Population structure in Italy using ancient and modern samples

According to an Anthrogenica poster who was in contact with the leaker, some of the Roman samples come from Pompeii (probably the ones clustering with modern southern Italians). Maybe the more northern ones are from the "Republican" era, and ones veering towards Cypriots were merchants from somewhere in the Hellenic world (the islands, Anatolia, Pontus, etc), which for some reason hasn't crossed the mind of anyone on Anthrogenica yet. Nothing was said whether it's from the Moots paper or not however.

There are NO Northern Italian like Roman samples in that "leaked" PCA. The most Northern one lands on Tuscans.

So, it doesn't reflect what Hannah Moots said in her presentation about 60% of the early samples resembling Northern Italians.

The discussions over there are chaotic because there is a conflict between the PCA and the Moots presentation and quotes.
 
The problem with autochthony is the lack of an indigenous element that could be responsible for a hypothetical language shift:



https://www.academia.edu/5808394/Th...al_System_during_the_late_Bronze_Age_in_Italy

So again, in the LBA we are left with little more than the Apennine culture and the encroaching Urnfield-Villanova intruders from the north. Any hypothesis must account for this.

AFAIK there are indications that the Terramare remnants spread to Central Italy and even South Italy. A dramatic socioeconomic collapse doesn't need to mean the complete disappearance of the people itself. It certainly involved population losses, but full extinction of a very large population is unlikely as opposed to its wide dispersal in much more sparsely distributed and smaller groups (the Terramare had an absurdly high population density for a BA culture in a small territory anyway, that was probably unsustainable on the long term especially in periods of crisis). This would be a bit like those claims about the "disappearance of the Maya peoples" when in fact they are still there. They just had a demographic and socioeconomic collapse and dispersed adopting a much more extensive way of life, with lower population density and a much lower long-term "archaeological print".

Though of course I don't bet much on it, it wouldn't surprise me if the Terramare were the natives spread to Central Italy and South Italy (didn't an ancient author claim that the Etruscans lived "in towers"? The Terramare lived in elevated houses), then the Urnfield people brought not just new customs, but also Proto-Italic to parts of Italy, but adopted the local well established language family, too, in some places (just like Germans and Slavs did not impose their language successfully eveywhere they went, or even tried to). So, in the end, the Tyrsenian and the Italic peoples might not have been much different genetically nor even culturally (maybe kind of initially, but not after centuries of close contacts and of exogamy), but speaking different languages and belonging to distinct ethnicities. I don't think we should assume, as you seem to be doing, that because 1960s scientists were wrong to assume pots, not people each and every time, then the new consensus should be people, not just pots all the time now.
 
According to an Anthrogenica poster who was in contact with the leaker, some of the Roman samples come from Pompeii (probably the ones clustering with modern southern Italians). Maybe the more northern ones are from the "Republican" era, and ones veering towards Cypriots were merchants from somewhere in the Hellenic world (the islands, Anatolia, Pontus, etc), which for some reason hasn't crossed the mind of anyone on Anthrogenica yet. Nothing was said whether it's from the Moots paper or not however.

Do you know if it’s true that it’s part of a student research paper, and it will be published after Graduation in 2020?
 
Though of course I don't bet much on it, it wouldn't surprise me if the Terramare were the natives spread to Central Italy and South Italy (didn't an ancient author claim that the Etruscans lived "in towers"? The Terramare lived in elevated houses), then the Urnfield people brought not just new customs, but also Proto-Italic to parts of Italy, but adopted the local well established language family, too, in some places (just like Germans and Slavs did not impose their language successfully eveywhere they went, or even tried to). So, in the end, the Tyrsenian and the Italic peoples might not have been much different genetically nor even culturally (maybe kind of initially, but not after centuries of close contacts and of exogamy), but speaking different languages and belonging to distinct ethnicities. I don't think we should assume, as you seem to be doing, that because 1960s scientists were wrong to assume pots, not people each and every time, then the new consensus should be people, not just pots all the time now.

