Analyzing the Mediterranean Cluster C6 from Antonio M et al. 2019

Following increasing Roman domination of the Eastern Mediterranean, the client kingdom of the Herodian dynasty had been officially merged into the Roman Empire in the year 6 CE with the creation of the Roman province of Judea. The transition of the Tetrarchy of Judea into a Roman province immediately brought a great deal of tensions and a Jewish uprising by Judas of Galilee erupted right away as a response to the Census of Quirinius.

Although initially pacified (the years between 7 and 26 CE being relatively quiet), the province continued to be a source of trouble under Emperor Caligula (after 37 CE). The cause of tensions in the east of the Empire was complicated, involving the spread of Greek culture, Roman law, and the rights of Jews in the Empire. Caligula did not trust the prefect of Roman Egypt, Aulus Avilius Flaccus. Flaccus had been loyal to Tiberius, had conspired against Caligula's mother and had connections with Egyptian separatists.[12][better source needed] In 38 CE, Caligula sent Herod Agrippa to Alexandria unannounced to check on Flaccus.[13][better source needed] According to Philo, the visit was met with jeers from the Greek population, who saw Agrippa as the king of the Jews.[14][15] Flaccus tried to placate both the Greek population and Caligula by having statues of the emperor placed in Jewish synagogues.[16][17] As a result, extensive religious riots broke out in the city.[18] Caligula responded by removing Flaccus from his position and executing him.[19] In 39 CE, Agrippa accused Herod Antipas, the tetrarch of Galilee and Perea, of planning a rebellion against Roman rule with the help of Parthia. Herod Antipas confessed and Caligula exiled him. Agrippa was rewarded with his territories.[20]


Riots again erupted in Alexandria in 40 CE between Jews and Greeks.[21] Jews were accused of not honoring the emperor.[21] Disputes occurred also in the city of Jamnia.[22] Jews were angered by the erection of a clay altar and destroyed it.[22] In response, Caligula ordered the erection of a statue of himself in the Temple of Jerusalem,[23] a demand in conflict with Jewish monotheism.[24] In this context, Philo writes that Caligula "regarded the Jews with most especial suspicion, as if they were the only persons who cherished wishes opposed to his".[24] The governor of Roman Syria, Publius Petronius, fearing civil war if the order were carried out, delayed implementing it for nearly a year.[25] Agrippa finally convinced Caligula to reverse the order.[21] However, only Caligula's death at the hands of Roman conspirators in 41 CE prevented a full-scale war in Judaea, that might well have spread to the entire Eastern Roman Empire.[26]


Caligula's death did not stop the tensions completely and in 46 CE an insurrection led by two brothers, the Jacob and Simon uprising, broke out in the Judea province. The revolt, mainly in the Galilee, began as sporadic insurgency; when it climaxed in 48 CE it was quickly put down by Roman authorities. Both Simon and Jacob were executed.[27]

The Greeks and Jews hated each other in Roman times. I doubt they would pretend to be one another.
 
Er Monnezza said:
Ok, but with or without historical evidence, that signal is there and remains in our genetics. Also, these people would speak Greek and would almost always be referred to as Greeks by the Romans

What makes you say confidently that "that signal is there and remains in our genetics"? As far as I see, there is no such signal; this new methodology detects Levant_N ancestry across all Europe since the BA, and both you and I get the impression it might inflate it, and personally the evidence leads me to believe that the methodology and models used in this paper are sounder (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867420305092), but for discussion's sake let's use the results of the southern arc paper as a "common metre": in older discussions on the same matter, when presented the fact that up to that point no Levant_N ancestry was used to model either ancient Greeks or modern Italians, it was rebuted that Levantine_N as a source wasn't considered and/or formally used and then rejected; now this methodology does use Levant_N to model Europeans, and uses quite much of it, yet it assigns a much lower amount of Levant_N to southern Italians compared to G25, indeed from 1 and a half to twice less.
The centroid for Levant_PPN in Italy_MedievalModern (actually Rome) is a bit under 10%, and the upper range a bit above (let's say 8% the centroid and 12% the upper limit); since it is a grouping of both medieval samples from Rome (who cluster with modern Sicilians and deep south Italians, and I've given you evidence to think that it isn't just a coincidence) and modern ones (so modern day central Italians), then you could expect the centroid for just Rome_medieval (hence deep southern Italians) to be 10%, with the upper limit at 14%, so how is it possible that the averages, that is where the centroid ought to cluster, for both Campanians and Sicilians are well beyond the upper limit and being 16-20% they have roughly a bit more than 1 and a half and up to twice greater the amount of Levant_PPN ancestry on average. How do you explain such a discrepancy?

This was not limited to Rome. There are cases of Cilicians and Syrians present in southern Italy even before the Romans annexed their territories.

Seriously? Does the mention of two (!!!!) slaves from the Levant or nearby somehow show that there was a significant gene flow into south Italy from there? Slaves died, they lived a very hard life, often being literally worked to death, so it oughtn't be expected that somehow slaves altered the local gene pool, unless of very specific social dynamics (for example, the Islamic slave trade often revolved around sexual slaves, hence the increase in SSA ancestry in islamic countries, almost only female mediated), and there is no actual evidence of slaves repopulating areas of south Italy (yes, latifundia were common, but the vast majority of the slaves there would not live long enough to reproduce)
 
Even in during Mass on Sunday, the readings make it empathetically clear the distinction between Greeks and Jews. Almost as opposites.

They were true opposites in almost every way.

While Rome may have been "Greekified" to some extent, the Judeans most definitely were not. Their rejection of Greek culture was the whole basis for the Maccabean revolt against their Greek/Macedonian rulers, and their success in having statues of Greek gods removed from their holy places is marked by the festival of Hannukah.

No nude sporting exercise or events for them; it was anathema, as circumcision was anathema for the Greeks.

