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

We have now 28 Mycenaean samples in total, great.

Ancestry proportions from the paper for the new Greek samples

RdJBBal.png
 
https://twitter.com/iosif_lazaridis/status/1562894185769754627
"And 99% of Indo-European speakers stem from Corded Ware ancestors. It is only three small groups: Greeks, Armenians, Albanians who go up to the Yamnaya not via Corded Ware intermediaries. Many others were wiped out linguistically, e.g. Tocharians and most Paleo-Balkan speakers"
. R1a European branch aka, European Horseless Ware.And R1b Steppe (L51 and Z2103)PIE- aka Cordless Ware.
 
quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by Excinehttps://twitter.com/iosif_lazaridis/...94185769754627
"And 99% of Indo-European speakers stem from Corded Ware ancestors. It is only three small groups: Greeks, Armenians, Albanians who go up to the Yamnaya not via Corded Ware intermediaries. Many others were wiped out linguistically, e.g. Tocharians and most Paleo-Balkan speakers"



R1a European branch aka, European Horseless Ware.And R1b Steppe (L51 and Z2103)PIE- aka Cordless Ware.
I think the wheels of chariots wiped out the languages of CWC and BB (CWC Bohemia line?) 1,600bc and planted new culture.
i5dOvMH.png

14-c2305a9841.jpg


south aisa:

images
Figure%201%20Francke%20Petroglyph%20sites.jpg

america shaman:

 
I see that a lot of the Mycenaean samples are low coverage.
 
So has the question of did the Greeks arrive in Greece through Anatolia or the Balkans been settled yet? With the very low steppe admix it would seem that the Greeks were either displaced by the steppe invaders in the Balkans or came through Anatolia and whatever steppe admix they picked up was from the Caucasus or from the Thracians.
 
There are more than 20 brand-new Mycenaeans.

Below you can view their distances to other samples already published and/or from the same study.

Please write which calculator you are using. Distances may vary from calculator to calculator.
 
"And 99% of Indo-European speakers stem from Corded Ware ancestors. It is only three small groups: Greeks, Armenians, Albanians who go up to the Yamnaya not via Corded Ware intermediaries. Many others were wiped out linguistically, e.g. Tocharians and most Paleo-Balkan speakers"
Greeks and Albanians tightly knit since forever it seems.
 
3 different Topics in post

1) Angela: Further supporting your post regarding the Bell Beaker, and Me totally misreading what they wrote, Lazaridis et al 2022 stated. Lazararidis et al 2022 stated that the Yamanaya had close to equal amounts of EHG and CHG, so the difference between the 2 is zero. This was the same for Bell Beaker, but as you say, the Bell Beakers, who were highly heterogeneous in ancestry (Olade et al 2018) who are 50% EEF + 25% CHG + 25% EHG would by have zero difference between CHG-EHG ancestry. The earliest Corded Ware they used had excess 3.1% EHG.

So again, good catch on your part.

2): Second part of post

My first run with the new Myceneans that G25 coordinates are available. 4 of the samples here are the older ones from Lazaridis et al 2017 (I9006, I9010, I9003, I9041). So my view, considering the Mycenean period was circa 3700 BC to 3000BC, not bad distances.

Distance to:PT_G25_Ancestry_simulated_g25_scaled
0.04320750GRC_Mycenaean_Palace_of_Nestor_BA_father.or.son.I13518:I13506_d
0.04430272GRC_Mycenaean_Palace_of_Nestor_BA:I13518
0.04445643GRC_Mycenaean_Palace_of_Nestor_BA:I13517_d
0.04572758GRC_Mycenaean:I9041
0.04661753GRC_Mycenaean_Kastrouli_BA:I13577
0.04910292GRC_Mycenaean:I9033
0.05721194GRC_Mycenaean:I9006
0.05779630GRC_Mycenaean_Kastrouli_BA:I13579
0.06400415GRC_Mycenaean_Attica_BA:I16709
0.06451359GRC_Mycenaean:I9010
0.06520896GRC_Mycenaean_Palace_of_Nestor_BA:I19364


3) Third part of post: Closest modern Populations to all the Myceneans used in post 2. My quick take, nothing different from what Lazaridis et al 2017 concluded. Both modern Greeks and Italians the least differentiated populations from the Myceneans.

