Pompei, capsula del tempo dell'Impero Romano: analisi paleogenomica dei resti umani rinvenuti nell'antica città

Jovialis said:
More likely they were Greeks.

There were in fact Greeks like Log02 that plot with Central Italians.

Not all Greeks plot with Mycenaeans, as we know that to be abundantly clear by now.

Take the Greeks Theopetra_BA, and Sarakenos_BA for example.

jglbpjb.png
Click to expand...
They could indeed be northern Greeks like the Log2 sample or also they could be early mixes of Northern Italics with Aegean like Southern Italics.

I'm not sure if you've been following the simulated 300BC-0 Verona samples but out of the first 2, at least 1 of them directly overlaps modern Trentino. There's a high likelyhood that this is our first Raetic sample. If the rest of northern Italy ends up looking broadly like this individual, then we can accurately plot about 95%+ of Italians as a simple two way mix between Aegean-like Imperials and Raetic-like Italics. Do you think this is plausible? I'm interested in your take on this.

photo_2024-03-10_18-01-26.jpg
 
Maybe the central Italian signature is local Campanian/Oscans mixed with coastal Greeks in the area? I believe there are some inscriptions or graffiti written in the Oscan language (I believe in the greek alphabet) found in and around Pompeii. The Oscan/Samnites of this area but also and especially in Capua and Naples are largely mixed with Greeks and possibly bilingual. Many would have adopted and later would have themselves become greeks culturally and genetically through intermarriage.
 
Most or all of those Levantines and Anatolians died but what about other cities and towns? Did other cities and towns had similar newcomers?
 
The criteria to claim the Imperial shift was caused by Greek colonization is:

1.) All the Greek samples should be only from the Greek colonies of Italy (not from Hellenistic or Roman Thessaloniki, Athens, Miletus etc.).

2.) No focus on the outliers only the average of the standard samples. (Himera did not even had one single outlier plotting with Imperial samples some of you would want to mess with unfortunately)

3.) All the samples should be prior to 250BC. (After that, the movement was entirely under Roman control)
 
ihype02 said:
The criteria to claim the Imperial shift was caused by Greek colonization is:

1.) All the Greek samples should be only from the Greek colonies of Italy (not from Hellenistic or Roman Thessaloniki, Athens, Miletus etc.).

2.) No focus on the outliers only the average of the standard samples. (Himera did not even had one single outlier plotting with Imperial samples some of you would want to mess with unfortunately)

3.) All the samples should be prior to 250BC. (After that, the movement was entirely under Roman control)
Click to expand...
Obviously there were immigrants from all over the empire, and many from the Near east and Anatolia. But the main point is that once the Imperial period was over, Constantinople was the new hub. The immigrants from other parts of the empire were overwhelmingly urbanites. However, we know that there was massive depopulation of the cities, of which were also demographic sinks. Thus, the Greek colonists who had long established themselves were able to be a part of the re-peopling. We know that there was mixing in the South with Italics and Greek influences, as the upcoming paper on Apulia shows, with minoritarian Minoan influence on Italic-like people there, and continuous Aegean influence in subsequent periods 7 centuries before Magna Graecia. We know for a fact that Dorians colonized much of the south, who were from Northern Greece. We also already established that during the imperial period it was far more common for intermarriage with Romans and Greeks, than with Near easterners, who would more likely married to Roman soldiers in Near eastern provinces.
 
Jovialis said:
Thus, the Greek colonists who had long established themselves were able to be a part of the re-peopling. We know that there was mixing in the South with Italics and Greek influences, as the upcoming paper on Apulia shows, with minoritarian Minoan influence on Italic-like people there, and continuous Aegean influence in subsequent periods 7 centuries before Magna Graecia.
Click to expand...
I think I missed this one, would you be kind to me to show the link? I am really interested in anything new.
I think the 2019-2021 era spoiled us with the new DNA, we found about Classical Greeks, Latins, Etruscans, Imperial Rome. Now it has kinda been empty.
 
ihype02 said:
The criteria to claim the Imperial shift was caused by Greek colonization is:

1.) All the Greek samples should be only from the Greek colonies of Italy (not from Hellenistic or Roman Thessaloniki, Athens, Miletus etc.).

