Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 6 of 31 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast
Results 126 to 150 of 774

Thread: Population structure in Italy using ancient and modern samples

  1. #126
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Tutkun Arnaut's Avatar
    Join Date
    31-03-18
    Posts
    289

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I2a2a(m223)(L801)

    Country: Albania



    4 out of 6 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cpluskx View Post
    I think it's more likely that Etruscans moved to Italy from Aegean. Found this on Anthrogenica:

    (The Origin of the Etruscans; 2003):

    "For the explanation Briquel sees (79 n. 273) three possibilities: (i) a movement from the West to the East; (2) a movement from the East to the West; (3) both peoples are remains of a general non-Indo-European substratum.
    The first theory was recently defended by De Simone (1996), but this was generally rejected (Steinbauer 1999 shows that it is linguistically impossible; cf. also Beekes 2001). This is also clear from the following consideration. A glance at the map(in this article) shows that the eastern Tyrsênoi are the remnant of a population that tried to survive at the fringes of the mainland and on the islands. This is further confirmed by the fact that these people disappear without trace. Mostly they are mentioned just once, and often it is only stated that they once lived (past tense) there. Why would the Etruscans from Italy have come to these places? One might suggest for trade, but there is not the slightest evidence for trading activities of these eastern settlements; they are never mentioned as (active) trading posts; in any case we would have to assume that this trade became a failure. (Let alone the question whether the Greeks would have tolerated them in their country.) Also, the archaeologist Beschi objected that there is no sign that there were Etruscans (from Italy) on Lemnos. Would Etruscans have settled in all these places? And all these places are found in one contiguous area, which seems unlikely if it concerns trading posts. [See also App. iii.]"
    All this fuss comes from a lie a Greek historian told long ago. Greek historians were caught lying many times during antiquity, and one of many lies they told were the origin of Etruscans. There was no way for Etruscans to travel that far with so many people at that time. They are local people who got in touch with Greek culture somewhere in Sicily

  2. #127
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points
    bicicleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-01-13
    Location
    Zwevegem, Belgium
    Posts
    5,313
    Points
    44,767
    Level
    65
    Points: 44,767, Level: 65
    Level completed: 40%, Points required for next Level: 783
    Overall activity: 46.0%


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    Quote Originally Posted by Pax Augusta View Post
    The movements of the Turks that imposed their language everywhere are archaeologically attested, and we know even when they arrived. There is no analogy.




    There are no traces of invasion. Again. The Latins descend from the Latial Culture which in turn descends from the Proto-Villanovan culture. Villanovan is instead the early period of the Etruscan civilization. Even artistically, the first Etruscan period is characterized by biconical urns more connected to the Proto-Villanovan phenomenon. Proto-Villanovan is a culture that left traces in many places in Italy, even in southern Italy and in Sicily and which spread the incinerating ritual.

    furthermore, if I'm not mistaken, proto-villanovan were urnfield people who were clearly IE

  3. #128
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    30-04-18
    Posts
    110
    Points
    3,275
    Level
    16
    Points: 3,275, Level: 16
    Level completed: 57%, Points required for next Level: 175
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: United Kingdom



    2 out of 4 members found this post helpful.
    Herodotus: Father of History, Father of Lies.

  4. #129
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    15,169
    Points
    269,005
    Level
    100
    Points: 269,005, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    Quote Originally Posted by bicicleur View Post
    I think the Etruscans were an elite who became very wealthy trough trade and mining.
    They lived in fortified places in order to defend their wealth.
    Maybe they adopted some local language to differentiate themselves from the common people, who probably were IE in northern Italy by that time.
    Why is their "arrival" invisible in the archaeology, though, Bicicleur? As Markod points out, what about the Rhaetians, who were up in the eastern Alps? Maybe we're looking in the wrong place and too late?

    We know the mtDna of the Etruscans in general terms, and it's basically unremarkable Neolithic farmer and WHG, and the closest similar mix is, what? Southern Germany? So, maybe the mtDna is "Villanovan".

    We'd have a much clearer understanding if we knew the yDna of the elite burial samples. Let's assume, for the moment, that it turns out to be some form of R1b. Then, game over? Some "Indo-Europeans" from central Europe adopted a "local" language. The intrusion was from the northeast, thus explaining the Rhaetians.

    What if the elites turn out to have J2a? How will we know whether it is from a specific migration to Tuscany in the first millennium BC a la Herodotus, or if it's a gradual filtering northward of J2a which had been in the south since the late Neolithic and Bronze Age? (Yes, according to the abstract of the Paabo/Reich upcoming paper, it could be late Neolithic. This shouldn't be a surprise as some clades of J2a were in the Balkans in the late Neolithic.) I've always leaned a little more in that direction because the logistics of the former seemed very difficult, and because if it was that recent, there would be a clearer oral memory of it.