Distance to:GRC_Mycenaean_Palace_of_Nestor_BA_father.or.son.I13518:I13506_d
0.04756353Italian_Apulia
0.04792561Italian_Campania
0.04867983Italian_Basilicata
0.04909609Italian_Lazio
0.04994336Italian_Calabria
0.05030570Sicilian_East
0.05151801Italian_Abruzzo
0.05227499Italian_Molise
0.05515537Maltese
0.05564940Italian_Jew


Distance to:GRC_Mycenaean_Palace_of_Nestor_BA:I19364
0.06925985Sicilian_East
0.06996193Italian_Apulia
0.07041206Italian_Calabria
0.07063179Italian_Campania
0.07202172Italian_Basilicata
0.07344003Italian_Lazio
0.07408055Italian_Abruzzo
0.07408434Italian_Molise
0.07602664Italian_Marche
0.07606253French_Corsica


Distance to:GRC_Mycenaean_Palace_of_Nestor_BA:I13518
0.05057728Italian_Campania
0.05143468Italian_Apulia
0.05172611Italian_Basilicata
0.05190442Italian_Calabria
0.05426717Sicilian_East
0.05499287Italian_Lazio
0.05501079Italian_Abruzzo
0.05592874Italian_Molise
0.05614866Greek_Kos
0.05680969Greek_Izmir


Distance to:GRC_Mycenaean_Palace_of_Nestor_BA:I13517_d
0.03654511Greek_Dodecanese
0.04110671Italian_Calabria
0.04146339Greek_Kos
0.04271708Greek_Crete
0.04305058Italian_Campania
0.04383122Italian_Apulia
0.04439810Italian_Basilicata
0.04479746Sicilian_East
0.04774507Sephardic_Jew
0.04818263Italian_Jew


Distance to:GRC_Mycenaean_Kastrouli_BA:I13579
0.06038835Sicilian_East
0.06315087Italian_Apulia
0.06387361Italian_Calabria
0.06432941Italian_Campania
0.06526757Italian_Basilicata
0.06638223Sicilian_West
0.06710860Italian_Jew
0.06722735Maltese
0.06790154Italian_Lazio
0.06802407Sephardic_Jew


Distance to:GRC_Mycenaean_Kastrouli_BA:I13577
0.05042202Greek_Laconia
0.05079290Italian_Lazio
0.05109544Italian_Apulia
0.05164367Italian_Umbria
0.05174011Greek_Izmir
0.05178863Italian_Basilicata
0.05197029Italian_Abruzzo
0.05330474Italian_Molise
0.05341634Italian_Campania
0.05343560Greek_Peloponnese


Distance to:GRC_Mycenaean_Attica_BA:I16709
0.06639951Italian_Apulia
0.06923756Italian_Campania
0.06970982Italian_Basilicata
0.07021450Sicilian_East
0.07026066Italian_Lazio
0.07056706Italian_Abruzzo
0.07077300Italian_Molise
0.07205599Italian_Calabria
0.07223325Greek_Izmir
0.07246214Greek_Crete


Distance to:GRC_Mycenaean:I9041
0.04874822Italian_Calabria
0.04900044Italian_Campania
0.05010230Italian_Basilicata
0.05109016Italian_Apulia
0.05207824Greek_Kos
0.05363381Sicilian_East
0.05401100Greek_Dodecanese
0.05459550Italian_Abruzzo
0.05492416Italian_Molise
0.05519596Italian_Lazio


Distance to:GRC_Mycenaean:I9033
0.04473500Italian_Calabria
0.04595238Sicilian_East
0.04814068Italian_Apulia
0.04896344Italian_Campania
0.04930462Italian_Basilicata
0.05112824Sicilian_West
0.05179310Maltese
0.05202210Italian_Molise
0.05207647Italian_Abruzzo
0.05595204Greek_Crete


Distance to:GRC_Mycenaean:I9010
0.07051792Italian_Jew
0.07065491Italian_Calabria
0.07116767Greek_Kos
0.07129528Italian_Campania
0.07258124Romaniote_Jew
0.07280276Greek_Dodecanese
0.07320377Sicilian_East
0.07383856Ashkenazi_Germany
0.07396523Italian_Basilicata
0.07415641Italian_Apulia


Distance to:GRC_Mycenaean:I9006
0.05959369Greek_Kos
0.06007139Italian_Calabria
0.06084883Greek_Dodecanese
0.06167989Italian_Campania
0.06315615Italian_Apulia
0.06340946Italian_Basilicata
0.06527905Greek_Crete
0.06593021Greek_Izmir
0.06658523Sicilian_East
0.06677538Italian_Abruzzo

 
@Angela,
@Palermo Trapani


Many thanks four your replies, they really helped me. We have now 28 Mycenaean samples in total, great.