The only Jewish thinker of the time who tried to dialogue with Greek philosophy was Philo, and following the dispersal the Jews turned even more inward. The Sadducees lost and the Pharisees won. It wouldn't be until the Middle Ages with people like Maimonides that such a dialogue began again.
 
ara.PNG
(it didn't allow me to post the image in the previous post)
 
If the results produced by G25 do not match at least approximately the results from formal statistical analysis, then there is something wrong with G25.

It's really that simple. No sophistry is going to change that fact.
 
Greekified Rome is much more likely to be a reference to cultural impact.
The term "Greek" was seldom used for Greek speaking pagans (in the Bible for example) but never to Jews and early Christians as they were Monotheists.
 
now this methodology does use Levant_N to model Europeans, and uses quite much of it, yet it assigns a much lower amount of Levant_N to southern Italians compared to G25, indeed from 1 and a half to twice less.

No modern South Italians were analyzed in the Southern Arc paper.

The centroid for Levant_PPN in Italy_MedievalModern (actually Rome) is a bit under 10%, and the upper range a bit above (let's say 8% the centroid and 12% the upper limit); since it is a grouping of both medieval samples from Rome (who cluster with modern Sicilians and deep south Italians, and I've given you evidence to think that it isn't just a coincidence) and modern ones (so modern day central Italians), then you could expect the centroid for just Rome_medieval (hence deep southern Italians) to be 10%, with the upper limit at 14%, so how is it possible that the averages, that is where the centroid ought to cluster, for both Campanians and Sicilians are well beyond the upper limit and being 16-20% they have roughly a bit more than 1 and a half and up to twice greater the amount of Levant_PPN ancestry on average. How do you explain such a discrepancy?

The discrepancy is explained by the fact that Medieval Roman averages are Central Italian-like, not deep Southern Italian-like such as Campanians, Calabrians and Sicilians. The average that comes closest is ITA_Tivoli_Renaissance but it has south-central Italian-like results, not true southern results.

Dodecad K12b averages and distances

Code:
ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity,6.5383333,0.20583333,3.1375,0.19958333,32.517917,17.91875,0.2975,0.45541667,10.049167,0.09625,28.33125,0.25333333
ITA_Rome_MA,5.8914286,0.20571429,1.9342857,0.20619048,33.212381,21.69381,0.37,0.39619048,9.0690476,0.24333333,26.332381,0.44904762
ITA_Tivoli_Renaissance,7.5733333,0.01,2.89,0.16333333,29.54,17.21,0.37,0.30333333,9.87,0,31.526667,0.53666667

[B]Distance to:    ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity[/B]
[COLOR=#ff0000][B]1.44311332    Italian_Marche
2.25074718    Italian_Lazio[/B][/COLOR]
3.02539456    Italian_Umbria
4.30903060    Italian_Romagna

[B]Distance to:    ITA_Rome_MA[/B]
[COLOR=#ff0000][B]1.98126760    Italian_Romagna[/B][/COLOR]
2.54605914    Italian_Umbria
3.71481188    Italian_Lazio
4.03054722    Italian_Tuscany
4.19364892    Italian_Marche
5.35956337    Italian_Emilia

[B]Distance to:    ITA_Tivoli_Renaissance[/B]
[COLOR=#ff0000][B]2.08586229    Italian_Abruzzo[/B][/COLOR]
3.90981508    Italian_Molise
4.13406833    Italian_Apulia
4.51109640    Italian_Lazio
4.59542033    Italian_Basilicata
4.65700703    Italian_Marche
5.12143415    Greek_Central
5.19223975    Italian_Campania
5.52201845    Italian_Sicily

This is how much Levant_PPNB they score in my model, here too it is less than 10%.

Code:
GEO_CHG,0.091058,0.102568,-0.083344,-0.00323,-0.08617,0.020638,0.024911,-0.001846,-0.128236,-0.074717,-0.006333,0.023979,-0.054856,0.004404,0.026601,-0.03275,0.02386,-0.013429,-0.022249,0.034767,0.033815,-0.007048,0.006532,-0.025787,-0.002036
IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N,0.0430252,0.0664158,-0.1550722,0.0047158,-0.122669,0.0235384,0.017109,-0.0011998,-0.082546,-0.0544158,-0.0028258,-0.0016186,0.0044896,-0.0062756,0.0316498,0.0561384,-0.0054242,0.0068664,0.0136508,-0.0334162,0.00856,-0.028836,-0.0110678,-0.039331,0.0222254
ITA_Villabruna,0.121791,0.114755,0.18592,0.184111,0.156337,0.060798,0.020211,0.035998,0.092445,0.018041,-0.016239,-0.016186,0.016947,-0.010046,0.054017,0.067356,0.000782,0.005448,-0.008422,0.053526,0.100073,0.010758,-0.048313,-0.163517,0.01928
Levant_PPNB,0.071961667,0.16643389,-0.028954333,-0.13785022,0.030809222,-0.064485778,-0.013317222,-0.011819889,0.077537222,0.037115444,0.015390889,-0.015469444,0.031103111,0.0024313333,-0.021293111,0.002917,0.010749222,-0.001295,-0.007067,0.014951444,-0.0032997778,0.0056882222,0.0018075556,-0.004927,-0.0017695556
MAR_Taforalt,-0.189857,0.0814452,-0.0242866,-0.085595,0.027636,-0.0552202,-0.0705968,0.0184146,0.155397,0.003499,0.0209156,-0.0318316,0.0747168,-0.0513334,0.0711988,-0.0363032,0.0052676,-0.066106,-0.1424162,0.0389938,-0.0376836,-0.1255322,0.0730118,-0.0137606,0.0164534
RUS_Samara_HG,0.119514,0.048745,0.113513,0.206398,-0.008001,0.054384,-0.013161,-0.023537,-0.01309,-0.090936,0.01429,-0.018883,0.026164,-0.03647,0.020629,0.012994,-0.005867,-0.000507,-0.00729,0.009004,-0.011854,0.025102,0.009737,-0.02651,-0.009101
TUR_Marmara_Barcin_N,0.1181049,0.18124781,0.002424381,-0.10048405,0.051848286,-0.046800476,-0.0050917143,-0.007186619,0.036668333,0.081181952,0.0085292857,0.011803762,-0.023290095,0.00094371429,-0.041265429,-0.0091549524,0.022326667,0.00066957143,0.011624095,-0.0095938095,-0.013244429,0.005970619,-0.0044663333,-0.0033968571,-0.0055027619