There is still a lot of uncertainty about where the people of Terramare ended up and whether they really migrated elsewhere.
In any case, Terramare buildings are very similar to the prehistoric settlements of pile-dwellings in and around the Alps, built between about 5000 and 500 BC. There have been archaeologists in the past who thought the proto-Etruscans were originating from these pile-dwelling (or stilt house) settlements in and around the Alps


Reconstruction of Neolithic and Bronze Age pile dwellings from the Alps.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistoric_pile_dwellings_around_the_Alps)

640px-Pfahlbauten_Unteruhldingen_2005_05.jpg





Reconstruction of Terramare dwellings.

d0CdTPA.jpg
 
Do you know if it’s true that it’s part of a student research paper, and it will be published after Graduation in 2020?

I wrote to Hannah as well, earlier this year, and she said this it would be released sometime in 2019. I think it is somewhere back-thread (if anyone remembers where the Moots paper was first announced here? That's were I directly quoted her) . Unless something has changed since then. Though if she's graduating in 2020, perhaps she's completing her course work this year.
 
This was back in mid-February:

Thanks so much for your email! Yes, we are working on an ongoing project on the genetic history of Italy using ancient DNA and hope to have the first publication out later this year (hopefully in the next 6 months) as well as follow up publications.

Looking forward to sharing more details once we've published!

Many thanks and all the best,
Hannah


https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/37817-Talk-on-Ancient-Italian-Roman-DNA-over-in-Stanford/page13?p=567067&viewfull=1#post567067
 
AFAIK there are indications that the Terramare remnants spread to Central Italy and even South Italy. A dramatic socioeconomic collapse doesn't need to mean the complete disappearance of the people itself. It certainly involved population losses, but full extinction of a very large population is unlikely as opposed to its wide dispersal in much more sparsely distributed and smaller groups (the Terramare had an absurdly high population density for a BA culture in a small territory anyway, that was probably unsustainable on the long term especially in periods of crisis). This would be a bit like those claims about the "disappearance of the Maya peoples" when in fact they are still there. They just had a demographic and socioeconomic collapse and dispersed adopting a much more extensive way of life, with lower population density and a much lower long-term "archaeological print".

Though of course I don't bet much on it, it wouldn't surprise me if the Terramare were the natives spread to Central Italy and South Italy (didn't an ancient author claim that the Etruscans lived "in towers"? The Terramare lived in elevated houses), then the Urnfield people brought not just new customs, but also Proto-Italic to parts of Italy, but adopted the local well established language family, too, in some places (just like Germans and Slavs did not impose their language successfully eveywhere they went, or even tried to). So, in the end, the Tyrsenian and the Italic peoples might not have been much different genetically nor even culturally (maybe kind of initially, but not after centuries of close contacts and of exogamy), but speaking different languages and belonging to distinct ethnicities. I don't think we should assume, as you seem to be doing, that because 1960s scientists were wrong to assume pots, not people each and every time, then the new consensus should be people, not just pots all the time now.

But in the LBA it's the Apennine and Urnfield cultures that collide in Italy. Perhaps some Terramare people survived without leaving an archaeological culture, but there's no good reason to derive Etruscan from this ghost culture, especially now that we know one Etruscan plots as far north as south-central Europe.

You'd also need more Terramare ghosts in the alps to aacount for the Rhaetians.
 
But in the LBA it's the Apennine and Urnfield cultures that collide in Italy. Perhaps some Terramare people survived without leaving an archaeological culture, but there's no good reason to derive Etruscan from this ghost culture, especially now that we know one Etruscan plots as far north as south-central Europe.

You'd also need more Terramare ghosts in the alps to aacount for the Rhaetians.


What if Italic peoples were actually in Italy earlier than Etruscans? If Etruscans are more shifted towards North Italy / Central Europe, they maybe came after the original IE expansions. Looking at Etruscan Civilization, it's hard to imagine they were contained in Tuscany by Italic expansions, more like they came after Italics who already were widespread in Central and Southern Italy.
 
What if Italic peoples were actually in Italy earlier than Etruscans? If Etruscans are more shifted towards North Italy / Central Europe, they maybe came after the original IE expansions. Looking at Etruscan Civilization, it's hard to imagine they were contained in Tuscany by Italic expansions, more like they came after Italics who already were widespread in Central and Southern Italy.
That's essentially the Pallottino hypothesis. I think it must be either that or Woudhuizen's hypothesis (Villanova = Italic, Apennine = Etruscan) . All the other hypotheses seem to rely on special pleading 🤷
 

I wrote to Hannah as well, earlier this year, and she said this it would be released sometime in 2019. I think it is somewhere back-thread (if anyone remembers where the Moots paper was first announced here? That's were I directly quoted her) . Unless something has changed since then. Though if she's graduating in 2020, perhaps she's completing her course work this year.

