Genetic study The Picenes and the Genetic Landscape of Central Adriatic Italy in the Iron Age.

mount123 said:
I have highlighted the J2b-L283 parts that caught my attention in my initial post. I have no big interest in R1b-Z2103 or R1b-L51>>>P312>U152+ or R1b-M269>L23 (on a macro scale) research either. Regarding Italy there's enough data to conclude that U152+ likely makes up the vast majority of BCE R1b-M269>L23 (which is, again, a broad nomenclature) samples. Certain R1b-Z2103 more often than not should have come from somewhere in the Balkans, I don't disagree with that at all.

Them using macrohaplogroup designations doesn't imply the coverage of the samples is not good enough to determine a more exact clade placement. Most academics use macrohaplogroup designations (often times at least). For instance they talk about J2-M172/M12, meaning "J2b" samples, but they further elaborate on them belonging to clades under samples which in turn are verified to belong to L283.
Click to expand...

mount123: If my post came off as flippant, that was not my intention. I am interested in which groups from where and when first brought Proto-Italic languages into Italy. I would like to see academics for example get more information on the Elymians and Sicels of Sicily (we have some research on the Sicani territory).

When I speak of dogmatics in this context, it is more related to which R1b first merged with Bell Beakers in Italy. Did they come from Central Europe just directly North of the Alps or more from the Balkans? Maybe Both and merge with Italian Bell Beakers. That is an interesting question that can be tested with more data to provide a clear answer.

Now I will confess that the fact that there is not a direct association with Corded Ware does kind of make me giggle inside, but that is more dealing with the WASP elitist country club types of my childhood who use to say the ancient Romans looked and sounded like the English Actors on on Masterpiece Theatre shows done by the BBC. Dating myself, Alistair Cooke was the host (who was a super intelligent guy who I liked to listen to as a kid watching those old PBS shows).
 
Pax Augusta said:
I'm traveling at the moment and I can't check. Are they claiming that they tested the Etruscan Y-DNAs down to the final clades?
Click to expand...

Pax Augusta: I confess, Mea Culpa, that I have not read the entire paper yet (I will do so) and have only read the excerpts posted here. The 5 samples that I am referring to relate only to the Picene samples. So to be clear, I was not referring to the Etruscan samples in this paper.

Cheers
 
Palermo Trapani said:
Interesting section of the paper. The Picene Languages are Indo-European and part of the Osco-Umbrian-Italic languages correct. The Latin Language and the Umbrian are considered part of a Common Proto-Italic language. However, what is interesting is the 5 Picenes who were placed at the Basal portion of R1-L23 and they are from Yamnaya. So when you follow the migration of Indo European starting with Yamnaya which spread first then Corded Ware. Maybe I am wrong but it seems Corded Ware is directly linked to Proto-Germanic, closely linked to Proto-Baltic/Slavic while Yamnaya is pretty much directly linked to Greek. Proto Celtic seems to be mediated through Bell Beaker civilization similar to Proto-Italic but it seems that Yamnaya from the Balkans may have had a larger role on Italic than just Bell-Beaker mediated folks. Am I totally off base here.

It would be good to have some Bronze Age samples to clear up and how much did these R1b-M269>L23 Yamanaya go down to the Balkans early on and then cross the Adriatic and influence early Italic languages spoken in the 1st millenium BC. In other words, as some other posters have hypothesized, what if Proto-Italic represents a Yamnaya-Bell Beaker merger to speak and the Proto-Italics split off early somewhere in the Balkans, could be in the Northern Part in what is near the border of Fruili-Venezia and Veneto and modern Slovenia and Croatia before coming into Italy (Picenes in Marche) as opposed to the other hypothesis that they came directly from Central Europe-Bell Beaker merger, etc.

