David Reich Southern Arc Paper Abstract

Imperial Romans were obviously Republican Italians mostly from Central regions admixed with East Med people chiefly from Anatolia and Levant. The tail to Middle East dissapeared because they were mixed out of existence with Native Italians. If it was otherwise Central Italians would not be significantly more southern shifted than Latins.

Rome was the capital of an empire and the most populous city of its time. No evidence "Imperial Romans" were all locals admixed with East Med migrants. Some were indeed foreigners, other migrants were from the rest of Italy including southern Italy. Albanians have a similar genetic profile to central Italians, when would Albanians have mixed with East Med migrants from Anatolia and Levant?


yJTj8Qd.png



Greeks for comparison

KXz2fKH.png
 
Last edited:
As far as modern papers go, modern Italians don't show any excess of Levantine ancestry, despite what people on other fora might blabber, and they get modelled at most with "Minoan" as their pre-IE substratum; of course I do not read it as meaning there is literally Minoan ancestry in Italians,but it betokens just an encrease in CHG compared to IA inhabitants of Italy, which also happened in the Balkans.
Some Anatolian contribution is possible, but let's not forget that half of the Imperial samples were part of the "mediterranean cluster", similar to 437 and 850 that already were found in Italy in the republic, and overall more similar to Greeks than to Anatolians and Levantines.
It is really hard for me to see how even before citizenship was granted to all Roman subjects Italy experienced a genetic turn over due to migration from the east, when most people from there were not citizens. Furthermore we mustn't forget we lack data from south Italy, needed before drawing conclusions.
Anatolia outweighs Levant in Imperial Roman ancestry.
But:
1.) Using a Levantine component makes the fit tighter for Imperial Rome.
2.) There are some few Levantine outliers in 2019 Rome paper.
3.) Ancient Romans specifically mentioned in literature Syrians out of many ethnicities in Rome for a reason.
As far as East Med admixture goes in Rome:
Anatolia> Levant> Balkans> Northern Africa
 
There is an upcoming paper which, in the abstract, clearly stated that "Central European" ancestry arrived in Greece in the Late Bronze Age (for the Aegean about 1.600 BC), which would correspond to the chariot complex and MCA/Catacomb intrusion.
As for Anatolia, they need to sample Cernavoda and related West Anatolian formations. Before they have done that, which could relate to a constant decrease of steppe ancestry on the way, we're not talking.
Does it talk about Mycenaeans or Lemnians who were a Tyrrhenian people, like Etruscans and Rhaetians in the Central Europe?
 
Imperial Romans were obviously Republican Italians mostly from Central regions admixed with East Med people chiefly from Anatolia and Levant. The tail to Middle East dissapeared because they were mixed out of existence with Native Italians. If it was otherwise Central Italians would not be significantly more southern shifted than Latins.

Southern Italians could have immigrated to Rome also. The Anatolia and Middle East component disappeared for the same reason that it appeared. Artisans, artists, builders and intellectuals went elsewhere because Rome no longer was where the wealth was.
 
Anatolia outweighs Levant in Imperial Roman ancestry.
But:
1.) Using a Levantine component makes the fit tighter for Imperial Rome.
2.) There are some few Levantine outliers in 2019 Rome paper.
3.) Ancient Romans specifically mentioned in literature Syrians out of many ethnicities in Rome for a reason.
As far as East Med admixture goes in Rome:
Anatolia> Levant> Balkans> Northern Africa

It makes the fit tighter for Imperial Rome because there are some few Levantines, as you mentioned, but it isn't clear how much ancestry they left to subsequent Italians, indeed it would seem that foreigners left to little to none traces (the Danubian limes paper and the paper about the stable genetic structure of Europe). We both agree that modern central Italians are more "southern" (but I'd say "eastern" would be more apt) than the Latins, but it is a stretch to say that since they are then it is because of migrants from the Levant and Anatolia; namely, it could work as an explanation but there are others that work too, for example that actually Latin-outlier-like people were from south Italy (at least those most similar to 437). We'll see how it turns out.
 