2.) No focus on the outliers only the average of the standard samples. (Himera did not even had one single outlier plotting with Imperial samples some of you would want to mess with unfortunately)

3.) All the samples should be prior to 250BC. (After that, the movement was entirely under Roman control)
Click to expand...
I agree on the metodology. We need sample from Magna Grecia before the II century BC. Just one clarification: we have some samples from Himera who plot with imperial samples. Other samples from Himera are on a cline towards IA Sicanian and are therefore less similar to the imperial samples.
 
ihype02 said:
I think I missed this one, would you be kind to me to show the link? I am really interested in anything new.
I think the 2019-2021 era spoiled us with the new DNA, we found about Classical Greeks, Latins, Etruscans, Imperial Rome. Now it has kinda been empty.
Click to expand...

Ancient genomes from a Roca Vecchia, Apulia, shed light on Minoan modes of colonisation

Interesting! So there was indeed some direct Minoan contribution. With increasing Aegean in the following centuries. Probably increasing with Magna Graecia.
www.eupedia.com
 
Francesco said:
I agree on the metodology. We need sample from Magna Grecia before the II century BC. Just one clarification: we have some samples from Himera who plot with imperial samples. Other samples from Himera are on a cline towards IA Sicanian and are therefore less similar to the imperial samples.
Click to expand...
ZxNH7gD_d.webp
 
f1R_Pompeii - older than him, AncIBD at 8 cM :

iid1iid2AncIBD summary - cM
VET002_Tuscany_Grosseto_Etruscan:Italyf1R_Pompeii_Roman:Italy
9.622305632​
f1R_Pompeii_Roman:ItalyI3321_d_IA:Spain
10.18919945​
VET002_Tuscany_Grosseto_Etruscan:Italyf1R_Pompeii_Roman:Italy
9.622305632​
f1R_Pompeii_Roman:ItalyOBN003_MN_o:France
8.957695961​
f1R_Pompeii_Roman:ItalyTAQ007_Lazio_Viterbo_Etruscan:Italy
8.507698774​
f1R_Pompeii_Roman:ItalyI22940_EIA:Slovenia
8.455586433​
f1R_Pompeii_Roman:ItalyROUQCC_LaClape_LN_EMBA:France
8.436203003​
f1R_Pompeii_Roman:ItalyCRE20D_Occitanie_MN:France
8.310103416​
f1R_Pompeii_Roman:ItalyI2605_N:England
8.306500316​
f1R_Pompeii_Roman:ItalyI14789_MBA:Turkey
8.190000057​

nnNPHux.gif
uSh30WO.gif


Nf4EGjf.gif
5XIIwdu.gif


HpyR7n0.gif
 
Last edited:
Salento said:
f1R_Pompeii - older than him, AncIBD at 8 cM :

iid1iid2AncIBD summary - cM
VET002_Tuscany_Grosseto_Etruscan:Italyf1R_Pompeii_Roman:Italy
9.622305632​
f1R_Pompeii_Roman:ItalyI3321_d_IA:Spain
10.18919945​
VET002_Tuscany_Grosseto_Etruscan:Italyf1R_Pompeii_Roman:Italy
9.622305632​
f1R_Pompeii_Roman:ItalyOBN003_MN_o:France
8.957695961​
f1R_Pompeii_Roman:ItalyTAQ007_Lazio_Viterbo_Etruscan:Italy
8.507698774​
f1R_Pompeii_Roman:ItalyI22940_EIA:Slovenia
8.455586433​
f1R_Pompeii_Roman:ItalyROUQCC_LaClape_LN_EMBA:France
8.436203003​
f1R_Pompeii_Roman:ItalyCRE20D_Occitanie_MN:France
8.310103416​
f1R_Pompeii_Roman:ItalyI2605_N:England
8.306500316​
f1R_Pompeii_Roman:ItalyI14789_MBA:Turkey
8.190000057​

nnNPHux.gif
uSh30WO.gif


Nf4EGjf.gif
5XIIwdu.gif
Click to expand...
Could you please explain all this?
 
ihype02 said:
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1767992888330162544
Click to expand...
Eastern Mediterranean has always been a broad terms which often encompasses Greece; which is true geographically speaking. Genetically speaking, it is inaccurate. There's massive differences between Balkanites, Anatolians and Levantines.

