There are NO Northern Italian like Roman samples in that "leaked" PCA. The most Northern one lands on Tuscans.Quote:
Originally Posted by Falco
So, it doesn't reflect what Hannah Moots said in her presentation about 60% of the early samples resembling Northern Italians.
The discussions over there are chaotic because there is a conflict between the PCA and the Moots presentation and quotes.
AFAIK there are indications that the Terramare remnants spread to Central Italy and even South Italy. A dramatic socioeconomic collapse doesn't need to mean the complete disappearance of the people itself. It certainly involved population losses, but full extinction of a very large population is unlikely as opposed to its wide dispersal in much more sparsely distributed and smaller groups (the Terramare had an absurdly high population density for a BA culture in a small territory anyway, that was probably unsustainable on the long term especially in periods of crisis). This would be a bit like those claims about the "disappearance of the Maya peoples" when in fact they are still there. They just had a demographic and socioeconomic collapse and dispersed adopting a much more extensive way of life, with lower population density and a much lower long-term "archaeological print".Quote:
Originally Posted by markod
Though of course I don't bet much on it, it wouldn't surprise me if the Terramare were the natives spread to Central Italy and South Italy (didn't an ancient author claim that the Etruscans lived "in towers"? The Terramare lived in elevated houses), then the Urnfield people brought not just new customs, but also Proto-Italic to parts of Italy, but adopted the local well established language family, too, in some places (just like Germans and Slavs did not impose their language successfully eveywhere they went, or even tried to). So, in the end, the Tyrsenian and the Italic peoples might not have been much different genetically nor even culturally (maybe kind of initially, but not after centuries of close contacts and of exogamy), but speaking different languages and belonging to distinct ethnicities. I don't think we should assume, as you seem to be doing, that because 1960s scientists were wrong to assume pots, not people each and every time, then the new consensus should be people, not just pots all the time now.
Do you know if it’s true that it’s part of a student research paper, and it will be published after Graduation in 2020?Quote:
Originally Posted by Falco
There is still a lot of uncertainty about where the people of Terramare ended up and whether they really migrated elsewhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ygorcs
In any case, Terramare buildings are very similar to the prehistoric settlements of pile-dwellings in and around the Alps, built between about 5000 and 500 BC. There have been archaeologists in the past who thought the proto-Etruscans were originating from these pile-dwelling (or stilt house) settlements in and around the Alps
Reconstruction of Neolithic and Bronze Age pile dwellings from the Alps.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehis...round_the_Alps)
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...en_2005_05.jpg
Reconstruction of Terramare dwellings.
https://i.imgur.com/d0CdTPA.jpg
I wrote to Hannah as well, earlier this year, and she said this it would be released sometime in 2019. I think it is somewhere back-thread (if anyone remembers where the Moots paper was first announced here? That's were I directly quoted her) . Unless something has changed since then. Though if she's graduating in 2020, perhaps she's completing her course work this year.Quote:
Originally Posted by Salento
This was back in mid-February:
Quote:
Thanks so much for your email! Yes, we are working on an ongoing project on the genetic history of Italy using ancient DNA and hope to have the first publication out later this year (hopefully in the next 6 months) as well as follow up publications.
Looking forward to sharing more details once we've published!
Many thanks and all the best,
Hannah
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/37817-Talk-on-Ancient-Italian-Roman-DNA-over-in-Stanford/page13?p=567067&viewfull=1#post567067
But in the LBA it's the Apennine and Urnfield cultures that collide in Italy. Perhaps some Terramare people survived without leaving an archaeological culture, but there's no good reason to derive Etruscan from this ghost culture, especially now that we know one Etruscan plots as far north as south-central Europe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ygorcs
You'd also need more Terramare ghosts in the alps to aacount for the Rhaetians.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markod
What if Italic peoples were actually in Italy earlier than Etruscans? If Etruscans are more shifted towards North Italy / Central Europe, they maybe came after the original IE expansions. Looking at Etruscan Civilization, it's hard to imagine they were contained in Tuscany by Italic expansions, more like they came after Italics who already were widespread in Central and Southern Italy.