    Markod: I'd read his outline of the Italian LBA/IA a while ago, and it seems to me that it's by far the most convincing description of what happened in the pre-historic period. In Lazio we see Latial culture coming from the north (formerly know as 'Southern Villanovan') and imposing itself on the local Apennine stratum which led to the development of the earliest layers of urban civilisation there. Later with the introduction of iron, the Italic Fossa culture comes from the hills further south and overtakes the proto-urban sites in the flatlands. This way we may avoid the mental gymnastics often performed with the Villanovan culture construed to have been bilingual and introducing both Italic and Etruscan or something

    Interestingly that could mean that the earliest conglomeration of settlements that were to become Rome could intially have been Etruscan.
    I'm not sure I understand all of this, Markod. So, which group would be the "Etruscans"?

    To the Board: enough with this Herodotus was a liar stuff. "Historians" of the era didn't have our resources. They recounted "myths" or rumors, or oral tradition. Period.


    Non si fa il proprio dovere perchè qualcuno ci dica grazie, lo si fa per principio, per se stessi, per la propria dignità. Oriana Fallaci

  5. #130
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    30-04-18
    Posts
    110
    Points
    3,275
    Level
    16
    Points: 3,275, Level: 16
    Level completed: 57%, Points required for next Level: 175
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: United Kingdom



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    To the Board: enough with this Herodotus was a liar stuff. "Historians" of the era didn't have our resources. They recounted "myths" or rumors, or oral tradition. Period.
    This "Herodotus was a liar stuff" is taken seriously by scholars. The notorious 'father of lies' label comes from Plutarch.

    Plutarch’s “On the Malice of Herodotus”

    "To be sure Plutarch was not the first to question the veracity of Herodotus. The accuracy of the works of Herodotus had been controversial since his own era. Duris of Samos, Aristotle, Cicero, Josephus, and Harpocration, among others, had commented upon this."

    https://kosmossociety.chs.harvard.edu/?p=21288


    Evans, J. (1968). Father of History or Father of Lies; The Reputation of Herodotus. The Classical Journal, 64(1), 11-17. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3296527

    https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/329...n_tab_contents


    Herodotus:Father of History, Father of Lies, By David Pipes

    http://people.loyno.edu/~history/jou...98-9/Pipes.htm


    Was Herodotus the 'Father of History' or the 'Father of Lies'?

    https://www.academia.edu/19872880/Was_Herodotus_the_Father_of_History_or_the_Father_ of_Lies



    Herodotus: From Father of History to Father of Lies
    The Truth About The Great Pyramid
    By: Jarett Fields and Dr. William Rogers

    http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc...=rep1&type=pdf.

  6. #131
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    15,169
    Points
    269,005
    Level
    100
    Points: 269,005, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    Quote Originally Posted by brick View Post
    This "Herodotus was a liar stuff" is taken seriously by scholars. The notorious 'father of lies' label comes from Plutarch.

    Plutarch’s “On the Malice of Herodotus”

    "To be sure Plutarch was not the first to question the veracity of Herodotus. The accuracy of the works of Herodotus had been controversial since his own era. Duris of Samos, Aristotle, Cicero, Josephus, and Harpocration, among others, had commented upon this."

    https://kosmossociety.chs.harvard.edu/?p=21288


    Evans, J. (1968). Father of History or Father of Lies; The Reputation of Herodotus. The Classical Journal, 64(1), 11-17. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3296527

    https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/329...n_tab_contents


    Herodotus:Father of History, Father of Lies, By David Pipes

    http://people.loyno.edu/~history/jou...98-9/Pipes.htm


    Was Herodotus the 'Father of History' or the 'Father of Lies'?

    https://www.academia.edu/19872880/Was_Herodotus_the_Father_of_History_or_the_Father_ of_Lies



    Herodotus: From Father of History to Father of Lies
    The Truth About The Great Pyramid
    By: Jarett Fields and Dr. William Rogers

    http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc...=rep1&type=pdf.
    I know. It's still stupid.

  7. #132
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    30-04-18
    Posts
    110
    Points
    3,275
    Level
    16
    Points: 3,275, Level: 16
    Level completed: 57%, Points required for next Level: 175
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: United Kingdom



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    I know. It's still stupid.
    So Plutarch was stupid.

  8. #133
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    15,169
    Points
    269,005
    Level
    100
    Points: 269,005, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    Why is their "arrival" invisible in the archaeology, though, Bicicleur? As Markod points out, what about the Rhaetians, who were up in the eastern Alps? Maybe we're looking in the wrong place and too late?

