Talk on Ancient Italian/Roman DNA over in Stanford.

Here's the Exodus thing I was referring to - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Sinaitic_script#Wadi_el-Hol_inscriptions

This is in Central Egypt, by the way - around 2000 BC.

There's another thing which I can't find, but basically it was something from Numbers and really old.

Isn't that date too early for the traditional interpretation of the Exodus? I knew those inscriptions, as well as the Semitic graffitti found on a vandalized goddess statue in the Sinai. They prove Semites and more specifically Canaanites probably migrated to Egypt along many centuries, in many dufferent wavs. As I said, I believe the Exodus shows us a lot of information about the long Egyptian yoke in Canaan and on Canaanite migrants elsewhere, but I agree with the mainstream scientists who think that the story may contain a lot of truths, however it did not happen exactly as it is narrated in the scriptures. It probably "blended" many events together after many generations, and the details of the story became a bit more dramatic and grander. It is one of those things that often happens in oral history of ethnicities: there are many hints of truth, but you must first distinguish the facts from the myths, because they're totally intertwined.
 
Isn't that date too early for the traditional interpretation of the Exodus? I knew those inscriptions, as well as the Semitic graffitti found on a vandalized goddess statue in the Sinai. They prove Semites and more specifically Canaanites probably migrated to Egypt along many centuries, in many dufferent wavs. As I said, I believe the Exodus shows us a lot of information about the long Egyptian yoke in Canaan and on Canaanite migrants elsewhere, but I agree with the mainstream scientists who think that the story may contain a lot of truths, however it did not happen exactly as it is narrated in the scriptures. It probably "blended" many events together after many generations, and the details of the story became a bit more dramatic and grander. It is one of those things that often happens in oral history of ethnicities: there are many hints of truth, but you must first distinguish the facts from the myths, because they're totally intertwined.

I think it's related to the Habiru getting kicked out of Egypt, so it isn't too early. The Habiru are documented as being slaves in Egypt, and I make (like others) the obvious Habiru-Hebrew link. The Habiru also originated in Mesopotamia, and were not indigenous to Israel/Canaan/whatever. I looked into this a while ago, but this article stands out:

https://www.newenglishreview.org/Ro...o_Hebrews:_The_Roots_of_the_Jewish_Tradition/

What this evidence suggests is that there must be a kernel of truth in the Torah account of Hebrew slaves fleeing Egypt and taking up residence in Canaan. However, most of the details of the story as it appears in the Torah are clearly legendary. According to the Torah, some 600,000 Hebrew men fled Egypt at the time of the Exodus. If we include women and children, plus the “mixed multitude” which was said to accompany them, we are left with at least one million people subsisting for forty years in a barren desert on food which fell from the sky. A more likely scenario would be a small band of Habiru slaves, numbering perhaps some hundreds, escaping Egypt and making a quick passage across the Sinai to link up with the Habiru already in control of the region around Shechem. Very possibly the Habiru fugitives from Egypt were in fact led by a man named Moses, but in any case they seem to have brought with them a new ideology which played a key role in the subseqent Habiru conquest of Canaan.

Most Biblical scholars act as if it were a minor or trivial point that there are numerous indications that many of the Habiru everywhere in the Middle East were fugitive slaves. And by the same token, the Biblical scholars never stop to ask: how likely is it that the authors of the Torah would have described themselves as the descendants of runaway slaves unless it were true?
 
Putting it all together, the known facts suggest that sometime towards the end of the 13th century BCE, perhaps following the death of Ramses 2 in 1213 BCE, a small group of Habiru slaves fled Egypt and made their way to Canaan, bearing with them three things:

(1) The practice of circumcision. According to the Greek geographer Herodotus, circumcision was an Egyptian custom. Whatever it may have meant for the Egyptians, for the Habiru it became a way of distinguishing themselves from the rest of the Canaanites and transforming their self image from that of a band of outcasts into that of a warrior elite.

