A genetic probe into the ancient and medieval history of Southern Europe and WestAsia

[Lucidrooted]

I may be wrong, but I don't think that's what he's saying there. It seems to me he's talking more about the economic and social impact, although again that sentence is a little florid for my taste.

I'm carefully reading the supplementary materials, since that's usually where you find the real meat of the papers.

If you go to twitter, in his recent replies he makes it remarkably clear that he is primarily referring to genetic impact.

 

[Pax Augusta]

If you go to twitter, in his recent replies he makes it remarkably clear that he is primarily referring to genetic impact.

It is no more than what Lazaridis' boss, David Reich, said weeks ago. If this is what Reich thinks, it is clearly the thesis that all his collaborators, including Lazaridis, support. Willy-nilly. This is clearly a simplification, because not all imperial age samples from Rome have a genetic profile similar to Anatolia_BA/IA. But geneticists are very fond of simplifications.


"The demographic significance of Anatolia on a Mediterranean-wide scale is further documented by our finding that following the Roman conquest, the Anatolian population remained stable and became the geographic source for much of the ancestry of Imperial Rome itself."


https://iias.huji.ac.il/event/david-reich-lecture

 

[Lucidrooted]

It is no more than what Lazaridis' boss, David Reich, said weeks ago. If this is what Reich thinks, it is clearly the thesis that all his collaborators, including Lazaridis, support. Willy-nilly. This is clearly a simplification, because not all imperial age samples from Rome have a genetic profile similar to Anatolia_BA/IA. But geneticists are very fond of simplifications.


"The demographic significance of Anatolia on a Mediterranean-wide scale is further documented by our finding that following the Roman conquest, the Anatolian population remained stable and became the geographic source for much of the ancestry of Imperial Rome itself."



It is truly fascinating that what are meant to be the best of the best, top tier academics in the population genetics field, can base their already illogical theories on such weak foundations. But this is what must be done when those funding these studies have narratives to push! I am confronting Lazaridis on twitter right now, and he essentially just replied using the logic I'd expect a 4channer (or 4th grader) to use. I will tell anyone interested to check our little back and forth going on right now on there.

 

[Angela]

I suppose that's indeed what he's saying there. From the Supplementary Materials for A genetic probe into the ancient and medieval history of Southern Europe and West Asia, p. 12.




This is more or less what Reich had also said about Anatolia_BA being the source for Imperial Rome

"The demographic significance of Anatolia on a Mediterranean-wide scale is further documented by our finding that following the Roman conquest, the Anatolian population remained stable and became the geographic source for much of the ancestry of Imperial Rome itself. "

https://iias.huji.ac.il/event/david-reich-lecture


From the Science article. There are no samples from Italy in these three studies. So what exactly are we talking about?

"The papers also acknowledge the nuances of identity in later periods, for example in Imperial Rome. Previous genetic studies had shown that as the empire coalesced, the ancestry of people in and around the city of Rome shifted, with most having roots not in Europe, but farther east.

After obtaining dozens of additional Roman-era genomes from the region, the team zeroed in on the source of those newcomers: Anatolia. But the researchers agree that people with “Anatolian” DNA moving to the Italian peninsula likely saw themselves as citizens or slaves of Rome, rather than as part of a distinct “Anatolian” ethnic group. Contemporary chroniclers remarked on the new faces in Rome—and referred to many of them as “Greeks,” perhaps because the eastern peoples had spoken Greek for centuries, Lazaridis says."


https://www.science.org/content/art...provides-clues-origin-farming-early-languages


First criticism from archaeologists

"Some archaeologists still think the papers claim too much influence for ancestry. “DNA cannot tell us anything about how people shape their life worlds, what their social status was,” says archaeologist Joseph Maran of Heidelberg University. He says terms like “Yamnaya ancestry” suggest the Yamnaya spread by moving directly from place to place, rather than through a complex mingling of their descendants with local populations over centuries or more. “Equating history with ‘mobility’ and ‘migrations’ is … old-fashioned.”