    We know the mtDna of the Etruscans in general terms, and it's basically unremarkable Neolithic farmer and WHG, and the closest similar mix is, what? Southern Germany? So, maybe the mtDna is "Villanovan".

    We'd have a much clearer understanding if we knew the yDna of the elite burial samples. Let's assume, for the moment, that it turns out to be some form of R1b. Then, game over? Some "Indo-Europeans" from central Europe adopted a "local" language. The intrusion was from the northeast, thus explaining the Rhaetians.

    What if the elites turn out to have J2a? How will we know whether it is from a specific migration to Tuscany in the first millennium BC a la Herodotus, or if it's a gradual filtering northward of J2a which had been in the south since the late Neolithic and Bronze Age? (Yes, according to the abstract of the Paabo/Reich upcoming paper, it could be late Neolithic. This shouldn't be a surprise as some clades of J2a were in the Balkans in the late Neolithic.) I've always leaned a little more in that direction because the logistics of the former seemed very difficult, and because if it was that recent, there would be a clearer oral memory of it.



    I'm not sure I understand all of this, Markod. So, which group would be the "Etruscans"?

    To the Board: enough with this Herodotus was a liar stuff. "Historians" of the era didn't have our resources. They recounted "myths" or rumors, or oral tradition. Period.
    Another thought: What if they carried J2a or J2b, but it came with IE speaking people from the Balkans who adopted the local language?

    Why do I think even ancient dna might not solve this?

    Fwiw and not to de-rail this thread, I don't think it's a done deal that even the Balkan specific J2b is an originally "steppe" lineage. It's just as likely, imo, that it was picked up in the more eastern Neolithic settlements and spread from there, or even just got absorbed further south as well. Anything showing up in the Armenia would be just about the time for an arrival of the Phrygians and the Armenian language from the Balkans. Until we find J2b on the steppe it's by no means certain, as I said, that it's an "original" steppe lineage.
    Last edited by Angela; 20-12-18 at 19:02.

  9. #134
    Regular Member Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Sile's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-09-11
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,120
    Points
    29,699
    Level
    52
    Points: 29,699, Level: 52
    Level completed: 96%, Points required for next Level: 51
    Overall activity: 37.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2 -Z19945..Jura
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H95a1 ..Pannoni

    Ethnic group
    North Alpine Italian
    Country: Australia



    Quote Originally Posted by Pax Augusta View Post
    The movements of the Turks that imposed their language everywhere are archaeologically attested, and we know even when they arrived. There is no analogy.




    There are no traces of invasion. Again. The Latins descend from the Latial Culture which in turn descends from the Proto-Villanovan culture. Villanovan is instead the early period of the Etruscan civilization. Even artistically, the first Etruscan period is characterized by biconical urns more connected to the Proto-Villanovan phenomenon. Proto-Villanovan is a culture that left traces in many places in Italy, even in southern Italy and in Sicily and which spread the incinerating ritual.

    Why do you have Atestine culture ( este culture) as part of proto-villanova ?, .....when Villanova culture was never north of the Po river....and ...Polada culture seems to have been the main culture north of the Po river
    có che un pòpoło no 'l defende pi ła só łéngua el xe prónto par èser s'ciavo

    when a people no longer dares to defend its language it is ripe for slavery.

  10. #135
    Regular Member Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Sile's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-09-11
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,120
    Points
    29,699
    Level
    52
    Points: 29,699, Level: 52
    Level completed: 96%, Points required for next Level: 51
    Overall activity: 37.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2 -Z19945..Jura
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H95a1 ..Pannoni

    Ethnic group
    North Alpine Italian
    Country: Australia



    Quote Originally Posted by markod View Post
    My main gripe with this would be that Proto-Villanova and its descendants bear all the hallmarks of a northern immigrant culture - it's quite clearly an Urnfield culture. Even in the Iron Age at the opposing ends of the horizon you'll see stunning similarities between, say, Polish Pomeranian culture and Etruscan material culture. Taken together, the evidence makes me doubt that Etruscan is deeply indigenous in Italy. Keep in mind also that Rhaetic was likely spoken as far north as Bavaria.
    But as you said it is very complex, and with language shifts you can never be quite sure which way it went.
    one theory is that the etruscans came into Italy from north of the alps with the umbrians and could be a sub-branch of the umbrians...plus...mixing with a people whose lands where once connected, that is , Sardinia, Corsica and tuscany.
    of the ancient texts, of etruscan, rhaetian and venetic.....rhaetian is the youngest

  11. #136
    Regular Member Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Sile's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-09-11
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,120
    Points
    29,699
    Level
    52
    Points: 29,699, Level: 52
    Level completed: 96%, Points required for next Level: 51
    Overall activity: 37.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2 -Z19945..Jura
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H95a1 ..Pannoni