That's essentially the Pallottino hypothesis. I think it must be either that or Woudhuizen's hypothesis (Villanova = Italic, Apennine = Etruscan) . All the other hypotheses seem to rely on special pleading 🤷Quote:
Originally Posted by halfalp
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jovialis
OK, so if their schedule is up to speed, they should release their finding in a couple of months.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jovialis
EDIT ...
About the leaked docs:
If they graduated in 2019, chances are they already did. Usually colleges graduations take places in May. :)
I'm starting to think that. 1) Language 2) Lineage 3) Genomic, might be a little bit out of place. What if R1b-U152 came in Italy with Bell Beakers. What if Italic languages are older in Italy compared to Etruscan. What if Genomic and Language are not that specific to some Cultures after the initial Bell Beaker expansion.
She is to graduate in 2020, https://stanfordesp.org/teach/teachers/hmoots/bio.html. But as Jovialis shared above, we might see the paper sometime this summer or early autumn. My contact wasn't with Hannah directly, but with the organizer of her event back in February. But Hannah's word is above hers, so i am expecting her paper to get published sometime this year.Quote:
Originally Posted by Salento
Quote:
Originally Posted by Salento
Hannah Moots is a PhD student at Stanford. Her study is (part of) her doctoral thesis. She finished the college in 2008 (University of Chicago) if with college you meant the BA.
An early presence of Italic in Italy would explain why the two branches (Latino-Faliscan and Osco-Umbrian) are so different from each other. I think that's one of the problems with the Villanovs hypothesis.Quote:
Originally Posted by halfalp
Agreed with your general sentiment. I guess the problem are the events we can never truly exclude with just DNA and archaeology: language shifts, elite dominance, tribal alliances etc. .
The college graduation part is about the leaked docs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pax Augusta
(Assuming that they’re not from the same research)
sorry about the confusion.
Thanks for the clarification. There are more ongoing studies on ancient samples from Italy, not just that of Moots. So yes, they might be not from the same research. Of course assuming the leaked docs are true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Salento
Stanford definitely has a role to play. The first Etruscan samples were analysed by Stanford at least four years ago. I imagine that in Stanford itself more researchers may have access to these analyses.
so pretty stupid question here .. what were the Romans? is the modern day italian peninsula in any way related or similar to these awesome people :)
General Answer: Yes!Quote:
Originally Posted by xskramx2
Stay Tuned,
all details to be revealed soon on this screen :)
Yes, Salento is correct. We can verify that from the paper on the Lombard invasion:Quote:
Originally Posted by xskramx2
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-06024-4
The Romans found here in the late-Imperial period are similar to modern Southern, and Central Italians. They are modeled using TSI (Tuscans in Italy) Very soon, we will learn about the genetics of earlier times, like the Republican period.
Our Italian posters show affinity to these samples on MyTrueAncestry, and yourdnaportal.com Eurogenes K36 Ancient calculators.
Btw, there are no stupid questions, we're all here to learn :)Quote:
Originally Posted by xskramx2
Someone has finally posted on anthrogenica. As I suspected, the "PCA" has nothing to do with the Hannah Moots paper. Her paper is only dealing with the people of Latium, which is sensible if you want to talk about the actual "original" Romans.
.
I don't know if the PCA has any Republican Era Romans. I would doubt it, given that in the Moots paper 60% of them land on Northern Italy, and no single sample in the PCA lands on Northern Italians, and only one lands on Tuscans.
As I said before, if the people doing this study are getting a lot or even most of their samples from places like Ostia, then there's a problem unless they do a lot of isotope analysis.
Here is an interesting article retweeted by Hannah Moots' on her twitter feed on April 4th:
Quote:
Why We Need to Start Seeing the Classical World in Color
The equation of white marble with beauty is not an inherent truth of the universe; it’s a dangerous construct that continues to influence white supremacist ideas today.