The bolded section is just the few dinosaurs left who don't want to believe in "invasions" or even quick, mass migrations. I wouldn't pay much attention to it.

As I already posted, I do not understand, however, how the authors can claim that the migration to Rome was from Anatolians, not any Aegeans, when we don't seem to have very many Iron Age genomes from either place.

 

[Angela]

Mycenaean ancestry

"In Table S 1 we list the individuals that are indistinguishable from Mycenaeans according toour procedure in all three tests. This does indeed identify two individuals from Empúries (I8215and I8208) as highly similar to the Mycenaean population. The strong similarity of these twoClassical and Hellenistic individuals (4th-3rd century BCE) to the Mycenaeans of a 1,000 yearsearlier has interesting implications beyond their local Iberian setting and underscores theimportance of “Big Picture” studies to produce a framework through which the analysis of localpopulations can be better interpreted:The western Mediterranean Greek colonists in this site in Spain were derived from 6th c.BCE Massaliotes (Ancient Μασσαλία, modern Marseilles in France) who themselves werederived from Phocaeans (Ancient Φώκαια, modern Foça in Turkey) who themselves werecolonists from Phokis (Φωκίς) in mainland Greece with Ionian kings who traced descent fromCodrus (and thus from Attica).1 Whatever the origin of the specific individuals unearthed atEmpúries, their genetic similarity to the Mycenaean population suggests that no major admixturehad occurred in their ancestry from the Bronze Age to their own time, e.g., in either Asia Minor(during the founding of Phocaea) or western Europe, which would have introduced ancestrymore prevalent in either region (e.g., CHG or WHG) compared to mainland Greece."

"Another sample which resembles Mycenaeans genetically is ASH068 an Iron Age“Philistine” from the Levant, also identified as resembling the Late Bronze Age population ofsouthern Greece in the original publication.(21)Two other samples from the literature were identified:SZ19 is a Langobard-era sample from Szólád, Hungary from the 5th-6th c. CE. SZ19 was ayoung female of 17-25 years old who was also a genetic outlier in the group of individualsburied there, had a distinct burial type, and also had a “stylistically distinct (possiblyRoman)”(52) artifact associated with her burial. Quite possibly she was related to the populationof the Aegean and the southern Balkans given the similarity to Mycenaeans detected here.I20257 is an ancient adolescent female from Değirmendere in Muğla from the Aegeanregion of Turkey (750-480 BCE). Her similarity to the Mycenaean population is not surprisinggiven the proximity to Greece and her time postdating the colonization of the coast of Anatolia.Two other samples from the same site are more distant (I20229 and I20233). Thus only 3 of 10samples from this site are similar to Mycenaeans. We cannot speak of a general similarity here,but rather that the “Carian” population at Değirmendere included Mycenaean-like individualswhile being generally distinct. Thus, the previously plausible theory that culturally Greek peoplein the classical period and earlier did not mix with locals—suggested by the patterns atEmpúries—is not supported by the data."

I don't know how they can say the following unless they have Iron Age Aegean samples which they can't yet discuss.

"To the west of Greece, 1 sample from Italy, a Punic sample from Sardinia (MSR002) isidentified as Mycenaean-like.(53) We note that the samples from Italy do not include Sicily andSouthern Italy at the time or postdating Greek colonization, but they do include a large set ofsamples from Imperial Rome which we infer to be mostly of Anatolian rather than Aegean orsoutheastern European origin."

 

[Angela]

It is no more than what Lazaridis' boss, David Reich, said weeks ago. If this is what Reich thinks, it is clearly the thesis that all his collaborators, including Lazaridis, support. Willy-nilly. This is clearly a simplification, because not all imperial age samples from Rome have a genetic profile similar to Anatolia_BA/IA. But geneticists are very fond of simplifications.


"The demographic significance of Anatolia on a Mediterranean-wide scale is further documented by our finding that following the Roman conquest, the Anatolian population remained stable and became the geographic source for much of the ancestry of Imperial Rome itself."