OK, so if their schedule is up to speed, they should release their finding in a couple of months.

EDIT ...

About the leaked docs:

If they graduated in 2019, chances are they already did. Usually colleges graduations take places in May. :)
 
Last edited:
I'm starting to think that. 1) Language 2) Lineage 3) Genomic, might be a little bit out of place. What if R1b-U152 came in Italy with Bell Beakers. What if Italic languages are older in Italy compared to Etruscan. What if Genomic and Language are not that specific to some Cultures after the initial Bell Beaker expansion.
 
OK, so if their schedule is up to speed, they should release their finding in a couple of months.

If they graduated in 2019, chances are they already did. Usually colleges graduations take places in May. :)
She is to graduate in 2020, https://stanfordesp.org/teach/teachers/hmoots/bio.html. But as Jovialis shared above, we might see the paper sometime this summer or early autumn. My contact wasn't with Hannah directly, but with the organizer of her event back in February. But Hannah's word is above hers, so i am expecting her paper to get published sometime this year.
 
OK, so if their schedule is up to speed, they should release their finding in a couple of months.

If they graduated in 2019, chances are they already did. Usually colleges graduations take places in May. :)


Hannah Moots is a PhD student at Stanford. Her study is (part of) her doctoral thesis. She finished the college in 2008 (University of Chicago) if with college you meant the BA.
 
I'm starting to think that. 1) Language 2) Lineage 3) Genomic, might be a little bit out of place. What if R1b-U152 came in Italy with Bell Beakers. What if Italic languages are older in Italy compared to Etruscan. What if Genomic and Language are not that specific to some Cultures after the initial Bell Beaker expansion.

An early presence of Italic in Italy would explain why the two branches (Latino-Faliscan and Osco-Umbrian) are so different from each other. I think that's one of the problems with the Villanovs hypothesis.

Agreed with your general sentiment. I guess the problem are the events we can never truly exclude with just DNA and archaeology: language shifts, elite dominance, tribal alliances etc. .
 
Hannah Moots is a PhD student at Stanford. Her study is (part of) her doctoral thesis. She finished the college in 2008 (University of Chicago) if with college you meant the BA.

The college graduation part is about the leaked docs.
(Assuming that they’re not from the same research)

sorry about the confusion.


 
The college graduation part is about the leaked docs.
(Assuming that they’re not from the same research)

sorry about the confusion.


Thanks for the clarification. There are more ongoing studies on ancient samples from Italy, not just that of Moots. So yes, they might be not from the same research. Of course assuming the leaked docs are true.


Stanford definitely has a role to play. The first Etruscan samples were analysed by Stanford at least four years ago. I imagine that in Stanford itself more researchers may have access to these analyses.
 
so pretty stupid question here .. what were the Romans? is the modern day italian peninsula in any way related or similar to these awesome people :)
 
so pretty stupid question here .. what were the Romans? is the modern day italian peninsula in any way related or similar to these awesome people :)

General Answer: Yes!

Stay Tuned,

all details to be revealed soon on this screen :)
 
so pretty stupid question here .. what were the Romans? is the modern day italian peninsula in any way related or similar to these awesome people :)

Yes, Salento is correct. We can verify that from the paper on the Lombard invasion:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-06024-4

The Romans found here in the late-Imperial period are similar to modern Southern, and Central Italians. They are modeled using TSI (Tuscans in Italy) Very soon, we will learn about the genetics of earlier times, like the Republican period.

Our Italian posters show affinity to these samples on MyTrueAncestry, and yourdnaportal.com Eurogenes K36 Ancient calculators.
 
so pretty stupid question here .. what were the Romans? is the modern day italian peninsula in any way related or similar to these awesome people :)

Btw, there are no stupid questions, we're all here to learn :)
 

This thread has been viewed 327241 times.

Back
Top