And again I am an I-M223 Man so which R1B clades got here first has been in the past something that I had no dogmatic feelings about, purely an academic topic. More Data, in particular from the Bronze Age and more detailed testing as also suggested by some posters above.
Click to expand...
I still wonder if "Proto-Italic" is even a thing and if Latin-Faliscan and Osco-Umbrian even come from the same supposed cluster/merger of different elements (in this case potential Yamnaya-Bell Beaker mergers, creolization etc...) but I suppose it's possible as some scholars think, while others seem to propose them as separate branches entering Italy with different populations/waves.

There appears to have been a number of different plausibly Indo-European speaking peoples entering Italy since some time in the Bronze Age, and some different elements probably converged and clustered together within the Peninsula. Yamnaya-derived, Paleo-Balkan, Cetina, Vatya, Bell Beaker, Unetice, Tumulus, Mycenean, Urnfield, etc... Italy was an attractive location for many adventurers, traders, refugees, warriors, etc... to migrate to, invade, etc... and especially the fertile Po Valley.

Did any single one of these bear some single torch of some "Proto-Italic" language? Possibly, but I wonder if the Latin-Faliscan and the Osco-Umbrian came from different clusterings of different peoples entering Italy in different waves from different populations, and then converging over time via contact. Others would say that the striking differences between Latin-Faliscan and Osco-Umbrian came from supposed "Proto-Italic" separating within Italy and isolating from each other during the Bronze Age. I'm unsure which would be more plausible and I'm certainly no linguist.
 
Maciamo said:
From the wording of the paper's authors it sounded like the samples were L23*. They even go as far as to say that it is associated with Yamnaya ancestry, which is definitely not P312 and even less its subclade U152. Why would they make such a claim without testing for clades downstream of L23? Are they suicidal in their scientific career?
Click to expand...
I had a quick look at their phylogenic tree (involving older samples) in the suplementary materials ... and the fine structure of their tree is ... "let stay polite" ... weird in many aspects.
I wouldn't consider too much what is claimed about uniparental stuff in such paper.
Many teams are just having a quick look at the broad clades to fill the paper with few half-cooked "interpretations".
 
@Palermo

Picene languages only merged not earlier than 350BC ..................before this, linguistic scholars state that South Picene lands spoke an Umbri-Sabellic language while North Picene spoke another language most likely a liburnian language since they had colonies there from late bronze -age to 440BC ..............when these Liburnians either merged into Picene populace or returned to their lands across the adriatic sea
 
Robotnick said:
I still wonder if "Proto-Italic" is even a thing and if Latin-Faliscan and Osco-Umbrian even come from the same supposed cluster/merger of different elements (in this case potential Yamnaya-Bell Beaker mergers, creolization etc...) but I suppose it's possible as some scholars think, while others seem to propose them as separate branches entering Italy with different populations/waves.

There appears to have been a number of different plausibly Indo-European speaking peoples entering Italy since some time in the Bronze Age, and some different elements probably converged and clustered together within the Peninsula. Yamnaya-derived, Paleo-Balkan, Cetina, Vatya, Bell Beaker, Unetice, Tumulus, Mycenean, Urnfield, etc... Italy was an attractive location for many adventurers, traders, refugees, warriors, etc... to migrate to, invade, etc... and especially the fertile Po Valley.

Did any single one of these bear some single torch of some "Proto-Italic" language? Possibly, but I wonder if the Latin-Faliscan and the Osco-Umbrian came from different clusterings of different peoples entering Italy in different waves from different populations, and then converging over time via contact. Others would say that the striking differences between Latin-Faliscan and Osco-Umbrian came from supposed "Proto-Italic" separating within Italy and isolating from each other during the Bronze Age. I'm unsure which would be more plausible and I'm certainly no linguist.
Click to expand...
Robotnick: I have done some research on Romance languages at 2 levels: 1) Theological. The Latin Vulgate of Saint Jerome, who died in 420 AD and translated the Old Latin Bible into Vulgar Latin vs. Ecclesial Latin (closer to Classic Latin) is the immediate ancestor Language of Italian-Dalmation and Gallo-Iberian-Italian and 2) Cultural reasons obviously as Sicilian is a Language from the Italia-Dalmatian branch of Romance, not a dialect similar to Neapolitan also being a language, not a dialect or corruption of standard Italian (which synthesizes what was spoken in Tuscany)

