Don't worry, the real white supremacists would not accept you.Quote:
Originally Posted by berun
Don't worry, the real white supremacists would not accept you.Quote:
Originally Posted by berun
Not at all, Read my previous post.Quote:
Originally Posted by halfalp
Well i'm not anti-american at all, most of my culture comes from there. But what Jovialis quoted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Salento
If this conversation does not go back to the topic of this thread, there will be consequences.
who ever seriously thought they were nordics, thats just an idiotic meme..
The main thing I wanted to highlight was that the article specifically denied the interpretation of older historians like Tenny Frank and Tacitus. Whose influence was long lasting. I thought it was pertinent to the discussion, and could give some insight to the Moots paper. Since the author retweeted it.Quote:
Originally Posted by xskramx2
I agree, the author is a strident in her tone. I think using phrases like lily white are needlessly inflammatory. It would have been sufficient to just address her points.
And obviously, she is white herself. Good Era to be a Psychiatrist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jovialis
don't worry by that, I also don't accept supremacists, no matter the colour or ethnicity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jovialis
Good, neither do I. Now, let us please return to the topic of the thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by berun
Well , this thread was going very far from the track. LOL.
Just to come back to it, if I d'ont mistake, one of the big questions is the Etruscans Italics question (and Greeks too?).
I have no kee to date. But to come back to posts about the links between ethnicity, genomics and languages, I can say that if a period in those times has been sowing trouble in these relationships, it's the Urnfields one, I think, where maybe religion, surpopulation have had a big role; maybe too gener unbalanced moves -
the phenomenon has showed introgressions, demic moves or/and cultural shift, more or less /brutalgradual or important according to places. My impression is that the origin IS NOT AMONG TUMULI POPS of West but rather in Hungary; we have some clues for this.
maybe Latins, Faliscans came before Etruscans and Osco-Ombrians, here I 've no clue.
Were Etruscans more linked to Late Pallafitti Piledwellings people (I would have linked rather to ancestors of Ligurians lately indoeuropeanized, now I do'nt know) or did they came later from more East at Urnfield times and just-post-Urnfields times , with, or followed or "patchworked" with later Osco-Ombrians?
What I'm almost sure of is that Urnfields is a multi-ethnic move with more than a step, that even Latins stayed closer to ancestors of Greeks than did the first Celts, and that Etruscans have some link with Urnfields.To date we have no sufficient genetic data to judge and it's this game of bets which please me!
Arguments, ladies and gentlemen? (for the fun only, waiting for valuable data)
What do you think about what they are saying on Anthrogenica that the Romans, the Etruscans and all the Italic populations were quite similar to the Hallstatt Celts, the Celtiberians and some Bell Beakers and that modern Italians were formed thanks to the contribution of Levantine migrants?
I personally do not know whether to believe that it is true or not.
Who said that? I’m skeptical even though I think immigration played a bigger role than mostQuote:
Originally Posted by alais
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToBeOrNotToBe
Generalissimo/Davidski/Polako and other users of Anthrogenica who try always to levantinize the Italians.
Link/quote plsQuote:
Originally Posted by alais
If he said something that explicitly I’m inclined to believe him. I could definitely believe the early Italic tribes were Hallstatt-like but given I believe the Etruscans derive from the Sea Peoples and imposed themselves on top of existing populations I am very skeptical that they were Hallstatt derived. Why were the Etruscans so much more developed than the Italic tribes around them if they were both derived from Central Europe and for that matter why would they speak such different languages?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToBeOrNotToBe
The origin of the Etruscans from the Sea Peoples is a completely debunked hypothesis. The PCA on anthrogenica shows Etruscans more north of the Romans and completely European.
I'd say how the hell could they possibly know or even reasonably "guess" without some more ancient samples?Quote:
Originally Posted by alais
That bunch have been absolutely sure, insisting for years (Agamemnon, Sikeliot, all the latter's socks, etc.) that the Etruscans were recent transplants from the Aegean, i.e. as in first millennium BC. I mean just look at all those dark Minoan looking people on the wall paintings! And the language! No Indo-European descended group would "ever" adopt a language from another group (ignoring, of course, the Basques). If the hints from the papers about ancient DNA are correct, they were completely and utterly WRONG.
So, why would they necessarily be correct about this?
First of all, we still don't have the ancient Etruscan and Roman samples so we can't compare them to the Hallstatt samples or the ancient Iberian samples or Beaker samples.