Your welcome. I went back and checked, I am having trouble seeing. There are 25 Myceneans in the new paper (See Figure 4) + 4 from the 2017 paper so 29 total. Some according to what I have seen may be low coverage so maybe the amateur calculators might not be able to run coordinates for all of them.

My apologies.
 
3 different Topics in post

1) Angela: Further supporting your post regarding the Bell Beaker, and Me totally misreading what they wrote, Lazaridis et al 2022 stated. Lazararidis et al 2022 stated that the Yamanaya had close to equal amounts of EHG and CHG, so the difference between the 2 is zero. This was the same for Bell Beaker, but as you say, the Bell Beakers, who were highly heterogeneous in ancestry (Olade et al 2018) who are 50% EEF + 25% CHG + 25% EHG would by have zero difference between CHG-EHG ancestry. The earliest Corded Ware they used had excess 3.1% EHG.

So again, good catch on your part.

2): Second part of post

My first run with the new Myceneans that G25 coordinates are available. 4 of the samples here are the older ones from Lazaridis et al 2017 (I9006, I9010, I9003, I9041). So my view, considering the Mycenean period was circa 3700 BC to 3000BC, not bad distances.

Distance to:PT_G25_Ancestry_simulated_g25_scaled
0.04320750GRC_Mycenaean_Palace_of_Nestor_BA_father.or.son.I13518:I13506_d
0.04430272GRC_Mycenaean_Palace_of_Nestor_BA:I13518
0.04445643GRC_Mycenaean_Palace_of_Nestor_BA:I13517_d
0.04572758GRC_Mycenaean:I9041
0.04661753GRC_Mycenaean_Kastrouli_BA:I13577
0.04910292GRC_Mycenaean:I9033
0.05721194GRC_Mycenaean:I9006
0.05779630GRC_Mycenaean_Kastrouli_BA:I13579
0.06400415GRC_Mycenaean_Attica_BA:I16709
0.06451359GRC_Mycenaean:I9010
0.06520896GRC_Mycenaean_Palace_of_Nestor_BA:I19364

3) Third part of post: Closest modern Populations to all the Myceneans used in post 2. My quick take, nothing different from what Lazaridis et al 2017 concluded. Both modern Greeks and Italians the least differentiated populations from the Myceneans.

Distance to:GRC_Mycenaean_Palace_of_Nestor_BA_father.or.son.I13518:I13506_d
0.04756353Italian_Apulia
0.04792561Italian_Campania
0.04867983Italian_Basilicata
0.04909609Italian_Lazio
0.04994336Italian_Calabria
0.05030570Sicilian_East
0.05151801Italian_Abruzzo
0.05227499Italian_Molise
0.05515537Maltese
0.05564940Italian_Jew

Distance to:GRC_Mycenaean_Palace_of_Nestor_BA:I19364
0.06925985Sicilian_East
0.06996193Italian_Apulia
0.07041206Italian_Calabria
0.07063179Italian_Campania
0.07202172Italian_Basilicata
0.07344003Italian_Lazio
0.07408055Italian_Abruzzo
0.07408434Italian_Molise
0.07602664Italian_Marche
0.07606253French_Corsica

Distance to:GRC_Mycenaean_Palace_of_Nestor_BA:I13518
0.05057728Italian_Campania
0.05143468Italian_Apulia
0.05172611Italian_Basilicata
0.05190442Italian_Calabria
0.05426717Sicilian_East
0.05499287Italian_Lazio
0.05501079Italian_Abruzzo
0.05592874Italian_Molise
0.05614866Greek_Kos
0.05680969Greek_Izmir

Distance to:GRC_Mycenaean_Palace_of_Nestor_BA:I13517_d
0.03654511Greek_Dodecanese
0.04110671Italian_Calabria
0.04146339Greek_Kos
0.04271708Greek_Crete
0.04305058Italian_Campania
0.04383122Italian_Apulia
0.04439810Italian_Basilicata
0.04479746Sicilian_East
0.04774507Sephardic_Jew
0.04818263Italian_Jew