    Ethnic group
    North Alpine Italian
    Country: Australia



    Quote Originally Posted by brick View Post
    This "Herodotus was a liar stuff" is taken seriously by scholars. The notorious 'father of lies' label comes from Plutarch.
    Plutarch’s “On the Malice of Herodotus”
    "To be sure Plutarch was not the first to question the veracity of Herodotus. The accuracy of the works of Herodotus had been controversial since his own era. Duris of Samos, Aristotle, Cicero, Josephus, and Harpocration, among others, had commented upon this."
    https://kosmossociety.chs.harvard.edu/?p=21288
    Evans, J. (1968). Father of History or Father of Lies; The Reputation of Herodotus. The Classical Journal, 64(1), 11-17. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3296527
    https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/329...n_tab_contents
    Herodotus:Father of History, Father of Lies, By David Pipes
    http://people.loyno.edu/~history/jou...98-9/Pipes.htm
    Was Herodotus the 'Father of History' or the 'Father of Lies'?
    https://www.academia.edu/19872880/Was_Herodotus_the_Father_of_History_or_the_Father_ of_Lies


    Herodotus: From Father of History to Father of Lies
    The Truth About The Great Pyramid
    By: Jarett Fields and Dr. William Rogers
    http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc...=rep1&type=pdf.
    Its like tacitus about Germanic people .............he never went there and relied on others bardic stories from travellers ..............same with Jordanes ( the goth ) and his fabricated, plagiarism of others or
    even the historians who labeled the 14 epirote tribes as illyrian just to make them not Greek

  12. #137
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered10000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    07-08-18
    Posts
    842
    Points
    10,677
    Level
    31
    Points: 10,677, Level: 31
    Level completed: 19%, Points required for next Level: 573
    Overall activity: 76.0%


    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post

    I'm not sure I understand all of this, Markod. So, which group would be the "Etruscans"?

    To the Board: enough with this Herodotus was a liar stuff. "Historians" of the era didn't have our resources. They recounted "myths" or rumors, or oral tradition. Period.
    In Pallottino's view the Etruscans are descendants of the Villanovans from the Po Valley, altough he left open the possibility that the ancestors of both the Rhaetians and the Etruscans might have come from the east at an earlier point.

    I do not want to come out too strongly against any particular hypothesis before we have solid evidence, but it is exceedingly unlikely that Villannovan and its southern off-shoot the Latial culture were responsible for the introduction of Italic languages. The Latial culture consisted of fortified settlements which were mostly erected on easily defensible plateaus - it wasn't an expansive culture, and we know from numerous examples that defensive agricultural & mercantile cultures like it usually didn't have the clout to impose their language on others. I would say that it is close to impossible that the Latials could have effected this:




    My only point of contention with Pallottino's work would be the fact that since he was of the pots not people school he concluded that the Latials might have simply been local populations who assimilated into Villannovan material culture. Later he describes the cessation of Villannovan burial rite in Lazio as a result of the influence from the pastoral Fossa culture of the anti-Apennines in northern Campania. Throughout all of these processes, he simply calls the inhabitants of southern Lazio 'Latins'.

    If we apply our present knowledge to the picture that emerges from archaeology I'd think it's more likely that the early Latial settlements were in fact founded Villanovan immigrants who supplanted the relatively primitive herders of the flatlands. Their settlements were fortified because the pastoralists of the surrounding hills likely weren't averse to raiding considering how much more sophisticated the Villanovans were than anything that preceded them in mainland Italy. When at the beginning of the Iron Age Villanovan burial rites are abandoned in favor of the inhumation rites typical of Apenninic pastoralist communities, it wasn't because the Villanovans sought to imitate the culture of the herdsmen but because they were conquered.

  13. #138
    Moderator Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience PointsThree Friends
    Pax Augusta's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-06-14
    Location
    Ara Pacis
    Posts
    1,023
    Points
    21,995
    Level
    45
    Points: 21,995, Level: 45
    Level completed: 39%, Points required for next Level: 555
    Overall activity: 24.0%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: Italy



    Quote Originally Posted by markod View Post
    In Pallottino's view the Etruscans are descendants of the Villanovans from the Po Valley, altough he left open the possibility that the ancestors of both the Rhaetians and the Etruscans might have come from the east at an earlier point.

    I do not want to come out too strongly against any particular hypothesis before we have solid evidence, but it is exceedingly unlikely that Villannovan and its southern off-shoot the Latial culture were responsible for the introduction of Italic languages. The Latial culture consisted of fortified settlements which were mostly erected on easily defensible plateaus - it wasn't an expansive culture, and we know from numerous examples that defensive agricultural & mercantile cultures like it usually didn't have the clout to impose their language on others. I would say that it is close to impossible that the Latials could have effected this:.

