Population structure in Italy using ancient and modern samples

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


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?
 
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?



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.
 
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/H..._PERSPECTIVE_ITS_HISTORICITY_AND_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.
 
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=Lingua&id=58&lang=en
 
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=Lingua&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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

I generally try to draw as few conclusions as possible, hence my agreement with Pallottino's outline and my refusal to see in the Villanovans early Italics. For similar reasons I would not consider the completely unwarlike and conservative Terramare culture that never expands much beyond the Po valley in the question of Italic origins, although many have done so because the general direction 'fits'. In most writings about Indo-European origins those things are never looked at on a case to case basis because it would lead to difficulties concerning the greater narrative. It's almost pseudoscientific. There are exceptions to this like Drews but he never wrote about Italy so there's that.

You're right to point out that it doesn't seem to make sense when it comes to autosomal genetics. The Y-DNA haplogroup situation is even more confusing. And there's not only Italic to account for but also Messapian and the more enigmatic and definitely Indo-European Elymian in Sicily. I don't really have an explanation for it.
 
I generally try to draw as few conclusions as possible, hence my agreement with Pallottino's outline and my refusal to see in the Villanovans early Italics.

Villanovans are the early Etruscans, how can they be the early Italics? There are also internationally renowned scholars who have confused the Villanovans with the proto-Villanovans but this does not change the heart of the matter, it remains a mistake.

For similar reasons I would not consider the completely unwarlike and conservative Terramare culture that never expands much beyond the Po valley in the question of Italic origins, although many have done so because the general direction 'fits'. In most writings about Indo-European origins those things are never looked at on a case to case basis because it would lead to difficulties concerning the greater narrative. It's almost pseudoscientific. There are exceptions to this like Drews but he never wrote about Italy so there's that.

There are outgoing studies on the Terramare, as there have been recent archaeological essays even if highly speculative. A type of speculation you do not expect from archeology.
 
Villanovans are the early Etruscans, how can they be the early Italics? There are also internationally renowned scholars who have confused the Villanovans with the proto-Villanovans but this does not change the heart of the matter, it remains a mistake.

Villanova and Latial (southern Villanovan) are the same material culture - the southern extent of the former was renamed to Latial culture because that's where Rome would be founded. We have no extant inscriptions until hundreds of years after their inception so we don't really know the identity of either, we can only speculate/weigh the evidence.

If you want to be precise they are just Urnfielders who happened to be in Italy.
 
Villanova and Latial (southern Villanovan) are the same material culture - the southern extent of the former was renamed to Latial culture because that's where Rome would be founded. We have no extant inscriptions until hundreds of years after their inception so we don't really know the identity of either, we can only speculate/weigh the evidence.

If you want to be precise they are just Urnfielders who happened to be in Italy.

Villanovan and Latial culture share many aspects of material culture because they both descend from the Proto-Villanovan. You're stating the obvious. Rome isn't even considered the centre of the Latial culture, because it's quite obvious that Rome wasn't founded by Latins only.

Villanovan and Protovillanovan have the same name simply because the Villanovan was the first to be discovered by archaeologists (near Bologna to be precise). For the same reason in the past even the Urnfielders of Lombardy were labelled as Villanovan.


gTTi8az.jpg
 
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?

the arrival is not visible in archeology neither visible in the DNA despite several attempts to find a remnant of their specific DNA in Tuscany or vicinity

therefore I don't think there was an arrival
 
the arrival is not visible in archeology neither visible in the DNA despite several attempts to find a remnant of their specific DNA in Tuscany or vicinity

therefore I don't think there was an arrival

How are they invisible? Etruscans are clearly a Bell Beaker derived R1b people who adapted to local languages like Vasconics and Iberians.


1ZvLB70.jpg



Should be easy enough to confirm when the Etruscan samples all turn out R1b. Too bad Italy is a post-apocalyptic war zone and it's impossible to get aDNA from it.
 
How are they invisible? Etruscans are clearly a Bell Beaker derived R1b people who adapted to local languages like Vasconics and Iberians.

bicicleur is referring to a recent arrival from east, that is not visible.


Should be easy enough to confirm when the Etruscan samples all turn out R1b. Too bad Italy is a post-apocalyptic war zone and it's impossible to get aDNA from it.


The Etruscans may have R1b indeed but that all Etruscans were R1b is improbable.

However, the discussion is not about the Etruscans who have little to do with the conclusions of this study.
 
bicicleur is referring to a recent arrival from east, that is not visible.





The Etruscans may have R1b indeed but that all Etruscans were R1b is improbable.

However, the discussion is not about the Etruscans who have little to do with the conclusions of this study.

I don't refer to an arrival for Etruscans, but I believe Proto-Villanovan were Urnfield entering Italy through the Veneto.
I also believe those Urnfield were the Italic spreaking tribes.
 
I don't refer to an arrival for Etruscans, but I believe Proto-Villanovan were Urnfield entering Italy through the Veneto.
I also believe those Urnfield were the Italic spreaking tribes.

That Proto-Villanovans were Urnfield entering Italy through NE Italy is also believed by archeologists (which is also the area where the Rhaetians were). That those Urnfield were the Italic speaking tribes is more complicated, due to a whole series of considerations that have not yet come to a definitive conclusion on the Italics, on the difference between Western and Eastern Italics, and to the fact that those properly Italic are considered by some scholars only the Osco-Umbrians who practiced mostly inhumation while the proto-Villanovans are incinerators.

Green and red is where incineration is dominant, yellow area is where inhumation is dominant.

675px-Italia_-_et%C3%A0_del_ferro.png
 
That Proto-Villanovans were Urnfield entering Italy through NE Italy is also believed by archeologists (which is also the area where the Rhaetians were). That those Urnfield were the Italic speaking tribes is more complicated, due to a whole series of considerations that have not yet come to a definitive conclusion on the Italics, on the difference between Western and Eastern Italics, and to the fact that those properly Italic are considered by some scholars only the Osco-Umbrians who practiced mostly inhumation while the proto-Villanovans are incinerators.
Green and red is where incineration is dominant, yellow area is where inhumation is dominant.
675px-Italia_-_et%C3%A0_del_ferro.png
read below for cremation in bronze and iron age veneto
https://journals.openedition.org/mefra/2503
 

This thread has been viewed 327286 times.

Back
Top