[B]Target: ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity[/B]
Distance: 0.0273% / 0.02730120
58.5    TUR_Marmara_Barcin_N
16.4    RUS_Samara_HG
10.8    GEO_CHG
[COLOR=#ff0000][B]6.5    Levant_PPNB[/B][/COLOR]
5.2    IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
2.6    ITA_Villabruna

[B]Target: ITA_Rome_MA[/B]
Distance: 0.0322% / 0.03218180
57.6    TUR_Marmara_Barcin_N
19.2    RUS_Samara_HG
10.4    GEO_CHG
[COLOR=#ff0000][B]5.5    Levant_PPNB[/B][/COLOR]
4.3    IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
3.0    ITA_Villabruna

[B]Target: ITA_Tivoli_Renaissance[/B]
Distance: 0.0293% / 0.02934474
55.0    TUR_Marmara_Barcin_N
17.4    RUS_Samara_HG
11.1    GEO_CHG
[COLOR=#ff0000][B]9.2    Levant_PPNB[/B][/COLOR]
6.8    IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
0.5    ITA_Villabruna

This is how Campanians and Sicilians score, about 13%.

Code:
[B]Target: Italian_Campania[/B]
Distance: 0.0265% / 0.02654174
53.7    TUR_Marmara_Barcin_N
14.1    RUS_Samara_HG
[COLOR=#ff0000][B]12.7    Levant_PPNB[/B][/COLOR]
10.4    GEO_CHG
9.1    IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N

[B]Target: Sicilian[/B]
Distance: 0.0303% / 0.03032642
51.4    TUR_Marmara_Barcin_N
14.1    RUS_Samara_HG
[COLOR=#ff0000][B]13.2    Levant_PPNB[/B][/COLOR]
9.9    GEO_CHG
8.3    IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
2.1    ITA_Villabruna
1.0    MAR_Taforalt

Seriously? Does the mention of two (!!!!) slaves from the Levant or nearby somehow show that there was a significant gene flow into south Italy from there?

And we only know they are Syrians because they rebelled, otherwise we wouldn't know that either haha.
 
No modern South Italians were analyzed in the Southern Arc paper.



The discrepancy is explained by the fact that Medieval Roman averages are Central Italian-like, not deep Southern Italian-like such as Campanians, Calabrians and Sicilians. The average that comes closest is ITA_Tivoli_Renaissance but it has south-central Italian-like results, not true southern results.

Dodecad K12b averages and distances

Code:
ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity,6.5383333,0.20583333,3.1375,0.19958333,32.517917,17.91875,0.2975,0.45541667,10.049167,0.09625,28.33125,0.25333333
ITA_Rome_MA,5.8914286,0.20571429,1.9342857,0.20619048,33.212381,21.69381,0.37,0.39619048,9.0690476,0.24333333,26.332381,0.44904762
ITA_Tivoli_Renaissance,7.5733333,0.01,2.89,0.16333333,29.54,17.21,0.37,0.30333333,9.87,0,31.526667,0.53666667

[B]Distance to:    ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity[/B]
[COLOR=#ff0000][B]1.44311332    Italian_Marche
2.25074718    Italian_Lazio[/B][/COLOR]
3.02539456    Italian_Umbria
4.30903060    Italian_Romagna

[B]Distance to:    ITA_Rome_MA[/B]
[COLOR=#ff0000][B]1.98126760    Italian_Romagna[/B][/COLOR]
2.54605914    Italian_Umbria
3.71481188    Italian_Lazio
4.03054722    Italian_Tuscany
4.19364892    Italian_Marche
5.35956337    Italian_Emilia

[B]Distance to:    ITA_Tivoli_Renaissance[/B]
[COLOR=#ff0000][B]2.08586229    Italian_Abruzzo[/B][/COLOR]
3.90981508    Italian_Molise
4.13406833    Italian_Apulia
4.51109640    Italian_Lazio
4.59542033    Italian_Basilicata
4.65700703    Italian_Marche
5.12143415    Greek_Central
5.19223975    Italian_Campania
5.52201845    Italian_Sicily

This is how much Levant_PPNB they score in my model, here too it is less than 10%.