Distance to:GRC_Mycenaean_Kastrouli_BA:I13579
0.06038835Sicilian_East
0.06315087Italian_Apulia
0.06387361Italian_Calabria
0.06432941Italian_Campania
0.06526757Italian_Basilicata
0.06638223Sicilian_West
0.06710860Italian_Jew
0.06722735Maltese
0.06790154Italian_Lazio
0.06802407Sephardic_Jew

Distance to:GRC_Mycenaean_Kastrouli_BA:I13577
0.05042202Greek_Laconia
0.05079290Italian_Lazio
0.05109544Italian_Apulia
0.05164367Italian_Umbria
0.05174011Greek_Izmir
0.05178863Italian_Basilicata
0.05197029Italian_Abruzzo
0.05330474Italian_Molise
0.05341634Italian_Campania
0.05343560Greek_Peloponnese

Distance to:GRC_Mycenaean_Attica_BA:I16709
0.06639951Italian_Apulia
0.06923756Italian_Campania
0.06970982Italian_Basilicata
0.07021450Sicilian_East
0.07026066Italian_Lazio
0.07056706Italian_Abruzzo
0.07077300Italian_Molise
0.07205599Italian_Calabria
0.07223325Greek_Izmir
0.07246214Greek_Crete

Distance to:GRC_Mycenaean:I9041
0.04874822Italian_Calabria
0.04900044Italian_Campania
0.05010230Italian_Basilicata
0.05109016Italian_Apulia
0.05207824Greek_Kos
0.05363381Sicilian_East
0.05401100Greek_Dodecanese
0.05459550Italian_Abruzzo
0.05492416Italian_Molise
0.05519596Italian_Lazio

Distance to:GRC_Mycenaean:I9033
0.04473500Italian_Calabria
0.04595238Sicilian_East
0.04814068Italian_Apulia
0.04896344Italian_Campania
0.04930462Italian_Basilicata
0.05112824Sicilian_West
0.05179310Maltese
0.05202210Italian_Molise
0.05207647Italian_Abruzzo
0.05595204Greek_Crete

Distance to:GRC_Mycenaean:I9010
0.07051792Italian_Jew
0.07065491Italian_Calabria
0.07116767Greek_Kos
0.07129528Italian_Campania
0.07258124Romaniote_Jew
0.07280276Greek_Dodecanese
0.07320377Sicilian_East
0.07383856Ashkenazi_Germany
0.07396523Italian_Basilicata
0.07415641Italian_Apulia

Distance to:GRC_Mycenaean:I9006
0.05959369Greek_Kos
0.06007139Italian_Calabria
0.06084883Greek_Dodecanese
0.06167989Italian_Campania
0.06315615Italian_Apulia
0.06340946Italian_Basilicata
0.06527905Greek_Crete
0.06593021Greek_Izmir
0.06658523Sicilian_East
0.06677538Italian_Abruzzo

I think a distance of 4 to a Bronze Age sample is pretty darn good. My husband will be very pleased. :)
 
So has the question of did the Greeks arrive in Greece through Anatolia or the Balkans been settled yet? With the very low steppe admix it would seem that the Greeks were either displaced by the steppe invaders in the Balkans or came through Anatolia and whatever steppe admix they picked up was from the Caucasus or from the Thracians.

I have no idea what that means. The R1b carrying Greek speakers were the steppe "invaders" who came down through the Balkans, although they don't seem to have done much "invading" in the sense of establishing a genetic elite. Rather, it seems that they admixed with the locals in a rather egalitarian manner. The culture was a mix of the local culture and the Yamnaya culture.

It makes sense given the fact that they didn't arrive until after the Early Bronze Age if my memory serves. Greece proper was already highly civilized and densely populated.

So, we can say good-bye to the Drews theory and the ridiculous Corded Ware theory. The yDna is G, I, and R1b.

Didn't you read the paper and the supplement? I know it's a lot with three papers and all the supplements, but the weekend is tomorrow, so we can all catch up.
 
So by Corded Ware Intermediaries, I assume he means Bell Beaker folks?

I think he means directly to Yamnaya; no intermediaries.