The problem is that we rely a lot and draw conclusions on an area with 1 million people or more based on 10-50 samples, mostly from urban areas.

I agree with Leopoldo on the existence of “outliers” that could prove us wrong in the furure.

We will know what really happened when we get thousands of samples from the countryside, periphery, and mountainous areas alike. Few samples from few cities/poleis is not enough nor ideal to draw conclusions from.
 
It makes the fit tighter for Imperial Rome because there are some few Levantines, as you mentioned, but it isn't clear how much ancestry they left to subsequent Italians, indeed it would seem that foreigners left to little to none traces (the Danubian limes paper and the paper about the stable genetic structure of Europe). We both agree that modern central Italians are more "southern" (but I'd say "eastern" would be more apt) than the Latins, but it is a stretch to say that since they are then it is because of migrants from the Levant and Anatolia; namely, it could work as an explanation but there are others that work too, for example that actually Latin-outlier-like people were from south Italy (at least those most similar to 437). We'll see how it turns out.
IA Native Italians from Abruzzo and Campania were similar to Etruscans.

The 2019 Rome paper model Imperial Romans as 20% Latins + 80% Anatolian.

The Etruscan paper does it similarly.

And this new paper says it too.
 
Does it talk about Mycenaeans or Lemnians who were a Tyrrhenian people, like Etruscans and Rhaetians in the Central Europe?

I just know the abstracts, I have no deeper insights.

Sounds like LBA Collapse material.

That's something which should have started later and would have been better communicated. But who knows. However, there were likely three main events before the classical era:
- Proto-Greeks, Mycenaean ancestors came in (1.700-1.500 BC)
- Low level infiltration from the North, especially early Urnfielders (1.400-1.200)
- Large scale North Greek (Doric) and Urnfielder, plus other Western Sea Peoples groups crash into Mycenaean Greece (about 1.200).

The situation has direct parallels with Italia.
 
I just know the abstracts, I have no deeper insights.



That's something which should have started later and would have been better communicated. But who knows. However, there were likely three main events before the classical era:
- Proto-Greeks, Mycenaean ancestors came in (1.700-1.500 BC)
- Low level infiltration from the North, especially early Urnfielders (1.400-1.200)
- Large scale North Greek (Doric) and Urnfielder, plus other Western Sea Peoples groups crash into Mycenaean Greece (about 1.200).

The situation has direct parallels with Italia.

The City of Mycenae predates the Bronze Age. The city was founded during the Neolithic period. Mycenean civilization becomes dominate in the period you stated (1700 BC to 1300 BC, when it peaked). So when you say "Proto-Greeks" are you using that term as a linguistic classification or ethnic/genetic admixture explanation? I don't want to say one way or the other. So how do the results from Lazaridis et al 2014 regarding the 4 Myceneans being genetically similar to the Minoans (there where 19 ancients analyzed in that paper) but harboring additional Steppe ancestry but only amounts ranging from 4% to 16% and the Elite Mycenean in that paper being genetically similar to the 3 non-elites fit into your descriptions above regarding Mycenean Greece. So are these Myceneans Proto-Greeks are Myceneans with admixture as a function of this Western Sea Peoples crashing into Myceneans?
 
Last edited:
IA Native Italians from Abruzzo and Campania were similar to Etruscans.
The 2019 Rome paper model Imperial Romans as 20% Latins + 80% Anatolian.
The Etruscan paper does it similarly.
And this new paper says it too.

In Antonio 2019 it's Anatolia MLBA (a sample set of 5 individuals), not Anatolia IA or later Anatolia. As I remember Anatolia MLBA is still 50% EEF/ANF. In any case, there will be differences between MLBA Anatolia and that of Roman imperial times. And it's not about just the Latins, it's about the 10 Iron Age samples from Rome and environs and one from Abruzzo, which also include outliers.

