The Genetic Legacy of the Roman Imperial Rule in northern Italy

What about the Greek names found in Tenney Frank's controversial paper on the Latin and Greek nomenclature of Roman slaves?

He associated Greek names with slaves from the Eastern Mediterranean including Anatolia and Syria.

Tenny Frank's conclusions in his article "Race Mixture in the Roman Empire" are dubious and unreliable. I think his conclusions in "Roman Census Statistics from 225 to 28 B. C." are much more sound in comparison. In his commentary he notes that out of 5,000 identified slaves within the Roman columbarium, that a slight majority of slave names (n=2,874 (57.5%)) are Greek in origin where as a slight minority of slave names are in turn, Latin (n=2,126 (42.5%)). Upon listing these figures he then draws an outlandish conclusion: "For these reasons, therefore, I consider that the presence of a Greek name in the immediate family is good evidence that the subject of the inscription is of servile or foreign stock." This is a very erroneous presumption.

Two things that stood out to me when reading this:

A: 100% of slaves in this sample had either Latin or Greek names in contrast to the possibility of Semetic, Germanic, North African or Celtic names. This implies that slaves were strongly locally derived or at least implies origin from the Northern Mediterranean where Latin and Greek populations and languages remained dominant. This is an important point and should not be overlooked. If one is to accept that at least some of the Greek names of slaves came by way of foreign extraction, then we also have to accept the absolute lack of foreign names from areas outside of the Northern Mediterranean in this large sample.

B: The relative division between Latin and Greek nomenclature does not seem so much different from the total populations of formerly Magna Graecian cities such as Pompeii. From the list of names at Pompeii there we see there more of a preference for Latin/Italic names compared to the slaves/freedmen of Rome but not excessively so. Of the 66 total names, only 48 are given with defined etymologies. Of these 48 defined etymologies, 34 (70.8%) are latin/Italic, where as 14 (29.1%) are Greek. To me this implies that the slave class of Rome likely did have a stronger Greek component to it, but such a component was already still widely found amongst Roman Citizens in much of Southern Italy by this era. To draw focus to the excessive Greek representation is not very useful without contextualizing how common Greek ancestry already had become amongst the Roman Italian populace. Furthermore any attempt to differentiate between between the etymologies of Magna Graecian/Italiote descended individuals and that of the wider Hellenistic era Greek world from outside of Italy are probably impossible. For this reason it is unsustainable and unsound to assume that the presence of a Greek name always or even typically implies a non Italian origin of recent extraction, much less an individual from the near east.
 
Last edited:
Tenny Frank's conclusions in his article "Race Mixture in the Roman Empire" are dubious and unreliable. I think his conclusions in "Roman Census Statistics from 225 to 28 B. C." are much more sound in comparison. In his commentary he notes that out of 5,000 identified slaves within the Roman columbarium, that a slight majority of slave names (n=2,874 (57.5%)) are Greek in origin where as a slight minority of slave names are in turn, Latin (n=2,126 (42.5%)). Upon listing these figures he then draws an outlandish conclusion: "For these reasons, therefore, I consider that the presence of a Greek name in the immediate family is good evidence that the subject of the inscription is of servile or foreign stock." This is a very erroneous presumption.

Two things that stood out to me when reading this:

A: 100% of slaves in this sample had either Latin or Greek names in contrast to the possibility of Semetic, Germanic, North African or Celtic names. This implies that slaves were strongly locally derived or at least implies origin from the Northern Mediterranean where Latin and Greek populations and languages remained dominant. This is an important point and should not be overlooked. If one is to accept that at least some of the Greek names of slaves came by way of foreign extraction, then we also have to accept the absolute lack of foreign names from areas outside of the Northern Mediterranean in this large sample.