Code:
GEO_CHG,0.091058,0.102568,-0.083344,-0.00323,-0.08617,0.020638,0.024911,-0.001846,-0.128236,-0.074717,-0.006333,0.023979,-0.054856,0.004404,0.026601,-0.03275,0.02386,-0.013429,-0.022249,0.034767,0.033815,-0.007048,0.006532,-0.025787,-0.002036
IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N,0.0430252,0.0664158,-0.1550722,0.0047158,-0.122669,0.0235384,0.017109,-0.0011998,-0.082546,-0.0544158,-0.0028258,-0.0016186,0.0044896,-0.0062756,0.0316498,0.0561384,-0.0054242,0.0068664,0.0136508,-0.0334162,0.00856,-0.028836,-0.0110678,-0.039331,0.0222254
ITA_Villabruna,0.121791,0.114755,0.18592,0.184111,0.156337,0.060798,0.020211,0.035998,0.092445,0.018041,-0.016239,-0.016186,0.016947,-0.010046,0.054017,0.067356,0.000782,0.005448,-0.008422,0.053526,0.100073,0.010758,-0.048313,-0.163517,0.01928
Levant_PPNB,0.071961667,0.16643389,-0.028954333,-0.13785022,0.030809222,-0.064485778,-0.013317222,-0.011819889,0.077537222,0.037115444,0.015390889,-0.015469444,0.031103111,0.0024313333,-0.021293111,0.002917,0.010749222,-0.001295,-0.007067,0.014951444,-0.0032997778,0.0056882222,0.0018075556,-0.004927,-0.0017695556
MAR_Taforalt,-0.189857,0.0814452,-0.0242866,-0.085595,0.027636,-0.0552202,-0.0705968,0.0184146,0.155397,0.003499,0.0209156,-0.0318316,0.0747168,-0.0513334,0.0711988,-0.0363032,0.0052676,-0.066106,-0.1424162,0.0389938,-0.0376836,-0.1255322,0.0730118,-0.0137606,0.0164534
RUS_Samara_HG,0.119514,0.048745,0.113513,0.206398,-0.008001,0.054384,-0.013161,-0.023537,-0.01309,-0.090936,0.01429,-0.018883,0.026164,-0.03647,0.020629,0.012994,-0.005867,-0.000507,-0.00729,0.009004,-0.011854,0.025102,0.009737,-0.02651,-0.009101
TUR_Marmara_Barcin_N,0.1181049,0.18124781,0.002424381,-0.10048405,0.051848286,-0.046800476,-0.0050917143,-0.007186619,0.036668333,0.081181952,0.0085292857,0.011803762,-0.023290095,0.00094371429,-0.041265429,-0.0091549524,0.022326667,0.00066957143,0.011624095,-0.0095938095,-0.013244429,0.005970619,-0.0044663333,-0.0033968571,-0.0055027619

[B]Target: ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity[/B]
Distance: 0.0273% / 0.02730120
58.5    TUR_Marmara_Barcin_N
16.4    RUS_Samara_HG
10.8    GEO_CHG
[COLOR=#ff0000][B]6.5    Levant_PPNB[/B][/COLOR]
5.2    IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
2.6    ITA_Villabruna

[B]Target: ITA_Rome_MA[/B]
Distance: 0.0322% / 0.03218180
57.6    TUR_Marmara_Barcin_N
19.2    RUS_Samara_HG
10.4    GEO_CHG
[COLOR=#ff0000][B]5.5    Levant_PPNB[/B][/COLOR]
4.3    IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
3.0    ITA_Villabruna

[B]Target: ITA_Tivoli_Renaissance[/B]
Distance: 0.0293% / 0.02934474
55.0    TUR_Marmara_Barcin_N
17.4    RUS_Samara_HG
11.1    GEO_CHG
[COLOR=#ff0000][B]9.2    Levant_PPNB[/B][/COLOR]
6.8    IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
0.5    ITA_Villabruna

This is how Campanians and Sicilians score, about 13%.

Code:
[B]Target: Italian_Campania[/B]
Distance: 0.0265% / 0.02654174
53.7    TUR_Marmara_Barcin_N
14.1    RUS_Samara_HG
[COLOR=#ff0000][B]12.7    Levant_PPNB[/B][/COLOR]
10.4    GEO_CHG
9.1    IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N

[B]Target: Sicilian[/B]
Distance: 0.0303% / 0.03032642
51.4    TUR_Marmara_Barcin_N
14.1    RUS_Samara_HG
[COLOR=#ff0000][B]13.2    Levant_PPNB[/B][/COLOR]
9.9    GEO_CHG
8.3    IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
2.1    ITA_Villabruna
1.0    MAR_Taforalt



And we only know they are Syrians because they rebelled, otherwise we wouldn't know that either haha.


366_708_f3.jpeg


1) The bulk of Medieval Romans cluster with deep southern Italians, where you can see the tight clustering, and also a considerable amount of "outliers", so to speak, (though I interpret this as a snapshot of the process that created modern Romans as a mixing of a previous south Italian-like substrate with new comers from Tuscany, as the dialectology and historiography suggest), so they figure out certainly in the average you see (also considering the range).
2) Southern Italians are very reasonably approximated by Rome_medieval.
3) Anyway, there is no such difference between southern Italians and central Italians, for heaven's sake: how can anybody think that there is almost double the amount of Levantine ancestry in south Italians compared to Central ones.
4) 13% is still considerably beyond the centroid for Rome medieval, and I recall I saw models on anthrogenica with 16-20% Levant_N.
5)
And we only know they are Syrians because they rebelled, otherwise we wouldn't know that either haha
Do you earnestly think this qualifies as an answer? As I read it, it means "actually we can't know the ethnic composition of the slave masses, but they MUST have been also heavily Syrian/Levantine-like because of G25 results for south Italians". You aren't bringing evidence or arguments, you are just postulating a theory that can't be disproven or proven because you already accept G25 as valid; for every one, it is lazy thinking (why weren't the Slaves heavily Celtic as well? Why were Levantines mostly present in south Italy? How, anyway, did slaves impact the local gene pool?, etc... these are answers you aren't even attempting to answer, you just claim "it happened somehow")
6) Ok, for discussion sake, let's take the 13% Levant_N for deep south Italians: it can perfectly well be explained by the Anatolians, so why the insistence on another, different gene flow straight from the Levant or nearby?
 
We all know the answer to that.
 
All of the Northern Italian-like Medieval samples from Rome were from the era of Renaissance the rest plot with deep Southern Italians. It is very probable most EMA Central Italians of Lazio, Marche and Abruzzo were in Southern Italian cluster (maybe slightly north of modern Apulians).
 
1) The bulk of Medieval Romans cluster with deep southern Italians, where you can see the tight clustering

Again? I just posted you the averages that indicate otherwise.

I interpret this as a snapshot of the process that created modern Romans as a mixing of a previous south Italian-like substrate with new comers from Tuscany, as the dialectology and historiography suggest.

