M3302 & the Roman Slave Trade

A Demographic Engine: The Anatolian Backbone of Imperial Rome

By T. Paradine

In 2022, the release of Iosif Lazaridis, Songül Alpaslan-Roodenberg et al.'s Southern Arc trio of papers provided a wealth of genetic analysis of the continuum stretching from Italy, the Balkans, Greece, Anatolia, Armenia, Mesopotamia, and the Levant.  Most notably, the paper: A genetic probe into the ancient and medieval history of Southern Europe and West Asia drew important conclusions on the impact of Anatolian ancestry on the city of Rome and the empire itself.  Paired with research into the demography of the Imperial slave class of the city of Rome, it makes a powerful statement about the untold story of the Roman lower class with implications for YDNA Haplogroup G-M3302 (FGC5089 & M406). 

All Europeans have some level of Anatolian Neolithic Farmer (ANF) ancestry as a genetic baseline dating back to the spread of farming into the continent during the Neolithic period.  However, the paper is referencing a much more recent and specific infusion of Anatolian DNA.  According to the authors, "A paleogenomic time transect of the city of Rome in Central Italy identified an ancestry shift toward the Near East during the Imperial period (27 BCE to 300 CE) but was unable to localize the origin of the migrants driving this phenomenon."   "[We]....found that the Italian and Anatolian individuals clustered together with those of preRoman Anatolia, whereas pre-Imperial people around the city of Rome were systematically different. This suggests that the Roman Empire in both its shorter-lived western part and the longer-lasting eastern centered on Anatolia, had a diverse but similar population plausibly drawn, to a substantial extent, from Anatolian pre-Imperial sources," the authors stated.  What this directly implies is a wave of Anatolian migration to Roman Italy coinciding with the Roman acquisitions of several Anatolian states which occurred in earnest following the MIthridic Wars and Pompey's defeat of the Seleucids in 63 BC. 

Rome's influence over parts of Anatolia dates back at least as far as the first war between the Romans and Seleucid Greeks.  With Rome's victory in 188 BC, the Seleucids gave up their aspirations in Greece and parts of Anatolia were awarded to the Roman client states of Pergamon and Rhodes.  In 133 BC, the king of Pergamon died without issue and bequeathed the kingdom to the Roman Republic.  In 129 BC, the Romans established the province of Asia Minor with Ephesus as its capital.  Later, following Pompeys defeat of both the Kingdom of Pontus and the Seleucids, Rome annexed the rest of Anatolia, Syria, and Judaea, and eventually made a client state out of Armenia. 

Southern Arc claimed this conquest opened the door to an influx of Anatolian peoples into the Italian peninsula and Rome "...although the Roman Republic prevailed in its existential military struggle against the Anatolians.....the final incorporation of Anatolia into the Roman Empire and the increased connectivity that ensued may have set the stage for the very same Anatolians to become the demographic engine of Imperial Rome itself."  This compelling data makes a case for the Roman Imperial period as a key time period in the seeding of the G-M3302 (FGC8098 & M406) YDNA signature in Italy.  As argued previously, other likely mechanisms for the presence of these signatures in Italy and other Western Mediterranean regions may be Greek and Phoenician colonization, as well as other Byzantine and post-Roman migrations.  However, based on the impact of Anatolian DNA on the Imperial Roman profile, as well as sources from the Romans themselves, it would seem that a high percentage of European G-M3302 (FGC8098 & M406) would have came through Italy first before diffusing further into Europe over the following centuries.

Roman provinces in Anatolia were as follows.  It is important to note that many of these provinces were former Roman client states for decades prior to Rome eventually assuming full control:

• Asia Minor (est. 129 BC)

• Bithynia et Pontus (est. 63 BC) 

• Cilicia (est. 63 BC)

• Syria (63 BC) 

• Galatia (est. 25 BC) 

• Cappadocia (est. 17 AD)

• Lycia et Pamphylia (43 AD)

• Armenia (Client Kingdom)

The conclusions drawn by Southern Arc suggested that people from many of these regions would have accounted for this statistical change in the Roman population.  The question becomes how?  What forces within the empire itself were behind such an influx?  

While the Roman Military machine accounted for some population mobility around the empire both during the Republic and Imperial phase, this would likely not have been a major cause of Anatolian genetic impact on the region of Rome.  Until the late Imperial period, Roman legions consisted of mainly Italians or Italian citizens who had settled elsewhere.  In the second century AD, there was a rise in the use of Auxilias (Auxilary forces) from other provinces around the empire.  According to G.L. Cheeseman's 1914 work, The Auxilia of the Roman Imperial Army, we know that Anatolians from Galatia, Cilicia, and Syria served in such Roman Auxiliary units.  While these auxiliaries may have received benefits like eventual Roman citizenship, they did not serve in Italy and it is unlikely that many would have been retired to the vicinity of Rome,  With the Constitutio Antoniniana, an edict in 212 by the Emperor Caracalla, all freedmen in the Roman Empire became Roman citizens, effectively erasing the distinction between auxiliaries and legionaries.  Again, while Anatolian legionaries from this period may have retired to various regions around the empire, they likely would not have made much of an impact in Italy.  In addition this would not account for the genetic shift detected by Southern Arc, which it claims began with the advent of the Imperial age over two-hundred-years prior.