(2) The use of alphabetical writing. So far as is known, alphabetical writing was first developed by Semitic miners working for the Egyptians in the Sinai desert around the middle of the 2nd millenium BCE. They wrote on stone using letters partially derived from Egyptian hieroglyphics. Although it is often asserted that the Hebrews subsequently received their alphabetical writing system from the Canaanites or Phoenicians, it was the Habiru in Egypt who were most likely to have contact with the Semitic miners working for the Egyptians in the Sinai. In view of the importance attached by the Torah to the story of the writing of the ten commandments on stone in the Sinai, it seems likely that it was the Habiru fugitives from Egypt who introduced the knowledge of alphabetical writing into Canaan.

(3) The concept of a ruler god who sided with the slaves rather than the slavemasters. The concept of a supreme ruler god was well developed in Egyptian culture, but it was invariably associated with the person of the Pharaoh, who was said to be the earthly incarnation of this or that supreme god. Having endured forced labor on behalf of the alleged “son of Ra,” the Pharaoh Ramses 2, the Habiru in Egypt had every reason to reject this association. Their influence was no doubt reflected in the Hebrew ban on the worship of graven images, the production of which was a speciality of the Egyptians. At the same time, the Habiru in Egypt also had a strong motive to appropriate the Egyptian concept of a supreme ruler god and utilize it for their own purposes.

Anyway, this is off-topic. Point (3) is of utmost importance though, and it's reflected in Christianity and Communism. I don't think it's a coincidence Jesus and Marx were both Jewish - Nietzsche was fascinated by this in particular.
 
Urnfield was very expansionist though, which seems unlikely if they spoke two completely separate languages (rather than in the case of the Basques, which is just trading with neighbours).

There's really no single language family that expands 1400 BC. The Celts didn't have an Urnfield culture, they were kurgan builders.

The Germanics and the Etruscans had Urnfield material cultures. I'd bet these weren't the only languages associated with the horizon though.
 
There's really no single language family that expands 1400 BC. The Celts didn't have an Urnfield culture, they were kurgan builders.

The Germanics and the Etruscans had Urnfield material cultures. I'd bet these weren't the only languages associated with the horizon though.

I don't know enough about this, but I doubt the Urnfield culture had very different peoples expanding as a broadly cohesive unit. Afaik it would be unique in history, I can't think of anything like it.
 
I don't know enough about this, but I doubt the Urnfield culture had very different peoples expanding as a broadly cohesive unit. Afaik it would be unique in history, I can't think of anything like it.

It might have been a mere handful of people who migrated and spread the culture. The emergence of Urnfield is closely connected to mining and metallurgy so that wouldn't be surprising.
 
There's really no single language family that expands 1400 BC. The Celts didn't have an Urnfield culture, they were kurgan builders.

The Germanics and the Etruscans had Urnfield material cultures. I'd bet these weren't the only languages associated with the horizon though.

So where do you think Celts and presumably also Italics (their respective proto-languages were very similar in many ways) came from if not from Urnfield?

Besides, was Urnfield homogeneous culturally or does the name pertain to only a few shared cultural aspects like burial rites and so on? If the latter, I can definitely see an expansion of similar cultural practices by people who were linguistically and ethnically distinct, but perceived themselves as part of a common macro-culture, like e.g. medieval Western Christendom. It might also be that the main language of Urnfield was simply not adopted uniformky by everyone who got acculturated by it, with some taking part of the cultural package but not the language.
 
I think it's related to the Habiru getting kicked out of Egypt, so it isn't too early. The Habiru are documented as being slaves in Egypt, and I make (like others) the obvious Habiru-Hebrew link. The Habiru also originated in Mesopotamia, and were not indigenous to Israel/Canaan/whatever. I looked into this a while ago, but this article stands out:

https://www.newenglishreview.org/Ro...o_Hebrews:_The_Roots_of_the_Jewish_Tradition/

Didn't that expulsion supposedly happen around 1200 B.C? Would they have lived in Egypt for more than 800 years? I also doubt very much the Hebrews came all from Egypt. I think it is much likely that they simply rejoined their Canaanite brethren, retreated to the freer mountains, avoiding the Egyptian yoke (not outright enslavement, but tyranny anyway), and there absorbed some of the local peoples who had stayed and not migrated to Egypt. Hebrews might have been a bit like early Rome, a safe haven for outcasts and persecuted people of other areas under strong state domination. Just speculating here, of course.
 