B: The relative division between Latin and Greek nomenclature does not seem so much different from the total populations of formerly Magna Graecian cities such as Pompeii. From the list of names at Pompeii there we see there more of a preference for Latin/Italic names compared to the slaves/freedmen of Rome but not excessively so. Of the 66 total names, only 48 are given with defined etymologies. Of these 48 defined etymologies, 34 (70.8%) are latin/Italic, where as 14 (29.1%) are Greek. To me this implies that the slave class of Rome likely did have a stronger Greek component to it, but such a component was already still widely found amongst Roman Citizens in much of Southern Italy by this era. To draw focus to the excessive Greek representation is not very useful without contextualizing how common Greek ancestry already had become amongst the Roman Italian populace. Furthermore any attempt to differentiate between between the etymologies of Magna Graecian/Italiote descended individuals and that of the wider Hellenistic era Greek world from outside of Italy are probably impossible. For this reason it is unsustainable and unsound to assume that the presence of a Greek name always or even typically implies a non Italian origin of recent extraction, much less an individual from the near east.
Nice analysis!
We need to remember that Tenney Frank was a bit racist like most WASPS of his era and lived at a time in the early 20th century when there was a great fear that immigration from South and East Europe wpuld "swamp" the "Old American" stock from NW Europe.
 
Last edited:
Nice analysis!
We need to remember that Tenney Frank was a bit racist like most WASPS of his era.
Thanks!

I don't advocate for Tenney Frank's personal ideologies or those of WASP supremacists, of course. I only originally brought him up because I think his census explanation was well thought out and much more reasonable than his race mixing theory. Basically to sum it up I reject the idea of mass slave immigration from the near east in favor a internal migrations within Italy after the Italic Social War. The census if anything supports this idea as both slaves and even freed slaves were not counted as citizens, but we see the meteoric 10 fold increase in counted citizens just 60 years after the conclusion of this conflict.
 
Thanks!

I don't advocate for Tenney Frank's personal ideologies or those of WASP supremacists, of course. I only originally brought him up because I think his census explanation was well thought out and much more reasonable than his race mixing theory. Basically to sum it up I reject the idea of mass slave immigration from the near east in favor a internal migrations within Italy after the Italic Social War. The census if anything supports this idea as both slaves and even freed slaves were not counted as citizens, but we see the meteoric 10 fold increase in counted citizens just 60 years after the conclusion of this conflict.
Of course he had the Old American fear of immigration by non-Protestant migrants from South and East Europe!
 
No, Jews had definitely not been assimilated by anyone. Some Jews had Greek names, but definitely not all and they spoke the Semetic language Aramaic (quite different than that of Koine Greek) while being excessively religiously insular and opposed to association with both Greeks and Romans, as they saw them as enemies. When the Jews arrived in Rome after their expulsion from Israel they remained distinct enough to be expelled during the Roman empire and would continue to remain distinct enough to be expelled by other countries throughout the middle ages as a small and distinct minority population.



As I already stated Ennus claimed to have Greek ancestry from the aristocratic Antiochus line. Whether one chooses to believe this claim is an entirely different matter but those were his words as recorded, so if we are to take the history at face value he was at least part Greek. He certainly could simply be lying but it doesn't change the fact that the rest of slaves listed outside of him do not appear to have origins in the Levant.




First of all, none of these names are attributed to slaves anywhere as per this link. They are simply a list of people who died at Pompeii. Secondly the list is characterized by a mix of Latin and Greek names which is exactly what I would expect for a Magna Graecian city which had become not only Roman, but also a Latin veteran colony. I agree that it attests to archaic Greek influence, but I disagree that it has anything to do with slavery from the near east.
Most slaves in Pompeii came from the Eastern Mediterranean according to scholars so their Greek names indicate that. Pompeii was not a Greek city even though it was a part of the Hellenic orbit.
I'm not sure that classical greek colonists were quite mycenean-like: be aware that both the 409 and the 480 clusters from Himera have some Sicanian admixture that likely pull them apart from the east med cline (see the supplementary material at page 25 for reference). Some citizens of Himera, on the other hand, fall within this cline.