Plus, I don't know why any similarity to populations with steppe ancestry has to rely on Hallstatt, or specifically the Beakers for that matter. The Parma Beakers were very heterogeneous. One had steppe ancestry, one or two had almost none. How do we know how deeply that ancestry spread? That was a rhetorical question. We don't.
Then there is Polada to consider, and the Terramare. I'm currently reading a very recently published book called Northern Italy in the Roman World. After the collapse of the Terramare, the area south of the Po in Emilia was de-populated but not empty, and there's also archaeological evidence of movement into the hills of the Apennines. Trade routes through the Apennines with "Etruria" was long standing, so there could have been movement in that direction. As for the areas north of the Po, the author provides evidence that the settlements around the old Polada areas still existed.
Then, of course, we get to Frantesina. The "elite" burial, from the leaks, is someone "different" from the locals (although we don't know what either were really like yet), but we do know that this was a center with good links to the Baltics, and imported and then worked and traded lots of amber. Cremation also entered Italy through the northeast. When we get their samples, we'll know if this was a later migration of more steppe admixed people.
So, we have a lot of possibilities.
We also, by the way, don't really know what all the inhabitants of Northern Italy were like before the days of the Empire. There are the Celtic migrations to consider. One thing I've always emphasized and which this book emphasizes is that there not only is, but was, a lot of substructure in northern Italy, more than in southern Italy. Then there is Toscana, which is not northern, not southern, but not really "center" either.
As for this mass Levantine migration theory, are they really still peddling it? Even after seeing PCAs where people from the Greek Islands plot closer to the east than the Sicilians? If someone ever shows me archaeological and genetic proof of a mass migration from the Levant to Italy rather than the migration of Levant admixed Bronze Age populations, I would be happy to accept it. However, I tend to doubt that would happen. There would have had to have been an even larger "Levantine" mass migration to the Aegean, and the recent paper on Crete, as well as the prior one on the Peloponnese makes that unlikely.
Basically, I like and have always like to work by putting together the facts, all the facts, not just the ones I prefer, and then trying to deduce some logical speculations. It's both the way my mind works and the way I was trained.
Some people aren't very logically minded in the first place, and even if they are, tend to start with the hypothesis they prefer, for whatever personal or ideological reasons, and then selectively choose facts to support it.
It also amazes me how many times people happily say the same things thousands of times. It's like a compulsion.
Just saw the comment about Polako. He was saying precisely that for years. Now, with continued exposure of his agenda, he modifies his words so it's not quite so obvious.
How people can be so naive about him is beyond me given his documented history.
Quote:
Originally Posted by alais
Generalissimo/Davidski/Polako playes a lot of tricks against the Italians, just see his Global 25.
Who is saying that? Even Generalissimo said "migrants from across the Eastern Mediterranean" and didn't claim it was all or mostly Levantine. IIRC most people leaning this way were looking at the Greeks as the main source.Quote:
Originally Posted by alais
The Latins and the Etruscans have indeed archaeologically a connection with the central European urnfields (Latial culture and Villanovan culture both derived from the proto-Villanovan by regionalization). It's no surprise to anyone who's read archaeology texts. Obviously only academic studies can tell us if they were really similar to the Hallstatt Celts, but I don't think these studies have been published yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by alais
Those who support this theory ("Italians were formed thanks to the contribution of Levantine migrants" or more generally from the Eastern Mediterranean sea during Roman times) are the same users who for years supported the eastern origin of the Etruscans, without a real knowledge of the main texts of etruscology, and if you contributed on Anthrogenica with arguments based on academic sources simply to say that there was no certainty of this eastern origin, you were consequently mocked, harassed, and accused of the worst wrongs.
Now the same users clearly support the new game, and the new game is the thesis that the Italian cline was formed thanks to the Levantines of Imperial Rome. A game created by the Nordicists but which also enjoys a certain popularity among the Orientalists. Which is very funny, because we forget for example the Greeks (any type of Greeks, also Greeks from Asia Minor) who arrived everywhere in Italy, even in the north, and the Italian cline follows much of the geography of Italy and this theory makes it appear that the Romans distributed along the peninsula with the measuring cup these Levantine migrants to form the current genetic cline of the Italians, forgetting for example to bring them to Sardinia that has never been a very populated island. So they all lack credibility. We are also all forgetting that the ones that have come out so far are just rumors, some of them contradictory, and that we can't draw conclusions before the studies are published.
To be clear, I'm not denying that in Roman imperial times in Italy there really were Levantines or more generally people of middle-eastern descent or someone even from further away (many Levantines arrived for example in the Christian era to proselytize Christianity), who have certainly not disappeared but who were assimilated by the population of the Italian peninsula. Nothing to be ashamed of. But I don't think they were the main cause of the Italian cline.