But going back to Classical Latin to Old Latin (which I think is pretty close save some spelling differences) and the other Indo-European languages spoken throughout Italy, that is an interesting ? and one that I have more questions than answers. There were clearly other Proto-Italic languages besides Latin spoken on the Italian peninsula North to South and also Sicily (Sicels spoke an Italic language close to Latin)). The Osco-Umbrians also spoke languages similar to Latin, but not Latin.

So are all the early Indo-European languages spoken in Iron Age Italy from one Unified source or possible 2 distinct sources of which Latin absorbed and it was the only surviving Proto_Italic language. Since all these other Italic Languages are similar to Latin, I would think the most plausible hypothesis is that all of them Latin-Faliscan and Osco-Umbrian would be considered part of a Unified Proto-Italic. Just that the Latini of Lazio and their Italic branch is what survived leading to Classical Latin then Ecclesial Latin and Vulgar Latin, from which Romance Languages stem from.
 
torzio said:
@Palermo

Picene languages only merged not earlier than 350BC ..................before this, linguistic scholars state that South Picene lands spoke an Umbri-Sabellic language while North Picene spoke another language most likely a liburnian language since they had colonies there from late bronze -age to 440BC ..............when these Liburnians either merged into Picene populace or returned to their lands across the adriatic sea
Click to expand...

Torzio: Are there not some texts of the South Picene Language that pre-date 350 BC. I went back and checked up on the North Picene Language and it does seem from what I gathered something different from the Umbri-Sabellic you mention which is part of Osco-Umbrian correct?
 
Hopefully these make it into the next iteration of AADR, I would certainly like to experiment with them in qpAdm.

Worth noting, now we have the Picene outlier cluster with the Daunian outlier & Prenestini outlier (Not shown in PCA), forming a clade over the south.
 
@Palermo

In ancient times....if you remove Etruscan, Ligurian, Sicilian indigenous languages and Venetic, .... all others spoke a branch of the Umbri ancient language ............these tribes are sabellics, sabines, samnites, Volspi, lucatani and many many others

below is the modern break up ..................see the split attached
en.wikipedia.org

Italo-Western languages - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
torzio said:
@Palermo

In ancient times....if you remove Etruscan, Ligurian, Sicilian indigenous languages and Venetic, .... all others spoke a branch of the Umbri ancient language ............these tribes are sabellics, sabines, samnites, Volspi, lucatani and many many others

below is the modern break up ..................see the split attached
en.wikipedia.org

Italo-Western languages - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...
Torzio: That chart is modern Italia-Dalmatoian branch of Romance from which all Central and Southern Italian languages come from Standard Italian (Synthesis of what was spoken in Central Italy-Tuscany), Neapolitan, Sicilian and Corsican (close to Tuscan) from one branch. The Gallo-Italian branch produces Ligurian, Emilian, and Piedmontese are also distinct languages, they like Sicilian, Neapolitan, Corsican are not dialects of Standard Italian but also distinct Languages.

What I was getting at is that there are Oscan-Umbrian texts that date back > 350 BC to around 600 BC.
 
Palermo:
yes there is in regards to your time frame, but not in north Picene lands
 
The supplementary PCA confirms it. These N. Picenes cluster directly over modern northern Italians of all types. They are even more modern like than I originally presumed.

1710976690821.png
 
Last edited:
Vitruvius said:
The supplementary PCA confirms it. These N. Picenes cluster directly over modern northern Italians of all types. They are even more modern like than I originally presumed.

View attachment 15690
Click to expand...
Makes me wonder about the Samnites. The samples are also from the Adriatic side and to their south.
 
