To me it looks like both Greeks & Romans were ancient Mycenaean-like people. (Quite early Eastern immigration to Italy) Etruscans are different, probably usual steppe male (R1b? / eef female mix. I do not understand the journey of the Etruscan & Latin languages in this case.
I've told you from the start,way less Etruscan and Celtic admixture in S Italy.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roma...nsion_in_Italy
It's going to be very difficult to make sense of. Most linguists contend that the split within the Italic language family is rather deep, so to find a potential Proto-Italic population we would probably need LBA samples.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpluskx
The north-south cline in Italy is expectedly very old in any case, and it likely predates Urnfield/Villanova. The Po valley and the Apennine range very different biogeological regions after all, so it's not surprising that they were settled by different peoples. Who of them spoke Italic?
Even more complicated if Umbrians etc. cluster with Etruscans. Also afaik Etruscan language came to Italy later than IE? Doesn't make a lot of sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by markod
I think these results should push the consideration that etruscan was possibly IE also. Im very excited by it
Yeah, that's surprising if true. I would have thought that Italic was spoken by the southerners, because as it stands the southern cluster 'won' and therefore expanded in the imperial area. If all other Italics are 'northern' that would be strong evidence to the contrary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpluskx
Not if the Moots leaks are correct.
According to those Moots leaks, 40% of the population in Rome in the Republican Era were "Northern Italian like". Not Parma Beaker like, but specifically Northern Italian like. Those people were from Roman burials, not Etruscan ones, at a time when it still made a difference.
So, no, all "Romans", at least not in the pre-Imperial Age, were all homogeneously Southern Italian/Sicilian like. That has to be accounted for...
I hate to agree with Eurogenes about anything, but facts are facts.
The fact that someone is claiming the Umbrians, Samnites, northern Picene are similar to the Etruscans is the confusing part.
Does that mean the "Republican Era" Romans and the Etruscans were not that dissimilar to one another? Were they two streams of minority admixed steppe people. Did they arrive at different times? Did the Etruscans, like the Basques, just carry a different non IE language, or did the Etruscans adopt another one in situ. Has anyone checked for traces of a substrate language in ancient Ligurian? It's always been difficult to analyze. Could that substrate be in any way similar to Etruscan? Is the substrate at all similar to certain things underlying, say, Iberian. Could certain R1b lines, but not others, have carried more "ancient" or "different" languages?
I know the "elite" from Aegean/Anatolia dominance scenario for the language shift in Etruscans is still alive and well, but it seems slightly odd that the addition of an "elite" group could still result in a people so "northern". I mean, all we have for Etruscans are "elite" burials, so far as I know, and so they would carry this "elite" admixture. Yet still so northern? It would have had to have been a handful. Or perhaps it was adopted from people with whom the Etruscans traded and whom they greatly respected? Is there any other example for something like that?
As Pax has pointed out so often, admixture from Greek admixed people from the south could easily result in Tuscans.
Additionally...Quote:
Originally Posted by Messier 67
Umbrians, Samnites, northern Picene, Brutti plot near which groups?
Look at the present population, approx. 8%+ of Central and Southern Italians are R1s from Slav Markets (Rome was a slave state and had many of the slaves from the Northern celtic regions), 2% of them are from German barbarians (lombards, goths, normans). That is 1/3+ of R1s in Central and Southern Italy. So during early times Central and Southern Italy would have been barely anything R1. You are looking at 20% or less, except for the Etruscan areas (Rome). The Celts to the North did not disappear but became Roman subjects, so is likely true of the Italic tribes, making the Italics likely to be G,I, J2bs, Es. What were the original Germanics? If they were I1, you are looking at a possibility of Italics being not R1 either.
The Romans were Italic and Etruscan. How so with these two groups did Roman end up being from the start lower in R1 (less than 50%).
Seems that some Italic speaking populations had admixture from Anatolia MLBA / Minoan like populations, others did not.
Either from conquest (Italics = R1b) or these were natives still (meaning Italic tribes were not R1b).
Having copper bronze weapons/tools stopped the advance of the celts in Italy. Did the celts act not as warriors, but newcomers/migrants in central and southern Italy? Explaining why there is so low amount of celts in central/southern Italy today. The celts did not rampage Greece or central southern Italy because they were confronted with advanced civilizations with fierce weapons. When the celts confronted the neolithic Europeans, the celts had the weapons to destroy the natives. Not so in Greece and central/southern Italy, their weapons were matched with copper and bronze.