Of all the mechanisms responsible for the Anatolian shift in the population of Rome, slavery is likely the largest contributor.  The Romans acquired slaves in a number of ways.  Many, of course, came from the captives of war sold into slavery by successful Roman generals.  Rome, not short on military conquests in the 200 years leading up to Augustus, would have seen tens of thousands of slaves: Carthaginians, Celts, Greeks, Gauls, Illyrians, Anatolians, Thracians, Syrians, and more.  Harold Johnston in his 1903 book The Private Life of the Romans noted that these mostly male captives were often less suited for city and farm life and better suited for hard labor due to their likelihood of resistance and resentment as a captured foe.  He concluded that slaves born into servitude or captured at a young age were much more docile and preferable.  Under the Empire, he stated, large numbers of docile slaves were brought to Rome as "articles of ordinary commerce", treated as mere commodities.

In The Nationality of Slaves Under the Early Roman Empire (1924), author Mary L. Gordon's noted that the Romans themselves did not originate the slave trade, but instead inherited it from the Phoenicians and Greeks.  In the age of Greek dominance following the conquests of Alexander, Gordon claimed, "the great majority of barbarian slaves came from two principal regions, the one comprising Asia Minor and Syria, the other Thrace, the valley of the lower Danube, and the northern coast of the Black Sea.  In Asia Minor, the trade in slaves was a natural outcome of the commercial relations of the Asiatic Greeks with the interior."  Cities such as Ephesus on the Ionian coast, Delos on the Aegaean and even Byzantium on the Bosphorus were major Greek trade hubs. Roman author Marcus Terentius Varro described Ephesus as a vibrant slave market that produced highly valued barbarian slaves during the late Republic.  Its strategic location and economic importance made it a hub for various commercial activities, including the buying and selling of slaves.  However, in the second century BC, the Cycladic island of Delos (of Delian league fame) was the chief market of the slave trade in the region, based off of increased demand for Greco-Oriental slaves.   Pirates also grew rich off of slave trafficking in this part of the world as they operated along the Black Sea and later established headquarters in Cilicia on the southern coast of Anatolia.  In the waning days of the Republic these Cilician pirates were both a necessity due to their slave trafficking and a nuisance that invoked the wrath of the likes of Caesar himself.  There is no doubt that slaves from these Greek trading hubs and others reached the city of Rome.  In fact, Gordon claimed that "The slaves from Greek or Graecized cities, were the most expensive and highly prized." 

In terms of numbers. according to Keith Bradley of the University of Notre Dame in 2011, “In Rome and Italy, in the four centuries between 200 BC and 200 AD, perhaps a quarter or even a third of the population was made up of slaves. Over time millions of men, women, and children lived their lives in a state of legal and social non-existence with no rights of any kind."  This commonly cited figure is both staggering and indicative of Rome's dominance over the vast wealth of many nations around the Mediterranean.  In AD 100, the city of Rome itself had a population of over 1,000,000 residents.  If commonly accepted proportions hold true, this indicates as many as 200,000 to 300,000 slaves present in every aspect of city life during the height of Rome.

Certainly a servant class of this magnitude didn't simply disappear and would have had an impact on the genetic makeup of the population of Rome going forward.  In the Roman legal system, a slave was not allowed to marry and did not have a family.  This of course does not mean that slaves did not have sexual relationships or that they did not have children.  However, for much of Rome's history, it was cheaper to purchase slaves to ensure a healthy surplus of manpower, then it was to rely on them to breed.  This philosophy changed at some point during the Imperial period.  Mary Gordon noted that  "when the empire ceased to expand indefinitely, a corresponding change came over the servile class. It became a more or less complete entity...its ranks were kept full by slave breeding and kidnapping."  This change essentially served to cement the DNA of Imperial era slaves into the genetic profile of Rome.

Johnston echoed this in The Private Life of Romans, a natural increase in the slave population occurred during the Imperial era as men and women formed permanent relationships called contubernium. A contubernium is a type of union recognized in Roman law between slaves that was similar to marriage. If a slave woman entered into a union with a free man, the children were born slaves.  This is true even if the father was the slave's master. If a slave man entered into a contubernium with a free woman, the children were born free. This mechanism, though likely rare, could have produced sons carrying the G-M3302 (FGC5089 & M406) signature as free Roman citizens in Italy and other provinces.

In regard to later Roman thoughts about slaves having children, Johnston claimed that slave owners looked favorably upon the increase of their slave populations in this method because "Such slaves would be more valuable at maturity...acclimated and less liable to disease...would be trained from childhood in the performance of the very tasks for which they were destined. They would also have more love for their home and for their master’s family, since his children were often their playmates. It was only natural, therefore, for slaves born in the familia to have a claim upon their master’s confidence and consideration that others lacked...They were called Vernae so long as they remained the property of their first master."  Vernae were slaves born within a household, family farm, or villa. In Rome there was a stronger social obligation to care for vernae and it was not rare for a slave to be freed or to be able to purchase their freedom over time.  This would have served as a proverbial carrot at the end of the stick for many vernae in Rome and around the empire.