In saying most Indo-European speakers stem from Corded Ware, he must be seeing Bell Beaker as a branch off of Corded Ware, which I'm not qualified to pronounce on, because I've never paid much attention to it.
 
Angela: RE post #71 and your marito, he should be, Calabria is popping up in every one! :) Salento and Jovialis would be as well as the Pugliese are in every one as well.
 
I think he means directly to Yamnaya; no intermediaries.

In saying most Indo-European speakers stem from Corded Ware, he must be seeing Bell Beaker as a branch off of Corded Ware, which I'm not qualified to pronounce on, because I've never paid much attention to it.

Angela: Ok, I was not sure what he meant. I think Bell Beaker culturally was related to the Corded Ware, so I think your interpretation is correct. I would think while they all picked up IE languages via Corded Ware expansion which overlapped Bell Beaker culture, the genetics I don't think are the same. The last big paper on the Bell Beakers was that Olade et al 2018 Nature paper and there are 226 Bell Beakers and the paper did note high heterogeneity among the samples. I went back and quickly looked at as I like you did not get to invested in the paper since of the 226 Beaker samples, only 6 really interested me, the 3 Northern Italian Beakers and the 3 Sicilians, but I think due to quality control/coverage, only 1 of the Sicilians had full genome analysis.

But your hunches, as I already alluded to, were correct regarding Beakers:

From the paper

"Individuals associated with the Beaker complex are notably heterogeneous within the European cline along an axis of variation defined by Early Bronze Age Yamnaya individuals from the steppe at one extreme and Middle Neolithic and Copper Age Europeans at the other extreme (Fig. 1c; Extended Data Fig. 3a). This suggests that genetic differentiation among Beaker-complex-associated individuals may be related to variable amounts of steppe-related ancestry"

The Beakers that went into Great Britain had very, very high Steppe and replaced like 90% of the pre-Steppe Neolithic population. In Iberia, some of the Beaker Iberians were culturally Beaker but lacked any Steppe and were similar to the Neolithic Iberians, although some Iberians had Steppe ancestry which brought IE languages in. But to be honest, there is no clear admixture model in the main text as the samples vary too much.

I found this statement in the Supplement (p. 152)


"Steppe ancestry in Beaker-associated individualsWith PCA, ADMIXTURE and f-statistics, we learned that our newly reported individuals reside along the Steppe Early Bronze Age-European Neolithic axis of genetic differentiation. Thus, we tried to model them as a mixture of Steppe_EBA + Anatolia_N + WHG (Table S4). These values were used for Fig. 2a. Many populations can be explained by a mixture of Anatolia_N + WHG without any contribution from Steppe_EBA, indicating a lack of Steppe-related ancestry."


On page 167 (Table S.4 is the admixture model), the Beaker Italians do not have Predominate Steppe either, 2 of them have none and the 2 that have Steppe have 25.6% and 29.7% respectively (I assume 1 of these is the Sicilian Beaker. Some UK samples have 60% or more Steppe, the Germans > 50%, etc.

So if Northern Italian Bell Beaker types represent the population that brought in Steppe ancestry and IE languages in the North of Italy, which is what Raveane et al 2019 suggested, they were most definitely not Corded Ware types genetically. I used Jovialis's K8 model to see what it looks like and it works I think quite well for those 4 Beakers (3 Northern Italian, 1 Sicilian). 2 of them, similar to the reported results in Olade et al 2019 Supplement have Steppe (1 the Model hits dead one) and the other 2 had zero (which is effectively what Sicilian Beaker and I2477 Northern Italian Beaker have in the Model). I remember you often saying the Steppe in Northern/Central Italy was mediated through Beaker culture and I think the evidence supports what you said in another post in another thread.



