[Jovialis]

That's a tougher question to answer.

 

[Jovialis]

If anything I do think an internal migration happened in the Imperialera. But with C6 people (mostly minoan-like with steppe) I think these are the true natives of the South.

 

[Leopoldo Leone]

Fair enough. What are your thoughts on some of the Croatian samples from the recent paper showing the same Anatolian/Levantine, or whatever one wants to call the East-Med shift?

I mean, there is a less than 0 chance, and by rumors quite possible, that such a population was prevalent in the Balkans, just look at the Marathon sample. For all we know populations that were not usually associated with the east might turn up east shifted well into the BCs, and might have been in Italy earlier than Imperial period, as we already have had a couple of late republic samples showing such autosomal admixture. Maybe the Balkan_IA, Anatolian_Ba holds the key, but I still have to see what Balkan IA they are talking about, since there might have been a couple of profiles... As for Anatolian BA, which sample do they mean?

Edit: In fact I am really interested in this Anatolian_BA profile... is it some yet unpublished Western Anatolian sample? Troy or whatever was supposedly coming out some time ago? Also, I am not really talking about Iberomaurusian here, talking about Greek Islander like profile.

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.30.458211v1.full how they model the putatively Anatolian samples is in the supplements.

As for the Croatian samples in the recent paper about the population structure of Europe, they unfortunately do not analyse whether the "east med" is Levantine or Anatolian, though if one must reason based on the results of the Danubian limes paper it is likeliest it is Anatolian.
Surely there were some genuine Levantine, indeed some samples from Rome seem from there, and surely there were some mixed European-Levantine people in the empire, maybe hellenised Greek speakers from Syria, though what seems certain at this point is that they did not make up the bulk of the near eastern foreigners in the empire.

 

[Leopoldo Leone]

This guy was probably just a Near eastern immigrant (C4). He doesn't actually look like the average central Italian from the Imperial age (i.e. C6):

It might be the limitation of the model or maybe trying with some EEF-like component (ancient Balkanites weren't pure steppe mixed with Minoans, but carried also EEF ancestry, as the Logkas samples show), so the more Anatolian_N ancestry is approximated by forced Iberomaurusian.
Iberomaurusian is what the authors tried to model the pompei sample with and the models showed no significant affinities (in the ones with the best P value it was zero, in other topped at 4%), so I find it hard to believe he was really 10% Iberomaurusian-like

 

[Salento]

Seems from the graphic Jovialis shared, Isola Sacra samples seem to match the pompei based on that K8 model.
Wasn't a sample from Isola Sacra part of the paper that had the Balkans samples? I am quite sure he was eastern shifted too. Not sure, was it E-V22?
Edit:

PRJEB52852: ... "DO NOT use the "MAPPED" Runs currently associated with this Project! All the "RAW" Runs are OK to use! We apologize for the inconvenience, and will remove this message once the issue is resolved"....

 

[Palermo Trapani]

That's a tougher question to answer.

Jovialis: There was a paper, Haber et al 2020 "A Genetic History of the Near East from an aDNATime Course Sampling Eight Pointsin the Past 4,000 Years" published in The American Journal of Human Genetics. Some of those samples are from the Iron Age Levant and some are from what would be the Imperial Roman era. What I don't remember is whether any of these samples were ever used to estimate Dodecad12B/EuroK13, etc coordinates (I looked and don't see them in the Vahaduo spreadsheets). Perhaps using the coordinates from those samples, if possible, to run them against this Pompeian sample might be way to see if he is closely related to those populations.

My Dodecad 12B distance to F1R_Pompeian along with the averages using Maciamo's Ancient European ancestry Checker post 1, 10-3-2021.