Not to mention the typical fallacy of geneticists who want to force their conclusions with circular argumentation, and call the samples "central Italians in the Imperial Rome Period." Well, that's stuff you learn in elementary school. It's called the Roman Empire not by accident, not the Italian Empire, it's something that the geneticists would still have to prove who they were, as much as there is no question that a shift occurred between the Iron Age and the Imperial Period, it's all much more complicated than how the geneticists present it. Because otherwise, then, on the basis of the equation Imperial Period Romans = Italians also applies to the rest of the Empire, not just Italy, and the Imperial Rome Period samples from Gaul, Britannia, Germania Inferior, Hispania, the Balkans, north Africa, Anatolia, and so on, are all called Italians.
6lL1FtI.png
 
The City of Mycenae predates the Bronze Age. The city was founded during the Neolithic period. Mycenean civilization becomes dominate in the period you stated (1700 BC to 1300 BC, when it peaked). So when you say "Proto-Greeks" are you using that term as a linguistic classification or ethnic/genetic admixture explanation? I don't won't to say one way or the other. So how do the results from Lazaridis et al 2014 regarding the 4 Myceneans being genetically similar to the Minoans (there where 19 ancients analyzed in that paper) but harboring additional Steppe ancestry but only amounts ranging from 4% to 16% and the Elite Mycenean in that paper being genetically similar to the 3 non-elites fit into your descriptions above regarding Mycenean Greece. So are these Myceneans Proto-Greeks are Myceneans with admixture as a function of this Western Sea Peoples crashing into Myceneans?
My idea is that Catacomb/MCW related people moved into the North-Eastern areas of the Balkans first, mixed with locals and didn't push at first into the Aegean, which, by this time was Pre-Greek in the sense of non-Greek, but providing the genetic and cultural substrate for these Balkan Proto-Greeks when these got renewed pressure from the steppe (Noua-Sabatinovka-Coslogeni).
Then these already mixed Balkan Proto-Greeks moved into the Aegean.
Its possible some individuals had more central European or steppe than the average, but I guess they were mixed by and large when coming in.
The local substrate influence in genes and culture was just way stronger than in other areas.
Similar with Hittites by the way, which even used the language and some gods of the locals too and took many cities over.
Not comparable to some events of the MBA-LBA when complete civilisations being burnt to the ground, like Encrusted Pottery in Pannonia by the expanding Tumulus culture people or the Scythian onslaught on the Cimmerians etc.

But in short, I expect linguistic Proto-Greeks to come from the Balkans into the Aegean about 1.600 BC.
 
IA Native Italians from Abruzzo and Campania were similar to Etruscans.
The 2019 Rome paper model Imperial Romans as 20% Latins + 80% Anatolian.
The Etruscan paper does it similarly.
And this new paper says it too.

1) it models the statistical average of all the imperial Romans, which were made up of 3 or 4 different clusters, which means that there was no panmixia but overall the individuals; that paper itself advised not to take too literally the models, that were meant to give a very rough picture; indeed they added that it looked like they needed a yet unsampled population.
2) The Etruscan paper modelled his only 6 imperial samples (let's keep in mind it did not use the previous samples from Antonio et al. 2019) as 50% south Levant_BA and 50% Etruscan, not what I'd call similarly, and when it comes to modern Italians it had to add a lot of northern European gene flow, which is something historically unfeasible and not shown by the haplogroups.
3)This new paper does not say anything about panmixia, it says that the majority of imperial samples so far belonged to the Anatolian gene pool, which is something I sad back in the day after the Danubian limes paper, that the C6 cluster in Antonio et al looked like the Anatolians in that paper.

Furthermore we don't know whether native Italians in Campania were similar to Etruscans/Latins, since the leaked PCA from the paper is about Etruscan and Oscan settlements in Campania, they were later arrivals- indeed I suspect the "east med" gene flow was due to the mixing of the former with the locals, and the samples from Sicily and Apulia are not Latin-like, but had Balkans affinities.