Target: Olade_etal_2018:I2478_Bronze_Age_Beaker_Northern_Italy
Distance: 1.9609% / 1.96094933
60.6Remedello
29.3Yamnaya
8.9Minoan
1.2Bolshoy_Ostrov



Target: Olade_etal_2018:I2477_Bronze_Age_Beaker_Northern_Italy
Distance: 1.2065% / 1.20646925
54.2Remedello
30.4C_Italian_N
9.7Minoan
5.4Iberomaurusian
0.3Yamnaya


Target: Olade_etal_2018:I1979_Bronze_Age_Beaker_Northern_Italy
Distance: 4.9469% / 4.94690417
42.1Minoan
37.7Remedello
18.1Yamnaya
2.1Bolshoy_Ostrov


Target: Olade_etal_2018:I4930_Bronze_Age_Beaker_Sicily
Distance: 1.6558% / 1.65579333
76.8Minoan
18.5Remedello
1.9C_Italian_N
1.4Yamnaya
1.3Iberomaurusian
0.1Bolshoy_Ostrov

Anyway, sorry to go deep into the weeds on the Steppe impact and spread of IE languages on Italy but since it is a hot topic, I have joined in more on the Steppe non Steppe source of Proto-Indo European language and which type of groups spread IE into Italy and Greece.
 
Last edited:
I agree. He makes a particular point that slaves would not leave many descendants behind.

I still, however, have questions which I'll take this opportunity to address to all our members.

This is the pertinent excerpt from the paper:

"Unexpectedly, the ancestry of the sample of people whose genomes were analyzed who lived around Rome in the Imperial period was almost identical to that of Roman and Byzantine individuals from Anatolia in both their mean (Fig. 3A) and pattern of variation (Fig. 3B)".

I read that as meaning they compared the Antonio et al Imperial Roman samples to Imperial Era (and Byzantine Era) Anatolians.

Using the term "lived" around Rome in the Imperial period is questionable, imo. We're talking about samples not just in Rome itself but also in Ostia, a port city where transitory seamen and merchants would "live", but only for limited periods of time.

Also, did they include literally ALL of the samples, including the ones which were quite "Northern" autosomally, and the ones who were quite "Levantine" autosomally, i.e. the "tail into the Levant"? If that's the case, are they saying that the people of Anatolia in the Roman and Byzantine Era included people who were quite Levantine autosomally? Or is it only in the Byzantine Era that this was the case? Might it not have been better to separate the two sets of Anatolian samples they were using?

However, there is also this:

"We clustered diverse Roman, Byzantine, and medieval individuals and their immediate predecessors without any knowledge of their population labels and found that the Italian and Anatolian individuals clustered together with those of pre-Roman Anatolia,"

So, which is it? Is it Roman Anatolian samples or Pre-Roman Anatolian samples? If it is Pre-Roman Anatolian samples, does he mean Bronze Age or Iron Age?

I have to go through the figures both in the paper and in the supplement carefully to see if there's information about the precise samples used. If someone has already done it, could you let us know?

To my knowledge we don't have Iron Age samples from Anatolia.

Also, would Aegean Bronze (or Iron) Age samples also be part of that cluster? In that case, they would also be part of this "engine" for the Imperial period, yet it doesn't seem they were thrown into the pot.

How different are the Aegean Bronze Age samples from the Anatolian Bronze Age samples?

What about the Sicilian Bronze Age samples? Would they also fit into that cluster?

Or, how about actual Roman Era Greek samples? Would they fit into that cluster? We do have the Marathon sample. Does he fit into the cluster? How about the two Empuries samples? Do they fit into the cluster? If they do, then wouldn't that imply that the input into Imperial Rome could also be because of Greek colonization, not just movement from Anatolia?

Having spent some time going over the graphics I think I can answer some of my questions. If I'm going wrong here, people, please let me know. This is the graphic.

Yes, they included all the Antonio et al samples, northern, Anatolian like, Levant like etc. They also included, as you can see, all the other Italian groups from the Chalcolithic forward, and all of the Anatolian samples from "Ancient", which I assume is Neolithic, through the Bronze Age all the way to the Byzantine period.

There are not very many Iron Age samples from Anatolia.

What this team focused upon, which sample sets are indeed bolded, are the Antonio et al samples from the Imperial City of Rome, and what is labeled TUR_RomByz. I haven't checked every one of those samples to see what percentage was from the Roman Era and what percentage was from the later Byzantine Era. Does anyone know?

I suppose one could say that both groups are very "cosmopolitan". A few are quite "northern like", some are very Levantine like, while many have much less, and you even have a few who are Armenian like.

Lazaridis goes to some lengths to talk about the "outsiders" who could be found in Anatolia in the days of the Eastern Roman or Byzantine Empire.