    Italic languages are divided into two branches: Western and Eastern Italic branches. Latin and Faliscan belong to the Western branch (also Venetic and Sicel are sometimes included in this branch), while all the other Italic languages belong to the Eastern branch (Oscan-Umbrian), and Italian scholars are suggesting Eastern Italic branches are derived from a different migration, with Umbrians who could have an initial component called paleo-Umbrian in common with the Western Branch but which was completely assimilated by the newcomers ("Safin") who brought to Italy the Eastern Italian languages.


    Quote Originally Posted by markod View Post
    My only point of contention with Pallottino's work would be the fact that since he was of the pots not people school he concluded that the Latials might have simply been local populations who assimilated into Villannovan material culture. Later he describes the cessation of Villannovan burial rite in Lazio as a result of the influence from the pastoral Fossa culture of the anti-Apennines in northern Campania. Throughout all of these processes, he simply calls the inhabitants of southern Lazio 'Latins'.

    If we apply our present knowledge to the picture that emerges from archaeology I'd think it's more likely that the early Latial settlements were in fact founded Villanovan immigrants who supplanted the relatively primitive herders of the flatlands. Their settlements were fortified because the pastoralists of the surrounding hills likely weren't averse to raiding considering how much more sophisticated the Villanovans were than anything that preceded them in mainland Italy. When at the beginning of the Iron Age Villanovan burial rites are abandoned in favor of the inhumation rites typical of Apenninic pastoralist communities, it wasn't because the Villanovans sought to imitate the culture of the herdsmen but because they were conquered.

    Conquered by whom? Ghosts? All your picture is discredited by archaeologists. Latial settlements were not founded by Villanovan immigrants. Inhumation rite isn't only typical of Apenninic pastoralist communities, inhumation is the most typical funerary rite of the Eastern Italic peoples.

    The spread of inhumation among the Etruscans started in the very south of Etruria, where there were borders with the Eastern Italic populations. For a long time in Etruria, particularly in northern Etruria, Etruscans continued to practice both incineration and inhumation.

  14. #139
    Moderator Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience PointsThree Friends
    Pax Augusta's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-06-14
    Location
    Ara Pacis
    Posts
    1,023
    Points
    21,995
    Level
    45
    Points: 21,995, Level: 45
    Level completed: 39%, Points required for next Level: 555
    Overall activity: 24.0%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: Italy



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post

    The Etruscans just sort of seem to be there in the first millennium BC: there are no signs of destruction, of intrusive settlements or architecture in Tuscany. The later developments might be the result of intensive contact with the east, i.e. the "Orientalizing period", through trade. Other peoples scramble to come up with an "identity" for them, with the two most famous myths about them being that 1) they came from somewhere in Anatolia, 2) they were indigenous to Italy. Had they left more copious writings that we could interpret perhaps they could have provided some insight, but they didn't.

    It's possible it was an elite migration specifically to what is now Tuscany, but if so it's a very strange one. Perhaps it is instead a case of the filtering northward from Southern Italy of more heavily CHG/Iran Neo people from the Aegean bringing metallurgy with them?

    I don't know. We'll have to see what the ancient dna tells us.
    Indeed, there are no signs of destruction, of intrusive settlements or architecture in Tuscany. It is also necessary to clarify Etruria does not coincide with modern Tuscany, but included all of western Umbria as far as Perugia the regional modern capital, and more than half of Lazio up to the northern bank of the Tiber, which is now in the historic center of Rome. Rome was built a few meters from the border with Etruria. The Falisci and Capenates also lived within the Etruscan borders, they participated in the meetings of the "Etruscan peoples" at the Fanum Voltumnae although they spoke two Indo-European languages. The Fanum Voltumnae, which was located either in Umbria or in northern Lazio (archaeologists think it was at the foot of Orvieto in Umbria that is located about 350 meters above sea level) was the most important place in the Etruscan nation and the Etruscan peoples. Moreover, today archaeologists such as Sassatelli who teaches in Bologna are saying that there is no evidence of an Etruscan colonization of the Emilian area, but that Bologna was always Etruscan since the times of Villanova and that what is considered the foundation of Bologna is nothing more than the beginning of the phase of urbanization that comes later than southern Etruria. Here too, the matter is by no means closed.

    I don't think DNA testing can be the definitive answer, because burials belong to the elite anyway (and inhumation). Obviously no one today in 2018 believes that "Orientalizing period" can indicate some ethnic origin, being a cultural phenomenon that also spread among non-Etruscans, also among Greeks, Veneti, Italics, Piceni and many others. During this period there were undoubtedly also movements of small artisans and artists, as well as merchants. But these were foreigners who perhaps in some cases were also assimilated.