So, if I were to bet when this more anatolian admixed greeks came to Italy, I would say from the archaic to the hellenistic period. But this is just my guess and I may be completely wrong. But to me it just feels more realistic than an abroubt turn over right after the roman conquest of Asia.
Those samples were Mycenaean-like for most part. Your calculator is mistakenly referring to some less Steppe admixed/more ANF as "Sicinian admixed" but that was just a part of the genetic variation that existed back in time. Just you like you can model one Empuriote as 20% Illyrian for being slightly more northern than a certain Mycenaean sample. Additionally one recent leaked PCA from the Classic era in territory of Peloponnese and other mainland parts don't the general population being West Asian admixed.

Regardless weren't Greeks in Italy supposed to a mixture of Mycenaean-like people and native Italians instead of coming as Anatolian admixed people?
 
Those samples were Mycenaean-like for most part. Your calculator is mistakenly referring to some less Steppe admixed/more ANF as "Sicinian admixed" but that was just a part of the genetic variation that existed back in time. Just you like you can model one Empuriote as 20% Illyrian for being slightly more northern than a certain Mycenaean sample. Additionally one recent leaked PCA from the Classic era in territory of Peloponnese and other mainland parts don't the general population being West Asian admixed.
That might as well be the case. But even in the supplementary material of the study they claim most of the samples have some degree of Sicanian admixture and I assume their calculator is better than ours.

I'm not aware of this leaked PCA. Is it the one from the Thessaloniki study?
 
That might as well be the case. But even in the supplementary material of the study they claim most of the samples have some degree of Sicanian admixture and I assume their calculator is better than ours.

I'm not aware of this leaked PCA. Is it the one from the Thessaloniki study?
MExlHyN.png
 
Most slaves in Pompeii came from the Eastern Mediterranean according to scholars so their Greek names indicate that. Pompeii was not a Greek city even though it was a part of the Hellenic orbit.

Pompeii from the beginning of its history was controlled by the oldest Greek colony in peninsular Italy, Cumae and was settled by a combination of Greek and Oscan settlers. Evidence of its Greek influence can be seen its Doric temple which was constructed as early as the 6th century BC. I think it's fair to say that Pompeii had a fairly old history of Greek settlement and can be classified as Magna Graecian in its history - which seems to reflect the fate of most other Magna Graecian Cities. By 524BC it would fall under the dominion of the Etruscans who also settled it. In 474 BC Greek Syracuse and Cumae would defeat the Etruscans and reclaim control over Pompeii. By 420BC the city would then be conquered by the Samnites as part of broader reflection of the Ver Sacrum migrational conquests which would go on to conquer almost all Greek colonies in the Italian peninsula with perhaps the single exception of Rhegium.

More importantly, though, do you have a source to claim that "Most slaves in Pompeii came from the Eastern Mediterranean?" I've yet to see any primary sources which really reflect this idea. I'm sure some of them came from Greece and Anatolia instead of from locals but as far as percentage estimates there is little to be had to make such a claim as far as I know. Do we have lists of names, such as what we looked at in Rome?

Those samples were Mycenaean-like for most part. Your calculator is mistakenly referring to some less Steppe admixed/more ANF as "Sicinian admixed" but that was just a part of the genetic variation that existed back in time. Just you like you can model one Empuriote as 20% Illyrian for being slightly more northern than a certain Mycenaean sample. Additionally one recent leaked PCA from the Classic era in territory of Peloponnese and other mainland parts don't the general population being West Asian admixed.

Regardless weren't Greeks in Italy supposed to a mixture of Mycenaean-like people and native Italians instead of coming as Anatolian admixed people?

"Mycenean-like" by the late bronze age already was largely identical to and overlapping the modern S. Italian genetic profile averages. The reality is that the Myceneans were continually absorbing more and more steppe and Anatolian admixture as time went on and did not remain static to their profiles as seen in the middle and early bronze age. By LBA we see a cline that is identical to modern Italy in which some individuals bear N. or C. Italian profiles, where as most others are looking Campanian/Sicilian. This is important to understand when we speak of the Greek peopling of iron age Italy.