Some authors also believe the influx of slaves from the east impacted the Roman outlook on life and ultimately the strength of the empire.  Johnston lamented in The Private Life of the Romans that "...slavery more than to any other one factor is due the change in the character of the Romans in the first century of the Empire. With slaves swarming in their houses, ministering to their love of luxury, pandering to their appetites, directing their amusements, managing their business, and even educating their children, it is no wonder that the old virtues of the Romans, simplicity, frugality, and temperance, declined and perished. And with the passing of Roman manhood into oriental effeminacy began the passing of Roman sway over the civilized world.”  Many scholars today dismiss this conclusion, however the staggering amount of slaves clearly would have transformed Roman society in many ways.

This transformation is at the heart of the matter.  On one hand there is the claim in Southern Arc that DNA from Anatolia creates a significant shift on the genetic makeup of Imperial Rome, on the other, there is evidence that the city of Rome during this era was teeming with slaves of foreign backgrounds.  We also see a transformation in the way in which Romans sustained their slave populations that favored the breeding of slaves.  But what evidence is there that Anatolian slaves were numerous, desirable, or likely to have been assimilated into the Roman gene pool over the course of several generations?

The commonality of Greek names recorded amongst the slaves of Rome seems to indicate a prevalence of slaves from the Greek speaking world. In The Nationality of Slaves Under the Early Roman Empire, Mary Gordon conducted an in-depth profile of the names of slaves looking for clues to their origins.  She noted that the most common names for slaves were "ones that mark the slave a product of Hellenistic culture: Atticus, Graecus, Asia, Asiaticus, Syrus."  She also looked at slaves who were named after their place of purchase, suggesting that, "...slave names which claimed Greek or Hellenized origin for their bearers may have been applied with cultural rather than racial significance." This would fit the profile of slaves obtained from the Greek cities of Asia Minor, the Pontic Sea, and Syria, which may have been captured from areas further inland, and regions where G-M3302 (FGC5089 & M406) YDNA signatures are found in above average percentages. 

In her work, Gordon cited the strong conclusions of Professor Tenney Frank (May 19, 1876 – April 3, 1939), a prominent Roman historian and classical scholar:

"Professor Tenney Frank in his article on 'Race Mixture,' and again in his Economic History of Rome, draws attention to the extraordinary predominance of Greek cognomina in the sepulchral inscriptions of the lower classes, both in Rome itself and in the chief towns of Italy and the provinces, and infers that they are derived from servile stock imported from the eastern provinces of the empire.

'When the name is Greek, as a very large proportion of slave and freedmen names actually are, we may infer that the bearer came from or at least by way of that part of the slave-producing world in which Greek was the language of commerce, i.e., Asia Minor and Syria.'

In the former article, he analyzes a collection of 5,000 slave-names drawn from the indices of the Corpus, and finds that of these 2,874 are Greek names and 2,126 Latin.  It is generally assumed that all slaves and freedmen bearing Greek names were either Greeks or orientals; and since Latin names might also be bestowed, upon such slaves (Felix the brother of Pallas is an obvious example), it is inferred that the eastern provinces supplied the bulk of the slave population.  'The whole of Italy as well as the Romanized potions of Gaul and Spain were during the empire dominated in blood by the East.' "

Of this Gordon expressed her reluctance to fully embrace Tenney's conclusions "Do the Greek names borne by so many freedman (70% in Rome, 64% in Latium, 46% in Cisalpine Gaul, according to Tenney) imply a Graeco-oriental origin?"  

In her analysis of Tenney's work, Gordon proscribed caution.  She argued that a slave trade largely dominated by Greeks would result in slaves with Greek names regardless of nationality.   She also noted that this would have led to the Greek language being commonly used in "servile nomenclature."  Finally she listed the possible inter-marriage of Greek and oriental slaves as a way in which the frequency of Greek names were disproportionately utilized.  Ultimately, she concluded  "That large numbers of slaves and freedmen possessing Greek names derived their origin wholly or in part from the eastern provinces, cannot be doubted: but the possession of a Greek name by a slave is not in itself proof of Greek or oriental nationality."

With the genetic evidence provided by the Southern Arc study it would seem then that Tenney now has his proof.  Southern Arc makes a strong case for the predominance of Anatolians in the lower levels of Roman imperial society, particularly the slave class.  These individuals from the east, many bearing Greek names, were brought to Rome in staggering numbers, plucked out of the Hellenized world, many times undocumented by history, only to become the backbone of the The Eternal City.  These slaves and their descendants likely transmitted the G-M3302 (FGC5089 & M406) YDNA signature not only to Rome, but eventually much of Western Europe.  Although Rome was, in effect, an unwilling gateway, it was also the likely staging ground for the expansion of their Anatolian lineages deeper into Europe, generation after generation.

See Also: A 2024 doctoral thesis from Universita Degli Studi Di Parma: Pompeii, Time Capsule of the Roman Empire: Paleogenomic Analysis of Human Remains Found in the Ancient City