It is truly fascinating that what are meant to be the best of the best, top tier academics in the population genetics field, can base their already illogical theories on such weak foundations. But this is what must be done when those funding these studies have narratives to push! I am confronting Lazaridis on twitter right now, and he essentially just replied using the logic I'd expect a 4channer (or 4th grader) to use. I will tell anyone interested to check our little back and forth going on right now on there.

Sorry, Pax, a mistake.

 

[Angela]

It is no more than what Lazaridis' boss, David Reich, said weeks ago. If this is what Reich thinks, it is clearly the thesis that all his collaborators, including Lazaridis, support. Willy-nilly. This is clearly a simplification, because not all imperial age samples from Rome have a genetic profile similar to Anatolia_BA/IA. But geneticists are very fond of simplifications.


"The demographic significance of Anatolia on a Mediterranean-wide scale is further documented by our finding that following the Roman conquest, the Anatolian population remained stable and became the geographic source for much of the ancestry of Imperial Rome itself."



It is truly fascinating that what are meant to be the best of the best, top tier academics in the population genetics field, can base their already illogical theories on such weak foundations. But this is what must be done when those funding these studies have narratives to push! I am confronting Lazaridis on twitter right now, and he essentially just replied using the logic I'd expect a 4channer (or 4th grader) to use. I will tell anyone interested to check our little back and forth going on right now on there.

Well, imo, you made a figura di merda of yourself. There wasn't an ounce of actual population genetics knowledge in your tweets, or references to papers, just juvenile curse words.

Great job.

No wonder he stopped answering you.

People should stay quiet if they don't understand the issues.

 

[Lucidrooted]

Well, imo, you made a figura di merda of yourself. There wasn't an ounce of actual population genetics knowledge in your tweets, or references to papers, just juvenile curse words.

Great job.

No wonder he stopped answering you.

People should stay quiet if they don't understand the issues.

I am not the one making the claim, the primary way for me to provide evidence in this specific context is simply by proving wrong the "evidence" being presented on the contrary, there is a reason I ratio'd him, people with common sense will always exist.

 

[Angela]

What you did is make it unlikely for him to respond to all my tweets to him, which did actually ask pertinent population genetics questions.

Thanks a lot.

 

[Lucidrooted]

What you did is make it unlikely for him to respond to all my tweets to him, which did actually ask pertinent population genetics questions.

Thanks a lot.

In the population genetics field you're much better off seeking answers via self-study of papers & historical events along with conversing with peers than you are finding answers from the so called "academics" that make flimsy, foundationless theories seem like concrete facts by virtue of their background, but of course you may ruffle some feathers from those incapable of such a seemless task, those that take everything which comes out of an academic's mouth as God's word. This shouldn't even need to be stated! It's a fast-moving field.

 

[Palermo Trapani]

Well Lucidrotted: I think a way to address your concern was to go to the Antonio et al 2019 paper and remind them that there were 48 Imperial Roman samples, 31 of the 48 were in the C6 or C5 Clusters. The C6 essentially being Central to Southern Italy/Sicily and the C5 Malta, Greece and Cyprus. The C4 cluster had most of the others and that was the Near Eastern Cluster with 13 of the 48 clustering with Levantine and Near Easterners. The 4 others were I think either in C7 or harbored significant Punic/North African ancestry. By the the Late Antiquity, the C4 cluster disappears, the C6 and C5 remain and the C7 resurges and replaces teh C4.

Had you cited the results as described above from Antonio et al 2019, I personally think you could have made your point with objective data an analysis rather than coming across in an accusatory tone or as Angela described your behavior.

 

[Ralphie Boy]

Two takeaways, one of them huge, is that Lazaridis et al. support the Steppe/Minoan admixture model for Mycenaeans rather than ANE mixing with Armenian from the east, as both were proposed/discussed in the first Mycenaean study.

The other is that ancient Greeks mixed with locals in Anatolia/Halicarnassus, as Herodotus said, but not in Empuries. Herodotus couldn’t blow that fact could he, since he was born there?