I've uploaded comparison of Skourtanioti et al.'s LBA Greeks to moderns here, since the file size is too large to upload directly: https://files.catbox.moe/6e4qwv.jpg

What's more is that the handful of iron age Greeks you posted from the leaked PCA also seem to reflect this. Abdera is overlapping a Sicilian profile along with SLK1. Others such as AgiGeo9 show a Greek mainlander profile reflecting higher amounts of steppe ancestry absorbed in the north. Aca 1 by contrast looks C. Italian like. My assumption right now (until we get more data) is that we are going to see a pretty clear North/South cline in Greece by the time the iron age arrives.
 
Last edited:
Pompeii from the beginning of its history was controlled by the oldest Greek colony in peninsular Italy, Cumae and was settled by a combination of Greek and Oscan settlers.

From what has emerged in recent archaeological excavations digging into the oldest layer, according to archeologist Massimo Osanna Pompeii was Etruscan in its early history (Etruscan settlers from northern Latium and southern Umbria). Obviously it is all more nuanced than a video game set on the ancient world, and there were local contributors from the beginning, and then yes then the city became quite quicky Italic and Greek and then Roman.

 
Pompeii from the beginning of its history was controlled by the oldest Greek colony in peninsular Italy, Cumae and was settled by a combination of Greek and Oscan settlers. Evidence of its Greek influence can be seen its Doric temple which was constructed as early as the 6th century BC. I think it's fair to say that Pompeii had a fairly old history of Greek settlement and can be classified as Magna Graecian in its history - which seems to reflect the fate of most other Magna Graecian Cities. By 524BC it would fall under the dominion of the Etruscans who also settled it. In 474 BC Greek Syracuse and Cumae would defeat the Etruscans and reclaim control over Pompeii. By 420BC the city would then be conquered by the Samnites as part of broader reflection of the Ver Sacrum migrational conquests which would go on to conquer almost all Greek colonies in the Italian peninsula with perhaps the single exception of Rhegium.

More importantly, though, do you have a source to claim that "Most slaves in Pompeii came from the Eastern Mediterranean?" I've yet to see any primary sources which really reflect this idea. I'm sure some of them came from Greece and Anatolia instead of from locals but as far as percentage estimates there is little to be had to make such a claim as far as I know. Do we have lists of names, such as what we looked at in Rome?



"Mycenean-like" by the late bronze age already was largely identical to and overlapping the modern S. Italian genetic profile averages. The reality is that the Myceneans were continually absorbing more and more steppe and Anatolian admixture as time went on and did not remain static to their profiles as seen in the middle and early bronze age. By LBA we see a cline that is identical to modern Italy in which some individuals bear N. or C. Italian profiles, where as most others are looking Campanian/Sicilian. This is important to understand when we speak of the Greek peopling of iron age Italy.

I've uploaded comparison of Skourtanioti et al.'s LBA Greeks to moderns here, since the file size is too large to upload directly: https://files.catbox.moe/6e4qwv.jpg

What's more is that the handful of iron age Greeks you posted from the leaked PCA also seem to reflect this. Abdera is overlapping a Sicilian profile along with SLK1. Others such as AgiGeo9 show a Greek mainlander profile reflecting higher amounts of steppe ancestry absorbed in the north. Aca 1 by contrast looks C. Italian like. My assumption right now (until we get more data) is that we are going to see a pretty clear North/South cline in Greece by the time the iron age arrives.
I believe Sicilians and Calabrese have significant Ancient Greek (mostly Mycenaean-like) ancestry, that's a historical fact not many can argue against that but also I believe the full shift was not finished until Romans brought new migrants from Western Asia. So my belief is that Greek colonization should be considered a different event from the Roman migration and only a part of the shift not the key architect. Bear in mind the Roman empire was like the America today, would it make sense for the greatest superpower of the ancient Mediterranean to initiate this migration, instead of those West Asian people coming as crypto-Greeks which we rarely see before 300BC in samples outside of some outliers?