The dialect spoken in Rome in the Middle Ages was not a dialect of the "Neapolitan" or South Italian family; it was part of the central family as is modern Romanesque. The dialects spoken today in the Castelli Romani just 25 km south of Rome look a lot like that medieval speech, and for example they still say "lietto" instead of "letto" (bed) despite being surrounded by people who say "letto" or "liettə" further south.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXTCyHP6aSA

But anyway now everyone speaks either Romanesque or Italian, so the original speech is getting lost.

Lazio_metafonesi.jpg


Lazio_atone.jpg


2) Southern Italians are very reasonably approximated by Rome_medieval.

It may approximate central Italians, not southern Italians.

3) Anyway, there is no such difference between southern Italians and central Italians, for heaven's sake: how can anybody think that there is almost double the amount of Levantine ancestry in south Italians compared to Central ones.

According to Dodecad K12b averages, the distance between a Campanian and an Umbrian is the same as between an Umbrian and a Venetian. Would you say there is no difference between an Umbrian and a Venetian?

4) 13% is still considerably beyond the centroid for Rome medieval, and I recall I saw models on anthrogenica with 16-20% Levant_N.

And in fact Medieval Roman averages score less than 13%.

5) Do you earnestly think this qualifies as an answer? As I read it, it means "actually we can't know the ethnic composition of the slave masses, but they MUST have been also heavily Syrian/Levantine-like because of G25 results for south Italians". You aren't bringing evidence or arguments, you are just postulating a theory that can't be disproven or proven because you already accept G25 as valid; for every one, it is lazy thinking (why weren't the Slaves heavily Celtic as well? Why were Levantines mostly present in south Italy? How, anyway, did slaves impact the local gene pool?, etc... these are answers you aren't even attempting to answer, you just claim "it happened somehow")

What I read from you and others on this forum instead is a lot of mental gymnastics to not accept something that, for some strange reason, is not to your liking. Honestly, after a while I get tired of debating what really is in the public eye.

6) Ok, for discussion sake, let's take the 13% Levant_N for deep south Italians: it can perfectly well be explained by the Anatolians, so why the insistence on another, different gene flow straight from the Levant or nearby?

TUR_Aegean_Muğla_Değirmendere_Anc dated around 615 BC scores less Levant_PPNB than southern Italy.

Target: Italian_Campania
Distance: 0.0265% / 0.02654174
53.7 TUR_Marmara_Barcin_N
14.1 RUS_Samara_HG
12.7 Levant_PPNB
10.4 GEO_CHG
9.1 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N

Target: TUR_Aegean_Mugla_Degirmendere_Anc
Distance: 0.0209% / 0.02089801
66.5 TUR_Marmara_Barcin_N
15.1 GEO_CHG
12.5 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
4.2 Levant_PPNB
1.7 RUS_Samara_HG
 
Again? I just posted you the averages that indicate otherwise.

The average of Medieval Rome in G25 plots with Toscana. But in that case Early Medieval samples of Rome were South Italian-like and Renaissance samples were largely Northern Italian-like. North Italian-like Romans were probably recent arrivals there, so probably a selection bias in sample due to archeology so not very representative of the whole city.
 
Again? I just posted you the averages that indicate otherwise.



The dialect spoken in Rome in the Middle Ages was not a dialect of the "Neapolitan" or South Italian family; it was part of the central family as is modern Romanesque. The dialects spoken today in the Castelli Romani just 25 km south of Rome look a lot like that medieval speech, and for example they still say "lietto" instead of "letto" (bed) despite being surrounded by people who say "letto" or "liettə" further south.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXTCyHP6aSA

But anyway now everyone speaks either Romanesque or Italian, so the original speech is getting lost.

Lazio_metafonesi.jpg


Lazio_atone.jpg




It may approximate central Italians, not southern Italians.



According to Dodecad K12b averages, the distance between a Campanian and an Umbrian is the same as between an Umbrian and a Venetian. Would you say there is no difference between an Umbrian and a Venetian?



And in fact Medieval Roman averages score less than 13%.



What I read from you and others on this forum instead is a lot of mental gymnastics to not accept something that, for some strange reason, is not to your liking. Honestly, after a while I get tired of debating what really is in the public eye.



TUR_Aegean_Muğla_Değirmendere_Anc dated around 615 BC scores less Levant_PPNB than southern Italy.

Target: Italian_Campania
Distance: 0.0265% / 0.02654174
53.7 TUR_Marmara_Barcin_N
14.1 RUS_Samara_HG
12.7 Levant_PPNB
10.4 GEO_CHG
9.1 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N

Target: TUR_Aegean_Mugla_Degirmendere_Anc
Distance: 0.0209% / 0.02089801
66.5 TUR_Marmara_Barcin_N
15.1 GEO_CHG
12.5 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
4.2 Levant_PPNB
1.7 RUS_Samara_HG


1)Do you even read what I post? The dialect/language spoken in Rome during the (at least early) middle ages was part of the Neapolitan branch, unless you know more than Italian scholars on it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanesco_dialect#History , read the sources linked by the way).
2)Also Ihype02 pointed out the same thing I had pointed out: the medieval samples from Rome are those that cluster with southern Italians, the ones from the Renaissance are the north Italian-like
3) In which universe do central Italians score 5% Levant_N but southern ones 13%, almost three times as much?
4) At the beginning I said we'd better use the result of the paper as a reference, and ALL Anatolian samples score much more than 4.2 Levant_PPNB there,indeed the centroid is at roughly 20% and the lower limit is at around 15%: again, I don't think it is factually correct and likely the methodology inflates the Levant_N, but we must compare models obtained with the same methodology, and with these methods the centroid for Rome medieval/modern is still below the 13% computed by G25, also the centroid for LATE ANTIQUITY is below 13% (actually both below 10% and the latter just a tiny higher than the former): do also the late antiquity samples "approximate modern central Italians" and not southern?
5) The only mental gymnastics I read is from you and others that cling to this theory about a significant "east med" shift (not just some Anatolian but a lot of it and a significant amount of Levantine as well) followed by a north one, for example denying that Rome medieval samples approximate south Italians (despite the fact that they do and you can see it on the PCA, and excluding the later renaissance ones), what the heck, even late antiquity samples from Rome aren't still enough Levantine-rich as modern southern Italians are according to G25 (that is compared how they result modelled in this study and how modern south Italians are on G25).

