4th Century BC Privileged Social Class Roman Skeletons to undergo DNA Testing
- Thread starter Jovialis
- Start date
-
- Tags
- roman history
bicicleur 2
Regular Member
- Messages
- 6,367
- Reaction score
- 1,402
- Points
- 113
I'm not quite sure I understand.
By this time the Romans were highly literate people. We have histories and extensive compilations of law and later on their own written mythology. There is absolutely nothing to indicate that by this time there was any difference in appearance or "ethnically" between the patricians and the plebs, or between the inhabitants of the actual town of "Rome" versus the "Latins" of the other towns. Now, there may have initially been some difference when the Italic tribes arrived and mingled with the prior inhabitants, but nothing, as I said, to indicate that the difference was significant.
This is in complete contrast to the founding myths and/or legal compendiums of people like the Anglo-Saxons or the Vikings, whom we've been recently discussing.
It seems to me that a logical conclusion is that either perhaps the Italics were few in number, or, perhaps more likely, they were quite different from, say, perhaps, the original Unetice people or whichever group the Latins derived from by the time they reached Rome.
Interestingly, in this regard, by the time the Romans came to write their own origin story they chose to be descended from the Trojans. In doing so, they never indicated the Trojans "looked" different to themselves, although perhaps since the aim was to claim an illustrious ancestry in contrast to that of the Greeks, that would have been unimportant. Nevertheless, the same applies to the Etruscans.
As to Rome originally being a market down, I doubt that's significant. Many of the settlements of ancient peoples were built at crossroads. Anybody coming to trade at that point on the Tiber would also have been Latins. The "Romans" were just the Latins settled at that particular spot. There would have been no meaningful difference between them and other Latins. That would be like saying there was a significant genetic difference between Angles from neighboring towns. As to elites, if anything it was the Etruscans who were the elite. They were their kings and rulers.
More importantly, many of the people who were responsible for the Roman "accomplishments" would have been Roman knights and other people of the middle to upper middle classes, people like Vespasian, or descendants of plebs. That's not even considering how much of "Roman" culture and accomplishments was taken from the Etruscans whom they absorbed but who originally ruled them. If we want to know the "make-up" of the people who built Rome, it was very possibly people like this.
I said that the elite could be of different origin than the plebs. In fact, patricians were convinced they were different in origin from the plebs.
And then you say they didn't look different.
I didn't say anything about different looks.
Maybe there were different languages. First you say they were all Latin, and then you say some may have been Etruscan.
And I don't understand what the Trojans have to do in all this.
That was pure fantasy of some writers. No Roman could have known how the Trojans realy looked like.
Angela
Elite member
- Messages
- 21,823
- Reaction score
- 12,329
- Points
- 113
- Ethnic group
- Italian
That's quite testy, rude, in fact, when you were and are always addressed very civilly, indeed in a very friendly and collegial fashion at all times, so I won't dignify your post with a detailed response other than to say that of course the "Trojan" story is fantasy, and I implied as much if you had read more carefully. As for the rest, you have extremely limited knowledge and understanding of Roman history, or Classical History in general, although I would never have put it so baldly and rudely if you hadn't been so rude first. If you wish to discuss it with other people, I would suggest a lot more reading on the subject first, and changing your tone.
You won't be discussing this topic with me, however, or much else with me, for that matter, for the foreseeable future.
There, now rudeness has been answered by rudeness. Tit for tat, Bicicleur. I'm not known for turning the other cheek. I gave that up when I stopped being a Catholic.
Last edited:
Pax Augusta
Elite member
Indeed. It's all about the same.
Chalk it up to Anglo and Germanic chauvinism. Modern Italians are obviously ethnically different from Anglos and Germanics with both of them having a less impressive ancient past. So modern Italians are disconnected from the Romans. The Alt-Right being most prominent in the Anglosphere is relevant here.