Modern technology has revealed an irrefutable, if unpopular, truth: many of the statues, reliefs, and sarcophagi created in the ancient Western world were in fact painted. Marble was a precious material for Greco-Roman artisans, but it was considered a canvas, not the finished product for sculpture. It was carefully selected and then often painted in gold, red, green, black, white, and brown, among other colors.
A number of fantastic museum shows throughout Europe and the US in recent years have addressed the issue of ancient polychromy. The Gods in Color exhibit travelled the world between 2003–15, after its initial display at the Glyptothek in Munich. (Many of the photos in this essay come from that exhibit, including the famed Caligula bust and the Alexander Sarcophagus.) Digital humanists and archaeologists have played a large part in making those shows possible. In particular, the archaeologist Vinzenz Brinkmann, whose research informed Gods in Color, has done important work, applying various technologies and ultraviolet light to antique statues in order to analyze the minute vestiges of paint on them and then recreate polychrome versions.
Acceptance of polychromy by the public is another matter. A friend peering up at early-20th-century polychrome terra cottas of mythological figures at the Philadelphia Museum of Art once remarked to me: “There is no way the Greeks were that gauche.” How did color become gauche? Where does this aesthetic disgust come from? To many, the pristine whiteness of marble statues is the expectation and thus the classical ideal. But the equation of white marble with beauty is not an inherent truth of the universe. Where this standard came from and how it continues to influence white supremacist ideas today are often ignored.
Most museums and art history textbooks contain a predominantly neon white display of skin tone when it comes to classical statues and sarcophagi. This has an impact on the way we view the antique world. The assemblage of neon whiteness serves to create a false idea of homogeneity — everyone was very white! — across the Mediterranean region. The Romans, in fact, did not define people as “white”; where, then, did this notion of race come from?
In early modern Europe, taxonomies were all the rage. What would later be termed the “scientific revolution” was marked by a desire to categorize, label, and rank everything from plants to minerals. It was only a matter of time before humans were similarly subjected to such manmade systems of classification. At the same time, artists began to engage with mathematics and anatomy and to use classical sculpture as a means of addressing the question of replicable beauty through proportions.
One of the most influential art historians of the era was Johann Joachim Winckelmann. He produced two volumes recounting the history of ancient art, Geschichte der Kunst des Alterthums (1764), which were widely read and came to form a foundation for the modern field of art history. These books celebrate the whiteness of classical statuary and cast the Apollo of the Belvedere — a Roman marble copy of a Hellenistic bronze original — as the quintessence of beauty. Historian Nell Irvin Painter writes in her book The History of White People (2010) that Winckelmann was a Eurocentrist who depreciated people of other nationalities, like the Chinese or the Kalmyk.
“Color in sculpture came to mean barbarism, for they assumed that the lofty ancient Greeks were too sophisticated to color their art,” Painter writes. The ties between barbarism and color, civility and whiteness would endure. Not to mention Winckelmann’s pronounced preference for sculptures of gleaming white men over women. Regardless of his own sexual identity — which may have been expressed in this preference — Winckelmann’s gender bias would go on to have an impact on white male supremacists who saw themselves as upholding an ideal.
Winckelmann wasn’t the only man obsessed with the Apollo Belvedere. The Dutch anatomist Pieter Camper believed that he could find the formula for perfect beauty through facial angles and used the statue as a standard to be attained. He began to measure human and animal facial features, particularly the lines running from the nose to the ear and the forehead to the jawbone. Those ratios were later used by others to create the racist “cephalic index,” which categorized humans based on the width and length of their facial features. The Nazis drew on the index to support notions of Aryan superiority in Germany during the Third Reich.