We see a similar shift occurring like in Pompeii in multiple Central Italians cities. We have sample from South Toscana, Marche and Lazio. It's bit hard to believe that only Southern Italians were moving in big cities of Italy and most Latins "disappeared".
 
From what has emerged in recent archaeological excavations digging into the oldest layer, according to archeologist Massimo Osanna Pompeii was Etruscan in its early history (Etruscan settlers from northern Latium and southern Umbria). Obviously it is all more nuanced than a video game set on the ancient world, and there were local contributors from the beginning, and then yes then the city became quite quicky Italic and Greek and then Roman.


Interesting to note. Either way, from what I can tell Pompeii followed a typical progression compared to other cities of Magna Graecia. There's no reason to assume it lacked Greek settlers. Quite the contrary.

I believe Sicilians and Calabrese have significant Ancient Greek (mostly Mycenaean-like) ancestry, that's a historical fact not many can argue against that but also I believe the full shift was not finished until Romans brought new migrants from Western Asia. So my belief is that Greek colonization should be considered a different event from the Roman migration and only a part of the shift not the key architect. Bear in mind the Roman empire was like the America today, would it make sense for the greatest superpower of the ancient Mediterranean to initiate this migration, instead of those West Asian people coming as crypto-Greeks which we rarely see before 300BC in samples outside of some outliers?

I definitely would not compare the Roman empire to the United States, personally. I think this is a large mistake that many Americans like to make in order to post validate their system of government and society despite its foundations, makeup and current affairs having little to do with that of the ancient Roman state. The Roman census combined with Mittnick's leaked PCA were revealing when I saw that IA greeks of Ischia were effectively identical to modern Sicilians. Remember too that West Asians were part of the original Greek colonists in Magna Graecia, so we should also be seeing these types as well by the Iron age inside of Italy. I would not bet money on their arrival occurring only after 300BC, personally.


We see a similar shift occurring like in Pompeii in multiple Central Italians cities. We have sample from South Toscana, Marche and Lazio. It's bit hard to believe that only Southern Italians were moving in big cities of Italy and most Latins "disappeared".

We only have one sample from Pompeii from the imperial era so it's a bit premature to speak of qualifying or quantifying any ancestry changes for this city at this stage. For all we know Pompeiians could've looked this way many hundreds of years prior and if Mittnick's PCA is to be believed, then neighboring Pontecagnano (also an Etruscan founded town) was already experiencing a strong introgression of Sicilian-like Greek ancestry between 600 and 400 BC. I see no reason why this couldn't also have occurred with Pompeii in a similar fashion.

As far as the Latins "disappearing", I don't think such a thing really occurred in a literal sense. Based off the census, the Roman citizens of late republican central Italy represented only a small fraction of the non slave citizen Italian population to begin with.
 
Sardinian HGDP samples form two clusters:

"""We find the HGDP Sardinia individuals partially overlap with our dataset and include a subset that clusters near the Ogliastra sub-population Thus, we use the term “Gennargentu-region” to describe this ancestry component.""""


""""The Gennargentu region is also where some of the Sardinian individuals in the Human Genome Diversity Project (HGDP) originate (A. Piazza, personal communication). Consistent with this record, the HGDP Sardinians show close affinity to individuals from Ogliastra, although roughly half of the samples are more similar to the broader sample outside of Ogliastra. Thus, we labeled the two subgroups of HGDP as ‘SarHGa’ and ‘SarHGb’.. """"


Probably that's cluster A, which in your picture would be the most distant cluster from the other modern populatons:

In the PCA "a" from " Genetic history from the Middle Neolithic to present on the Mediterranean island of Sardinia"
it's easy to notice that the Ogliastra and Nuoro - AKA Gennargentu area - samples are the closest ones to the Nuragic cluster while the other Sardinian subgroups are closer to Non-Sardinian populations.