A. Papadimitriou
Regular Member
- Messages
- 617
- Reaction score
- 188
- Points
- 43
What do you mean different? More related to yourself?
That the Trojan connection is 'pure phantasy' is the prevalent view but there might be something behind the myth. As I have said, for example, one possibility is that people had heard stories about a movement which didn't necessarily make a big impact. There were multiple versions of the myths though, apart from the most known one. (In most versions, as far as I know, it isn't implied that Romans as a whole descended from Trojans and at least in some versions that existed in antiquity the founder descended from the Trojans through his mother but from 'Latinus, king of the Aborigines' through his father etc. Or there were versions that Romulus and Remus descended from the daughters of Aeneas etc)
(I personally believe that Italic languages where in Central & South in Italy already during the Apenine Culture. It would have been dishonest to add the adverb 'probably' before my belief, though.)
Salento
Regular Member
- Messages
- 5,635
- Reaction score
- 2,838
- Points
- 113
- Ethnic group
- Italian
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- T1a2 - SK1480
- mtDNA haplogroup
- H12a
Disregard all the Legends.
This is very simple.
Rome is in Italy, so the Romans are Italics.
Add or subtract any gene you want, the Romans are still Italics because Rome is in Italy.
Spin all you want. Still Italians.
This is very simple.
Rome is in Italy, so the Romans are Italics.
Add or subtract any gene you want, the Romans are still Italics because Rome is in Italy.
Spin all you want. Still Italians.
bicicleur 2
Regular Member
- Messages
- 6,367
- Reaction score
- 1,402
- Points
- 113
Disregard all the Legends.
This is very simple.
Rome is in Italy, so the Romans are Italics.
Add or subtract any gene you want, the Romans are still Italics because Rome is in Italy.
Spin all you want. Still Italians.
Well, Etruscans were not Italic, at least language-wise.
Alltough the 'Etruscan DNA' hasn't been found yet, so it won't be that different from Italian DNA.
But like you say it here, it sounds like we shouldn't bother taking DNA, as we know on beforehand what it will be.
bicicleur 2
Regular Member
- Messages
- 6,367
- Reaction score
- 1,402
- Points
- 113
afaik the story was written at a time when Rome was at war with Greece, and the story was demonising the Greeks and it gave Rome a cause to fight Greece, as the Greek ancestors would have done injustice to the ancestors of Rome
bicicleur 2
Regular Member
- Messages
- 6,367
- Reaction score
- 1,402
- Points
- 113
davef
Princess
K.I.S.S.-> keep it simple stupid lol. Yeah I'll go as far to say I would expect the Romans to be more like people who live in extreme southern Tuscany or Lazio (where Rome actually is)Disregard all the Legends.
This is very simple.
Rome is in Italy, so the Romans are Italics.
Add or subtract any gene you want, the Romans are still Italics because Rome is in Italy.
Spin all you want. Still Italians.
Nah screw it. They were more like Proto Greco Dorician Mycenaetruscic Celtoids from the lower upper Caucasian proto steppe
I'm not sure about Roman aDNA but Reich has confirmed his lab is analyzing data from Italy between 4000BC-3000BC:
https://youtu.be/o0txUv9ei5I
"The bones that we're looking at right now are about 5,000- or 6,000-year-old samples from Italy and we're trying to understand population transformations in Italy over time. "
That's very good news, I think that's the time frame in which Italy was IEzed, they should find R1b ancestral to Bell Beaker together with other south Caucasus Y-DNA like J2, etc.
https://youtu.be/o0txUv9ei5I
"The bones that we're looking at right now are about 5,000- or 6,000-year-old samples from Italy and we're trying to understand population transformations in Italy over time. "
That's very good news, I think that's the time frame in which Italy was IEzed, they should find R1b ancestral to Bell Beaker together with other south Caucasus Y-DNA like J2, etc.