Sorry, duplicate.
 
I definitely won't post this link by the way...



The Romans weren't idiots, dark does not equal light. The patrician class were not Swedes, but it appears they were lighter than modern Italians. I stand by my theory of elites marrying lighter women resulting in enrichment of light features amongst the patrician class. It's true even today - someone like Tom Hiddleston oozes upper class in a uniquely British way. Most British people of the lower classes look like something between Arya from GoT and Jamie Vardy, a footballer.

I'm being contrarian on purpose, but I'd like to see somebody in favour of the Italian-looking Emperors theory explain the contents of that link. I'd also like to ask whether the modern Northern Italian upper class is lighter pigmented - I don't know any names so I can't check.

Is it so impossible?

Beatrice_Borromeo

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beatrice_Borromeo#/media/File:Beatrice_Borromeo_2017.jpg

Her ancestors seem to be fully Italian going back at least 4 generations

Renaissance Italian ideals of beauty are chock-full of blondes - blondes might even be more common than brunettes, and definitely so among angels. Why would Renaissance elites not prioritise marrying natural blondes? Is Augustus having blonde hair such an insult to the world view of Italians on this forum? I don't know why, but even posting something like this below seems to physically pull at the soul of Italians on anthroforums. Augustus would have been genetically no or barely different to modern (perhaps Northern) Italians, so why is his pigmentation such a fundamental issue?

main-qimg-f5742f5ea1edabccc0ef0346e89a115d.webp

Beatrice_Borromeo

I can't win for losing. :) One day I'm a racist who doesn't want Romans to be southern Italian like, and the next day I'm a racist who doesn't want Romans to be northern like. I must be doing something right. :)

I don't pollute my mind with the idiocy that is posted on theapricity. If you find the level of discourse there so appealing, perhaps you ought to concentrate on posting there.

Like a lot of people with an agenda, you, and they, or maybe you are they, cherry pick your examples. Yes, the imperial family had quite a few lighter pigmented people, but that's primarily, in my opinion, because of all the intermarriage with the Claudians, who were known as a gens to be quite fair. Julius Caesar, on the other hand, a Julii (and Cotta), had dark hair and "black" eyes. Or doesn't he count?

At any rate, rather than relying on the stories which have survived, we'll soon have actual dna, and then we'll know.

It's incredible to me that you think the noble families of Italy descend from the ancient Romans. The ones whom the Goths and Langobards didn't kill lost their land and status. The modern "noble" families are descended from Germanic war lords, although there's been a lot of intermarriage.

If you knew Italy you'd know that having lighter hair and eyes in Italy has nothing necessarily to do with being "noble". Nor do you have to be from some isolated village up in the Apennines like my father's family, where they're all fair or red haired, but it might be as a result of drift.

See:
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threa...n-Eastern-Liguria-NW-Toscana?highlight=Spezia



A hero and mentor from the Lunigiana: Loris Bononi
NaSLoSQ.png
[/IMG]

These are Italians too:

  • And another batch:
    iwiokpZ.jpg
    [/IMG]

    POY05oR.jpg
    [/IMG]

    5YYAt8B.jpg
    [/IMG]

    yOeugq4.png
    [/IMG]

    jvAsmNM.png
    [/IMG]



    My father's sisters had hair this color:

    imC5UnF.png
    [/IMG]​

  • 17-03-18, 13:21[RIG[/


    Final batch for now:

    lT8Yb8m.png
    [/IMG]

    60EiTRI.jpg
    [/IMG]

    ZI4iWpC.png
    [/IMG]

    p3o7pgS.png


As to Renaissance portraits, first of all a lot of them are of members of noble families who were indeed descendants of Germanic lords. However, if you and they weren't cherry picking you would notice all the dark haired people being depicted as well.