Camper’s successors perpetuated and reshaped many of his ideas to be even more biased towards newly constructed races. As classicist Christopher B. Krebs wrote in A Most Dangerous Book, his work on the Third Reich’s manipulation of the classical author Tacitus, “Throughout the nineteenth century, scientists would scour far and wide mismeasuring human anatomy. The more data that was compiled, the less significant the result became. Where science failed, prejudice stepped in and observation yielded to opinion.” This prejudice was seen particularly in the diagramming of beauty within anatomical textbooks of the 19th and early 20th centuries. The son of a famous botanist, Mathias Marie Duval developed numerous anatomical models that were broadly used in medical schools and perpetuated ideas of whiteness that never existed in the ancient world. They were derived from examples of classical sculpture, particularly (you guessed it) the Apollo Belvedere.
Too often today, we fail to acknowledge and confront the incredible amount of racism that has shaped the ideas of scholars we cite in the field of ancient history. For example, I recently, came across Tenney Frank’s disturbing article “Race Mixture in the Roman Empire” while looking through an edited volume. First published in The American Historical Review in July 1916, the article sees Frank attempting to count extant inscriptions (mostly epitaphs) in order to gauge whether “race mixing” contributed to the decline of the Roman empire. It was then reprinted without comment in Greek historian Donald Kagan’s 1962 collection of articles on the fall of Rome.
I am not suggesting that Kagan is a racist (far from it), but, at the least, he should have contextualized Frank’s essay in his introduction to the volume and highlighted it as an example of the virulent racism built into the foundation of the Classics field. As Denise Eileen McCoskey points out in her excellent book Race: Antiquity and Its Legacy, Frank’s argument is not only untrue, it is dangerous. It provides further ammunition for white supremacists today, including groups like Identity Europa, who use classical statuary as a symbol of white male superiority. It also continues to buttress the false construction of Western civilization as white by politicians like Steve King.
Seattle has never looked better. #FashTheCity pic.twitter.com/UA3DjDKKnq
— IDENTITY EVROPA (@IdentityEvropa) November 4, 2016
How can we address the problem of the lily white antiquity that persists in the public imagination? What can classicists learn from the debate over whiteness and ancient sculpture?
First, we must consider why we are such a homogenous field. According to the Society for Classical Studies, the leading association for Classics in the United States, in 2014, just 9% of all undergraduate Classics majors were minorities. This number decreases the higher into academia you go. Just 2% of tenured full-time Classics faculty were minorities, according to the study.
Do we make it easy for people of color who want to study the ancient world? Do they see themselves in the ancient landscape that we present to them? The dearth of people of color in modern media depicting the ancient world is a pivotal issue here. Movies and video games, in particular, perpetuate the notion that the classical world was white. This is an issue when 70% of my students tell me that games such as Ryse: Son of Rome (which uses white statues to decorate the city of Rome and white Roman soldiers as lead characters), as well as films like Gladiator (which has a man from New Zealand playing the Spaniard Maximus) and the 300 (which has xenophobic depictions of Persians) led them to take my courses.
If we want to see more diversity in Classics, we have to work harder as public historians to change the narrative — by talking to filmmakers, writing mainstream articles, annotating our academic writing and making it open access, and doing more outreach that emphasizes the vast palette of skin tones in the ancient Mediterranean. I’m not suggesting that we go, with a bucket in hand, and attempt to repaint every white marble statue across the country. However, I believe that tactics such as better museum signage, the presentation of 3D reconstructions alongside originals, and the use of computerized light projections can help produce a contextual framework for understanding classical sculpture as it truly was. It may have taken just one classical statue to influence the false construction of race, but it will take many of us to tear it down. We have the power to return color to the ancient world, but it has to start with us.
https://hyperallergic.com/383776/why...orld-in-color/
^^I guess we can rule out the idea that the Moots paper is going to show that the Romans were Nordics. Obviously, she isn't going to retweet an article that contradicts her findings.
This gonne give way more faith to people that science is not influenced by politics... Also a lot of projections, who can say how Romans view themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jovialis
I don't understand what you are saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by halfalp