Jovialis
Advisor
- Messages
- 9,313
- Reaction score
- 5,876
- Points
- 113
- Ethnic group
- Italian
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- R-PF7566 (R-Y227216)
- mtDNA haplogroup
- H6a1b7
I'm warning you to not turn this thread into a dumping ground for these kind of ridiculous posts. This is not a humor thread.
bicicleur 2
Regular Member
- Messages
- 6,367
- Reaction score
- 1,402
- Points
- 113
I guess first IE people arrived in Italy only 4-5000 years ago.
But let's wait and see what comes out of this.
Angela
Elite member
- Messages
- 21,823
- Reaction score
- 12,329
- Points
- 113
- Ethnic group
- Italian
I'm not sure about Roman aDNA but Reich has confirmed his lab is analyzing data from Italy between 4000BC-3000BC:
https://youtu.be/o0txUv9ei5I
"The bones that we're looking at right now are about 5,000- or 6,000-year-old samples from Italy and we're trying to understand population transformations in Italy over time. "
That's very good news, I think that's the time frame in which Italy was IEzed, they should find R1b ancestral to Bell Beaker together with other south Caucasus Y-DNA like J2, etc.
I certainly hope they're not looking only at 4-3,000 BC. For one thing, I agree with Maciamo that a lot of the movement of the Indo-Europeans into Italy is later than that. I'm going to contact them today just to make sure someone has informed them, and they can be the ones to analyze these and the others that have been found recently. I do hope also that they took note of the Lombard paper. That kind of close work with archaeologists is essential.
Should be very interesting, but I have little doubt that by 300 BC they were well and truly mixed. If you give physical anthropology any credence, you just have to look at the portrait busts.
Jovialis
Advisor
- Messages
- 9,313
- Reaction score
- 5,876
- Points
- 113
- Ethnic group
- Italian
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- R-PF7566 (R-Y227216)
- mtDNA haplogroup
- H6a1b7
I fully agree.
I would like to know if Appenninic culture was already influenced by Central Europe/Steppe mix, so already Italic.
But 3000 BC is still interesting beacuse it could confirm the movements of prospectors from the East (CHG/EEF mix ? J2?). According to Puglisi they were the ancestors of the Italics but i don't know if it's still reliable (1959)
Utilizzando Tapatalk
But 3000 BC is still interesting beacuse it could confirm the movements of prospectors from the East (CHG/EEF mix ? J2?). According to Puglisi they were the ancestors of the Italics but i don't know if it's still reliable (1959)
Utilizzando Tapatalk
bicicleur 2
Regular Member
- Messages
- 6,367
- Reaction score
- 1,402
- Points
- 113
when Rome was founded, not all people in the area were Italic
Agree.
And one should also take note that the etruscans expanded far southwards before Rome even had started to expand. They actually expanded further south than Rome is located.
So by the time Rome started its expansion, it was inevitable not to assimilate some etruscans into the latin speaking communities, because etruscan communities would have been present everywhere in the area.
Beside that, when the romanization of etruria proper started, the etruscans were actually pretty good at rising to the top. For example Gaius Maecenas (Augustus closest friend and adviser) was etruscan. And Augustus actually left him in charge of Italy for a while(which shows how prominent Gaius was). I have even read in a book that there is a chance that Augustus mother was etruscan too, althoug its just from the top of my head, i could be thinking of another emperor.
So it seems the etruscan noble famlies actually just changed their language to latin and became noble romans instead. There a tomb which paints the perfect picture about this. I think its the tomb of the anina family(if i remember correctly). They have their inscriptions in etruscan in the beginning, but later on as more family members got buried and at the same time romanization was happening, suddenly the names start to be written in latin, although its still the same family.
This points towards that the family never lost their high status(being able to afford huge tombs and so on), but they just changed their language to latin.
People in Italy has mixed extensively throughout time. So IMO we should not expect big differences between IE and non IE italics when we get ancient DNA. At least not after 1000BC. But probably even earlier too.
This thread has been viewed 25909 times.