That's possible I guess, but it would imply that the majority of Imperial Romans derive their ancestry from an unknown Eastern Mediterranean or Aegean population, no?Quote:
Originally Posted by Angela
Anthrogenica is perhaps the most ridiculous forum because users take themselves very seriously, pretend to be expert even when they're clearly not, and support each other against those who think otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by davef
https://www.academia.edu/36806069/Th...d_South-Picene
Maybe a clue is in the link above
I'm just thinking out loud. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by markod
Obviously, this is all conjecture on my part until we see the Etruscan sample(s) and can compare them to early Republican Era samples, as early as possible. Once we have that comparison, things will be much clearer.
The next question, even before the one as to why the Imperial Era Romans are more “homogeneously southern”, is why there’s a more “southern” group within the early days of Rome at all.
I would think the first order of business would be to compare those samples and the Imperial ones first to each other and then to samples from southern, more Greek areas of Italy at the same or slightly earlier times.
I've been repeating ad nauseam for years that I thought that migration from Greece to Italy began all the way back in the Helladic Era.
I also have said and still believe that it’s quite possible that there was population movement south to north in Italy very early, as there has been in modern times starting in the late 19th century but particularly from the 1950s to today. More rural areas are not affected, but in cities like Milano and Torino half the school children are of southern extraction.
If that doesn’t work, then one can consider other possibilities.
I think that's a bit unlikely from a genetic and linguistic pont of view. I think that the explanation is simply that the EEF+Steppe+Extra CHG/INF in the Romans eventually became very similar to that of the Mycenaean Greeks. But the process until then was different in each of those populations. When I model Italians and Greeks using Global 25 Datasheet on nMonte, using many steppe-derived European reference populations, ancient and modern Greeks seem to clearly "prefer" Yamnaya and CWC samples, whereas Italians from Tuscany and Bergamo clearly "prefer" Bell Beaker samples. The much closer relationship of Italic to Celtic (and we might add Lusitanian too) and the pretty divergent and even archaic nature of the two in relation to "later" splits from the LPIE dialect continuum cannot be overlooked, either. If I had to guess, I'd put the ultimate origin of Italo-Celtic between France/Belgium and West Germany/Netherlands, and that of Italic somewhere in the vicinity of Northeastern Italy, in the vicinity of the Alps, maybe Austria, Slovenia or Hungary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpluskx
Here's a comparison, with the PCA from the study of the thread:
https://i.imgur.com/wEB9YWY.png
https://i.imgur.com/EeHjBLk.png
Many Romans are south of southern Italians. Would Germanic admixture be sufficient to explain the subsequent northern shift? How much Germanic Y-DNA is there in southern Italy, 5-10%?
Apulia:
E: 22%
J2a: 20%
G: 15%
R1b: 13%
J1: 8%
I2: 8%
I1: 6%
T: 5%
R1a: 5%
Basilicata:
J2a: 24%
G: 21%
E: 16%
R1b: 16%
J1: 7%
I2: 7%
T: 5%
I1: 2%
R1a: 2%
Calabria:
G: 24%
J2a: 18%
E: 18%
R1b: 16%
R1a: 8%
J1: 8%
I1: 5%
T: 2%
I2: 1%
(from Ftdna)
R1b might be both local and foreign, E-V13 too as we have seen.
I'm getting confused. This is the map which was supposedly leaked and published upthread, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by markod
https://i.imgur.com/PZahiV8.png
The ancient Roman samples are the purple triangles and the Etruscans the purple squares, yes? I'm assuming this is a different paper from the Moots one. I don't know where those more "northern" like Republican Era Romans would plot, but these ancient Romans seem to plot right on top of Southern Italians and some Greeks. We have one Tuscan like Etruscan, some Spanish like ones, a few Northern Italian like and one veering toward Bulgarians? I'm bad with these things so don't quote me. :)
I found this map, which I think might help in understanding that jumble in the leak.
https://i.imgur.com/d50cMfc.png
As for "Germanic" ancestry, I don't know, but I don't think much more than that, at least not in those three provinces, because they didn't experience the migration of northern Italians, i.e. the "Lombards" who were sent to Sicily to Latinize it in both language and religion.