Here I arrive at my major complaint at these theories: if the question is about any trace left by foreigners, merchants, travellers, etc..., in the passing of time then it's sure that there are such traces, but they do not change the autosomal if not by single % digits; for that one needs demic movements, which almost always leave archeological, linguistic and other traces, so what about the 80% genetic replacement of the gene pool of Italy in the very first century AD when only Italy's inhabitants had citizenship? It is honestly ridicolous.
It's clear there was a kind of genetic shift in the IA in central Italy but we have no enough data to give a plausible answer, we don't know even whether it happened during the late republic or the early empire, when massive migrations from the east basin of the mediterranean were implausible since the vast majority of the inhabitants were not Roman citizens yet, so they couldn't just decide to immigrate into Italy and do it. A more plausible proposal is to see what happened in Italy itself (maybe the incorporation of the Socii had an effect on the gene pool of Latium?).
 
My idea is that Catacomb/MCW related people moved into the North-Eastern areas of the Balkans first, mixed with locals and didn't push at first into the Aegean, which, by this time was Pre-Greek in the sense of non-Greek, but providing the genetic and cultural substrate for these Balkan Proto-Greeks when these got renewed pressure from the steppe (Noua-Sabatinovka-Coslogeni).
Then these already mixed Balkan Proto-Greeks moved into the Aegean.
Its possible some individuals had more central European or steppe than the average, but I guess they were mixed by and large when coming in.
The local substrate influence in genes and culture was just way stronger than in other areas.
Similar with Hittites by the way, which even used the language and some gods of the locals too and took many cities over.
Not comparable to some events of the MBA-LBA when complete civilisations being burnt to the ground, like Encrusted Pottery in Pannonia by the expanding Tumulus culture people or the Scythian onslaught on the Cimmerians etc.
But in short, I expect linguistic Proto-Greeks to come from the Balkans into the Aegean about 1.600 BC.

Ok, so if I have your hypothesis correct, the Proto-Greeks you are referring to would be the ones who brought in Indo European languages which the Greek language derived from. Is that correct?
 
If somebody pops in, and that includes the members of the Reich team when the paper comes out, with the old, well, the Germans came in and made all Italians including Central Italians more northern again, I'm going to have a temper tantrum.

I just got through arguing with idiots on twitter who don't know anything about the U.S. Constitution or what has happened in the last day or two, and having to deal with ignorance in this sphere of my interests is going to be just too much.

All the Langobard samples we have are R1b U-106. Throw in some I1 for the hell of it. There isn't enough of it in Toscana and Central Italy to change anybody back to anything.

I do really miss the down button, you know? The ignore function doesn't insulate me enough bkz people persist in answering certain members by quoting their posts. :)
 
Ok, so if I have your hypothesis correct, the Proto-Greeks you are referring to would be the ones who brought in Indo European languages which the Greek language derived from. Is that correct?

Yes.

If somebody pops in, and that includes the members of the Reich team when the paper comes out, with the old, well, the Germans came in and made all Italians including Central Italians more northern again, I'm going to have a temper tantrum.

I just got through arguing with idiots on twitter who don't know anything about the U.S. Constitution or what has happened in the last day or two, and having to deal with ignorance in this sphere of my interests is going to be just too much.

All the Langobard samples we have are R1b U-106. Throw in some I1 for the hell of it. There isn't enough of it in Toscana and Central Italy to change anybody back to anything.

I do really miss the down button, you know? The ignore function doesn't insulate me enough bkz people persist in answering certain members by quoting their posts. :)

Currently it looks like we can observe a combined effect of:
- Provincials moving South, when the Roman rule began to collapse. This was a real and fairly large movement of people as well.
- Germanics came in, which included not just "pure", but also mixed Germanics and again provincials, of which many fled with them, away from the steppe invaders and Slavs.
- There was resurgance from the local rural Italian population, from areas with lowered Levantine admixture.
- Also there was continuous lower level gene flow from the Frankish (German-French sphere) into Italy from Medieval times onwards.

I think all 4 effects need to be combined for properly explaining the backshift. However, how big each of this effects actually was, because all of them are real, is still up to debate.
 
Angela: Since your post 227 followed mine in 226, just for transparency, my post 226 should be seen in context 221, which responded with some comments and question in my post 222, and then in response to post 224. I have several times posted the Lazaradis et al 2014 results regarding the 4 Myceneans and it seems to me, the genetic admixture of those 4 samples seems to not be what "Some segments" of the blogsphere and other genetics sites were happy with, that is the 4 Myceneans only harbored 4% to 16% Steppe ancestry.

So just for full transparency, I keep quoting that paper because the results fly in the face of all the nonsense I have listened to now for 50 plus years. I would like someone to just spell out what they think about the 4 Mycenean samples having only 4% to 16% Steppe Admixture and quit dancing around it. For example, do the Steppe dogmatist still hold to the notion that the Myceneans from other sites are going to harbor Steppe admixture similar to what is found in Northern Europeans, or even Central for that matter. Do they think these 4 Myceneans in the Laz et al 2014 paper are outliers?

So I am just looking for some of the Steppe dogmatist to state what they think clearly regarding the Myceneans.

Cheers and yes, I know what you are taking about regarding Constitutional law. I have been on some youtube channels listening to lots of nonsense regarding the SCOTUS decision today.
 
Riverman: RE post 228. Thanks for the transparency in stating what you think clearly. Ok, so my question is do you think the 4 Myceneans in the Lazaradis et al 2014 paper harboring only 4% to 16% Steppe ancestry are outliers? Do you think the Proto-Greeks you are referring to who brought in Indo_European languages from the Balkans into ancient Greece are going to be higher in Steppe admixture, or maybe about the same as what the 4 Myceneans in Lazaradis et al 2014 found.

So put another way, do you think the ancient Greek samples, particularly the Myceneans in Lazaradis et al 2014 are to Southern European shifted?
 
Yes.



Currently it looks like we can observe a combined effect of:
- Provincials moving South, when the Roman rule began to collapse. This was a real and fairly large movement of people as well.
- Germanics came in, which included not just "pure", but also mixed Germanics and again provincials, of which many fled with them, away from the steppe invaders and Slavs.
- There was resurgance from the local rural Italian population, from areas with lowered Levantine admixture.
- Also there was continuous lower level gene flow from the Frankish (German-French sphere) into Italy from Medieval times onwards.

I think all 4 effects need to be combined for properly explaining the backshift. However, how big each of this effects actually was, because all of them are real, is still up to debate.


Germanic people did not shift Central Italians north. But most of the newcommers were concentrated in big cities like Rome so these Imperial Romans had less Italic ancestry than other Italians from other regions. So as time passed by they became more Italic and therefore more northern.

Simply take for example, hypothetically, in Early Slavic period of Dalmatia you might see a tail to Poland and after 2 centuries you might see fully homogenous Croatian profiles.

Also look at J2a and J1 compared to R1b in Lazio and Abruzzo. All Latins turned out to be R1b and 75% of Etrucans too. There is clearly a decrease of R1b due to Roman expansion in the Mediterranean.

Most J2a is probably of Anatolian, Greek (South Italy) and from some other regions too.
 
Riverman: RE post 228. Thanks for the transparency in stating what you think clearly. Ok, so my question is do you think the 4 Myceneans in the Lazaradis et al 2014 paper harboring only 4% to 16% Steppe ancestry are outliers? Do you think the Proto-Greeks you are referring to who brought in Indo_European languages from the Balkans into ancient Greece are going to be higher in Steppe admixture, or maybe about the same as what the 4 Myceneans in Lazaradis et al 2014 found.

So put another way, do you think the ancient Greek samples, particularly the Myceneans in Lazaradis et al 2014 are to Southern European shifted?

I have no strong opinion on that, but clearly they won't all score the same way. They might be pretty average though. Let's say the Balkan Proto-Greeks were already half-half and then they mixed up with locals, this would result in the higher steppe level Mycenaeans playing the ballpark of one quarter. So something like 16 % steppe ancestry doesn't sound too far off.
There surely will be Greeks with more, or with less.
It doesn't really matter. What matters most is: How much steppe ancestry was there before the MBA-LBA transition, how much will be there afterwards. That's all that matters for this concrete question.

Germanic people did not shift Central Italians north.

Do you mean they pulled them South? ;)

Well, of course they did pull them North. Even if people argue the uniparentals are too low, they are still significant on a low level, with the lowest of all estimates. So they had an effect, probably just not the big one some people propose.

But most of the newcommers were concentrated in big cities like Rome so these Imperial Romans had less Italic ancestry than other Italians from other regions. So as time passed by they became more Italic and therefore more northern.

Agreed, but then again: We don't know the actual effect of both on the total population. Its still guesswork and might differ from region to region.

Simply take for example, hypothetically, in Early Slavic period of Dalmatia you might see a tail to Poland and after 2 centuries you might see fully homogenous Croatian profiles.

Might be not as clear cut as you suggest it is. You need a proper reference for the locals, the newcomers and the additional gene flow which might have taken place.

My conclusion: This debate is not over yet, but some claims (just some quarters, not important for Italy as a whole) are being falsified by now. It mattered even for areas like Viminacium and Linz, Upper Austria. Levantine shifted and exotic individuals will pop up as far as the Netherlands and Western Germany too.
It was a real thing, it had an effect. Talking about haplogroups, we can still find some of those more exotic haplogroups in all those places to this day in the modern autochthonous population. So its not all gone. Even on the contrary, due to later migration, it spread to areas outside of the Roman zone.

To think that this was possible in areas like Western Germany, but didn't matter for areas like Italy, is not parsimonious. That's all I'm saying. Exact percentages are a completely different matter, both for the Germanic, the Levantine, the provincial, the Albanian etc., etc. admixture. And I firmly believe it won't be the same everywhere. That's already visible by looking into the uniparentals.
 
Angela: Since your post 227 followed mine in 226, just for transparency, my post 226 should be seen in context 221, which responded with some comments and question in my post 222, and then in response to post 224. I have several times posted the Lazaradis et al 2014 results regarding the 4 Myceneans and it seems to me, the genetic admixture of those 4 samples seems to not be what "Some segments" of the blogsphere and other genetics sites were happy with, that is the 4 Myceneans only harbored 4% to 16% Steppe ancestry.

So just for full transparency, I keep quoting that paper because the results fly in the face of all the nonsense I have listened to now for 50 plus years. I would like someone to just spell out what they think about the 4 Mycenean samples having only 4% to 16% Steppe Admixture and quit dancing around it. For example, do the Steppe dogmatist still hold to the notion that the Myceneans from other sites are going to harbor Steppe admixture similar to what is found in Northern Europeans, or even Central for that matter. Do they think these 4 Myceneans in the Laz et al 2014 paper are outliers?

So I am just looking for some of the Steppe dogmatist to state what they think clearly regarding the Myceneans.

Cheers and yes, I know what you are taking about regarding Constitutional law. I have been on some youtube channels listening to lots of nonsense regarding the SCOTUS decision today.

I completely agree with everything you just said.

If you'll permit me a suggestion, only listen to what used to be called, the "lawtubers". No politics, no posturing and creating division, no standing on some ethical soapbox, just sober, reasoned, logical, legal analysis by people who actually paid attention to Con Law in law school, and got in on merit.
 

This thread has been viewed 203026 times.

Back
Top