The G25 results for Mugla_antiquity are at around 4.2% Levant_PNP but according to the study it ought to be at the very least 15%, and overall G25 shows much less Levantine than what this study says, which inflates it, BUT "southern Italian" (God knows what they are really) samples from G25 somehow are the only ones that show an excess of Levantine compared to what this study shows relatively to Rome in the medieval period (whose bulk of the samples cluster with southern Italians!) and late antiquity, and your only rebutal is that "they represent central Italians, not southern ones" (again, as if the bulk of medieval Rome samples weren't clustering with southern Italians and if it weren't clear that modern Romans are the result of the mixing of a southern Italian-like population with a northern ones, exactly as it is suggested by dialectology, historical records -contrary to your postulated Levantine migrations that left no traces- of movement of people from the north into Latium after the black plague and the very genetic samples we have).
Don't mistake the ramblings common in certain anthrofora for what "is in the public eye".

At this point you're wilfully dismissing all the actual evidence presented by official studies to cling to what G25 shows (always in contradiction with the general literature)
 
The average of Medieval Rome in G25 plots with Toscana. But in that case Early Medieval samples of Rome were South Italian-like and Renaissance samples were largely Northern Italian-like. North Italian-like Romans were probably recent arrivals there, so probably a selection bias in sample due to archeology so not very representative of the whole city.

This is the problem with so much population genetics commentary: IT SHOWS NO UNDERSTANDING OF ITALIAN HISTORY.

As Rome was the center of the Roman Empire and so not every person buried there during the Imperium was a permanent resident, Rome during the Middle Ages and Renaissance was the center of Christianity, the difference being that while there were pilgrims even in the Middle Ages, with the advent of the Renaissance and the ability to travel now much easier, even more pilgrims flocked to Rome, augmented now also by merchants, artists, artisans not only from abroad, but from the north central Italian city-states. Do you know how many Tuscan artists and artisans worked for the Popes in Rome?

In more recent times, people from the Abruzzi moved into Lazio, as did people from neighboring Campania.

From 1,000,000, the city of Rome in 600 A.D. was 30,000 people. In 1000 A.D. it was 20-30,000 people.

Only two of the eleven aqueducts were open, and the inhabitants lived in a tiny bend made by the Tiber in the west of the city, less than 10% of the whole.

At times it must have seemed, especially in the Late Middle Ages and Renaissance, as if there were more foreigners than "locals", and without isotope analysis I have no idea how you could be sure of the difference.

B0xV96P.png


That's why, and no offense intended, I frankly never pay much attention to the genetics of Lazio. Now as then people have gone there from everywhere, but mostly, of course, from neighboring regions: Toscana, yes, but also large numbers from Abruzzo and Campania (some parts of Lazio today used to be in Campania) and Umbria.

As the Papacy became more and more a "temporal" power, with more actual territory, the Papal States became an entity onto themselves.

Map-Italy-1500.jpg
 
Last edited:
The average of Medieval Rome in G25 plots with Toscana. But in that case Early Medieval samples of Rome were South Italian-like and Renaissance samples were largely Northern Italian-like. North Italian-like Romans were probably recent arrivals there, so probably a selection bias in sample due to archeology so not very representative of the whole city.

The average of all Central Italian samples from AD 400 to 1650 plots with modern Central Italians, as you stated.

Code:
ITA_Central_AD_400-1650_(N=63),0.11394959,0.14730008,0.0089432381,-0.024189111,0.024888556,-0.010664222,0.000044777778,-0.0017654603,0.0077134444,0.021431508,0.00048969841,0.0050930635,-0.0094529524,-0.0027022063,-0.0032357302,-0.00061031746,0.0023076032,0.00029760317,0.0024002857,-0.0016436508,-0.00024165079,0.0021354127,-0.00063384127,0.0019738254,0.00013874603

Distance to:    ITA_Central_AD_400-1650_(N=63)
0.00903592    Italian_Marche
0.00970314    Italian_Tuscany
0.01134588    Italian_Umbria
0.01666116    Italian_Lazio
0.01883876    Italian_Abruzzo
0.01960253    Italian_Emilia
0.01977868    Italian_Molise

But the same is also true for the Early Middle Ages samples (period from the late 5th or early 6th century to the 10th century).

Code:
ITA_Central_AD_500-900_(N=22),0.11294359,0.148775,0.0090509545,-0.027176045,0.026606273,-0.0123345,-0.0011643182,-0.0027061818,0.0093430909,0.024121455,0.0007455,0.0057834545,-0.010162955,-0.0028212273,-0.0044048182,-0.0016995909,0.0031411818,0.00020159091,0.0033025455,-0.0010117727,-0.00010213636,0.00092186364,-0.00020168182,-0.00053127273,-0.00033754545

Distance to:    ITA_Central_AD_500-900_(N=22)
0.01146971    Italian_Marche
0.01247169    Italian_Tuscany
0.01254282    Italian_Umbria
0.01615277    Italian_Lazio
0.01915046    Italian_Abruzzo

1)Do you even read what I post? The dialect/language spoken in Rome during the (at least early) middle ages was part of the Neapolitan branch, unless you know more than Italian scholars on it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanesco_dialect#History , read the sources linked by the way).

If you read the Italian Wikipedia page, it does not tell you that it is part of the Neapolitan group, it simply tells you that it was more akin to Neapolitan and other dialects of Lazio than to modern Florentine or even Romanesque.

The vernacular that was spoken in Rome in the Middle Ages was much closer to the other dialects of Lazio or Neapolitan than to Florentine.