    Quote Originally Posted by markod View Post
    My main gripe with this would be that Proto-Villanova and its descendants bear all the hallmarks of a northern immigrant culture - it's quite clearly an Urnfield culture. Even in the Iron Age at the opposing ends of the horizon you'll see stunning similarities between, say, Polish Pomeranian culture and Etruscan material culture. Taken together, the evidence makes me doubt that Etruscan is deeply indigenous in Italy. Keep in mind also that Rhaetic was likely spoken as far north as Bavaria.

    But as you said it is very complex, and with language shifts you can never be quite sure which way it went.
    In fact it cannot be ruled out that the language comes from the Alps, where they could still exist between the end of the Bronze Age and the beginning of the Iron Age survivors of pre-Indo-European languages. Obviously the equation language = ethnos = DNA is much more complex than it appears in these discussions in the forums. Even the Rhaetian peoples (who are identified with the culture of Fritzens-Sanzeno in the middle Iron Age) first had contacts with Urnfield cultures.

    The arrival of these pre-Indo-European populations from the Alps is possible to have happened during the culture of Terramare.

    Frattesina in Veneto could be the key. Certainly the formation of ethnos, in a cultural sense, could be due to the contacts with the eastern Mediterranean sea documented in Frattesina, which could have been one of the causes of the regionalization of the proto-Villanovan.

    If it is true what various archaeologists claim, including Jung, that from the late the Bronze Age there were movements from Italy to the east (Greece, Aegean Sea and Levant), the picture could be really complex, much more complex than we think.


    Quote Originally Posted by bicicleur View Post
    furthermore, if I'm not mistaken, proto-villanovan were urnfield people who were clearly IE
    Yes, almost certainly, as they almost certainly mixed with the previous inhabitants.


    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    What if the elites turn out to have J2a? How will we know whether it is from a specific migration to Tuscany in the first millennium BC a la Herodotus, or if it's a gradual filtering northward of J2a which had been in the south since the late Neolithic and Bronze Age? (Yes, according to the abstract of the Paabo/Reich upcoming paper, it could be late Neolithic. This shouldn't be a surprise as some clades of J2a were in the Balkans in the late Neolithic.) I've always leaned a little more in that direction because the logistics of the former seemed very difficult, and because if it was that recent, there would be a clearer oral memory of it.
    Of course, it is possible that some Etruscans were J2a, but what should J2a prove? J2a is much more common in Italy where the Etruscans never settled down to begin with, and there were also foreigners in the elite, Lucius Tarquinius Priscus was of Greek origin, for example.


    "J2 sample was found, in the Sopot and Proto-Lengyel cultures in Hungary, dating from 7,000 years ago."

    "one J2a1b sample in Hungary dating from the end of the Bronze Age (c. 1150 BCE, see Gamba et al. 2014), in the minor Kyjatice culture, an offshoot of the Urnfield culture, which differs from typical Indo-European cultures by its use of cremation instead of single-grave burials."

  15. #140
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered10000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    07-08-18
    Posts
    842
    Points
    10,677
    Level
    31
    Points: 10,677, Level: 31
    Level completed: 19%, Points required for next Level: 573
    Overall activity: 76.0%


    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by Pax Augusta View Post
    Italic languages are divided into two branches: Western and Eastern Italic branches. Latin and Faliscan belong to the Western branch (also Venetic and Sicel are sometimes included in this branch), while all the other Italic languages belong to the Eastern branch (Oscan-Umbrian), and Italian scholars are suggesting Eastern Italic branches are derived from a different migration, with Umbrians who could have an initial component called paleo-Umbrian in common with the Western Branch but which was completely assimilated by the newcomers ("Safin") who brought to Italy the Eastern Italian languages.
    Impossible, the split within Italic isn't deep and scholars do not consider Venetic to be within the Italic branch. There were usually no other migrations into Italy at the time.

    Conquered by whom? Ghosts? All your picture is discredited by archaeologists. Latial settlements were not founded by Villanovan immigrants. Inhumation rite isn't only typical of Apenninic pastoralist communities, inhumation is the most typical funerary rite of the Eastern Italic peoples.

    The spread of inhumation among the Etruscans started in the very south of Etruria, where there were borders with the Eastern Italic populations. For a long time in Etruria, particularly in northern Etruria, Etruscans continued to practice both incineration and inhumation.
    Pastoralists from the Apennines. Villannova and Latial (hence formerly Southern Villanova) are clearly Urnfield cultures. They are intrusive. Latial culture is much more similar to Pomeranian culture of Poland than it is to the inhuming Apeninne culture it neighbours on. Migrations are responsible for this stark difference.