I would submit that the same is true of the Imperial City of Rome: lots of outsiders who did not all necessarily contribute to the genetics of Early Medieval Italians, for example. At any rate, this rather broad, general analysis certainly wouldn't answer that question.

I think it's instructive, however, to also look at the Anatolian Bronze Age or even the TUR_Anc, which I believe is Anatolian Neolithic. Both Rome Imperial and Eastern Rom/Byzantium overlap a lot with those more ancient groups. How does that prove that all of the people from the Imperial City of Rome who overlap with all of those groups came to Rome specifically "from" Anatolia, in the first three centuries of the Empire?

I'm not saying it didn't happen. I just don't see how this proves it. I also think the conclusion is pre-mature.

As I pointed out in my first post here above to which I am responding, I think it would be crucial to include Aegean Bronze Age samples, and even more importantly, Aegean Iron Age samples, when or if they have them, and certainly the Greek Marathon sample, and the two Empuries samples, to see if they too could possibly be the source of this signal in Imperial Rome. Sicilian Bronze Age should also be in the mix, and, when we have them, samples from Greek colonists to Southern Italy.

I still believe the following:
"Using the term "lived" around Rome in the Imperial period is questionable, imo. We're talking about samples not just in Rome itself but also in Ostia, a port city where transitory seamen and merchants would "live", but only for limited periods of time."
of
The same would apply to Byzantium, of course, unless we are to believe that in Anatolia proper there were people with such high levels of Levantine ancestry. It's possible that the samples he's using for Byzantium are not, indeed, just from Anatolia proper. All of the samples would have to be examined to see what percentage are strictly from Anatolia proper.

Also, I still hold with the following:
"Indeed, in terms of Anatolia, there were, as we all know, numerous Greek settlements there, inhabited by people who were, I agree, probably a mixture of Greek and western Anatolian. Were the samples used to compare to Imperial Roman samples from this group of people?"

If his samples for EasternRom/Byzantium are mostly from those heavily Greek influenced areas, then are they precisely "Anatolian", or rather a mixture of Greeks and Anatolians, which is why, indeed they spoke Greek. That is, not because they adopted it as a lingua franca, but as the language of their ancestors, a la Herodotus himself, half Carian that he was.

So, was it 100% Anatolians who went in such large numbers to the City of Rome, or was it Anatolians, Greeks, Greek/Anatolians, and yes, some Levantines. Whether they all stayed and changed the genetics of, say, Lazio, permanently is another issue.

I also would like to address this statement that the Anatolians were the "engine" of the Roman Empire. Perhaps they were the engine of the Eastern Roman Empire/Byzantium, but I certainly wouldn't go so far in talking about the western Roman Empire. In fact, there would have been no Western or Eastern Roman Empire without the legions of Roman, which originally and for all the initial large conquests were made up of people from the Italian mainland and its islands. Nor could it have existed without the roads they built, which facilitated trade, although the larger part was probably by sea. Roman culture would certainly never have existed without the borrowings from Etruria, and, of course, from Greece itself, including certainly, Ionian Greek City-States from Anatolia, but hardly further inland, and with the most respect given, from everything I know, to Athens. The upper classes of Rome very early on taught their children Greek, indeed, but that was to understand Greek philosophy and literature and science. Yes, the people from the Aegean and all the areas where Greeks had established colonies spoke Greek, and so it became a common language certainly in the eastern part of the Empire and in parts of Italy itself, but let's not forget that the peoples of the conquered areas in Western Europe spoke Latin derivatives, not Greek ones, so let's not exaggerate.
 
Please write which calculator you are using. Distances may vary from calculator to calculator.

In the paper there are models for each sample using CHG, EHG, Levant_PPN, SRB_Iron_Gates_HG and TUR_Marmara_Barcin_N.

I simply took the name of the samples and their relative ancestry proportions, and put them on Vahaduo. Technically it is not a real calculator, I was just using it to see the distances to the other samples.
 
In the paper there are models for each sample using CHG, EHG, Levant_PPN, SRB_Iron_Gates_HG and TUR_Marmara_Barcin_N.

I simply took the name of the samples and their relative ancestry proportions, and put them on Vahaduo. Technically it is not a real calculator, I was just using it to see the distances to the other samples.


Do the results of Vahaduo g25 match the qpadm breakdowns of the paper? Are they in the same ballpark?
 

This thread has been viewed 36788 times.

Back
Top