Which is the same thing I said, citing the case of the Castelli Romani dialects, which are extremely similar to the medieval Roman dialect but still part of the Central group.

4) the centroid for Rome medieval/modern is still below the 13% computed by G25, also the centroid for LATE ANTIQUITY is below 13% (actually both below 10% and the latter just a tiny higher than the former): do also the late antiquity samples "approximate modern central Italians" and not southern?

You are getting confused. My model gives 13% to Campanians and Sicilians, not medieval Rome. Actually Global25 shows the same things you said earlier.

You said:

The centroid for Levant_PPN in Italy_MedievalModern (actually Rome) is a bit under 10%, and the upper range a bit above (let's say 8% the centroid and 12% the upper limit)

The average of all medieval samples is indeed 5.6%.

Target: ITA_Central_AD_400-1650_(N=63)
Distance: 0.0304% / 0.03036546
58.1 TUR_Marmara_Barcin_N
17.9 RUS_Samara_HG
10.9 GEO_CHG
5.6 Levant_PPNB
4.6 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
2.9 ITA_Villabruna

The average for Late Antiquity samples is 8.2%

Target: ITA_Central_AD_400-500_(N=24)
Distance: 0.0277% / 0.02773268
56.4 TUR_Marmara_Barcin_N
17.0 RUS_Samara_HG
11.3 GEO_CHG
8.2 Levant_PPNB
5.1 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
2.0 ITA_Villabruna

Distance to: ITA_Central_AD_400-500_(N=24)
0.01011835 Italian_Marche
0.01124488 Italian_Umbria
0.01147578 Italian_Abruzzo
0.01344580 Italian_Lazio
0.01413269 Italian_Molise
0.01710765 Italian_Tuscany
0.01782361 Italian_Apulia
0.01947895 Italian_Basilicata

Then you also stated:

You could expect the centroid for just Rome_medieval (hence deep southern Italians) to be 10%, with the upper limit at 14%

This is also what Global25 shows. When I exclude all Northern European and Northern Italian samples from the overall medieval average (but leaving those plotting even further south than southern Italy), I also get about 10% Levant_PPNB. However, this is not a deep southern Italian profile, but more like a southern-shifted south-central Italian profile.

Target: ITA_Central_(Southern_Profile)_AD_400-1650_(N=44)
Distance: 0.0264% / 0.02642710
55.4 TUR_Marmara_Barcin_N
14.6 RUS_Samara_HG
12.0 GEO_CHG
10.6 Levant_PPNB
6.7 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
0.7 ITA_Villabruna

This is the only thing you did not get right, because in fact they score less.

The averages, that is where the centroid ought to cluster, for both Campanians and Sicilians are well beyond the upper limit being 16-20%

5) The only mental gymnastics I read is from you and others that cling to this theory about a significant "east med" shift (not just some Anatolian but a lot of it and a significant amount of Levantine as well) followed by a north one, for example denying that Rome medieval samples approximate south Italians (despite the fact that they do and you can see it on the PCA, and excluding the later renaissance ones), what the heck, even late antiquity samples from Rome aren't still enough Levantine-rich as modern southern Italians are according to G25 (that is compared how they result modelled in this study and how modern south Italians are on G25).

Lol, who is "denying" what? I'm just telling you that the overall average is not Southern Italian-like, but it's obvious that the samples that make it up will also include Southern Italians.

The G25 results for Mugla_antiquity are at around 4.2% Levant_PNP but according to the study it ought to be at the very least 15%

You are confusing Mugla_Anc (that would be Iron Age) with Antiquity. Later samples from Mugla obviously show much more than 4% Levant_PPNB.

Code:
[B]Target: TUR_Aegean_Mugla_Camandras_Dalagöz_Rom[/B]
Distance: 0.0315% / 0.03150924
54.5    TUR_Marmara_Barcin_N
17.1    IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
13.6    GEO_CHG
[COLOR=#ff0000][B]12.9    Levant_PPNB[/B][/COLOR]
1.9    RUS_Samara_HG

[B]Target: TUR_Aegean_Mugla_Stratonikeia_Byz[/B]
Distance: 0.0225% / 0.02251005
46.8    TUR_Marmara_Barcin_N
[COLOR=#ff0000][B]17.9    Levant_PPNB[/B][/COLOR]
15.6    GEO_CHG
13.1    IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
6.6    RUS_Samara_HG

[B]Target: TUR_Aegean_Mugla_Samantas_Byz[/B]
Distance: 0.0188% / 0.01884443
50.6    TUR_Marmara_Barcin_N
[COLOR=#ff0000][B]16.3    Levant_PPNB[/B][/COLOR]
14.3    IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
13.3    GEO_CHG
5.5    RUS_Samara_HG

BUT "southern Italian" (God knows what they are really) samples from G25 somehow are the only ones that show an excess of Levantine compared to what this study shows

They are not aliens; I myself have similar results.

Target: Ajeje_Brazorf_scaled
Distance: 0.0279% / 0.02790584
56.1 TUR_Marmara_Barcin_N
12.0 RUS_Samara_HG
11.3 Levant_PPNB
10.3 GEO_CHG
8.9 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
0.7 ITA_Villabruna
0.7 MAR_Taforalt

Rome in the medieval period (whose bulk of the samples cluster with southern Italians!) and late antiquity, and your only rebutal is that "they represent central Italians, not southern ones" (again, as if the bulk of medieval Rome samples weren't clustering with southern Italians

At this point you're wilfully dismissing all the actual evidence presented by official studies to cling to what G25 shows (always in contradiction with the general literature)

But it is not my fault that the averages, both on Global25 and Dodecad K12b, are more like central Italians than southern Italians :(
 
Again? I just posted you the averages that indicate otherwise.