Yeah, it is the leaked PCA. I had just rotated it to mirror the PCA from the thread's paper.Quote:
Originally Posted by Angela
I would say the center of the Roman Empire cluster lies right with the southernmost Italians. However, the samples are from north of Rome I believe, and many of them diverge towards Cyprus causing them to plot outside modern variance (in the blank space between modern Italians and modern Cypriots).Quote:
Originally Posted by Angela
If the PCA is accurate, why do they plot there, and what changed? Alternatively, could slavery have introduced more northern autosomal admixture?
I'm wondering that myself, actually. That is interestingQuote:
Originally Posted by markod
Is there a version of the PCA where modern samples are not grouped into regions? Even without the ancient data, it is already interesting to see the various Italian, Greek and Albanian clusters.
There's about what, 23 or 24 samples? Four or five seem to drift off toward Cyprus, and the rest plot right with Southern Italians/Sicilians.Quote:
Originally Posted by markod
Why do we have some that drift that way? I don't know.
Where would Dodecanese people plot, for example? Or Minoan like people? Where precisely would the Mycenaeans plot? Also, parts of Italy were settled by Greek colonists who had first settled coastal Anatolia.
Are you thinking most of them might have actually been like that and were pulled north subsequently? In Sicily I would say definitely, given the Lombard migrations. Perhaps Campania too, which got some "more northern" influence. It was long believed the Celt-Ligurians were re-settled in Samnite areas. I don't think that's true for Calabria, however, and northern parts of Apulia got more "southern" input from "Moorish" troops re-settled there after the end of that era. Supposedly they were all eventually killed or sold into slavery, however.
The issue of slavery is a tricky one. I've hunted for years for some sort of contemporary evidence as to whether slaves from certain campaigns went to one part of the empire versus another, or one part of Italy versus another, and have never found a single thing. In the south, in particular, there were many vast latifundia or agricultural estates, but why would Germanic or Gallic slaves be sent there in preference to slaves from Greece or Anatolia or the Levant? Slaves went where they were needed. Plus, you didn't last long on latifundia, or mines, or on the galleys. The slaves who would be more likely to attract the notice of owners and perhaps freed after long service would be house slaves or slaves who had more skills. The Greek slaves were always the most prized, and if anything would have made them more "southern", and would have produced little change at all.
Plus, we have to be careful of the time periods here, don't you think?
Were those more "southern" "Romans" during the Republican Era very much like the "southern like" Romans of the Imperial Era? What are the exact dates for all of the samples? From that we would know what groups were or were not enslaved by that time and could have had an impact. In much of the Republican Era it would be from other people of the Italian peninsula.
However, let's be clear. Slave graves are quite different from the graves of reasonably well off Roman citizens. As are the graves around brothels where women didn't last too long, and graveyards full of aborted fetuses and newborns have been found, or in the merchant quarters right next to the docks. There's little likelihood such people would have had a great impact on genetics. Goodness, we have a big bunch North Africans in medieval London too. If they've done some isotope analysis that would help us wade through some of this.
Is that information that they came from north of Rome another leak? How far north of Rome? It doesn't matter if it's not in the city of Rome itself. Anything in "Latin" territory would do. There was a small area north of Rome which was still in the lands of the "Latini", but if you really go north you're in the lands of the Etruscans, Sabines, and Umbrians and Picene, which the leaks also said were similar to one another and more "northern", so that wouldn't be consistent.
https://delong.typepad.com/.a/6a00e5...2739970b-600wi
If the Sabines, like the Etruscans, are more "northern" like, then things like the "Rape", really "Kidnapping" of the Sabine women would just make them more northern.
The locations as well as the dates and the burial contexts are all really important here, and I hope they did isotope analysis. If the Republic Era samples are not here because this isn't the Moots paper then that leaves a lot of holes.
Forgot to include the following:Quote:
Originally Posted by Angela
Phocaea founded the colony of Massalia[1] (modern day Marseille, in France) in 600 BC, Emporion(modern day Empúries, in Catalonia, Spain) in 575 BC and Elea (modern day Velia, in Campania, Italy) in 540 BC.