View attachment 14287




Both HGDP Sardinian subgroups have more WHG than most Sardinians from outside of the Gennargentu area, except for those from the Olbia province which have that "high" WHG component probably because they're more North Mediterranean shifted and also have higher Yamnaya admixture than most other Sard subgroups.
View attachment 14289



SimulatedSardiniaOgliastraGairoiAverage(8Samples),0.137792,0.166927,0.051006,-0.037524,0.083688,-0.016771,-0.005109,0.002757,0.053738,0.093930,-0.005707,0.022574,-0.033170,-0.011693,-0.004449,-0.007042,0.005972,0.005440,-0.003657,-0.013604,0.002930,0.001721,-0.017951,-0.035846,-0.002580

This is not a sim here, ogliastra-like profil from Goceano (Nuoro)
Sardinian_North:GRC14339391,0.118376,0.176702,0.029793,-0.046512,0.066782,-0.025379,-0.00611,-0.003692,0.060539,0.079819,0.002761,0.015736,-0.036868,-0.026011,-0.013165,-0.004906,0,0.010895,0.00817,-0.02076,0.006114,0.005688,-0.011092,-0.028317,-0.001676


DEU_LBK_HBS:I0659,0.120652,0.186857,0.018102,-0.09367,0.069859,-0.045459,-0.000235,-0.000462,0.041927,0.092029,0.018025,0.016935,-0.020812,-0.001376,-0.032573,-0.010077,0.012256,0.003041,0.012067,-0.007754,-0.005865,0.006554,-0.007518,0.002771,-0.006826
Iran_Neolithic:IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N:I1290__BC_7856__Coverage_72.70%,0.036423,0.069056,-0.151603,-0.011951,-0.121253,0.011992,0.017626,-0.005307,-0.084059,-0.051026,0.003085,-0.005695,0.009217,-0.014588,0.026058,0.068814,-0.005737,0.008615,0.014581,-0.032391,0.01435,-0.02201,-0.016885,-0.041452,0.02874
Iran_Neolithic:IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N:I1954__BC_8212__Coverage_79.73%,0.053497,0.072103,-0.150848,0.004199,-0.126177,0.024542,0.022091,0.000462,-0.086514,-0.05376,-0.00341,-0.005395,0.008176,-0.000963,0.02823,0.043755,-0.01356,0.006334,0.011816,-0.04127,0.003494,-0.030048,-0.005669,-0.036391,0.025866
North_Africa_Prehistoric:MAR_Taforalt:TAF011__BC_12500__Coverage_83.83%,-0.194638,0.085304,-0.021873,-0.088825,0.026774,-0.059961,-0.072148,0.019845,0.161165,0.002551,0.016564,-0.035818,0.080574,-0.051196,0.066367,-0.037523,0.012126,-0.071199,-0.14493,0.035767,-0.041427,-0.12662,0.068279,-0.011447,0.018441
North_Africa_Prehistoric:MAR_Taforalt:TAF013__BC_12550__Coverage_80.17%,-0.196914,0.082258,-0.026398,-0.088502,0.032314,-0.057173,-0.074733,0.017768,0.156665,0.002369,0.02111,-0.036717,0.077898,-0.052159,0.072746,-0.038584,0.000913,-0.069552,-0.141285,0.039894,-0.035687,-0.125384,0.075428,-0.011206,0.020477
North_Africa_Prehistoric:MAR_Taforalt:TAF014__BC_12550__Coverage_77.96%,-0.201467,0.079211,-0.018479,-0.083011,0.034468,-0.055499,-0.076848,0.014538,0.162596,0.002005,0.020461,-0.029374,0.078344,-0.054223,0.066503,-0.025192,0.017602,-0.063724,-0.151215,0.04127,-0.042176,-0.126126,0.077153,-0.014339,0.012693
LUX_Loschbour:I0001,0.133173,0.106631,0.20176,0.192186,0.164338,0.055778,0.00611,0.036922,0.096535,0.02278,-0.020786,-0.016186,0.024975,-0.007432,0.065824,0.063643,0.008084,0.006714,-0.013324,0.065281,0.120038,0.019166,-0.059405,-0.175687,0.022992
Yamnaya_RUS_Samara,0.1255849,0.089028,0.0426986,0.1153479,-0.0287232,0.0450564,0.0036033,-0.0025642,-0.0559032,-0.0728943,0.0018222,3.32e-05,-0.0026924,-0.0233041,0.0366141,0.0157633,-0.0012316,-0.0017879,-0.0038408,0.0137704,-0.0031749,0.0007557,0.0110649,0.0186102,-0.004537