The dialect spoken in Rome in the Middle Ages was not a dialect of the "Neapolitan" or South Italian family; it was part of the central family as is modern Romanesque. The dialects spoken today in the Castelli Romani just 25 km south of Rome look a lot like that medieval speech, and for example they still say "lietto" instead of "letto" (bed) despite being surrounded by people who say "letto" or "liettə" further south.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXTCyHP6aSA

But anyway now everyone speaks either Romanesque or Italian, so the original speech is getting lost.

Lazio_metafonesi.jpg


Lazio_atone.jpg




It may approximate central Italians, not southern Italians.



According to Dodecad K12b averages, the distance between a Campanian and an Umbrian is the same as between an Umbrian and a Venetian. Would you say there is no difference between an Umbrian and a Venetian?



And in fact Medieval Roman averages score less than 13%.



What I read from you and others on this forum instead is a lot of mental gymnastics to not accept something that, for some strange reason, is not to your liking. Honestly, after a while I get tired of debating what really is in the public eye.



TUR_Aegean_Muğla_Değirmendere_Anc dated around 615 BC scores less Levant_PPNB than southern Italy.

Target: Italian_Campania
Distance: 0.0265% / 0.02654174
53.7 TUR_Marmara_Barcin_N
14.1 RUS_Samara_HG
12.7 Levant_PPNB
10.4 GEO_CHG
9.1 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N

Target: TUR_Aegean_Mugla_Degirmendere_Anc
Distance: 0.0209% / 0.02089801
66.5 TUR_Marmara_Barcin_N
15.1 GEO_CHG
12.5 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
4.2 Levant_PPNB
1.7 RUS_Samara_HG


in this period


Rome spoke a Latin/Siena ( tuscan mix )

In 1860 when Italy formed ( 70 years later from map above ) there where 22 million italian ( not including the austrian ruled , Lombardy, Veneto, Friuli and Trentino ) ...of these 22 million only 3% spoke or knew Italian language , as stated by the first Italian government...................I cannot see where you draw your conclusion
 
Why on earth would I we need to do that, when they are already divided into clusters based on haplotypes in the paper?
9PrZLOH.jpg
60% of medieval Rome was C6, i.e. Central to South Italians according to the study.
 
This is the problem with so much population genetics commentary: IT SHOWS NO UNDERSTANDING OF ITALIAN HISTORY.

As Rome was the center of the Roman Empire and so not every person buried there during the Imperium was a permanent resident, Rome during the Middle Ages and Renaisilliterate...
ance was the center of Christianity, the difference being that while there were pilgrims even in the Middle Ages, with the advent of the Renaissance and the ability to travel now much easier, even more pilgrims flocked to Rome, augmented now also by merchants, artists, artisans not only from abroad, but from the north central Italian city-states. Do you know how many Tuscan artists and artisans worked for the Popes in Rome?

In more recent times, people from the Abruzzi moved into Lazio, as did people from neighboring Campania.

From 1,000,000, the city of Rome in 600 A.D. was 30,000 people. In 1000 A.D. it was 20-30,000 people.

Only two of the eleven aqueducts were open, and the inhabitants lived in a tiny bend made by the Tiber in the west of the city, less than 10% of the whole.

At times it must have seemed, especially in the Late Middle Ages and Renaissance, as if there were more foreigners than "locals", and without isotope analysis I have no idea how you could be sure of the difference.

B0xV96P.png


That's why, and no offense intended, I frankly never pay much attention to the genetics of Lazio. Now as then people have gone there from everywhere, but mostly, of course, from neighboring regions: Toscana, yes, but also large numbers from Abruzzo and Campania (some parts of Lazio today used to be in Campania) and Umbria.

As the Papacy became more and more a "temporal" power, with more actual territory, the Papal States became an entity onto themselves.

Map-Italy-1500.jpg

Great insights, the population graph especially.
 
t7u0ijr.png


Modern Lazio academic at the northern end of the C6 cluster's centrum. Therefore, it is easy to see that Rome was repopulated mostly by people from the surrounding area from the south, with some elements from the north.
 
The average of all Central Italian samples from AD 400 to 1650 plots with modern Central Italians, as you stated.

Code:
ITA_Central_AD_400-1650_(N=63),0.11394959,0.14730008,0.0089432381,-0.024189111,0.024888556,-0.010664222,0.000044777778,-0.0017654603,0.0077134444,0.021431508,0.00048969841,0.0050930635,-0.0094529524,-0.0027022063,-0.0032357302,-0.00061031746,0.0023076032,0.00029760317,0.0024002857,-0.0016436508,-0.00024165079,0.0021354127,-0.00063384127,0.0019738254,0.00013874603

Distance to:    ITA_Central_AD_400-1650_(N=63)
0.00903592    Italian_Marche
0.00970314    Italian_Tuscany
0.01134588    Italian_Umbria
0.01666116    Italian_Lazio
0.01883876    Italian_Abruzzo
0.01960253    Italian_Emilia
0.01977868    Italian_Molise

But the same is also true for the Early Middle Ages samples (period from the late 5th or early 6th century to the 10th century).

Code:
ITA_Central_AD_500-900_(N=22),0.11294359,0.148775,0.0090509545,-0.027176045,0.026606273,-0.0123345,-0.0011643182,-0.0027061818,0.0093430909,0.024121455,0.0007455,0.0057834545,-0.010162955,-0.0028212273,-0.0044048182,-0.0016995909,0.0031411818,0.00020159091,0.0033025455,-0.0010117727,-0.00010213636,0.00092186364,-0.00020168182,-0.00053127273,-0.00033754545

Distance to:    ITA_Central_AD_500-900_(N=22)
0.01146971    Italian_Marche
0.01247169    Italian_Tuscany
0.01254282    Italian_Umbria
0.01615277    Italian_Lazio
0.01915046    Italian_Abruzzo
(
How come? I saw numerous North Italian-like samples after 1300AD. And the average is nearly the same? Try removing outliers there was Germanic outlier plotting with Dutch.
 

This thread has been viewed 29232 times.

Back
Top