Rhodes and Crete founded Gela in Sicily which founded many other city states.
Ed. Phocaea was on the western coast of Anatolia.
Indeed, the city of Lucera became the re-settlement area for the Sicilian Muslims:Quote:
Originally Posted by Angela
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_settlement_of_Lucera
The city thrived for 75 years, and had a population of about 20,000. However, it was sacked by Charles II, with half the population being killed. The other half was sold into slavery, or fled across the Adriatic into the Balkans. However, I don't think a population like that would have had much of an impact on the surrounding area. However, I'm sure the legacy of those specific people could exist in trace amounts, in some individuals. But It could also be similar DNA from an earlier period, perhaps. The rest of Puglia doesn't seem to get visible amounts of NA, or very little in the admixture charts for the paper. I myself get 0.6% Broadly Western Asian & North African on 23andme:
https://i.imgur.com/vl8tToO.png
That's an interesting theory regarding the Sabines, and the Romans. Perhaps, that could have made them shift North genetically, if the Sabines were like the Etruscans:
https://i.imgur.com/tARy19H.jpg
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angela
I think there aren't many options. Either the Italics were northerners and imperial Romans as well as present day South Italians derive much of their ancestry from Aegean and Near Eastern populations, or the northern admixture is intrusive and came with Etruscans, Celts etc .
How would one make Iberians/Ligurians etc. plot near Cyprus? Either through replacement or very significant admixture. Even the Myceneans don't seem to be sufficiently eastern, and if we're talking about Anatolian Greeks the influx must have been massive still. Both the northern population and the southern population seem to have existed in the Replubican era already in any case.
Those Italian papers might stir some controversy I feel :thinking:
I wasn't aware we had ancient Ligurian samples. If we don't, how do we know they plot anywhere near modern Cypriots? Modern Ligurians certainly don't. Are you saying these imperial Roman samples were found in Liguria?Quote:
Originally Posted by markod
Well, if that's the case, that's easy. Genua was a Greek city and then a Roman city, and Luni was founded by Romans and was used by them to try to pacify the area.
I think it's likely the Italics were more "Northern Italian" like and had more "steppe" than the "Imperial Romans". More than modern Southern Italians, for example. That's not "Northern" by any means. Northern Italians don't plot anywhere near Germans, much less Scandinavians. I'm also not convinced that this more "northern" like ancestry only arrived in Central Italy with "Etruscans" and "Celts", the latter of whom only raided in these more southern areas by the way, not settled. I think it might be earlier.
Are people on other forums fixating on those four samples that drift toward the Cypriots? For goodness' sakes. Talk about focusing on the minority.
Also, Mycenaean people were pretty darn "Aegean" like, and I think people like that were feeding into Italy at least from the Helladic Era. The Greek sample found in North Eastern Iberia in the Imperial Era still plots near Mycenaeans, who plot near Ashkenazi Jews, btw.
I don't personally find any of this very controversial.
We also still don't know what Neolithic Southern Italians were like, so maybe some people might be getting a little ahead of themselves.
Are the usual posters foaming at the mouth again about a flood of "Levant" like people coming into southern Italy? Fine with me if true, but where is the evidence? Is there any contemporary evidence of large migrations in writings, inscriptions, etc.? Did they just materialize out of thin air? I mean, the Carthaginians were only in the northwest corner of Sicily. That's giving them a little too much credit, don't you think? Or, are the Jewish members of some forums or the ones who think they're secret Jews or something proposing that floods of Jews moved to Italy but converted eventually? How many specifically Jewish yDna clades are there in Southern Italy or among imperial Romans?
The Moots leaks, btw, said that there was a "tail" leading toward the Near East at a certain time in the Imperial Era. They also mentioned some "sporadic" "Levantine" samples. I assumed the latter caused the former. That "tail", according to the leaks, then disappeared. I think it disappeared because a lot of the Jews moved on into the Rhineland.
Were the authors of this paper careful to distinguish local Roman from "foreign" burials? Did they do isotope analysis? I sure hope so.
This reminds me of all those "GOT" fan youtube sites where the creators would weave all these elaborate theories of what happened, garnering hundreds of thousands of views in the process, while the reality was much more simple. :)