The Medici, whom I posted on another thread.
Giuliano

250px-Giuliano_de%27_Medici_by_Sandro_Botticelli.jpeg


Lorenzo
search


latest


Ludovico Sforza

ludovico_sforza.jpg


Even the scions of the oldest "noble" Italian families were by no means all fair.

According to tradition, the Colonna family is a branch of the Counts of Tusculum — by Peter (1099–1151) son of Gregory III, called Peter "de Columna" from his property the Columna Castle in Colonna, Alban Hills. Further back, they trace their lineage past the Counts of Tusculum via Lombard and Italo-Roman nobles, merchants, and clergy through the Early Middle Ages — ultimately claiming origins from the Julio-Claudian dynasty. (I think we can discount the latter claim.)

Prince Colonna:
466185_001.jpg


Federico Gonzaga
Federigo_II._Gonzaga_1525.jpg


Maria Beatrice d'Este who married James II of England and Scotland.
ca-1690-mary-beatrice-deste-3.jpeg


Italian "noble" family of today forced to turn their castle into a tourist destination:
u0KjuZk.jpg
[/IMG]

fallen-italian-nobles-turn-castles-b-bs-6C9548162


Perhaps no one has explained it to you, but cherry picking examples is a dead give away of a dishonest argument.

Another thing as to the blondes depicted in Renaissance art. The preference for blonde coloring for women was European wide. In my opinion, that was a manifestation of the fact that in any society the phenotype of the elites is preferred. It sort of percolates down to the common people. In the medieval era, the elites were the descendants of the Germanic invaders. The logic should be inescapable. Hence, all the formulas for bleaching hair which can be found in documents of the time. Prostitutes, in particular, were known to bleach their hair either blonde, or red, which is the first stage in the bleaching process. Some of the women who were painted nude, who would often have been prostitutes, have what seems to me clearly "altered" hair. Maybe you have to have spent a lot of time in salons to notice it. :)

Carpaccio's Two Courtesans: It's very obvious, as only part of the hair is bleached.
CARPACCIO-COURTESANS%2C-MUSEO-CIVICO-CORRER%2C-VENICE.JPG
 
I genuinely don't have an agenda here, I don't have a bias towards Nordic types - though I find examples of aberrant pigmentation interesting. First thing, you start with a strawman argument. Where did I say the upper classes descend purely and directly from the Romans? I'm well aware of the German lineages amongst aristocratic families, but in Italy this is still a small minority. The German ancestry in the example I gave to you would be tiny for instance. You then basically go on to say that the tradition of admiration for blonde hair is obvious due to Germanics replacing local Italian elites - not only is this stupid given the Renaissance was a millennium later when Germanic identity (and ancestry) amongst the elite was virtually non-existent, but the whole premise is wrong as dying hair blonde was a huge pre-Germanic Greco-roman trend. That's the argument used by Greeks and Italians to explain the large number of light-haired individuals among prominent families, after all.
 
As to Renaissance portraits, first of all a lot of them are of members of noble families who were indeed descendants of Germanic lords. However, if you and they weren't cherry picking you would notice all the dark haired people being depicted as well.


Well, surely not the Medicis were of descendant of Germanic lords. Medicis were of popular origin, not even of noble origin, they were merchants. Also the Sforzas were not of Germanic origin, but descended from a "capitano di ventura".

The families that boast Germanic origin still have leading roles until much of the Middle Ages and are linked to the great feudal properties, but after 1300 with the increasing supremacy of the Guelphs over the Ghibellines, in Italy families of non-Germanic roots began to have more and more power. And even before that, not all the noble Italian families were of Germanic origin. Often these Germanic roots were also invented (as well as families that really had Germanic roots instead boasted of descending from the Romans).
 