  16. #141
    Moderator Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience PointsThree Friends
    Pax Augusta's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-06-14
    Location
    Ara Pacis
    Posts
    1,023
    Points
    21,995
    Level
    45
    Points: 21,995, Level: 45
    Level completed: 39%, Points required for next Level: 555
    Overall activity: 24.0%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: Italy



    Quote Originally Posted by markod View Post
    Impossible, the split within Italic isn't deep and scholars do not consider Venetic to be within the Italic branch. There were usually no other migrations into Italy at the time.
    Impossible? I suppose you're Italian, and I can suggest you some further reading then.

    Augusto Ancillotti - Romolo Cerri, Le Tavole di Gubbio e la civiltà degli antichi Umbri, 1996


    Quote Originally Posted by markod View Post
    Pastoralists from the Apennines. Villannova and Latial (hence formerly Southern Villanova) are clearly Urnfield cultures. They are intrusive. Latial culture is much more similar to Pomeranian culture of Poland than it is to the inhuming Apeninne culture it neighbours on. Migrations are responsible for this stark difference.
    So what?

  17. #142
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered10000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    07-08-18
    Posts
    842
    Points
    10,677
    Level
    31
    Points: 10,677, Level: 31
    Level completed: 19%, Points required for next Level: 573
    Overall activity: 76.0%


    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by Pax Augusta View Post
    Impossible? I suppose you're Italian, and I can suggest you some further reading then.

    Augusto Ancillotti - Romolo Cerri, Le Tavole di Gubbio e la civiltà degli antichi Umbri, 1996
    Under the temporal constraints of a Chalcolithic spread of IE it would be impossible. Where and when do you see a unified Proto-Italic?


    So what?
    I mean it strikes me as absurd that the Latino-Faliscans would have come from Central Europe some time after Italy was already completely Italicized by Osco-Umbrians. They constitute a single genetic group for a reason.

    Look at the Celtic languages which show evidence of deeper divisions. Yet they were unified still in the Iron Age Hallstatt culture.

  18. #143
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    17-03-16
    Posts
    526
    Points
    5,076
    Level
    21
    Points: 5,076, Level: 21
    Level completed: 6%, Points required for next Level: 474
    Overall activity: 30.0%


    Country: Greece



    Quote Originally Posted by brick View Post
    This "Herodotus was a liar stuff" is taken seriously by scholars. The notorious 'father of lies' label comes from Plutarch.
    There in no lie in his Histories, that is no stories made up by him. Of course there are scholars who have supported that but that doesn't mean it is correct.

    There may be many false stories that he had heard, of course.

    Read that for example. The author is Korean and imo that is important because in the 'West' the so called 'French school', 'deconstructionism' etc. has caused much harm.
    https://www.academia.edu/10885180/HE...D_SIGNIFICANCE

    Of course, his isn't objective. He even makes fun of Ionian Greeks in one case. The real lie is that he was just a 'story-teller' though.

  19. #144
    Moderator Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience PointsThree Friends
    Pax Augusta's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-06-14
    Location
    Ara Pacis
    Posts
    1,023
    Points
    21,995
    Level
    45
    Points: 21,995, Level: 45
    Level completed: 39%, Points required for next Level: 555
    Overall activity: 24.0%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: Italy



    Quote Originally Posted by markod View Post
    Under the temporal constraints of a Chalcolithic spread of IE it would be impossible. Where and when do you see a unified Proto-Italic?
    I mean it strikes me as absurd that the Latino-Faliscans would have come from Central Europe some time after Italy was already completely Italicized by Osco-Umbrians. They constitute a single genetic group for a reason.
    There is no evidence that they constituted a single genetic group, as there is no evidence that the Osco-Umbrians arrived before the Latino-Faliscans. Of course, they will not have been very dissimilar in origin, as there is no doubt that by mixing with each other at some point they will all become very similar.

    However there are many books on the subject, the division of the Italic languages ​​into two distinct branches was certainly not invented by myself. To be more precise, there are also scholars who claim that Osco-Umbrian languages ​​are only those that can be defined as Italic.



    1. ‘Western Italic’, within which Latin, Faliscan and Venetic must be included;
    2. ‘Eastern Italic’, commonly referred to as ‘Osco-Umbrian’, within which Umbrian, Oscan, Sabine, South Picene and other minor dialects are included.

    Source: http://mnamon.sns.it/index.php?page=...&id=58&lang=en

  20. #145
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered10000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    07-08-18
    Posts
    842
    Points
    10,677
    Level
    31
    Points: 10,677, Level: 31
    Level completed: 19%, Points required for next Level: 573
    Overall activity: 76.0%


    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by Pax Augusta View Post
    There is no evidence that they constituted a single genetic group, as there is no evidence that the Osco-Umbrians arrived before the Latino-Faliscans. Of course, they will not have been very dissimilar in origin, as there is no doubt that by mixing with each other at some point they will all become very similar.