Target: SimulatedSardiniaOgliastraGairoiAverage(8Samples)
Distance: 5.0914% / 0.05091378
81.8DEU_LBK_HBS
17.6LUX_Loschbour
0.6Yamnaya_RUS_Samara



Target: Sardinian_North:GRC14339391
Distance: 5.0142% / 0.05014160
83.0DEU_LBK_HBS
12.2LUX_Loschbour
4.4Iran_Neolithic
0.4North_Africa_Prehistoric


Without LBK (4-5% WHG)

Target: Sardinian_North:GRC14339391
Distance: 5.2469% / 0.05246911
83.2TUR_Barcin_N
16.6WHG
0.2North_Africa_Prehistoric



Target: SimulatedSardiniaOgliastraGairoiAverage(8Samples)
Distance: 5.8182% / 0.05818219
78.2TUR_Barcin_N
21.8WHG
 
SimulatedSardiniaOgliastraGairoiAverage(8Samples),0.137792,0.166927,0.051006,-0.037524,0.083688,-0.016771,-0.005109,0.002757,0.053738,0.093930,-0.005707,0.022574,-0.033170,-0.011693,-0.004449,-0.007042,0.005972,0.005440,-0.003657,-0.013604,0.002930,0.001721,-0.017951,-0.035846,-0.002580

This is not a sim here, ogliastra-like profil from Goceano (Nuoro)
Sardinian_North:GRC14339391,0.118376,0.176702,0.029793,-0.046512,0.066782,-0.025379,-0.00611,-0.003692,0.060539,0.079819,0.002761,0.015736,-0.036868,-0.026011,-0.013165,-0.004906,0,0.010895,0.00817,-0.02076,0.006114,0.005688,-0.011092,-0.028317,-0.001676