I don't know enough about this, but I doubt the Urnfield culture had very different peoples expanding as a broadly cohesive unit. Afaik it would be unique in history, I can't think of anything like it.
How about various Europeans spreading simultaneously to the New World bringing similar plants and animals, technology, religion, etc but different languages? The Plains Indians are another interesting case, they were somewhat hemmed in but there were Algonquian, Siouan, Athabaskan, Kiowa-Tanoan, and Uto-Aztecan language families involved, I may be forgetting some - Salishan and Kutenai marginally participated - who converged to very similar lifestyles and material goods, shared religious practices, etc, after the horse was introduced. The Kiowa Apaches were a branch of the Kiowa who lived with them and were basically indistinguishable from them except that they spoke Apache, and then there were the Kiowa Comanches who lived with the Comanches but they spoke Kiowa. Almost if not entirely impossible to distinguish archaeologically even though it was only a few centuries ago.
 
I genuinely don't have an agenda here, I don't have a bias towards Nordic types - though I find examples of aberrant pigmentation interesting. First thing, you start with a strawman argument. Where did I say the upper classes descend purely and directly from the Romans? I'm well aware of the German lineages amongst aristocratic families, but in Italy this is still a small minority. The German ancestry in the example I gave to you would be tiny for instance. You then basically go on to say that the tradition of admiration for blonde hair is obvious due to Germanics replacing local Italian elites - not only is this stupid given the Renaissance was a millennium later when Germanic identity (and ancestry) amongst the elite was virtually non-existent, but the whole premise is wrong as dying hair blonde was a huge pre-Germanic Greco-roman trend. That's the argument used by Greeks and Italians to explain the large number of light-haired individuals among prominent families, after all.

Lighter than which modern Italians? Sicilians? Lombards? Emilians? Piemontese, Romans, Neapolitans?

Even if you specify, there's no way you can possibly know.

You make the argument that the ancient Romans were lighter than modern Italians and use a modern woman from a noble family to prove it. My deduction was clearly logical. Plus, you're linking to the apricity. Those are apricity arguments.

You also asked a question. I answered it: NO, all members of noble families in Italy are NOT fair, and please don't bring up the royal family. They're foreigners.

You have no specific knowledge about any of the topics you choose for speculation, and never bother TO LOOK IT UP, which is why it's useless debating with you. As I said, I think the level of discourse at theapricity is much more up your alley.
 
@ToBeOrNotToBe
What you wrote below, it’s your Hypothesis it's not a Theory, there's a difference.

The patrician class were not Swedes, but it appears they were lighter than modern Italians. I stand by my theory of elites marrying lighter women resulting in enrichment of light features amongst the patrician class.
 
Lighter than which modern Italians? Sicilians? Lombards? Emilians? Piemontese, Romans, Neapolitans?

Even if you specify, there's no way you can possibly know.

You make the argument that the ancient Romans were lighter than modern Italians and use a modern woman from a noble family to prove it. My deduction was clearly logical. Plus, you're linking to the apricity. Those are apricity arguments.

You also asked a question. I answered it: NO, all members of noble families in Italy are NOT fair, and please don't bring up the royal family. They're foreigners.

You have no specific knowledge about any of the topics you choose for speculation, and never bother TO LOOK IT UP, which is why it's useless debating with you. As I said, I think the level of discourse at theapricity is much more up your alley.

Well lighter than all of them. And forget the fact that it's hosted on that site, it's clearly extremely well-sourced. Do you doubt either the sourcing or the sources themselves are incorrect? As if not, then it represents actuality. Put ad hominem aside.
 
@ToBeornottobe
What you wrote below, it’s your Hypothesis it's not a Theory, there's a difference.

No, a hypothesis is a statement and a theory is the framework of logic and evidence accompanying it. It's clearly a theory, if not well sourced.