    However there are many books on the subject, the division of the Italic languages ​​into two distinct branches was certainly not invented by myself. To be more precise, there are also scholars who claim that Osco-Umbrian languages ​​are only those that can be defined as italic.





    Source: http://mnamon.sns.it/index.php?page=...&id=58&lang=en
    Afaik that's Poultney's tree from around 1950 - it's not commonly accepted, and almost certainly wrong. The attestations of Venetic show that it shares features with Celtic not shared by either Italic branch.

    A divison of Italic in Latino-Faliscan and Osco-Umbrian is of course commonly accepted. But that they do constiute a genetic group and were unified at some point is the general view. The unity may have been short-lived and we don't really know what happened in Bronze Age Italy. There's not really much going on when it comes to archaeology south of the Po valley other than those relatively poor herding communities. I think geology might be the reason.

  21. #146
    Regular Member Achievements:
    VeteranTagger Second Class5000 Experience Points
    Cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    31-08-12
    Posts
    357
    Points
    9,350
    Level
    28
    Points: 9,350, Level: 28
    Level completed: 50%, Points required for next Level: 600
    Overall activity: 8.0%


    Country: Italy



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Cremation spread in Italy after the Terramare diaspora, so an Urnfield invasion is not necessary..except at Canegrate and Sud Tirolo

    Metallurgy is similar to Urnfield because after the collapse of the Mycenenan civilizarion Central Europe become the most important metallurgical center

    Utilizzando Tapatalk

  22. #147
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered10000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    07-08-18
    Posts
    842
    Points
    10,677
    Level
    31
    Points: 10,677, Level: 31
    Level completed: 19%, Points required for next Level: 573
    Overall activity: 76.0%


    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by Cato View Post
    Cremation spread in Italy after the Terramare diaspora, so an Urnfield invasion is not necessary..except at Canegrate and Sud Tirolo

    Metallurgy is similar to Urnfield because after the collapse of the Mycenenan civilizarion Central Europe become the most important metallurgical center

    Utilizzando Tapatalk
    Terramare is interesting. In Emilia-Romagna it existed for some time side by side with the northernmost Apennine culture off-shoots. Identical pile dwellings exist in Germany, Austria and Switzerland.

  23. #148
    Regular Member Achievements:
    VeteranTagger Second Class5000 Experience Points
    Cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    31-08-12
    Posts
    357
    Points
    9,350
    Level
    28
    Points: 9,350, Level: 28
    Level completed: 50%, Points required for next Level: 600
    Overall activity: 8.0%


    Country: Italy



    Quote Originally Posted by markod View Post
    Terramare is interesting. In Emilia-Romagna it existed for some time side by side with the northernmost Apennine culture off-shoots. Identical pile dwellings exist in Germany, Austria and Switzerland.
    Terramare was a mix of Polada (pile dwellers) and a new Pannonian element who apparently brought cremation
    ..they were clearly Indoeuropeans
    Utilizzando Tapatalk

  24. #149
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered10000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    07-08-18
    Posts
    842
    Points
    10,677
    Level
    31
    Points: 10,677, Level: 31
    Level completed: 19%, Points required for next Level: 573
    Overall activity: 76.0%


    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by Cato View Post
    Terramare was a mix of Polada (pile dwellers) and a new Pannonian element who apparently brought cremation
    ..they were clearly Indoeuropeans
    Utilizzando Tapatalk
    I'm not so sure about this association. Cremation was practiced by Neolithic farmers in Germany millennia before the metal age migrations.

    It's the Apennine culture that most clearly shows the Carpathian influence, namely from Wietenberg and Ottomani.

  25. #150
    Moderator Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience PointsThree Friends
    Pax Augusta's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-06-14
    Location
    Ara Pacis
    Posts
    1,023
    Points
    21,995
    Level
    45
    Points: 21,995, Level: 45
    Level completed: 39%, Points required for next Level: 555
    Overall activity: 24.0%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: Italy



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by markod View Post
    I'm not so sure about this association. Cremation was practiced by Neolithic farmers in Germany millennia before the metal age migrations.

    It's the Apennine culture that most clearly shows the Carpathian influence, namely from Wietenberg and Ottomani.
    I do not agree with both of you because you draw too many conclusions, but if you are implying that the Apennine culture is also exclusively Indo-European we will be faced with the paradox that according to you Italy receives almost only Indo-European migrations and then almost no modern Italian ends up in the Central European cluster.

Page 6 of 31 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •