Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 910111213 LastLast
Results 251 to 275 of 320

Thread: Talk on Ancient Italian/Roman DNA over in Stanford.

  1. #251
    Moderator Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience PointsThree Friends
    Pax Augusta's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-06-14
    Location
    Ara Pacis
    Posts
    1,024
    Points
    22,270
    Level
    45
    Points: 22,270, Level: 45
    Level completed: 69%, Points required for next Level: 280
    Overall activity: 28.0%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: Italy



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Johane Derite View Post
    "Julius Pokorny adapted the Celto-Ligurian hypothesis into one linking the Ligures to the Illyrians, citing an array of similar evidence from Eastern Europe. Under this theory the "Ligures-Illyrians" became associated with the prehistoric Urnfield peoples."

    "Henning, Andersen (2003). Language Contacts in Prehistory: Studies in Stratigraphy. John Benjamins Publishing. pp. 16–17."

    I doubt there's great consensus on this hypothesis. At most, it's common Urnfield influence in Celto-Ligurians and Illyrians.

  2. #252
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered10000 Experience PointsThree Friends
    Johane Derite's Avatar
    Join Date
    21-06-17
    Posts
    951
    Points
    13,801
    Level
    35
    Points: 13,801, Level: 35
    Level completed: 65%, Points required for next Level: 249
    Overall activity: 11.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-V13>Z5018>FGC33625
    MtDNA haplogroup
    U1a1a

    Country: Albania



    Quote Originally Posted by Pax Augusta View Post
    I doubt there's great consensus on this hypothesis. At most, it's common Urnfield influence in Celto-Ligurians and Illyrians.

    We know for sure that J2b-M241 (parent clade of L283) appears in Piedmont, Po Valley and Apulia from very recent papers.

    They didn't test deeper on the clades, but since 99% percent of J2b-M241 in europe is L283, we can be pretty sure that its also L283.

    So there is an already confirmed genetic relation between L283 in Albania and Piedmont/Po valley, etc areas, there needs to also be a historical explanation.

    I don't see Arberesh being present in Po Valley historically to explain it as being medieval.

    I am not attached to that Pokorny hypothesis or anything, its just literally the only hypothesis I could find that could explain this L283 connection. I am open to any speculation


    Source and link for the paper:

    "J2b is most frequent in the Tortona-Voghera sample, which is located in the open Po Valley, and in Apulia, which faces the Adriatic Sea, while it is present at low frequencies in the Tyrrhenian sample of Calabria and not observed in Sicily. Interestingly, its incidence in the Volterra sample is comparable to that observed along the Salentina Coast and, as in the northern samples, it is mainly represented by the “Balkan” J2b-M241(J2b2-L283’s parent clade).
    Similar to J2b-M241, the E1b-V13 sub-clade, which spread from the "Balkans" is mainly observed in the South of Italy, with frequencies higher than 10% in Apulia; however, unlike the Balkan J2 branch, it is also found in Sicily.
    “J2b-M241(J2b2-L283’s parent clade) marks a seaborne route whose contribution is still detectable along the Adriatic coast as well as in populations along the Po Valley, Italy.
    E1b-V13 is also observed in Volterra and the Northern Italian groups, mainly in the most accessible areas. This observation supports a "Balkan" influence in Northern Italian populations as well, most likely through an Adriatic route and along the Po Valley and, to a lesser extent in lateral, more isolated, mountainous valleys. ”


    "Reconstructing the genetic history of Italians: new insights from a male (Y-chromosome) perspective"
    Viola Grugni, Alessandro Raveane




    LINK
    : https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/...nalCode=iahb20

    "As we have already stressed, the mass evacuation of the Albanians from their triangle is the only effective course we can take. In order to relocate a whole people, the first prerequisite is the creation of a suitable psychosis. This can be done in various ways." - Vaso Cubrilovic

  3. #253
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    15,178
    Points
    269,815
    Level
    100
    Points: 269,815, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    3 out of 3 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Pax Augusta View Post
    Romans weren't Nordics, who would have thought it? :)
    It was dogma when I got involved in population genetics. Partly, so many people have no background in art, have never seen hundreds of busts and statues from the Roman era, particularly the ones in the realistic periods when they just carved them as they were. I remember telling people on dna forums and 23andme forums, and even on here in the beginning that if the ancient Romans turned out to be even Central Europeans I'd eat my hat.