However, the south has long had Greek colonies, and Balkan/Aegean ancestry flowing into it centuries before it. How could they replace themselves? It is clear that the North and Center were more similar to Broion_BA.

What they always fail to mention is that these immigrants were themselves replaced with locals. Themselves a mix of Italics and Magna Graecia Greeks.

I have been to Pompeii, and had a guided tour with a professional historian. The city was mainly a hub for merchants, slaves and prostitutes during the Roman period. Because of thick volcanic sediment, they were unable to build sewer systems, thus they had open-air sewage flowing through the streets. Pompeii is hardly a proper snapshot of your run of the mill Roman city, IMHO
 
Vallicanus said:
Could you please explain all this?
Click to expand...
AncIBD detects Identity-by-Descent, meaning that what I posted is showing other older samples compared with f1r_Pompeii that have shared chromosome segments. This means that they have an ancient ancestral affinity - the f1R_Pompeii sample has ancestors that came from those lines.

Here is a thread:

Admixtools - ancIBD github

https://github.com/hringbauer/ancIBD So who is the genius that is going to figure this one out?
www.eupedia.com
 
Last edited:
Francesco said:
I agree on the metodology. We need sample from Magna Grecia before the II century BC. Just one clarification: we have some samples from Himera who plot with imperial samples. Other samples from Himera are on a cline towards IA Sicanian and are therefore less similar to the imperial samples.
Click to expand...
Yes. The study itself has the same conclusion. Only a few samples were found to be able to fit a 100% LBA greek profile with the vast majority of cluster 1 (the main cluster) being a two way mixture of Sicani and Greeks. This study also came out before Skourtanioti et al 2023 so the sample of Greeks they were drawing from was very limited.
 
Vitruvius said:
View attachment 15632
Click to expand...
Yes, those were the samples I had in mind, wich plot in a similar position as the latin oultiers and the unpublished samples from Pithecousa. This kins of genetic profile was already present before the roman empire and must be kept in mind when speaking about an east med shift.
 
People are entitled to their opinion but we will need more samples to end this discussion.

My belief is that those samples represent Magna Grecian just fine but we need to wait.

Vitruvius said:
They could indeed be northern Greeks like the Log2 sample or also they could be early mixes of Northern Italics with Aegean like Southern Italics.

I'm not sure if you've been following the simulated 300BC-0 Verona samples but out of the first 2, at least 1 of them directly overlaps modern Trentino. There's a high likelyhood that this is our first Raetic sample. If the rest of northern Italy ends up looking broadly like this individual, then we can accurately plot about 95%+ of Italians as a simple two way mix between Aegean-like Imperials and Raetic-like Italics. Do you think this is plausible? I'm interested in your take on this.

View attachment 15607
Click to expand...

Where is that 1/2 Greek Y-Dna in Toscana, Marche and Umbria? Ancient Greeks were enriched with J2a, G and T. The later ones were also found in Italics.

Using a distance source like pure Anatolians and Levantines matches with J1, J2a, E (non-E-V13), J2b (non West Balkanic ones) in central Italy, which is around 15%, autosomally Tuscan Italians come up as 20% MENA.

Y-Dna of Tuscans (add or take 5% in some parts):
~10% North European (5-7% Germanic)
~75% West Mediterranean (65% Italo-Etruscans)
~15% East Mediterranean and MENA
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 4395 times.

Back
Top