 

[Lucidrooted]

Well Lucidrotted: I think a way to address your concern was to go to the Antonio et al 2019 paper and remind them that there were 48 Imperial Roman samples, 31 of the 48 were in the C6 or C5 Clusters. The C6 essentially being Central to Southern Italy/Sicily and the C5 Malta, Greece and Cyprus. The C4 cluster had most of the others and that was the Near Eastern Cluster with 13 of the 48 clustering with Levantine and Near Easterners. The 4 others were I think either in C7 or harbored significant Punic/North African ancestry. By the the Late Antiquity, the C4 cluster disappears, the C6 and C5 remain and the C7 resurges and replaces teh C4.

Had you cited the results as described above from Antonio et al 2019, I personally think you could have made your point with objective data an analysis rather than coming across in an accusatory tone or as Angela described your behavior.

Rooted* lmao. Respectfully, I'm good, wouldn't take the time and effort out of my day to expound on why 2+2=4 to a Calculus teacher. To think that the following was a genuine argument used by a top pop geneticist is astounding, again, flimsy. ~ "The movement from Anatolia to the west during the RomaN Empire is a phenomenon also seen in the Balkans... in modern Serbia"

 

[Palermo Trapani]

Rooted* lmao. Respectfully, I'm good, wouldn't take the time and effort out of my day to expound on why 2+2=4 to a Calculus teacher. To think that the following was a genuine argument used by a top pop geneticist is astounding, again, flimsy. ~ "The movement from Anatolia to the west during the Roman Empire is a phenomenon also seen in the Balkans... in modern Serbia".

Lucidrooted: Well think of this possibility. Look at how many authors were on the paper. Just approximating the number, it looks like around 200. So maybe the language in the paper is the wording that got all the various teams and fields to agree on (Geneticist, Historians, Linguist, Archeologist). The wording of a paper can be problematic. Reich pointed this out in his 2018 book "Who We are...." regarding the terminology to use to define the ancient Indian populations that were formed with admixture from local Indian HG plus incoming Steppe (Yamnaya) and Iran-Neolithic Farmers calling them Ancient North Indians. Otherwise, the Indian academics who had rights to the samples would not agree to publish the paper.

So just something to consider, that is, maybe Lazaridis has a different opinion on what the language should be but the majority of the other authors wanted it worded a certain way.

 

[Lucidrooted]

Lucidrooted: Well think of this possibility. Look at how many authors were on the paper. Just approximating the number, it looks like around 200. So maybe the language in the paper is the wording that got all the various teams and fields to agree on (Geneticist, Historians, Linguist, Archeologist). The wording of a paper can be problematic. Reich pointed this out in his 2018 book "Who We are...." regarding the terminology to use to define the ancient Indian populations that were formed with admixture from local Indian HG plus incoming Steppe (Yamnaya) and Iran-Neolithic Farmers calling them Ancient North Indians. Otherwise, the Indian academics who had rights to the samples would not agree to publish the paper.

So just something to consider, that is, maybe Lazaridis has a different opinion on what the language should be but the majority of the other authors wanted it worded a certain way.

What I quoted came from his reply to me. But I see your point nonetheless.

 

[Palermo Trapani]

What I quoted came from his reply to me. But I see your point nonetheless.

Ok, got it but he maybe has to toe the party line with his co-authors. Who Knows. I do disagree with the wording in the text as it is to ambiguous. There clearly were in Imperial Rome among those C6/C5 (31 of 48 Mostly C6) individuals people that plot with modern Marche, Lazio, Campania, Calabria, Puglia, Sicily and Abruzzo. In my view that was clearly missing from the text.

 

[Lucidrooted]

Ok, got it but he maybe has to toe the party line with his co-authors. Who Knows. I do disagree with the wording in the text as it is to ambiguous. There clearly were in Imperial Rome among those C6/C5 (31 of 48 Mostly C6) individuals people that plot with modern Marche, Lazio, Campania, Calabria, Puglia, Sicily and Abruzzo. In my view that was clearly missing from the text.

My issue is the implication that Romans/generally Italians primarily descend from immigrants, slaves, Germanics etc during the Roman era & not plain Romans and those that came before Romans, whether it is nordicists or near easterners pushing this narrative the core stays the same and I despise it. I am not denying influence from these various peoples, that would be foolish, but rather the amount of influence, I.E.: the statement about Anatolians forming the bulk of Imperial Roman ancestry. Or the once credited theory that Germanic genetic influence was one of the primary reasons Rome (& broadly Italy) "shifted back" (without ever confidently proving there was a major shift away in the first place) to a Southwestern European like genetic structure. There's a middle ground to take.

 

[Kuivamaa]

Two takeaways, one of them huge, is that Lazaridis et al. support the Steppe/Minoan admixture model for Mycenaeans rather than ANE mixing with Armenian from the east, as both were proposed/discussed in the first Mycenaean study.
The other is that ancient Greeks mixed with locals in Anatolia/Halicarnassus, as Herodotus said, but not in Empuries. Herodotus couldn’t blow that fact could he, since he was born there?

Greek historians have long postulated that part of his paternal lineage was indeed at least partly Carian (maternal being Greek), judging by the names of his known family members. So he seemingly did speak from personal experience.
As for the admixture model, this is the reason why I insist Phrygians should also be studied. Judging by the similarity of the their language to Greek there is a good chance they split from them not long before Myceneans appeared in the scene. While a steppe/Minoan model is very plausible it does make you scratch your head a bit that while Minoans came through Anatolia, the quite similar Myceneans took the scenic route. Phrygians lived in a rather central part of Anatolia in comparison.

 

[Francesco]

My issue is the implication that Romans/generally Italians primarily descend from immigrants, slaves, Germanics etc during the Roman era & not plain Romans and those that came before Romans, whether it is nordicists or near easterners pushing this narrative the core stays the same and I despise it. I am not denying influence from these various peoples, that would be foolish, but rather the amount of influence, I.E.: the statement about Anatolians forming the bulk of Imperial Roman ancestry. Or the once credited theory that Germanic genetic influence was one of the primary reasons Rome (& broadly Italy) "shifted back" (without ever confidently proving there was a major shift away in the first place) to a Southwestern European like genetic structure. There's a middle ground to take.

I don't think Lazaridis is implying that Italians descend from that slave population, nor that there wasn't a local resurgence after the collapse of the Roman civilization: he's just saying that the majority of the people who are labeled as Imperial romans (who were for the most part slaves) are from anatolian descent. Wich is, at least, more plausible than the theory of them being the descendants of a mixed italic-levantine population.

 

[Kuivamaa]

Lazaridis in two of his tweets around the issue says:
“There is steppe DNA in 1st millennium BCE Anatolia, this is visible in Fig. 2 of our paper. It's a little but it's there.
Anatolian migrants didn't wholly replace Latin, but certainly Greek was as common (if not more) common than Latin in Imperial Rome.”
“Rome is actually a good case, as the massive migration from the east was also accompanied by linguistic change (Greek becoming common). This is what we claim for Anatolia itself, that the migration from Anatolia's east was a good opportunity for linguistic change.”
I am Greek and have visited Rome more than once. The baths of Caracalla are a particularly interesting site for this discussion. Built right after all subjects of the empire received Roman citizenship, they are filled with inscriptions in Greek or Greek words adopted directly into Latin (eg. apodyterium). There was a big library there with two segments of equal importance: Latin and Greek. So yes, Greek language gradually became very important for the empire in the centuries after Greece was conquered. There is however one important difference with Anatolia. There IE languages absolutely dominated and eventually almost entirely replaced whatever was spoken before. In Italy Greek wasn’t spoken much outside Rome and the big urban centers (I am not talking about magna grecia here) and by the time Belisarius started his reconquista (6th century CE) Greek usage had fizzled out, I assume because urban centers have fallen into hardship after Rome was lost to the barbarians and got depopulated. The peninsula today, outside a few tiny pockets speaks Latin derived languages/dialects, not Greek. In fact a similar situation exists in modern Greece. We do know from history of a big slavic influx in medieval times but within 2-3 centuries only pockets remained and the contemporary Greeks speak Greek, not slavic.
This is my take on the linguistic part.