    And no offense to the Swiss, but they didn't look anything like them. :)





    At the opposite end of the spectrum I had people telling me Scipio Africanus must have had black ancestry because of his name and because one of his busts was made out of black stone. :)

    I personally always thought he looked a bit like Mussolini:






    Anyway, on to more important matters. Maybe if men propose it, certain people will listen:

    If you're talking about Central Italians, Tuscans are not a good proxy. Half of them overlap with people further north. The Abruzzesi are to all intent and purposes Southern Italians. Central Italians proper are Umbria, Lazio, Marche. How many times do the papers have to prove that before people get the message?

    When thinking about what MIGHT show up in more southern Italian samples, perhaps we shouldn't expect a TON of steppe in Oscans or any people further south. The "trail" of that kind of ancestry might become smaller as you go further south: still there, of course, but becoming progressively smaller. Look at Greece

    It would be very funny if after all the vitriol expended on anyone who dared to suggest it, it turns out that modern Southern Italians aren't that different from the southern Italians of the Iron Age. We'll see.
    Last edited by Angela; 11-02-19 at 03:31.


    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

  4. #254
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Three Friends1 year registered25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Most Popular
    Salento's Avatar
    Join Date
    30-05-17
    Posts
    2,599
    Points
    25,279
    Level
    48
    Points: 25,279, Level: 48
    Level completed: 73%, Points required for next Level: 271
    Overall activity: 74.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2 -Z19945
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H12a

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    @Angela
    @Pax Augusta

    Thank you for the brief summary.

  5. #255
    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



    3 out of 3 members found this post helpful.
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...323?via%3Dihub
    The Etruscan skulls of the Rostock anatomical collection — How do they compare with the skeletal findings of the first thousand years B.C.?*
    Dedicated to Professor Dr. med. J. Fanghänel on the occasion of his 65th birthday.
    Author links open overlay panelHorstClaassen
    AndreasWree
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0940-9602(04)80032-3
    Get rights and content
    Summary
    Seven Etruscan skulls were found in Corneto Tarquinia in the years 1881 and 1882 and were given as present to Rostock's anatomical collection in 1882. The origin of the Etruscans who were contemporary with the Celts is not yet clear; according to Herodotus they had emigrated from Lydia in Asia Minor to Italy. To fit the Etruscan skulls into an ethnological grid they were compared with skeletal remains of the first thousand years B.C.E. All skulls were found to be male; their age ranged from 20 to 60 years, with an average age of about thirty. A comparison of the median sagittal outlines of the Etruscan skulls and the contemporary Hallstatt-Celtic skulls from North Bavaria showed that the former were shorter and lower. Maximum skull length, minimum frontal breadth, ear bregma height, bizygomatical breadth and orbital breadth of the Etruscan skulls were statistically significantly less developed compared to Hallstatt-Celtics from North Bavaria. In comparison to other contemporary skeletal remains the Etruscan skulls had no similarities in common with Hallstatt-Celtic skulls from North Bavaria and Baden-Württemberg but rather with Hallstatt-Celtic skulls from Hallstatt in Austria. Compared to chronologically adjacent skeletal remains the Etruscan skulls did not show similarities with Early Bronze Age skulls from Moravia but with Latène-Celtic skulls from Manching in South Bavaria. Due to the similarities of the Etruscan skulls with some Celtic skulls from South Bavaria and Austria, it seems more likely that the Etruscans were original inhabitants of Etruria than immigrants.


    also, how wrong was herodotus
    Lydians have now been found to have spoken Luwian ...........etruscans do not speak Luwian
    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.

  6. #256
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    15,178
    Points
    269,815
    Level
    100
    Points: 269,815, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    Interesting, but I'll wait for the dna.

  7. #257
    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 Sile View Post
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...323?via%3Dihub
    The Etruscan skulls of the Rostock anatomical collection — How do they compare with the skeletal findings of the first thousand years B.C.?*
    Dedicated to Professor Dr. med. J. Fanghänel on the occasion of his 65th birthday.
    Author links open overlay panelHorstClaassen
    AndreasWree
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0940-9602(04)80032-3
    Get rights and content
    Summary
    Seven Etruscan skulls were found in Corneto Tarquinia in the years 1881 and 1882 and were given as present to Rostock's anatomical collection in 1882. The origin of the Etruscans who were contemporary with the Celts is not yet clear; according to Herodotus they had emigrated from Lydia in Asia Minor to Italy. To fit the Etruscan skulls into an ethnological grid they were compared with skeletal remains of the first thousand years B.C.E. All skulls were found to be male; their age ranged from 20 to 60 years, with an average age of about thirty. A comparison of the median sagittal outlines of the Etruscan skulls and the contemporary Hallstatt-Celtic skulls from North Bavaria showed that the former were shorter and lower. Maximum skull length, minimum frontal breadth, ear bregma height, bizygomatical breadth and orbital breadth of the Etruscan skulls were statistically significantly less developed compared to Hallstatt-Celtics from North Bavaria. In comparison to other contemporary skeletal remains the Etruscan skulls had no similarities in common with Hallstatt-Celtic skulls from North Bavaria and Baden-Württemberg but rather with Hallstatt-Celtic skulls from Hallstatt in Austria. Compared to chronologically adjacent skeletal remains the Etruscan skulls did not show similarities with Early Bronze Age skulls from Moravia but with Latène-Celtic skulls from Manching in South Bavaria. Due to the similarities of the Etruscan skulls with some Celtic skulls from South Bavaria and Austria, it seems more likely that the Etruscans were original inhabitants of Etruria than immigrants.


    also, how wrong was herodotus
    Lydians have now been found to have spoken Luwian ...........etruscans do not speak Luwian
    Very interesting. Skull measurements ought to be taken with a grain of salt, but I'd mentioned South Bavarian Urnfield earlier in the thread citing the similarities in the material culture. Can't wait to see the DNA.

  8. #258
    Moderator Achievements:
    1 year registeredTagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Community Award

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,723
    Points
    26,307
    Level
    49
    Points: 26,307, Level: 49
    Level completed: 76%, Points required for next Level: 243
    Overall activity: 39.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by ToBeOrNotToBe View Post
    Circassians were ethnically cleansed and scattered across West Asia, so their current Y DNA % doesn't reflect much. Also, I don't believe that's entirely true.

    proto-Armenian to me seems unlikely as Anatolia was densely populated, and there's no records of masses of people invading and migrating into Northern Turkey (on the scale of the Völkerwanderung, and even that has relatively low genetic legacy).

    In contrast, a huge amount of Circassians migrated to Turkey - like hundreds of thousands at least I think.
    The really massive exodus of Circassians to West Asia and Turkey in particular is too recent to account for that. Most Circassians lived in the northern Caucasus piedmont area as late as the late 18th century. Circassian roots are still very vivid memory among present Turkish people. Anyway, there is nothing to suggest to us that Circassians were ever heavily R1b-Z2103 to make such an impact on lands that were already heavily populated since Antiquity. In the Middle Ages they were brought mainly as slaves, but they were forcibly settled where their owners mainly lived (they were some of the main sources of the Mamluks) and not in more remote areas of Pontic Turkey.

  9. #259
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered1000 Experience Points
    ToBeOrNotToBe's Avatar
    Join Date
    31-12-16
    Posts
    1,116


    Country: United Kingdom



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    The really massive exodus of Circassians to West Asia and Turkey in particular is too recent to account for that. Most Circassians lived in the northern Caucasus piedmont area as late as the late 18th century. Circassian roots are still very vivid memory among present Turkish people. Anyway, there is nothing to suggest to us that Circassians were ever heavily R1b-Z2103 to make such an impact on lands that were already heavily populated since Antiquity. In the Middle Ages they were brought mainly as slaves, but they were forcibly settled where their owners mainly lived (they were some of the main sources of the Mamluks) and not in more remote areas of Pontic Turkey.
    I don't see why it's too late, but I agree we can't know for sure that they belong to Y DNA Z2103. I'm just trying to figure out why Pontic Turks have more light types. One other thing - if Pontic Turks are in general the same colour as normal Turks but given they have more light types, it suggests a recent introduction of those light types. In any case, there's something different for Northern Turkey in terms of having individuals with light features at much greater rates than the rest of Turkey, and it correlates with Z2103.

  10. #260
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered1000 Experience Points
    ToBeOrNotToBe's Avatar
    Join Date
    31-12-16
    Posts
    1,116


    Country: United Kingdom



    0 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    I definitely won't post this link by the way...

    https://www.theapricity.com/earlson/...y/emperors.htm

    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?


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beatri...romeo_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?



  11. #261
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    30-08-17
    Posts
    175
    Points
    3,378
    Level
    16
    Points: 3,378, Level: 16
    Level completed: 82%, Points required for next Level: 72
    Overall activity: 1.0%


    Country: Italy



    2 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by ToBeOrNotToBe View Post
    Why is it likely that the Sea peoples spread from Italy to the Eastern Med? Afaik all evidence points towards Aegean origins (e.g. with that pig DNA study from the Philistines). The Sherden link then would be that these people are the name-sake for modern Sardinians as a result of taking over power from the natives.

    In terms of the IE-Tyrsenian link, of course it's speculation, but it has some limited evidence backing it up (not that I understand it). There's also the point of where did Etruscan originate from if not from the Sea Peoples. It surely isn't dated all the way back to Cardial Ware farmers, and it definitely isn't related to any branch of IE in Central Europe. The Sea Peoples are the only real explanation imo (and there's circumstantial things like the Teresh-Troy links etc.). Tyrsenian has been linked with Minoan etc. languages as part of a greater Aegean language family, and that also fits with the archaeology. These people (if the Aegean language family is legit) were definitely Pelasgians, and it just so turns out that the Pelasgians were close allies of Troy.

    I do thrive on all of this stuff, I'll admit, but I'm a big believer against coincidences (and things like e.g. independent inventions). Even if my idea isn't the truth, I reckon there's a link.

    Also, I don't think spread of people always correlates with spread of language - the main idea I've been speaking about over the past few months is that the R1b Bell Beakers were originally non-IE and merely adopted it from the cultures they moved into.

    Villanovan culture has nothing to do with bronze age Anatolian cultures or with the Aegean cultures in general. There were movements from Central Europe and the Balkans, this is pretty clear looking at the Protovillanovan and Villanovan culture whose material cultures were clearly influenced by the Urnfield culture and Hallstat culture respectively, but there's no influence from Anatolia, at least by looking at the archaeological record. Even looking at the imports during the Villanovan period the imported objects mostly came from Nuragic Sardinia and later on from the Greek and the Phoenician colonies.
    And as for the Sardinians their material culture was still Nuragic during the late bronze age and early iron age with nothing in common with the late bronze age or early iron age Aegean, the few external influences which were confined to metallic artifacts came mostly from Iberia and to a lesser extent Cyprus.

  12. #262
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered1000 Experience Points
    ToBeOrNotToBe's Avatar
    Join Date
    31-12-16
    Posts
    1,116


    Country: United Kingdom



    Quote Originally Posted by Pygmalion View Post
    Villanovan culture has nothing to do with bronze age Anatolian cultures from the West, this is a fact. There were movements from Central Europe and the Balkans, this is pretty clear looking at the Protovillanovan and Villanovan culture whose material cultures were clearly influenced by the Urnfield culture and Hallstat culture respectively, but there's no influence from Anatolia, at least by looking at the archaeological record. Even looking at the imports during the early iron age they mostly came from Nuragic Sardinia and later on from the Greece and the Phoenician colonies.
    And as for the Sardinians their material culture was still Nuragic during the late bronze age and early iron age with nothing in common with the late bronze age or early iron age Aegean, the few external influences which were confined to metallic artifacts came mostly from Iberia and to a lesser extent Cyprus.
    So if Urnfield is Etruscan or perhaps Tyrsenian, what was the proto-Celtic Urheimat?

  13. #263
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    30-08-17
    Posts
    175
    Points
    3,378
    Level
    16
    Points: 3,378, Level: 16
    Level completed: 82%, Points required for next Level: 72
    Overall activity: 1.0%


    Country: Italy



    Quote Originally Posted by ToBeOrNotToBe View Post
    So if Urnfield is Etruscan or perhaps Tyrsenian, what was the proto-Celtic Urheimat?
    I'm not saying Urnfield was Tyrsenian I'm saying that the Villanovan culture had more in common with the Balkans and Central Europe than with the late bronze age Aegean, there are zero similarities with the bronze age Aegean, so unless these sea peoples coming in the 12th century bc were ghosts there should be plenty of material finds proving their migration to Central Italy, but there isn't. We have plenty of material finds proving that the Phoenicians migrated to North Africa, or that the Greeks migrated to South italy, or that the Lombards migrated to Northen Italy, or the Anglo Saxons to England, where's the evidence from bronze age Aegean people migrating to Tuscany in the 12th century bc? not even one fragment of pottery, so I'm very skeptical, Villanovan material culture is pretty well known and it has no similarities with that of the late bronze age Aegean.

  14. #264
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered1000 Experience Points
    ToBeOrNotToBe's Avatar
    Join Date
    31-12-16
    Posts
    1,116


    Country: United Kingdom



    Quote Originally Posted by Pygmalion View Post
    I'm not saying Urnfield was Tyrsenian I'm saying that the Villanovan culture had more in common with the Balkans and Central Europe than with the late bronze age Aegean, there are zero similarities with the bronze age Aegean, so unless these sea peoples coming in the 12th century bc were ghosts there should be plenty of material finds proving their migration to Central Italy, but there isn't.
    That isn't true, but I agree the consensus is Urnfield origins. If Urnfield, though, wasn't Tyrsenian, what is the origin of Tyrsenian? Where did it come from - was it always in Italy? Does it date all the way back to Cardial Ware? The only major foreign influences on LBA Italy besides Central Europe were from the Aegean.

  15. #265
    Moderator Achievements:
    1 year registeredTagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Community Award

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,723
    Points
    26,307
    Level
    49
    Points: 26,307, Level: 49
    Level completed: 76%, Points required for next Level: 243
    Overall activity: 39.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by ToBeOrNotToBe View Post
    That's clearly different though, it doesn't reflect immediate origins like the Troy myth, which would be within the cultural memory of the early Romans. The world being created in 7 days obviously isn't within cultural memory.

    Also regarding the Y DNA points - I've missed the obvious, and that's that the Sea People hypothesis would have people Minoan-like anyway. So they'd carry similar Y DNA to the Greeks. It appears though then that perhaps U152 came into Central Italy after J2 arrived.
    Oh no, it wouldn't. Razib Khan once wrote a post about this issue, i.e. the short cultural memory of people about their origins if they happened more than about 1000 years earlier. There are many such examples around the world, and one of the problems modern genetics is encountering is exactly the resistance of some peoples to just accept that their foundation myths may have been just myths. Greeks of the classical era could not even associate their culture with that of the Mycenaeans, let alone remember their steppe origins, Indo-Aryans of the Iron Age never commented about their coming from the Central Asian steppes and strongly believed they were locals despite a few written evidences of population movements and ethnic conflicts in the Rigveda, and so on. It is far too much of a coincidence that Romans decided that their origins were precisely in the city that is the place of the most famous epic story of the Graeco-Roman world. Not from anywhere else, it had to be Troy, not a much less glorious and epic origin. The fact is that as far as I know there are no indications that early Romans, old Latins believed that, but it became common when Rome was the new power of the Mediterranean world, but it lacked some grand story and noble origin to enhance its legitimacy. I for one read any foundation myth of a people with several grains of salt if it is not supposed to have happened at the earliest some centuries before the story was written down.

  16. #266
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    15,178
    Points
    269,815
    Level
    100
    Points: 269,815, 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 Ygorcs View Post
    Oh no, it wouldn't. Razib Khan once wrote a post about this issue, i.e. the short cultural memory of people about their origins if they happened more than about 1000 years earlier. There are many such examples around the world, and one of the problems modern genetics is encountering is exactly the resistance of some peoples to just accept that their foundation myths may have been just myths. Greeks of the classical era could not even associate their culture with that of the Mycenaeans, let alone remember their steppe origins, Indo-Aryans of the Iron Age never commented about their coming from the Central Asian steppes and strongly believed they were locals despite a few written evidences of population movements and ethnic conflicts in the Rigveda, and so on. It is far too much of a coincidence that Romans decided that their origins were precisely in the city that is the place of the most famous epic story of the Graeco-Roman world. Not from anywhere else, it had to be Troy, not a much less glorious and epic origin. The fact is that as far as I know there are no indications that early Romans, old Latins believed that, but it became common when Rome was the new power of the Mediterranean world, but it lacked some grand story and noble origin to enhance its legitimacy. I for one read any foundation myth of a people with several grains of salt if it is not supposed to have happened at the earliest some centuries before the story was written down.
    Exactly so. Plus, the Romans were in conflict with Greece. Choosing the ancient enemies of Greece as their ancestors made sense.

    It's clear from looking at origin stories of different peoples that they're always choosing some glorious ancestry. Good grief, the French Kings claimed descent from Jesus through Mary Magdalen at some points. Top that! :)

  17. #267
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered1000 Experience Points
    ToBeOrNotToBe's Avatar
    Join Date
    31-12-16
    Posts
    1,116


    Country: United Kingdom



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    Oh no, it wouldn't. Razib Khan once wrote a post about this issue, i.e. the short cultural memory of people about their origins if they happened more than about 1000 years earlier. There are many such examples around the world, and one of the problems modern genetics is encountering is exactly the resistance of some peoples to just accept that their foundation myths may have been just myths. Greeks of the classical era could not even associate their culture with that of the Mycenaeans, let alone remember their steppe origins, Indo-Aryans of the Iron Age never commented about their coming from the Central Asian steppes and strongly believed they were locals despite a few written evidences of population movements and ethnic conflicts in the Rigveda, and so on. It is far too much of a coincidence that Romans decided that their origins were precisely in the city that is the place of the most famous epic story of the Graeco-Roman world. Not from anywhere else, it had to be Troy, not a much less glorious and epic origin. The fact is that as far as I know there are no indications that early Romans, old Latins believed that, but it became common when Rome was the new power of the Mediterranean world, but it lacked some grand story and noble origin to enhance its legitimacy. I for one read any foundation myth of a people with several grains of salt if it is not supposed to have happened at the earliest some centuries before the story was written down.

    The Indo-Aryans if I'm not mistaken believed the Aryans (their ancestors - they didn't imagine them as being different) came from the far North though. Anyway, the Trojan founding myth would have been less than 1000 years before Rome, if that's your cultural memory cut-off point.

    What are some examples of commonly-held origin stories being obviously wrong? I'd guess that they're mostly correct - I think the same about Jewish origins in Mesopotamia.

  18. #268
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    30-08-17
    Posts
    175
    Points
    3,378
    Level
    16
    Points: 3,378, Level: 16
    Level completed: 82%, Points required for next Level: 72
    Overall activity: 1.0%


    Country: Italy



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by ToBeOrNotToBe View Post
    That isn't true, but I agree the consensus is Urnfield origins. If Urnfield, though, wasn't Tyrsenian, what is the origin of Tyrsenian? Where did it come from - was it always in Italy? Does it date all the way back to Cardial Ware? The only major foreign influences on LBA Italy besides Central Europe were from the Aegean.
    In late bronze age Tuscany or Northen Latium there are very few Mycenaean imports compared to South Italy, and there's evidence of Proto Villanovan culture extending from North to South, think of the Ausonian facies in Lipari for example which is associated with the violent destruction of the previous Milazzese settlements, rather than the opposite. As for the origins of the Tyrsenian language it's impossible to know from certain but it is first attested in 8th century inscriptions from Etruria. Whereas the LBA inscriptions from Western Anatolia are all Luwian hieroglyphs.

  19. #269
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered1000 Experience Points
    ToBeOrNotToBe's Avatar
    Join Date
    31-12-16
    Posts
    1,116


    Country: United Kingdom



    0 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    Exactly so. Plus, the Romans were in conflict with Greece. Choosing the ancient enemies of Greece as their ancestors made sense.

    It's clear from looking at origin stories of different peoples that they're always choosing some glorious ancestry. Good grief, the French Kings claimed descent from Jesus through Mary Magdalen at some points. Top that! :)
    Lol, always disliking my posts. Why does Augustus's documented blondism upset you? It doesn't shift Roman contributions to civilisation to the North. Greek and Roman civilisation is a purely Mediterranean accomplishment.

  20. #270
    Moderator Achievements:
    1 year registeredTagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Community Award

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,723
    Points
    26,307
    Level
    49
    Points: 26,307, Level: 49
    Level completed: 76%, Points required for next Level: 243
    Overall activity: 39.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by ToBeOrNotToBe View Post
    I don't see why it's too late, but I agree we can't know for sure that they belong to Y DNA Z2103. I'm just trying to figure out why Pontic Turks have more light types. One other thing - if Pontic Turks are in general the same colour as normal Turks but given they have more light types, it suggests a recent introduction of those light types. In any case, there's something different for Northern Turkey in terms of having individuals with light features at much greater rates than the rest of Turkey, and it correlates with Z2103.
    Di you think the Circassians made a huge and fast genetic replacement in North Turkey in some 200 years and nobody noticed it? Also by the 19th century of course the population was even larger than it had been centuries earlier. You surely do not believe the Circassians were 100% Z2103, so they should have had a massive impact replacing most of the males in that large area, even though it is also known that they in fact migrated to all of Anatolia and even Syria and Lebanon, not overwhelmingly concentrating just in the Pontic area. That hypothesis would be like implying Circassians were an incredibly numerous population and had a massive advantage over the locals to become so prominent in less than 200 years. Hmm no. And there's the "small problem" that once again you are trying to figure things out by simply deciding on your own that something "must have been like this" even in the absence of any concrete hint (e.g. that Circassians were very rich in Z2103, or more upthread that Etruscan and Minoan were or rather must be Anatolian IE because, well, because it would fit your idea of a "simple explanation" for the genetic history of Southern Europe).

    As for light features, please if you want to figure it out forget Y-DNA haplogroups for a moment and look for autosomal admixtures. You might also consider the possibility that they were already like that and became so simply via drift, local selection and lots of earlier admixture events followed by local selection pressures. Z2103 is not particularly associated with light features in the Caucasus anyways. Ingush people with all their J1 (or is it J2?) are much lighter than Armenians with all their Z2103. It might be that those things (genes for lighter features and male haplogroups) have a totally independent history. Correlation is not causation.

  21. #271
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered1000 Experience Points
    ToBeOrNotToBe's Avatar
    Join Date
    31-12-16
    Posts
    1,116


    Country: United Kingdom



    Quote Originally Posted by Pygmalion View Post
    In late bronze age Tuscany or Northen Latium there are very few Mycenaean imports compared to South Italy, and there's evidence of Proto Villanovan culture extending from North to South, think of the Ausonian facies in Lipari for example which is associated with the violent destruction of the previous Milazzese settlements, rather than the opposite. As for the origins of the Tyrsenian language it's impossible to know from certain but it is first attested in 8th century inscriptions from Etruria. Whereas the LBA inscriptions from Western Anatolia are all Luwian hieroglyphs.
    But what about the Pelasgians, they weren't Luwian or Mycenaean and Tyrsenian has been linked to a greater Aegean language family after all.

  22. #272
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered1000 Experience Points
    ToBeOrNotToBe's Avatar
    Join Date
    31-12-16
    Posts
    1,116


    Country: United Kingdom



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    Di you think the Circassians made a huge and fast genetic replacement in North Turkey in some 200 years and nobody noticed it? Also by the 19th century of course the population was even larger than it had been centuries earlier. You surely do not believe the Circassians were 100% Z2103, so they should have had a massive impact replacing most of the males in that large area, even though it is also known that they in fact migrated to all of Anatolia and even Syria and Lebanon, not overwhelmingly concentrating just in the Pontic area. That hypothesis would be like implying Circassians were an incredibly numerous population and had a massive advantage over the locals to become so prominent in less than 200 years. Hmm no. And there's the "small problem" that once again you are trying to figure things out by simply deciding on your own that something "must have been like this" even in the absence of any concrete hint (e.g. that Circassians were very rich in Z2103, or more upthread that Etruscan and Minoan were or rather must be Anatolian IE because, well, because it would fit your idea of a "simple explanation" for the genetic history of Southern Europe).

    As for light features, please if you want to figure it out forget Y-DNA haplogroups for a moment and look for autosomal admixtures. You might also consider the possibility that they were already like that and became so simply via drift, local selection and lots of earlier admixture events followed by local selection pressures. Z2103 is not particularly associated with light features in the Caucasus anyways. Ingush people with all their J1 (or is it J2?) are much lighter than Armenians with all their Z2103. It might be that those things (genes for lighter features and male haplogroups) have a totally independent history. Correlation is not causation.
    Why would it have to be huge and fast genetic replacement? They would just blend in - just like the Irish have in Britain in recent times. Common estimations put millions of Turks as having Circassian ancestry, most of those in the Pontic region.

    I don't think they were 100% Z2103, obviously. As to criticism of my speculative thinking - I do come to conclusions when I don't see other alternatives, but don't most? If there are alternatives I'm missing, then suggest them. Until then, a best-guess is the best hypothesis ipso facto. And I don't associate haplogroups with lightness universally - it was just in the case of Pontic Turks that I was speculating the cause of higher Z2103 was associated with increases in light features. Maciamo does the same with R1b and rufosity.

  23. #273
    Moderator Achievements:
    1 year registeredTagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Community Award

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,723
    Points
    26,307
    Level
    49
    Points: 26,307, Level: 49
    Level completed: 76%, Points required for next Level: 243
    Overall activity: 39.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by ToBeOrNotToBe View Post
    The Indo-Aryans if I'm not mistaken believed the Aryans (their ancestors - they didn't imagine them as being different) came from the far North though. Anyway, the Trojan founding myth would have been less than 1000 years before Rome, if that's your cultural memory cut-off point.

    What are some examples of commonly-held origin stories being obviously wrong? I'd guess that they're mostly correct - I think the same about Jewish origins in Mesopotamia.
    The Rigveda suggests a cold homeland, but Indo-Aryans never interpreted that as a homeland outside of South Asia. They always saw themselves as locals and tended to interpret their homeland as somewhere near or in the Himalayas or something like that. The Rigveda was composed by a culture much earlier and very unlike the Indo-Aryan kingdoms and empires of the Iron Age.