Samnite lands where from the Adriatic sea ( north of the Daunians ) and then turned south in central Italy .............always closer to the adriatic sea than the other side

the Frentani one of 5 tribal branches of the Samnite people lived on the adriatic coast
en.wikipedia.org

Frentani - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
Venosa was a Samnite town
 
Jovialis said:
Makes me wonder about the Samnites. The samples are also from the Adriatic side and to their south.
Click to expand...
My perspective is still that we are seeing the emergence of an old north south cline and less so east west, but I'm not opposed to your idea either. I'd certainly welcome seeing some more ancients that cluster like modern Central Italians. It looks like there were already a couple in the Picene cluster. I bet those two are especially close to Vallicanus.
 
Vitruvius said:
My perspective is still that we are seeing the emergence of an old north south cline and less so east west, but I'm not opposed to your idea either. I'd certainly welcome seeing some more ancients that cluster like modern Central Italians. It looks like there were already a couple in the Picene cluster. I bet those two are especially close to Vallicanus.
Click to expand...
According to Illustrative DNA, I'm closest to Roman Pannonian(!) followed by North Illyrian.

Roman Pannonian is closest to Modern Piedmont (presumably Val Borbera).
 
Vitruvius said:
On the topic of proto-italic having a possible balkanic origin, you may be interested to know that numerous archaeologists today hypothesize the Nagyrev and later Vatya cultures of Hungary to be the origin of proto Italic and link their material culture and ubran organization methods to the arrival of the demographically massive Terramare culture in Po Valley of the middle bronze age. There is a line of thought which associates the collapse of the Tell system in the Carpathian basin to a large migrations into Northern Italy through the Julian alps which dwarfed the preceeding Polada culture in size. The Terramare culture whose culture, weaponry and militarized practices mimic that of Vatya in turn would go on to become the protovillanovan culture which stretched from Sicily to the Alps and the first broad pan-Italic material culture of the bronze age.

We also have samples from Vatya and Proto Nagyrev which look distinctly like the picenes we are looking at here and also modern northern Italians. Some here are somewhat averse to this theory but to me it seems very likely.
Click to expand...
I agree with your argument. But, there is still confusion as to when Italic speakers arrived on the peninsula. It is possible that the Vatya-related immigrants who entered the Terramare culture in the 15th c.BC were proto-Italic speakers. However, it is also possible that the Bell-Beaker immigrants who came to the Po Valley via the Swiss Alps in the 23rd c.BC were the Proto Italo-Celtic speakers who were the direct ancestors of the Italic people.

Perhaps, Apennine culture may have been Proto-Italic speakers and the Terramare may have simply been Proto-Etrusco-Rhaetian speakers...the vatya settlers might have been assimilated by them....or vice versa? nothing seems certain and I'm very skeptical....Confusing....
 
Last edited:
Poxy said:
I agree with your argument. But, there is still confusion as to when Italic speakers arrived on the peninsula. It is possible that the Vatya-related immigrants who entered the Terramare culture in the 15th c.BC were proto-Italic speakers. However, it is also possible that the Bell-Beaker immigrants who came to the Po Valley via the Swiss Alps in the 23rd c.BC were the Proto Italo-Celtic speakers who were the direct ancestors of the Italic people.

Perhaps, Apennine culture may have been Proto-Italic speakers and the Terramare may have simply been Proto-Etrusco-Rhaetian speakers...the vatya settlers might have been assimilated by them....or vice versa? nothing seems certain and I'm very skeptical....Confusing....
Click to expand...
Actually, the differences between the Latin of Rome and the Umbrian of Iguvium (Gubbio) are quite stark.

The Latin-Faliscan and Osco-Umbrian branches of IE were originally separate but some convergence took place within Italy itself. (Giacomo Devoto's view).

The respected linguist Giacomo Devoto pointed out some of these convergences, e.g. both Latin and Umbrian had ET for AND while Oscan in southern Italy had INIM.

Latin and Umbrian had MARS (the god of war) but the Oscan had MAMERS.

Source: GLI ANTICHI ITALICI by Giacomo Devoto
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 13610 times.

Back
Top