Distance to:	PalermoTrapani_ANCESTRY
2.21022623	Imperial-age_Tuscany_(n=4)
3.69576785	Imperial-age_Marche_(n=2)
10.64579729	Imperial-age_Latium_(East_Med_immigrants)_(n=46)
14.79259612	f1R_Pompeii_Dodecad_K12b

 

[Archetype0ne]

PRJEB52852: ... "DO NOT use the "MAPPED" Runs currently associated with this Project! All the "RAW" Runs are OK to use! We apologize for the inconvenience, and will remove this message once the issue is resolved"....

what do you mean?

 

[Salento]

what do you mean?

It is not what I mean, this is about what they are saying on the ENA site.
The BAMs might be compromised. I ran a Cancelleria bam and fq and I got 2 different results and Haplogroups.

https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB52852?show=reads

 

[Archetype0ne]

It is not what I mean, this is about what they are saying on the ENA site.
The BAMs might be compromised. I ran a Cancelleria bam and fq and I got 2 different results and Haplogroups.

https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB52852?show=reads

Not sure how that relates to my comment. But ok.

Alas, since you might reply to this, there was issues with the labeling of some samples as well as some other completely missing. But my comment has nothing to do with any of this. Those are runs on the raw data after taking into account the labels, at least as far as I know.

 

[Salento]

Not sure how that relates to my comment. But ok.

Alas, since you might reply to this, there was issues with the labeling of some samples as well as some other completely missing. But my comment has nothing to do with any of this. Those are runs on the raw data after taking into account the labels, at least as far as I know.

… the new faulty project has 11 new Isola Sacra samples, … some are the same Isola Sacra samples quoted on your Post #26 !

 

[Archetype0ne]

I really think we are not understanding each other. You might wanna actually read what I wrote. Think the issue here is somewhere else, and I really want none of it.

Edit: Since I really want to clear this up:

PRJEB52852: ... "DO NOT use the "MAPPED" Runs currently associated with this Project! All the "RAW" Runs are OK to use! We apologize for the inconvenience, and will remove this message once the issue is resolved"....

Not sure how that relates to my comment. But ok.

Alas, since you might reply to this, there was issues with the labeling of some samples as well as some other completely missing. But my comment has nothing to do with any of this. Those are runs on the raw data after taking into account the labels, at least as far as I know.

What you are telling me I already know, since I was posting on the thread here on Eupedia and commented on it.

In fact after the PSA, the bigger problem was that some of the samples were mislabeled as was the L283 from Montenegro for example. That got sorted out. Just some of the BAMs still missing. Or maybe among the batch that did not pass QC.



That however, has nothing to do with my post #26.
Neither is my post at fault for such an autosomal profile as this Pomepian being widespread and common in Imperial Rome as well as showing up in Republic era.

In fact post #26 is in line with the graphic Jovialis shared, whatever can be said about the model. That the Isola Sacra samples from this paper are consistent with the ones from Antonio.

That is why I do not get what you meant with your comment. Sharing the PSA from the database with me like it has anything to do with anything. Trying to discredit what? Are you trying to invalidate the sample, its autosomal, or the model?

 

[Salento]

I really think we are not understanding each other. You might wanna actually read what I wrote. Think the issue here is somewhere else, and I really want none of it.

Edit: Since I really want to clear this up:





What you are telling me I already know, since I was posting on the thread here on Eupedia and commented on it.

In fact after the PSA, the bigger problem was that some of the samples were mislabeled as was the L283 from Montenegro for example. That got sorted out. Just some of the BAMs still missing. Or maybe among the batch that did not pass QC.



That however, has nothing to do with my post #26.
Neither is my post at fault for such an autosomal profile as this Pomepian being widespread and common in Imperial Rome as well as showing up in Republic era.

In fact post #26 is in line with the graphic Jovialis shared, whatever can be said about the model. That the Isola Sacra samples from this paper are consistent with the ones from Antonio.

That is why I do not get what you meant with your comment. Sharing the PSA from the database with me like it has anything to do with anything. Trying to discredit what? Are you trying to invalidate the sample, its autosomal, or the model?

… nothing personal … I’ll wait for that ENA project to be fixed before quoting it, …simple.