    Well, the ludicrous recent NYT piece on David Reich presented the case of the Tuvalu myths being "disrespected" by the findings of ancient DNA. The Exodus probably did not happen, not in that way exactly, though I think it broadly tells us much about the yoke of Egyptian rule in LBA Canaan. The Poles clinged for a long time on their supposed Sarmatian origins. The Hungarians often still insist they and their language directly comes from the Huns.

    Anyways, the Troy story would perhaps make some sense for Etruscans, but not for Romans, unless Romans somehow remembered the origin of their Etruscan forefathers but forgot the roots of their own Latin ethnicity. Strange.

  24. #274
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered1000 Experience Points
    ToBeOrNotToBe's Avatar
    Join Date
    31-12-16
    Posts
    1,116


    Country: United Kingdom



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    The Rigveda suggests a cold homeland, but Indo-Aryans never interpreted that as a homeland outside of South Asia. They always saw themselves as locals and tended to interpret their homeland as somewhere near or in the Himalayas or something like that. The Rigveda was composed by a culture much earlier and very unlike the Indo-Aryan kingdoms and empires of the Iron Age.

    Well, the ludicrous recent NYT piece on David Reich presented the case of the Tuvalu myths being "disrespected" by the findings of ancient DNA. The Exodus probably did not happen, not in that way exactly, though I think it broadly tells us much about the yoke of Egyptian rule in LBA Canaan. The Poles clinged for a long time on their supposed Sarmatian origins. The Hungarians often still insist they and their language directly comes from the Huns.

    Anyways, the Troy story would perhaps make some sense for Etruscans, but not for Romans, unless Romans somehow remembered the origin of their Etruscan forefathers but forgot the roots of their own Latin ethnicity. Strange.
    True, but the Tuvalu would have been a small primitive disunited tribe so cultural memories wouldn't hold as well. The Polish point idk if it was believed by the majority, but the Hungarian thing is true - they thought their ancestors were Mongolian-looking and blended in heavily to become White, so that's fair enough. Still, it probably isn't that far from the truth, as the Hungarian language must have come from well further East.

    Also, I believe in the Exodus story - there are multiple links which I looked into a while ago, including very old inscriptions from deep inside Egyptian territory that are basically the same as certain Bible passages.

    As for the Troy story not making sense for the Romans - if I'm not mistaken it was only concerning the founding of Rome, which the Etruscans likely played the main role in.

  25. #275
    Moderator Achievements:
    1 year registeredTagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Community Award

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,723
    Points
    26,307
    Level
    49
    Points: 26,307, Level: 49
    Level completed: 76%, Points required for next Level: 243
    Overall activity: 39.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by ToBeOrNotToBe View Post
    Why would it have to be huge and fast genetic replacement? They would just blend in - just like the Irish have in Britain in recent times.

    I don't think they were 100% Z2103, obviously. As to criticism of my speculative thinking - I do come to conclusions when I don't see other alternatives, but don't most? If there are alternatives I'm missing, then suggest them. Until then, a best-guess is the best hypothesis ipso facto. And I don't associate haplogroups with lightness universally - it was just in the case of Pontic Turks that I was speculating the cause of higher Z2103 was associated with increases in light features. Maciamo does the same with R1b and rufosity.
    The problem is not with your conclusions, it is that you invent evidences that do not exist to substantiate your conclusions. You state some premises to reinforce your conclusions, but you do not care to look if thise premises make sense or even exist in the first place. It is best to just say "my hunch is this and this, but we lack evidences to claim anything". I make that all the time, but I do not say "I believe this happened" to fit my hypothesis if there are evidences on the contrary or if there is absolutely no clue to make me hold that belief. But your willingness to try to speculate and devise some explanations to what the data and evidences show us is very welcome. You should just not be way too fond of those hypothesis, because until later and better evidences they are just fun speculations.

    I meant it had to be a huge and fast genetic replacement because that region has a reasonably high Z2103 proportion, it had to blend in and grow in frequency mostly in the last 200 years, and they would have surely brought other haplogroups besides Z2103, so let's say a growth of 20% in the percentage of Z2103 would mean a 40% genetic replacement by a population half Z2103. I think that is most unlikely.

    in my opinion the high Z2103 may be a cumulative effect of many IE and non-IE but IE-related migrations followed by a higher preservation of the Y-DNA pool of that region due to its mountainous nature, relatively cut off from mass migrations. Turks, Kurds, Assyrians, many peoples seem to have settled mainly in parts of Turkey south of that region. What if a higher proportion of Z2103 is not a recent thing, but rather a mire preserved genetic pool from a time when Anatolia was mainly IE and Caucasian?

Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 910111213 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
  •