Are European Jews just converted Romans?

[Mingle]

Tried running both South Italians and Ashkenazi Jews on nMonte. The South Italians are a proxy for Romans. The South Italian gets 94% South Italian. Don't know why it doesn't get 100% but 94% is close enough. The Jew gets a decent chunk of Samaritan as well as some German. They seem to have little to no North Italian, unlike the popularly believed narrative that they're half-North Italian (and half-Levantine).



But anyways, they're not converted Romans, just superficially very similar on an autosomal level (though they do have a lot of Roman/Italian blood).

[Longbowman]

Tried running both South Italians and Ashkenazi Jews on nMonte. The South Italians are a proxy for Romans. The South Italian gets 94% South Italian. Don't know why it doesn't get 100% but 94% is close enough. The Jew gets a decent chunk of Samaritan as well as some German. They seem to have little to no North Italian, unlike the popularly believed narrative that they're half-North Italian (and half-Levantine).



But anyways, they're not converted Romans, just superficially very similar on an autosomal level (though they do have a lot of Roman/Italian blood).

Doesn't reflect ibd sharing though.

[Smeagol]

How do you know that at one point 10% of the Roman Empire was Jewish?

Judaism reached the peak of its expansion in the years prior to the 66 CE revolt. Salo Baron, in his monumental A Social and Religious History of the Jews, points out that the Jews - comprising as many as 10 percent of the Western Roman empire and 20 percent of the Eastern Roman empire

https://www.thejc.com/judaism/featur...harder-1.16797

[Smeagol]

They seem to have little to no North Italian, unlike the popularly believed narrative that they're half-North Italian (and half-Levantine)

That's because North Italians during the Roman Empire were probably more similar to modern South Italians. I think Jews are closer to 70% European ancestry rather than 50% but it's mostly South Italian-like.

[Borealis]

That's because North Italians during the Roman Empire were probably more similar to modern South Italians. I think Jews are closer to 70% European ancestry rather than 50% but it's mostly South Italian-like.

goths?

[Smeagol]

goths?

Among others.

[Peterski]

Doesn't reflect ibd sharing though.

Yeah he didn't choose the right populations for that model.

Long ago on Anthrogenica Agamemnon posted some models:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthre...l=1#post253600

https://www.theapricity.com/forum/sh...Ashkenazi-Jews

Also some Greek admixture is possible for Ashkenazi Jews.

Tried running both South Italians and Ashkenazi Jews on nMonte. The South Italians are a proxy for Romans. The South Italian gets 94% South Italian. Don't know why it doesn't get 100% but 94% is close enough. The Jew gets a decent chunk of Samaritan as well as some German. They seem to have little to no North Italian, unlike the popularly believed narrative that they're half-North Italian (and half-Levantine).



But anyways, they're not converted Romans, just superficially very similar on an autosomal level (though they do have a lot of Roman/Italian blood).

This nMonte runner is very limiting because you can run only up to 4 reference populations at once. There are better ways to run it with more populations. But if you have to use just 4 then try Tuscans instead of Bergamo, ancient Levant instead of Samaritans, Poles instead of Germans, and Greeks instead of South Italians.

Try using Canaanites from Lebanon instead of Samaritans.

Are they in Global25? If not then use Bronze Age Jordan.

[Mingle]

Doesn't reflect ibd sharing though.

How Levantine are they based on IBD sharing? IBD sharing doesn't say much about how much autosomal components they have anyways.

That's because North Italians during the Roman Empire were probably more similar to modern South Italians. I think Jews are closer to 70% European ancestry rather than 50% but it's mostly South Italian-like.

Yeah, but people were previously saying they get modeled as half-modern North Italian based on their GEDmatch oracle.

[JohnSmith]

Not sure if there is a real proper definition of a Roman.

[Mingle]

Yeah he didn't choose the right populations for that model.

Long ago on Anthrogenica Agamemnon posted some models:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthre...l=1#post253600

https://www.theapricity.com/forum/sh...Ashkenazi-Jews

Also some Greek admixture is possible for Ashkenazi Jews.

Nice fit, but this guy is checking for their ancestry going back to pre-historic times. The thread is more about how much they mixed with Europeans after leaving Asia.

This nMonte runner is very limiting because you can run only up to 4 reference populations at once. There are better ways to run it with more populations. But if you have to use just 4 then try Tuscans instead of Bergamo, ancient Levant instead of Samaritans, Poles instead of Germans, and Greeks instead of South Italians.

Try using Canaanites from Lebanon instead of Samaritans.

Are they in Global25? If not then use Bronze Age Jordan.

Poles and Germans don't work. It's weird how sometimes you can get over 10% for both of them but neither of them were working when I was just trying them now.

When I use South Italians, Greeks, and Tuscans; then Tuscan disappears.

Samaritan fits better than Levant_BA_South.

This is the best fit I could get:

Fit = 1.2858

Greek = 20
Italian South = 55.83
Levant BA South = 7.5
Samaritan = 16.67