EDIT: Well I guess the line is blurry between a "bad" theory and a hypothesis.
 
Well, surely not the Medicis were of descendant of Germanic lords. Medicis were of popular origin, not even of noble origin, they were merchants. Also the Sforzas were not of Germanic origin, but descended from a "capitano di ventura".

The families that boast Germanic origin still have leading roles until much of the Middle Ages and are linked to the great feudal properties, but after 1300 with the increasing supremacy of the Guelphs over the Ghibellines, in Italy families of non-Germanic roots began to have more and more power. And even before that, not all the noble Italian families were of Germanic origin. Often these Germanic roots were also invented (as well as families that really had Germanic roots instead boasted of descending from the Romans).

Well, of course I know the Medicis were parvenus, as was Sforza. Otherwise, the French and Mary Stuart wouldn't have made Catherine de Medici's life a misery for being a commoner. Thank you, but I really don't need you to teach me Renaissance history. It was my undergraduate university major.

My point was that he and people at theapricity only pick photos of Renaissance people who were fair, and then try to draw large conclusions from that. My point was also that not all noble families in Italy were or are fair.
 
Well, of course I know the Medicis were parvenus, as was Sforza. Otherwise, the French and Mary Stuart wouldn't have made Catherine de Medici's life a misery for being a commoner. Thank you, but I really don't need you to teach me Renaissance history. It was my undergraduate university major.

My point was that he and people at theapricity only pick photos of Renaissance people who were fair, and then try to draw large conclusions from that. My point was also that not all noble families in Italy were or are fair.

I didn't pick any photos of Renaissance people, it was early Roman Emperors - and by the way, Julius Caesar wasn't an Emperor (though he did have dark hair, and though his reign was short he was far greater than Augustus).

Again, just to emphasise - those who contributed to Roman success are ancestral to the Italian nation first and foremost, not otherwise. It's just a fact that a lot of the patricians were described as light featured, and this is especially clear with the early Roman emperors. To prove otherwise requires giving sources, as I have mine from Roman authors.

Also, I never said this blondism described would be "Swedish" blonde - that seems unlikely to me even. Here's Augustus, from Suetonius (born after Augustus died, but roughly contemporary with other Roman emperors he described as blonde - I guess blonde to mean something a bit lighter than de Rossi, so a dirty blonde):

[FONT=q_serif]In person he was handsome and graceful through every period of his life. But he was negligent in his dress; and so careless about dressing his hair, that he usually had it done in great haste, by several barbers at a time. His beard he sometimes clipped, and sometimes shaved; and either read or wrote during the operation. […] His eyes were bright and piercing; […]. But in his old age, he saw very imperfectly with his left eye. His teeth were thin set, small and scaly, his hair a little curled, and inclining to a yellow colour. His eye-brows met (1) ; his ears were small, and he had an aquiline nose. His complexion was betwixt brown and fair; his stature but low; though Julius Marathus, his freedman, says he was five feet and nine inches in height (2). This, however, was so much concealed by the just proportion of his limbs, that it was only perceivable upon comparison with some taller person standing by him.[/FONT]
[FONT=q_serif]He is said to have been born with many spots upon his breast and belly […]. He had besides several callosities resembling scars, occasioned by an itching in his body, and the constant and violent use of the strigil (3) in being rubbed. He had a weakness in his left hip, thigh, and leg, insomuch that he often halted on that side; but he received much benefit from the use of sand and reeds. He likewise sometimes found the fore-finger of his right hand so weak, that when it was benumbed and contracted with cold, to use it in writing, he was obliged to have recourse to a circular piece of horn (4). He had occasionally a complaint in the bladder; but upon voiding some stones in his urine, he was relieved from that pain.[/FONT]
 
Some of the sources are unreliable as they lived far later than the Roman emperors described, so perhaps that apricity link is only true for the early early Roman emperors - perhaps only the first five
 

This thread has been viewed 40333 times.

Back
Top