DEU_LBK_HBS:I0659,0.120652,0.186857,0.018102,-0.09367,0.069859,-0.045459,-0.000235,-0.000462,0.041927,0.092029,0.018025,0.016935,-0.020812,-0.001376,-0.032573,-0.010077,0.012256,0.003041,0.012067,-0.007754,-0.005865,0.006554,-0.007518,0.002771,-0.006826
Iran_Neolithic:IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N:I1290__BC_7856__Coverage_72.70%,0.036423,0.069056,-0.151603,-0.011951,-0.121253,0.011992,0.017626,-0.005307,-0.084059,-0.051026,0.003085,-0.005695,0.009217,-0.014588,0.026058,0.068814,-0.005737,0.008615,0.014581,-0.032391,0.01435,-0.02201,-0.016885,-0.041452,0.02874
Iran_Neolithic:IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N:I1954__BC_8212__Coverage_79.73%,0.053497,0.072103,-0.150848,0.004199,-0.126177,0.024542,0.022091,0.000462,-0.086514,-0.05376,-0.00341,-0.005395,0.008176,-0.000963,0.02823,0.043755,-0.01356,0.006334,0.011816,-0.04127,0.003494,-0.030048,-0.005669,-0.036391,0.025866
North_Africa_Prehistoric:MAR_Taforalt:TAF011__BC_12500__Coverage_83.83%,-0.194638,0.085304,-0.021873,-0.088825,0.026774,-0.059961,-0.072148,0.019845,0.161165,0.002551,0.016564,-0.035818,0.080574,-0.051196,0.066367,-0.037523,0.012126,-0.071199,-0.14493,0.035767,-0.041427,-0.12662,0.068279,-0.011447,0.018441
North_Africa_Prehistoric:MAR_Taforalt:TAF013__BC_12550__Coverage_80.17%,-0.196914,0.082258,-0.026398,-0.088502,0.032314,-0.057173,-0.074733,0.017768,0.156665,0.002369,0.02111,-0.036717,0.077898,-0.052159,0.072746,-0.038584,0.000913,-0.069552,-0.141285,0.039894,-0.035687,-0.125384,0.075428,-0.011206,0.020477
North_Africa_Prehistoric:MAR_Taforalt:TAF014__BC_12550__Coverage_77.96%,-0.201467,0.079211,-0.018479,-0.083011,0.034468,-0.055499,-0.076848,0.014538,0.162596,0.002005,0.020461,-0.029374,0.078344,-0.054223,0.066503,-0.025192,0.017602,-0.063724,-0.151215,0.04127,-0.042176,-0.126126,0.077153,-0.014339,0.012693
LUX_Loschbour:I0001,0.133173,0.106631,0.20176,0.192186,0.164338,0.055778,0.00611,0.036922,0.096535,0.02278,-0.020786,-0.016186,0.024975,-0.007432,0.065824,0.063643,0.008084,0.006714,-0.013324,0.065281,0.120038,0.019166,-0.059405,-0.175687,0.022992
Yamnaya_RUS_Samara,0.1255849,0.089028,0.0426986,0.1153479,-0.0287232,0.0450564,0.0036033,-0.0025642,-0.0559032,-0.0728943,0.0018222,3.32e-05,-0.0026924,-0.0233041,0.0366141,0.0157633,-0.0012316,-0.0017879,-0.0038408,0.0137704,-0.0031749,0.0007557,0.0110649,0.0186102,-0.004537


Target: SimulatedSardiniaOgliastraGairoiAverage(8Samples)
Distance: 5.0914% / 0.05091378
81.8DEU_LBK_HBS
17.6LUX_Loschbour
0.6Yamnaya_RUS_Samara



Target: Sardinian_North:GRC14339391
Distance: 5.0142% / 0.05014160
83.0DEU_LBK_HBS
12.2LUX_Loschbour
4.4Iran_Neolithic
0.4North_Africa_Prehistoric


Without LBK (4-5% WHG)

Target: Sardinian_North:GRC14339391
Distance: 5.2469% / 0.05246911
83.2TUR_Barcin_N
16.6WHG
0.2North_Africa_Prehistoric



Target: SimulatedSardiniaOgliastraGairoiAverage(8Samples)
Distance: 5.8182% / 0.05818219
78.2TUR_Barcin_N
21.8WHG
I find it interesting that the inhabitants of the village of Ilbono, right next to Gairo, score about 8% Yamnaya admixture on average, while the people of Gairo score the lowest Yamnaya admixture in the island.
 
I find it interesting that the inhabitants of the village of Ilbono, right next to Gairo, score about 8% Yamnaya admixture on average, while the people of Gairo score the lowest Yamnaya admixture in the island.

Probably (in part) endogamy which could have contributed to preserving a certain type of particular genetic profile, the study shows that there are variations according to villages, not just provinces

We could take Sardinia as a sort of giant Spain, with certain individuals who, depending on their area, have more Indo-European contribution, others less, close to zero (depending on the model), others have a higher WHG intake rate (10 to 17% if we take their LBK + Loschbour model, and a little more if we take a classic Barcin + Villabruna model that would give 13 to 20-22% WHG), others have more taforalt intake, others have almost none. Some have more Neolithic Iranian, other least.

A sort of variation comparable (in the form, not the substance, except perhaps for the WHG contribution, some Sardinian villages could approach a WHG rate close to the Basques) to that which they have in Spain, except that in Spain it is by province the variations and less by villages, but one could suppose that in Sardinia, there was a time when the villages were a sort of province in themselves (I understand myself), so that if you were from another village, you could be considered a foreigner.
 

This thread has been viewed 12923 times.

Back
Top