For the Romans, I really don't know. We should not forget that the Romans and the Latins were not exactly the same thing. On the Etruscans we have this academic PCA, the genome of the three Etruscans analyzed by Stanford. Etruscans rich in EEF, WHG and even Steppe is also compatible with their mtDNA and archaeology, and both the Neolithic and the Bell Beaker are documented arcehologically in areas that will later become Etruscan. But we must not forget that we only have the elite burials of the Etruscans. If their position in the PCA discredits the theory that the Etruscan elite was of recent eastern origin, it cannot be ruled out that the Etruscan lower-class people not belonging to the elite kept less of an archaic genetic profile.
Then before drawing conclusions I'd like to see the samples of the culture of Rinaldone, Apennine culture, Gaudo culture, Laterza culture and many others. The archaeological history of the Italian peninsula is very complex, and cannot be reduced to a few samples taken from the ports of ancient Rome, which were obviously full of foreigners and less conservative than internal areas.
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-1rfyRUeQK.../etruscans.jpg
Most people who have almost no interest in population genetics, already assume Greeks and Italians share an affinity. Most regular people would chalk up the fantasy of a mass transformational migration from the Levant, as complete nonsense. Because it would be the first they've heard of it, since it is not in any historical record. Thus, people who know next to nothing on the subject, are actually more informed than the people who subscribe to that sophistry.
Eric Hamp's mature position was that the "North-West IE" (Italic-Celtic-Phrygian according to him) were the first inhabitants of the Hallstatt. He was a specialist of Celtic and one of the most renowned linguists of the 20th and 21st Century.
https://i.imgur.com/pBkGKNX.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/cB2JpnK.png
I'll leave Italian matters to Italians. So I'll just submit a few random remarks.
There is one element that clearly points to influx from north of the Alps. It's language.
Genitives in -i are said to be a western-IE innovation shared by Latin and Proto-Celtic (dominus > domini - tigernos > tigerni). It implies that the two populations were neighbors (or more) at a given point in time.
Similarly, Osco-Umbrian languages, though distinctly close to Latin, underwent the same kw/p mutation that occurred in the Brythonic and Gaulish Celtic languages. The two mutations may have happened independently. Or they may be due to the fact that an IE language was imposed upon similar substrate populations, speaking similar languages, and unable to properly manage the "kw". Or it may suggest that Osco-Umbrian tribes and P-Celtic tribes had shared the same "areal change" - ie, had been neighbors.
In other words, I wouldn't be surprised to learn sooner or later that there were in fact several waves from the north (and/or northeast) into Italy. Bell-Beaker pots were found in Remedello tombs. Villanovan biconic funerary urns seem Urnfield-derived.
An early migration could have ended up somewhere in the Po Valley and Tuscany, altering the culture and genetics, but not the language, in a process similar to the one described for the Basque Country. Later, the abundance of various metal ores - notably gold - in Tuscany would have shifted the center of gravity to where affluence was.
The Latins would have been another wave, still speaking a "kw" IE language, but with the "new" genitives already.
Then the Osco-Umbrians, with languages very much like Latin, but affected by the kw/p mutation.
(I don't know what to make of Veneti, with their language apparently half-way between Osco-Umbrian and Celtic, plus that strange, archaic, Germanic-looking pronominal system)
Genetically, the Celtic tribes that later settled in Northern Italy can't be discounted either, in the light of the proximity of northern Italians with some ancient samples. Have a look at the Mytrueancestry timeline results, and fitness levels.
That said, there still remains the riddle of those distinctly oriental influences in Etruscan art. Did a small elite group come and settle, altering the culture, but not the genes? Did locals imitate, and improve on, models brought to them by Greek merchants? Not a clue.
That's all, folks! As said above, these are strictly personal conjectures proposed here as food for thought. Feel free to disregard...
I have always held the belief that the etruscans where an ancient offshoot of the Umbrians and we do know that that the sabines, sabellics and samnites are also an offshoot of the umbrians............we also know that that umbrians entered italy from central europe via the NE of Italy.
There seems more etruscan connection with the umbrians and less with the Ligures
a paper below to consider on the linguistic and personnel names of Central european italian names/words
https://www.academia.edu/36806069/Th...d_South-Picene
Quote:
Originally Posted by torzio
This has been strongly discredited by archaeology.
Or subsequent geographic separation:Quote:
Originally Posted by markod
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped..._appennini.png